Bava Metzia 233

כשהוא דר לבדו הוא דר כדמעיקרא או דלמא שניהם דרין דא"ל אדעתא לאפקינן לא אגרי לך

When he [the tenant] dwells there [downstairs], does he dwell there alone, as formerly, or do both dwell there, because he [the landlord] can say to him, 'I did not rent it to you that you should evict me.' Now, should you say, both dwell therein, does he, when he makes use thereof, use it by way of the [lower] doors, or through the roof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., reaching as hitherto the upper storey by means of the specially provided ladder and thence descending into the house. ');">¹</span>

אם תמצא לומר שניהם דרין בו כשהוא משתמש דרך פתחים משתמש או דרך גגין משתמש מי אמר כדמעיקרא מה מעיקרא דרך גגין השתא נמי דרך גגין או דלמא מצי אמר ליה עלייה קבילי עלאי עלייה וירידה לא קבילי עלאי

Do we say, It must be as originally: just as it was then by way of the roof, so now likewise. Or perhaps, he can say to him, 'I undertook to ascend, but not to ascend and descend.' Now, should you rule that he can say to him, 'I did not undertake to ascend and descend,' what of two storeys, one on top of the other? Now, if the upper one was broken through, he can certainly descend and dwell in the lower one; but if the lower one was broken through, can he ascend and dwell<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Cf. Tosaf. Cur. edd. read instead 'entirely', which is rightly omitted in most texts.] ');">²</span>

אם תמצא לומר מצי אמר ליה עלייה וירידה לא קבילי עלאי שתי עליות זו על גב זו מהו איפחית עליונה נחית ודר בתחתונה איפחית תחתונה מהו למיסלק לגמרי בעליונה

in the upper?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one of the two had been rented. ');">³</span>

מי אמרינן דא"ל שם עלייה קבילית עלך או דלמא חד עלייה קביל עליה שתי עליות לא קביל עליה תיקו:

Do we say, that he [the landlord] can say to him, 'You undertook whatever is designated ascending [whether a greater or a lesser height]'? Or perhaps, he undertook one ascent, but not two? — These problems remain unsolved.

רבי יוסי אומר התחתון נותן את התקרה כו': מאי תקרה רבי יוסי בר חנינא אמר קינים וסנאין וסטיני אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש לווחים ולא פליגי מר כי אתריה ומר כי אתריה

R. JOSE SAID: THE LOWER ONE MUST PROVIDE THE TIKRAH AND THE UPPER ONE THE PLASTERING. What is the TIKRAH? — R. Jose b. Hanina said: The reeds, thorns<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thorns were presumably for binding the other materials by becoming entangled in them. ');">⁴</span>

הנהו בי תרי דהוו דיירי חד עילאי וחד תתאי איפחית מעזיבה כי משי מיא עילאי אזלי ומזקי לתתאי מי מתקן ר' חייא בר אבא אמר העליון מתקן ור' אלעי משום ר' חייא בר' יוסי אמר התחתון מתקן וסימן (בראשית לט, א) ויוסף הורד מצרימה

and clay.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [So Aruch, reading [H]. According to Rashi, who preserves [H] of cur. edd., the word is a name of a Sage and is to be connected with what follows: 'Justinian in the name of Resh Lakish said.'] ');">⁵</span>

לימא ר' חייא בר אבא ורבי אלעי בפלוגתא דרבי יוסי ורבנן קמיפלגי למאן דאמר העליון מתקן קסבר על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו מן הניזק ומאן דאמר תחתון מתקן קסבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו מן המזיק

R. Simeon b. Lakish said: Boards. But there is no dispute; each [speaks] in accordance with local usage.

ותיסברא רבי יוסי ורבנן לענין נזקין פליגי והא איפכא שמעינן להו דתנן מרחיקין את האילן מן הבור עשרים וחמש אמה ובחרוב ובשקמה חמשים אמה בין מלמעלה בין מן הצד אם הבור קדם קוצץ ונותן דמים אם האילן קדם לא יקוץ ספק זה קדם ספק זה קדם לא יקוץ

Two dwelt [in a house], one above and one below. Now, the plaster [on the ceiling between the two] became broke, so that when the one above washed with water, it dripped down, causing damage to the one below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The ceiling itself, i.e., the planks, was unaffected, and the water dripped down through the cracks in the plaster. This was not a case of renting, but of two owners. ');">⁶</span>

רבי יוסי אומר אע"פ שהבור קודמת לאילן לא יקוץ שזה חופר בתוך שלו וזה נוטע בתוך שלו אלמא ר' יוסי סבר על הניזק להרחיק את עצמו ורבנן סברי על המזיק להרחיק את עצמו

Now, who must repair? — R. Hiyya b. Abba said: The upper dweller; R. Elai said on the authority of R. Hiyya son of R. Jose: The lower one. Now, the sign thereof is, <i>And Joseph was brought down to Egypt</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXXIX. 1. This is a sign given to aid to memory: thus: Joseph (Jose) was brought down — rules that the lower one must repair. ');">⁷</span>

אלא אי איכא למימר פליגי בפלוגתא דר' יוסי ורבנן דהתם קמיפלגי

Shall we say that R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Elai dispute on the same lines as R. Jose and the Rabbis [in the Mishnah]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For it was assumed that when R. Jose ruled that the tenant above must provide the plastering, it is in order that his water should inflict no damage upon the tenant below, it being the duty of the person who inflicts damage to remove himself from him who sustains it; on the other hand, the tenant below must furnish (i.e., repair) the ceiling itself, which is the floor of the upper storey, since that is an essential part of the storey which he rented to him. Whilst the first Tanna holds that the injured party must remove himself: therefore he, i.e., the lower dweller, must repair the whole ceiling, including the plastering. ');">⁸</span>

ורבי יוסי ורבנן דהכא במאי פליגי בחוזק תקרה קמפלגי רבנן סברי מעזיבה אחזוקי תקרה הוא ואחזוקי תקרה על התחתון בעי לאחזוקי ורבי יוסי סבר מעזיבה אשוויי גומות הוא ואשוויי גומות על העליון לאשוויי

[Thus:] The ruling that the upper one must repair it is based on the view that he who inflicts the damage must remove himself from him who sustains it; whilst the opinion that the lower one must repair it agrees with the view that the injured party must remove himself from him who inflicts the injury!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the Rabbis. ');">⁹</span>

איני והאמר רב אשי כי הוינא בי רב כהנא הוה אמרינן מודה רבי יוסי בגירי דיליה

— Is it then reasonable [to maintain] that R. Jose and the Rabbis dispute with reference to damages? Surely we know them to hold the reverse! For we learnt: A tree must be removed [at least] twenty-five cubits from a pit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because its roots undermine the earth, and if nearer, ultimately cause it to collapse. ');">¹⁰</span>

דפסקי מיא והדר נפלי:

and in the case of the carob and the sycamore trees, fifty cubits;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their roots are longer. ');">¹¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הבית והעלייה של שנים שנפלו אמר בעל העלייה לבעל הבית לבנות והוא אינו רוצה לבנות הרי בעל העלייה בונה את הבית ודר בתוכה עד שיתן לו את יציאותיו

whether it be above<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whether the pit is on higher ground than the tree, so that the roots go below it. ');">¹²</span>

ר' יהודה אומר אף זה דר בתוך של חבירו צריך להעלות לו שכר אלא בעל העלייה בונה את הבית ואת העלייה מקרה את העליונה ויושב בבית עד שיתן לו את יציאותיו:

or level therewith. If the pit was there first, he must cut down [the tree], but [the pit owner] must compensate him. If the tree was there first, he need not cut it down. If it is doubtful which came first, he need not cut it down. R. Jose said: Even if the pit was there prior to the tree, he need not cut it down, for the one digs in his own, and the other plants in his own.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.B. 25b and supra p. 630. ');">¹³</span> This proves that in R. Jose's opinion the injured party must remove himself; whilst the Rabbis hold that he who inflicts the injury must remove! — But if it can be said that they [R. Hiyya b. Abba and R. Elai] dispute on the same lines as R. Jose and the Rabbis, it is on their opinions as displayed there. Then wherein do R. Jose and the Rabbis, of the present Mishnah, differ? — In the strengthening of the ceiling. The Rabbis maintain: the plaster strengthens the ceiling, and that is the duty of the lower dweller. Whilst R. Jose maintains that the plaster is for the purpose of levelling the depressions,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the ceiling of wood beams forms an unequal surface for the man above to walk upon, and therefore it is overlaid by a dressing of concrete chippings, which forms a smooth and level pavement. ');">¹⁴</span> and that must be done by the upper tenant. But that is not so. For R. Ashi said: When I was at R. Kahana's college, we said, R. Jose agrees in the case of his arrows!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though R. Jose holds that the injured person has to remove, that is only where the injury does not come immediately and directly, as in the case of the pit and the tree. When the tree is planted, no damage at all is done; only later, when it is grown and its roots have spread, is injury caused. But when one washes his hands and the water falls through the crevices in the flooring upon the dweller below, the injury proceeds directly from above, as when a man shoots arrows, in which case R. Jose admits that the man who causes the injury must remove himself. How then can R. Hiyya b. Jose rule that the dweller below must repair the ceiling? ');">¹⁵</span> — It means that the water was interrupted, and only subsequently fell down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The place for washing was not directly over the broken portion but in some other part of the room, whence it trickled to the cracks, and only then dropped down. That is not direct and immediate injury. ');">¹⁶</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A HOUSE AND AN UPPER STOREY, BELONGING TO TWO,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. p. 660, n. 1. ');">¹⁷</span> COLLAPSED, AND THE OWNER OF THE UPPER STOREY PROPOSED TO THE HOUSE OWNER TO REBUILD, WHILST THE LATTER DECLINED, THE FORMER MAY BUILD THE HOUSE [i.e., THE LOWER STOREY] AND DWELL THEREIN, UNTIL HE [THE LATTER] REIMBURSES HIM FOR HIS EXPENDITURE. R. JUDAH SAID: THEN THIS MAN INDEED SHALL HAVE DWELT IN HIS NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE, AND SO MUST PAY HIM RENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When the house-owner reimburses him, the house becomes retrospectively his. Now, in R. Judah's opinion, if A benefits from an article belonging to B, though B does not lose thereby, he must pay him. So here too, the owner of the upper storey has dwelt in the other's house, and though the latter lost nothing thereby, since had not the former built it he would have had no house in any case, the owner of the upper storey must nevertheless pay rent. ');">¹⁸</span> BUT THE OWNER OF THE UPPER STOREY MUST BUILD UP THE HOUSE AND THE UPPER STOREY AND ROOF IT OVER, AND THEN DWELL IN THE HOUSE UNTIL HE IS REIMBURSED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case, the house-owner sustains no loss, as explained in the previous note, but the owner of the upper storey does not benefit either, since he could live in his own garret; here R. Judah admits that no rent is payable. So Rashi. Tosaf., however, points out that he benefits by not having to climb stairs. Therefore, on a slightly different reading, Tosaf. translates: and then dwell in his upper storey, not permitting the other to enter the house until he is reimbursed. ');">¹⁹</span>