Previous daf

1)

(a) Regarding the Din of 'Shataf Nahar Zeisav' in our Mishnah, Ula Amar Resh Lakish requires two conditions for the owner of the field to take half the oil. One of them is that the tree is uprooted together with the earth in which it grew - the other, that at least three years should have elapsed before the oil is produced.

(b) It is important for ...

1. ... the tree to have been uprooted together with the earth - because otherwise, during the first three years, it would be Orlah, and it would be forbidden even to the owner of the tree.
2. ... for three years to have elapsed ... - because otherwise, the owner of the tree can say to the owner of the field that, had *he* planted the tree in his field, it would still have been forbidden because of Orlah.

(c) We refute this argument however, on the grounds that - the owner of the field could counter that he only allowed the trees to remain in his land (instead of buying young saplings and planting them there) for the owner of the trees to share the oil with him after three years, on the understanding that during the first three years, *he* will be able to share the oil with the owner of the trees.

(a) So we re-establish Resh Lakish's Chidush as taught by Ravin when he came from Eretz Yisrael - by establishing our Mishnah within the first three years. That is where they both share the oil.

(b) And the reason that after three years, he maintains that all the oil goes to the owner of the field - because he can say to the owner of the tree that, had he wished, he could have uprooted his tree and planted saplings for after the three-year period.

(c) The latter cannot counter this argument by reminding the owner of the field that, had he done so, he would not have been able to benefit from it anyway for another three years (and consequently, he only left his trees in his field on the understanding that he [the owner of the trees] would be able to share the benefits with him after the three years had elapsed) - because the owner of the field can counter this with the argument that, had it not been for his trees, he would have planted saplings, and (seeing as, during the early years of growth, there is little shade and plenty of sunshine, he would have planted various vegetables until the trees grew to their full height.

(d) Rebbi Yochanan ascribes the Beraisa's prohibition of the owner of the trees to take them back - to Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (settling Eretz Yisrael). Rebbi Yirmiyah commented on this that 'it required a great man to teach us this'.

(a) The Mishnah in D'mai cites Rebbi Yehudah: 'ha'Mekabel S'deh Avosav in ha'Nochri, Me'aser ve'Nosen Lo'. Both a Mekabel and a Choker receive the field to cultivate, only - the former pays the owner with half (a third or a quarter, depending on the Minhag ha'Makom) of the crops that the field produces, whereas the latter pays a fixed amount of produce, which he has to give, irrespective of whether the field produced crops that year or not.

(b) 'Me'aser ve'Nosen Lo' means - that he is obligated to Ma'aser the entire harvest (even the portion of the Nochri), before handing the Nochri his full half.

(c) We initially think that by 'Avosav', the Tana means Eretz Yisrael, so-called - because we inherited it from the Avos, Avraham, Yitzchak and Ya'akov.

(d) Our initial understanding of the Mishnah is built on two additional other premises. One of them is 'Ein Kinyan le'Nochri be'Eretz Yisrael Lehafki'a mi'Yedei Ma'aser', the other, 'Mekabel ke'Choker Dami', which means - that just as a Choker has to Ma'aser in full, because it otherwise *looks as if he is paying his debt* to the Nochri with Ma'aser, so too, the Mekabel (even though there is reason to differentiate, as we shall see)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah says in a Beraisa 'ha'Mekabel S'deh Avosav mi'Meitzik Nochri - Me'aser ve'Nosen Lo'. A 'Meitzik' is someone who takes people's fields by force.

(b) Rav Kahana asked Rav Papi or Rav Z'vid on this - that according to our interpretation of the Mishnah in D'mai, this Din should pertain to purchasing a field from any Nochri, and not just from a Meitzik.

(c) We therefore conclude 'Yesh Kinyan le'Nochri ... '. Bearing in mind that the Mishnah in D'mai too, must also pertain to a Nochri Meitzik, we now interpret 'S'deh Avosav' to mean - a field that originally belonged to his father or grandfather, from whom the Meitzik took it.

(d) And the Yisrael is obligated to Ma'aser the entire field - because of a K'nas which the Chachamim imposed on him (as we shall see shortly), in the knowledge that he will not desist from being Mekabel the field (even if he has to Ma'aser the entire crop) because it belonged originally to his ancestors (whereas anybody else would simply decline to accept a field for Kablanus, if they had to Ma'aser the entire crop).

(a) The significance of the statement 'u'Mekabel La'av ke'Choker Dami' is - that even if Rebbi Yehudah were still to hold 'Ein Kinyan le'Nochri ... ', a Yisrael would still not need to Ma'aser the field of a Nochri, because a Mekabel, who does pay out of his own pocket but a percentage of the field, does not convey the impression that he is paying the Nochri with Ma'aser.

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah made the same comment as in the previous statement of Rebbi Yochanan, who ascribes the penalty imposed by the Chachamim on the heir - to the likelihood that he will find it too expensive to continue with the Kablanus, and make every effort to purchase the field from the Meitzik.

(c) In a case where Reuven plants trees in Shimon's field without his consent, Rav rules 'Shamin Lo, ve'Yado al ha'Tachtonah', by which he means - that Shimon pays whichever is less of the improvement and the expenses.

(d) Shmuel says - that we assess how much a person would normally be willing to pay for such a service, and that is what Shimon pays Reuven (in other words 'Shamin Lo, Yado al ha'Elyanoh').

(a) According to Rav Papa, Rav and Shmuel do not argue - because ...

1. ... Rav speaks - about a field which is good for plants and not trees, whereas ...
2. ... Shmuel speaks - about a field which is ideal for tree-planting.

(b) We know of Rav's opinion from a case that came before him, where Reuven planted a tree in Shimon's field without the latter's consent. Rav ruled ...

1. ... initially - that Shimon should pay in full (because he assumed the field to be fit for planting trees.
2. ... when Shimon refused to pay in full - that he should pay what was less of the improvements or the expenses (on the assumption that, even though the field was not meant for tree-planting, the owner would at least benefit from it.

(c) Shimon refused even Rav's second ruling ('Shum Lei, ve'Yado al ha'Tachtonah') - because he did want the tree at all (presumably because it interfered with his plans to plant other things).

(d) However, when Rav saw him building a fence around the tree and guarding it, he realized that he really wanted it after all, and he made him pay in full.

(a) If Reuven enters Shimon's ruins and builds a house there without Shimon's consent, Rav Nachman permits him to demolish the house and take back his wood and bricks, should he so wish. Rav Sheishes - forbids him to do so.

(b) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in a Beraisa, this a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel. Rav Nachman will explain his ruling, which appears to coincide with that of Beis Shamai - by citing the Tana Kama (Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar), in whose opinion 'Shom'in Lo' is unanimous.

(c) We finally cite the opinion of Rebbi Yochanan - who makes a compromise - by drawing a distinction between a house in a ruin (which he permits) and trees in a field (which he forbids).

(d) Some ascribe this to Yishuv Eretz Yisrael (which applies more to trees than to houses - see Rashash), others because he needs to compensate the owner of the field for sapping the strength from his land. The ramifications of the two explanations - lies in Chutz la'Aretz, where the owner of the tree will be permitted to remove his tree according to the first opinion, but not according to the second.

8)

(a) The Tana of our Mishnah forbids the owner of a rented house to evict tenants who rented in winter, between Succos and Pesach, and tenants who rented in summer - for thirty days (this will be explained shortly).

(b) Where the tenants rented ...

1. ... the house in a large city - they have twelve months (because the cities are generally more crowded than smaller towns, making it difficult to find alternative accommodation).
2. ... a store wherever it is (even in a small town) - he specifies the time as twelve months (because people tend to buy on long-term credit, and once the storekeeper moves, his debtors will have difficulty in locating him).

(c) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel gives someone who rents a bakery or a store for dyeing clothes - three years.

(d) We query the Mishnah's distinction between someone who rents a house for the winter and one who rents for the summer, assuming the reason that he cannot evict him until after Pesach to be because...

1. ... when a person rents a house for the winter, he means the entire winter) - because if, when a person rents a house for the winter, he means for the duration of the entire winter, then when he hires it for the summer, he means for the duration of the entire summer (and why does the Tana then say 'bi'Yemos ha'Chamah, Sheloshim Yom'?
2. ... it is difficult to find alternative accommodation in the winter, then how will we explain the Seifa 'u'vi'Kerachim ... Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh', implying whenever those twelve months expire, even in mid-winter.

(e) If not for the Seifa, we would explain the Seifa 'bi'Yemos ha'Chamah, Sheloshim Yom' - with the principle 'S'tam S'chirus heloshim Yom', because we would then establish our Mishnah by S'tam Sechirus, where the hirer a house without specifying.

(a) Rav Yehudah finally establishes our Mishnah with regard to the obligation of giving notice. The Reisha of the Mishnah 'ha'Maskir Bayis la'Chavero S'tam ... Eino Yachol Le'hotzi'o bi'Yemos ha'Geshamim me'Chag ve'Ad Pesach, bi'Yemos ha'Chamah Sheloshim Yom' means - that in order to evict the tenant at any time during the winter months (even on or after the expiry date [though our Gemara says 'Stam' - see Maharam]), the owner must give him notice thirty days before winter.

(b) The equivalent Din ...

1. ... in the summer is thirty days notice.
2. ... in large cities is - twelve months notice.

(c) If it is the hirer who is retracting - he too is obligated to give the owner the same notice as the owner would need to give him, to give him a chance to find a replacement. Otherwise, he is obligated to pay rent until the owner finds a new tenant.

(d) When Rav Asi says that if one day of winter has passed, the owner may no longer ask him to leave - he means that if one of the thirty days notice falls after the onset of winter, the owner may no longer evict him until after Pesach (preceded by thirty days warning).

(a) Rav Nachman objected to Rav Huna's statement permitting the owner to raise the rent - on the grounds that it would be akin to holding a gun to someone's head to make him give him his coat.

(b) Rav Huna replied - that he was referring to where the price of house rentals had risen throughout the area.

(c) In a case where ...

1. ... the owner's house fell down, and he wants to evict the hirer, because he has nowhere else to live - he may do so on the grounds that seeing as the contract had really expired anyway, and it was only due to his failure to give notice, that the hirer was permitted to remain in the house, what should the owner have done, seeing as he himself had not known that he would have nowhere to reside, and it was not fair that he, the owner, should live in the street, whilst the hirer lived in his house.
2. ... the owner sold, bequeathed or gave the rented house to somebody else, who now claims the right to live in it - the hirer can say to the claimant that he is no better than the man who sold him the house, and he therefore has to wait until the summer.
3. ... the owner just married off his son, and now needs the rented house for his newly-wedded son - it will depend upon whether he knew about the wedding in advance and was therefore able to give him notice, or not.

(a) When ...

1. ... the woman he asked for storage space for a boat-load of wine turned him down - that man married her.
2. ... after he had married her, she lent him a courtyard to store his wine - he promptly divorced her.

(b) The woman reacted to that - by hiring porters, whom she paid from the wine itself.

(c) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua - justified her actions, on the grounds that she only gave him some of his own treatment, which he deserved ('Hu Asah she'Lo ke'Hogen, Lefichach Asu Lo she'Lo ke'Hogen. Gemulo Yashuv be'Rosho'.

(d) Had the courtyard been designated for rent - he would have made exactly the same comment, because she was acting within her rights to evict him without warning (Ritva), because she considered him a lion waiting to pounce.

(a) Our Mishnah obligates the owner to fix the door, the bolt and the lock.

1. The owner must perform - all specialized jobs, and ...
2. ... the hirer - whatever does not require specialized work.

(b) If the animal droppings (which will be explained in the Sugya) belongs to the owner, the hirer may take - the manure (ashes) from the ovens.

(c) Over and above the doors, which are already included in the three things listed in our Mishnah, the Tana of the Beraisa obligates the owner to fix - the windows, the ceiling and the central beam.

(d) And he lists four things that the hirer must fix himself: the ladder (to ascend to the attic), the parapet around the roof - the drain surrounding the roof (to prevent the rain from running down the walls via the slanting roofs) and cementing the roof.

(a) Rav Mesharshaya learns from the word in Va'eschanan "u'Chesavtam al Mezuzos *Beisecha*" - 'Derech Bi'ascha' (that it is the current resident [the one who comes into the apartment]) who is obligated to affix the Mezuzah to the door ('Mezuzah Chovas ha'Dar Hu').

(b) When they asked Rav Sheishes 'Mezuzah al Mi', they meant (not the Mezuzah, but) the area to which the Mezuzah is affixed.

(c) To which he quoted our Mishnah 'Davar she'Ein Ma'aseh Uman, Socher Oseihu'.

(d) Despite the fact that carving space for a Mezuzah in a stone door-post is a specialized job, Rav Sheishes nevertheless takes for granted that Makom Mezuzah is a task that a layman can perform - because one can always suspend the Mezuzah in a hollow cane from the top of the stone door-post, without needing to carve a space in the actual stone.