Babylonian Talmud

Rodkinson 1918 — source 10, scan section 21

that portion placed without, there is no liability." Shall we not assume that it was rolled in {i.e.y that the whole was consumed, and it was rolled wholly in or wholly out, respectively ; hence, that we follow the place of consumption) ? Nay, R. Hyya taught so only in long-leafed grass (in which case every leaf is partly within and partly without the premises, and as soon as one end is touched the other goes after it, and therefore we follow the place of consumption, but not so in case of grain). " If she chewed up a garment ^'^ etc. To what part in the Mishna has this reference? Said Rabh: To all parts. Why so ? If one does an unusual thing (as in this case the placing of a garment in public ground), and another does an unusual act to that thing (as in this case the chewing up of the gar- ment by the animal), there is no liability. Samuel, however, says this was taught only of fruit and vegetables, but for gar- ments and vessels there is a liability. Resh Lakish, however, concurs with Rabh (because he adheres to his theory further on, Chap. III., Mishna 6.) ** If she derived benefit y*' etc. How much ? Rabba said the value of hay. Rabha said the value of cheap barley. There is a Boraitha in accordance with Rabba, namely: " R. Simeon b. Jo'hi says : Only the value of hay or straw is paid, and no more." There is another Boraitha in accordance with Rabha, namely: ** If she derived benefit, she pays as much as the value of the benefit. How so ? If she consumed a kabh or two, not the * According to Maimonides and others. 40 THE BABYLONIAN TALMUD. full value is paid, but only so much as one requires to feed his animal on food fit for her, although he is not in the habit of using such food. Therefore (as the fitness of the food is taken into consideration) if she consumed wheat or other food injurious to her, there is no liability (if on public ground)." R. Hisda said to Rami bar Hama: I regret that you were not in our neighborhood the other evening when very acute questions were asked of us. What were they ? Thus : One who takes up his dwelling in the court of his neighbor without the latter's knowledge, must he, or must he not, pay rent ? How was the case ? If the court was not to be let, and the dweller was such that he did not need to rent any (e.g., if he had a dwelling of his own, or could get one without paying rent), then the one derives no benefit and the other suffers no loss ? And if the court was to be let and the dweller needed a dwelling-place, then one does derive benefit and the other suffers loss (and why should no rent be paid) ? The case was where the court was not to be let, but the dweller needed one. How is it ? Can the dweller say to the court-owner: '* What loss have I caused you ? " Or can the court-owner say to the dweller: " It does not matter, for you derived benefit at any rate" ? And he answered him: For this there is a Mishna. Where is that Mishna ? He said to him: If you will render me some services, I will tell you where it is. He took off his coat and rolled it together for him. He then said: It is the above Mishna which states that if any benefit was derived the value thereof must be paid. Said Rabha: How secure and careless does the man feel that knows that the Lord helps him. (See Yomah, page 31, a similar saying in the name of R. Huna.) He accepted the Mishna as a case similar to the one above, when in reality the facts of the Mishna are different from those of the case above, as in the case stated in the Mishna one derives benefit and the other suffers damage, while in his case one derives benefit and the other does not suffer any loss. [What could Rami bar Hama say to that ? Generally, one who places fruit on public ground renounces ownership of it (and therefore there is no loss).] Come and hear : R. Jehudah said also that one who occupies his neighbor's court without the latter's knowledge must pay rent. Infer from this that in case one derives benefit, although the other suffers no loss, there is a liability ? Nay, there it is differ- ent; it treats of a new house, the walls of which become soiled TRACT BABA KAMA (THE FIRST GATE). 41 from use (and this is considered a loss to the owner). (Finally) this question was sent to the school of R. Ami, and he answered: What has he done, what loss has he suffered, or what damage has he caused ? Said R. Hyya bar Abba : Nay, we have still to consider this matter (as the soiling may be considered a dam- age). Afterward they sent to him (to R. Hyya b. Abba) for his decision in this matter, and he said: They continue sending me this question ; if I could find any reason to decide this, would I not have answered ? (In reference to above question) it was taught : R. Kahana said in the name of R. Johanan : He need not pay any rent. R. Abbuhu said in the name of the said authority that he need pay rent. R. Abba bar Zabda sent a message to Mari bar Mar to ask R. Huna for his decision in the above matter. In the mean- time R. Huna departed life. Said Rabba, his son: So said my father and teacher in the name of Rabh : He need not pay. (He also said): One who rents a house from Reuben must pay the rent to Simeon. How does Simeon come in here ? He meant thus: If the house, in which he was living there at the time, was sold to Simeon, the rent must be paid to Simeon (although Simeon had no knowledge that he was occupying the house). Could, then, R. Huna say two things which contradict each other ? There is no contradiction, because in the latter case the occupant intended to pay for its use. The very same case was taught by R. Hyya bar Abin in the name of Rabh, and according to others in the name of R. Huna. R. S'horah said in the name of R. Huna, quoting Rabh: One who dwells in the house of his neighbor (which was unoccupied and located in an unsettled district) without the owner's knowledge need not pay any rent, because the non-occupation causes damage, as it is written [Is. xxiv. 12]: ** And in ruins is beaten the gate" {i.e.^ if unoccupied the gate becomes ruined, and therefore the owner of the house derives benefit from the occupation). Said Mar bar R. Ashi: I once saw such a house which was damaged and looked as if gored by an ox. R. Joseph assigned another rea- son, viz., a house which is inhabited lasts longer (for the inhab- itants make all the repairs necessary). What is the difference between these two reasons ? There is a difference when the house is used for storing wood and straw.* * Rashi explains this that the owner of the house used it for storing wood and straw, and the tenant lived in the same place used for such storage ; and then as to " ruin," there is none, for it is being used ; but as to repairs, the owner would not seo