Torah Community Connections

Week 103 - Tuesday - 13 November 2001

BAVA METZIA: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 9

If one lets a house to his fellow, and it collapsed, he is obligated to provide him with a house. If it was small, he may not make it large; if it were large, he may not make it small. One, he may not make it two; two, he may not make them one. He may not detract from the windows, nor may he add to them, unless by mutual consent.

Kehati

If one lets a house to his fellow, and it - the house - collapsed - during the rental period - he - the landlord - is obligated to provide him - the tenant - with a house - for the rental period.

If it - the house which collapsed - was small, he may not make it large - since the tenant may prevent him by saying, "I do not want a large house," if it - the house - were large, he may not make it small - now.

If there was - One - house - he may not make it two - houses; if there were - two - houses - he may not make them one - house.

He may not detract from the windows - which were in the house which collapsed - nor may he add to them - the windows - unless by mutual consent - i.e., the tenant's consent must be obtained for the changes which the landlord wished to make. The Gemara explains that this deals with a case in which the landlord showed a house to the tenant, and said to him, "I will rent to you a house such as this." The mishnah teaches that the landlord cannot claim that he only meant that the house will be close to the river, like the house that he showed him, or similar matters. He is obligated to provide him with a house of the same dimensions and form. If however, the landlord said to the tenant, "I will rent this house to you," and it then collapsed, he does not have to provide him with another house, since the tenant's luck caused this. If the landlord said to him merely "a house," without specifying, then the landlord builds a house for him as he pleases, and the tenant cannot prevent him (B. M. 103a).

BAVA METZIA: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 1

If one receives a field from his fellow, where it is the custom to reap, he reaps; to uproot, he uproots; to plow afterwards, he plows. Everything is in accordance with the custom of the land. Just as they share in the grain, so do they share in the straw and in the stubble; just as they share in the wine, so do they share in the branches and in the reeds; and both of them supply the reeds.

Kehati

If one receives a field from his fellow - There are three possibilities: 1) he receives it on a sharecropping basis, i.e., he accepts the field in order to work it and care for it, and he gives the owner of the field one half or one third of the crop which it produces; 2) he receives it on a leasehold basis, i.e., he gives the owner of the field a fixed amount from the produce, such as thirty kors of wheat per year, regardless of whether the field produces much or little; or 3) he receives it on a rental basis, i.e., he gives the owner of the field a fixed sum of money per year (Bartenura; Tosefot Yom Tov);

Where it is the custom to reap - the grain with a scythe - he - the recipient of the field - reaps - with a scythe; where it is the custom - to uproot - the sheaves with their roots, i.e., to pull them out by hand - he uproots - and is not permitted to reap; where it is the custom - to plow afterwards - after the reaping or the uprooting, so that the roots of the undesirable weeds will die - he plows - The Gemara explains that even though it is not customary to weed the undesirable weeds, and the recipient of the field weeded, this nevertheless does not exempt him from plowing after the reaping or uprooting. Since he had not made an explicit agreement at the time that he received the field that he would weed the field and not plow it, he cannot deviate from local custom.

Everything is in accordance with the custom of the land - and both the owner of the field and the recipient, may stay the other. Some local customs are beneficial to one of the parties, while others are beneficial to the other party. E.g., reaping is beneficial to the recipient of the field, since he does not have to exert himself as much for reaping as he does for uprooting, and it is beneficial to the owner of the field, since the straw which is left in the ground after the reaping fertilizes the field. Similarly, uprooting is beneficial for the recipient, who will then have straw for his animals, and is also beneficial to the owner of the field, since his field is cleaned. If, however, there is a meaningless custom, it is not followed merely in order to impede the other party, since this is a cruel custom (Tosefot Yom Tov, Tiferet Yisrael).

Just as they - the owner of the field and the sharecropper - share in the grain - as agreed upon, e.g., each one takes one half, or the owner of the field takes one third and the sharecropper takes two thirds - so do they share in the straw and the stubble - (see Tosefot Yom Tov and Tiferet Yisrael for the definition of these two terms);

Just as they share in the wine, so do they share in the branches - which were cut - and in the reeds - in the props used to support the vines, so that they will grow upwards; and both of them - the owner of the vineyard and the sharecropper - supply the reeds - i.e., they buy the new reeds together. The Gemara explains that this sentence explains the previous law: What is the reason that both of them share in the reeds? Since "both of them supply the - new - reeds" - each year. But if one of them supplied the reeds by himself, then they are his alone (Hil. Sekhirut 8:10). Some commentators interpret this last section as referring to a new place, where there is no local custom (Shitah Mekubetzet, citing Ran and Rashba, cited in Tosefot Rabbi Akiva Eiger).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives