MAY A RENTER TAKE THE MEZUZAH WHEN HE LEAVES?
(Beraisa): If Reuven rented a house to Shimon, Shimon must affix a Mezuzah. When he leaves, he does not take it with him,
If a Nochri owns the house, he takes it with him.
A case occurred in which a man took the Mezuzah with him. His wife and two children died.
Question: The case contradicts the Halachah! (Since it is permitted, why was he punished?)
Answer (Rav Sheshes): The case illustrates the Reisha (a Yisrael owned the house).
FOR WHOM DOES A CHATZER ACQUIRE?
(Mishnah): The dung belongs to Reuven. Shimon only gets (ashes) from the oven.
Question: What is the case?
If Shimon rents the Chatzer and the dung is from his own animals, why does Reuven get it?
If Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer and the dung is from his animals, obviously he gets it!
Answer: The case is, Reuven did not rent out the Chatzer. The dung is from animals that pass through.
This supports R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina:
(R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina): A person's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge.
Question (Beraisa): If Reuven said 'whatever lost (i.e. Hefker) objects enter my Chatzer today, I hereby acquire them', this does nothing.
According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, his Chatzer should acquire for him!
Answer: The case is, his Chatzer is not guarded.
Question (Seifa): If there is talk that a Metzi'ah (something ownerless, e.g. fish deposited with the river or a lame deer) entered his yard, his words take effect.
If his Chatzer is not guarded, why does he acquire?
Answer: Since there is talk that a Metzi'ah entered his yard, other people will not take it. It is as if his Chatzer is guarded.
Question (Beraisa): Shimon gets ashes from the oven and dung that falls through the air (in a Kli that he suspended). Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and the Chatzer.
According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, just like Reuven's Chatzer acquires for him, its airspace should acquire for him!
Answer #1 (Abaye): The case is, Shimon hung a Kli by the animal's rump to collect the dung (it never entered the air).
Answer #2 (Rava): (Even if the Kli hangs below the rump,) we consider something in the air to be resting on the ground only if it is destined to land on the ground. (Here, it will fall in the Kli.)
Question: Rava was unsure about this!
Question (Rava): If one threw a wallet through a yard, and it left the yard before landing, is being suspended in the air, in a domain in which the object will not land, like resting on the ground, or not?
Answer: There, nothing separates between it and the ground. Here, the Kli separates.
(Beraisa): Reuven gets dung deposited in the pen and the Chatzer.
Version #1 (Rashi) Question: Why must the Beraisa teach two cases? (Since Reuven owns both, they teach the same Chidush.)
Version #2 (Tosfos) Question: This is a contradiction! (Clearly, one who rents a house has no rights to the pen. Surely, the Beraisa teaches that Reuven gets the dung in the pen to exclude dung in the Chatzer!) (end of Version #2)
Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa teaches that dung in the pen in the Chatzer belongs to Reuven (even though Shimon rented the Chatzer).
(Rav Ashi): This teaches that one who rents a Chatzer does not rent a pen inside it.
DOES ONE ACQUIRE EGGS IN HIS PROPERTY?
Question (Beraisa): The Mitzvah to send away a mother bird (on eggs or chicks, before taking her offspring) applies to doves of a dovecote or an upper story. It is considered theft (for someone else to take them) due to the ways of Shalom
According to R. Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina, a person's Chatzer acquires for him without his knowledge. He owns the eggs. He should be exempt from sending the mother!
"Ki Yikarei" excludes what is prepared (i.e. his).
Answer #1 (Rava): Once the majority of the egg leaves the mother, one (who wants to take it) is obligated to send the mother. The Chatzer acquires it only when it lands.
In this case, the Beraisa obligates one to send the mother.
Question: If so, why is it considered theft to take the eggs? (The Chatzer did not acquire them yet!)
Answer #1: It is theft to take the mother (Tosfos; Rashi - or eggs) due to the ways of Shalom (she normally returns to the nest. The owner of the property thinks that he owns her.)
Answer #2: It is considered theft to take the eggs due to the ways of Shalom, because once the majority of an egg is born, the owner of the Chatzer anticipates getting it.
Rav Yehudah's law suggests another answer (to Question (a)).
(Rav Yehudah): "Shale'ach... v'Es ha'Banim Tikach" - you may acquire the eggs only after sending the mother.
Answer #2: Even if the eggs are fully born, the Chatzer does not acquire them when the owner could not acquire them (i.e. while the mother is on them, for he must send her first).
Question: Why is it considered theft to take the eggs due to the ways of Shalom?
If the mother was sent, the owner of the Chatzer acquires them. This is absolute theft?
If the mother was not sent, the Torah forbids taking the eggs!
Answer: The Beraisa forbids a minor to take the eggs due to the ways of Shalom. A minor is not commanded to send the mother.
Question: A minor is not commanded about the ways of Shalom, either!
Answer: The Beraisa commands the minor's father to return the eggs due to the ways of Shalom.
(Mishnah): If Reuven rented a house to Shimon for a year and it was made a leap year, Shimon need not pay extra for the extra month;
If he rented it for 12 months, Shimon must pay for the added month (if he wants to stay for the full year).
A case occurred in Tzipori in which Levi rented a bathhouse to Yehudah for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month. R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Yosi ruled that he pays half for the added month.
(Gemara) Question: The case contradicts the law!
Answer: The Mishnah is abbreviated. It should say as follows: if he rented it for 12 Dinarim for the year, a Dinar per month, they split the added month;
A case occurred... R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Yosi ruled that he pays half for the added month.
(Rav): I would have ruled that he must pay for the entire month.
Question: Does Rav come to teach that (when someone says two contradictory things,) we follow the latter? He taught this elsewhere!
(Rav Huna citing Rav): If Reuven sold something for 'Istira (half a Zuz, which is 96 Perutos), 100 coins', the price is 100. If he sold for '100 coins, Istira', the price is 96.
Version #1 (Rashi) Answer: Had Rav said only that, one might have thought that there the latter expression explains the former (a big Istira worth 100, or 100 small coins worth 96).
Version #2 (Tosfos) Answer: Had Rav said only that, one might have thought that here, the latter expression explains the former (12 Dinarim for the year, to be paid a Dinar each month, not all at the end).
(Shmuel): The Mishnah discusses when they come to Beis Din (for a ruling) in the middle of the 13th month, but if Levi said at the beginning of the month 'you must pay extra for this month', Yehudah must pay for the entire month;
If Levi made no claim until the end of the month, Yehudah need not pay.
Question: Shmuel agrees that the latter phrase is binding!
(Rav and Shmuel): If one said 'I sell you a Kor for 30 (Sela'im)', he can retract until he measures out (Rashi - until the buyer does Meshichah on) the full amount);
If he said 'I sell you a Kor for 30, a Se'ah for a Sela', the buyer acquires each Se'ah when it is measured out (Rashi - when he is Moshech it).
Answer: Shmuel is unsure whether or not the latter phrase is binding, so we follow Chazakah;
There, he cannot retract because the buyer is Muchzak in what he holds;
Here, Levi is Muchzak in his bathhouse. Yehudah cannot use it without proving that he is entitled to. Yehudah is Muchzak in his money; Levi cannot make him pay for what he used of the extra month.
(Rav Nachman): The owner is Muchzak in his land. (Even if Levi claims at the end of the month, Yehudah must pay.)
Question: Rav Nachman must hold that the latter phrase is binding. He merely says like Rav!
Answer: No, he is unsure which phrase we follow;
Even if the phrase favoring the renter was said last, the owner is Muchzak and the renter must pay.
IS A RENTER BELIEVED TO SAY THAT HE PAID?
Question: If Yehudah says that he paid, and Levi says that he was not paid, who must bring proof?
Question: Whether this is before or after the time the rent is due, a Mishnah teaches the law!
(Mishnah): If Yakov died within 30 days of the birth of a firstborn son Reuven, we assume that he did not redeem him (Reuven must redeem himself when he matures), unless he proves that he was redeemed;
If Yakov died more than 30 days after the birth, we assume that he redeemed him, unless people (neighbors) say that he was not redeemed.
Answer: The owner and renter are arguing on the day the rent is due. The question is, does one pay on the day that the money is due?
Answer (R. Yochanan - Mishnah): If a worker claims (on the day he worked) that he was not paid, he swears and collects.
Chachamim believe only a worker to swear and collect. Since the employer is distracted with his workers, we assume that the employer erred;
Here, we allow the renter to swear that he paid.