Bava Metzia 203:1

בגובתא דקניא

in a woodentube.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the tube of a reed.' And attached to the doorpost; i.e., it is not essential to have a cavity at all. ');">¹</span>

ת"ר המשכיר בית לחבירו על השוכר לעשות לו מזוזה וכשהוא יוצא לא יטלנה בידו ויוצא ומנכרי נוטלה בידו ויוצא ומעשה באחד שנטלה בידו ויצא וקבר אשתו ושני בניו

Our Rabbis taught: If one rents a house to his neighbor, the tenant must provide a <i>mezuzah</i>. But when he quits it, he must not take it with him, excepting if it be leased from a Gentile, in which case he must remove it when he quits. And it once happened that a man took it away with him, and he lost<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'buried'. ');">²</span>

מעשה לסתור אמר רב ששת ארישא:

his wife and two children. A story is quoted in contradiction!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Assuming that it referred to a Gentile landlord. ');">³</span>

הזבל של בעל הבית ואין לשוכר אלא היוצא מן התנור ומן הכירים בלבד: במאי עסקינן אילימא בחצר דאגיר ליה לשוכר ותורי דשוכר אמאי של בעה"ב אלא בחצר דלא אגירא לשוכר ותורי דמשכיר פשיטא

— Said R. Shesheth: It refers to the first clause.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he had rented it from an Israelite. ');">⁴</span>

לא צריכא בחצר דמשכיר ותורי דאתו מעלמא קמו בה

THE DUNG BELONGS TO THE LANDLORD, AND THE TENANT IS ENTITLED ONLY TO THAT WHICH ISSUES FROM THE OVEN OR THE POT RANGE. To what does this refer? Shall we say, to a courtyard which was rented to the tenant, and to oxen belonging to the tenant, then why is it [the dung] the landlord's? But if a courtyard which was not leased to the tenant,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he had rented the house only. ');">⁵</span>

מסייע ליה לר' יוסי ברבי חנינא דא"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא חצרו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו

and the landlord's oxen are meant, is it not obvious? — It is necessary to teach this only in respect of a courtyard belonging to the landlord and oxen that had strayed thither from elsewhere.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it may be assumed that the owner of the oxen renounces his rights to the dung, and so the courtyard gives the landlord a title thereto. ');">⁶</span>

מיתיבי אם אמר כל מציאות שיבאו לתוכו היום תקנה לי חצרי לא אמר כלום ואם איתא להא דא"ר יוסי בר' חנינא חצרו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו אמאי לא אמר כלום

Now, this supports R. Jose son of R. Hanina, who said: A man's courtyard effects a title on his behalf even without his knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 11a. Just as here, though the landlord is ignorant that dung is being deposited in his courtyard, it immediately becomes his. ');">⁷</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן בחצר שאינה משתמרת

An objection is raised: If a man declared, 'Any lost property that may enter therein to-day, let my courtyard effect possession thereof on my behalf,' his declaration is valueless. Now if R. Jose son of R. Hanina's ruling, that a man's courtyard effects a title on his behalf even without his knowledge, is correct, why is his declaration valueless? — The reference here is to an unguarded courtyard.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which cannot effect possession; v. supra loc. cit. ');">⁸</span>

אי הכי אימא סיפא יצא לו שם מציאה בעיר דבריו קיימין ואי בחצר שאינה משתמרת כי יצא לו שם מציאה בעיר מאי הוי

If so, consider the second clause: If a rumour was spread in town that he had found something,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., that a hind with a broken leg had entered his field and could go no further, or that the river's overflow had deposited fish in his land. ');">⁹</span>

כיון דיצא לו שם מציאה בעיר מיבדל בדילי אינשי מינה והויא לה כחצר המשתמרת

his declaration holds good. Now if it is an unguarded courtyard, what if such a rumour did spread? — Since a rumour was spread, people keep aloof from it [in recognition of his ownership], and so it becomes as a guarded courtyard.

מיתיבי זבל היוצא מן התנור ומן הכירים והקולט מן האויר הרי הוא שלו ושברפת ושבחצר של בעל הבית ואם איתא להא דר' יוסי בר' חנינא דאמר חצרו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו קולט מאויר אמאי הרי הוא שלו אויר חצרו הוא

An objection is raised: The manure [i.e., the ashes] which comes forth from the oven and the pot-range, and that which is caught from the air,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if the tenant placed a utensil to catch the manure as it falls, before it reaches the ground. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר אביי במדביק כלי בשולי פרה

belong to him [the tenant]; but that of the stable and the courtyard, to the landlord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was understood to refer to a courtyard not rented to the tenant. ');">¹¹</span>

רבא אמר אויר שאין סופו לנוח לאו כמונח דמי

Now if R. Jose son of R. Hanina's dictum is correct, [viz.,] that a man's courtyard effects a title for him even without his knowledge, then when he [the tenant] catches it up from the air, why does it belong to him? Is it not the air of his [the landlord's] courtyard?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before it even falls into the tenant's utensil, it must have entered the air of the landlord, and is therefore his. ');">¹²</span>

ומי פשיטא ליה לרבא והא מיבעי בעי לה דבעי רבא זרק ארנקי בפתח זה ויצאתה בפתח זה מהו אויר שאין סופו לנוח כמונח דמי או לאו כמונח דמי

— Abaye answered: It means that he fastened a utensil to the body of the cow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the dung is immediately received by it, without going through the air at all. ');">¹³</span>

התם לא מיפסק ולא מידי הכא מיפסק כלי

Raba answered: [An object in] the air, in which it is not destined to come to rest, is not regarded as at rest.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The air above one's ground is accounted as the ground itself, in respect of an object that may enter it, only if it will eventually come to rest on that ground. Here, however, though the dung passes through the air of the landlord's courtyard, it will not come to rest there on account of the tenant's utensils, and therefore the air does not effect possession for him. ');">¹⁴</span>

ושברפת ושבחצר הרי אלו של בעל הבית תרתי

But does Raba regard this as certain? Did he not propound: What if one threw a purse by one door and it issued from another — is [an object in] the air, in which it is not destined to come to rest, regarded as at rest, or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 12a. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר אביי הכי קאמר ושברפת שבחצר הרי אלו של בעל הבית אמר רב אשי זאת אומרת המשכיר חצירו סתם לא השכיר רפת שבה

— In that case, there is nothing whatsoever to stop it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From coming to rest — excepting, of course, its own momentum. ');">¹⁶</span>

מיתיבי יוני שובך ויוני עלייה חייבות בשילוח ואסורות בגזל מפני דרכי שלום

but here a utensil is interposed.

ואם איתא להא דאמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא חצרו של אדם קונה לו שלא מדעתו קרי כאן (דברים כב, ו) כי יקרא פרט למזומן

'But that of the stable and the courtyard [belongs] to the landlord.' Need both be taught?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely one is sufficient, since the same principle operates in both cases. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רבא ביצה ביציאת רובה הוא דאיחייבה לה בשילוח ומיקנא לא קניא עד דנפלה לחצרו וכי קתני חייבות בשילוח מקמי דתיפול לחצירו

— Abaye said: It means thus: But that of the stable in the courtyard belongs to the landlord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if the courtyard is rented to the tenant. ');">¹⁸</span>

אי הכי אמאי אסורות משום גזל אאמן

Said R. Ashi: From this it follows that he who rents his courtyard in general terms does not rent the stable therein.

ואיבעית אימא לעולם אביצים ומדנפיק רובה דעתיה עילוה

An objection is raised: [Wild] doves of the dovecote, and doves of the loft,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In both cases they seek their food abroad, but come to nest in the dovecote or the loft. ');">¹⁹</span>

והשתא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב אסור לזכות בביצים כל זמן שהאם רובצת עליהם שנאמר (דברים כב, ז) שלח תשלח את האם והדר את הבנים תקח לך אפי' תימא דנפלה לה לחצרו כל היכא דאיהו מצי זכי ליה חצרו זכיא ליה וכל היכא דאיהו לא מצי זכי ליה חצרו נמי לא זכיא ליה

are subject to the laws of sending away,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when they are sitting on eggs, one must not take both them and the eggs, but must send the dam away, Deut. XXII, 6f. ');">²⁰</span>

א"ה אסורות בגזל מפני דרכי שלום אי דשלחה גזל מעליא הוא אי דלא שלחה הא בעי שלוחה

and are forbidden as robbery, [but only] for the sake of peace.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., strictly speaking, they are ownerless, being semi-wild; nevertheless, for the sake of peace, the Rabbis recognised the title of the owner of the dovecote, and so another must not take them. ');">²¹</span>

בקטן דלאו בר שילוח הוא קטן בר דרכי שלום הוא ה"ק אביו של קטן חייב להחזיר לו מפני דרכי שלום:

Now if R. Jose son of R. Hanina's dictum, that a man's courtyard effects a title on his behalf without his knowledge, is correct, then apply here the verse, <i>If a bird's nest</i> chance to be <i>before thee</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXII, 6. ');">²²</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המשכיר בית לחבירו לשנה נתעברה השנה נתעברה לשוכר השכיר לו לחדשים נתעברה השנה נתעברה למשכיר

excluding that which is [always] at thy disposal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the law applies only to wild doves, under no ownership, but not when they are thine and in thy courtyard. ');">²³</span>

מעשה בציפורי באחד ששכר מרחץ מחבירו בשנים עשר זהב לשנה מדינר זהב לחדש

— Raba explained: As for the egg, when the greater part of it has issued [from the body of the fowl], it is subject to the law of sending away,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of a wild bird, if one wished to take the egg at that moment, he would have to send the dam away. ');">²⁴</span> whilst he [the owner of the court] does not acquire it until it falls into the courtyard; and when it is stated, 'They are subject to the law of sending away,' [it means] before it falls into the court. If so, why are they forbidden as robbery?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the courtyard has not yet effected possession for him. ');">²⁵</span> [That refers] to the dam. Alternatively it may refer to the eggs, after all: but when the greater part thereof has issued, his intention is set thereon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, though in strict law they are not yet his, for the sake of peace a stranger may not take them. ');">²⁶</span> But now that Rab Judah said in Rab's name: The eggs must not be taken as long as the dam is sitting upon them, for it is written, <i>But thou shalt in any wise let the dam go</i> [first, and only then] <i>take the young to thee</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 'The young' is understood to mean the eggs too. ');">²⁷</span> you may say that it holds good even if it [the egg] fell into his courtyard: [nevertheless it is subject to the law of sending away, because] wherever he himself might acquire it, his courtyard acquires it for him; but where he himself might not acquire it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the dam is sitting upon it. ');">²⁸</span> his courtyard cannot acquire it for him either. If so, are they forbidden as robbery [only] for the sake of peace? If he [the stranger] sends the dam away, it is real robbery;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since, on the dam being sent away, the eggs immediately become the property of the courtyard owner. ');">²⁹</span> whilst if not, she is to be sent away!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before the eggs can be taken, so that they are forbidden in any case. ');">³⁰</span> — This refers to a minor, who is not obliged to send her away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not being of an age when precepts are incumbent upon him. ');">³¹</span> But is a minor subject to provisions enacted for the sake of peace?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">³²</span> — It means thus: The father of the minor must return them for the sake of peace. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE RENTS A HOUSE TO HIS FELLOW FOR A YEAR, AND THE YEAR WAS INTERCALATED,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Jewish year is partly lunar, partly solar. I.e., it consists of twelve months, which give 355 or 356 days. But at the same time, the Festivals must fall in the proper seasons, Passover in the vernal equinox and Tabernacles in the autumnal equinox. Since this depends on the solar year, which consists of 365 days, the deficiency was made good by the addition periodically of an extra month to the year; v. Sanh. 11a. ');">³³</span> THE INTERCALATION IS IN THE TENANT'S FAVOUR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He cannot be charged rent for the extra month. ');">³⁴</span> IF HE LET IT TO HIM BY THE MONTH, AND THE YEAR WAS INTERCALATED, THE INTERCALATION IS IN THE OWNER'S FAVOUR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a lease for an unspecified period is for a year, the lessee must pay rent for the extra month. ');">³⁵</span> IT HAPPENED IN SEPPHORIS THAT ONE RENTED A BATHHOUSE FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR FOR TWELVE GOLD <i>DENARII</i> PER ANNUM, AT A GOLD <i>DENAR</i> PER MONTH;