## Bava Metzia Daf 102a

###### Bava Metzia 102a:1
[Bava Metzia 102a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:1)

בְּגוּבְתָּא דְּקַנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
to insert a *mezuza* **inside** a hollow **reed** and then affix the whole arrangement to the doorpost.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:2
[Bava Metzia 102a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:2)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ – עַל הַשּׂוֹכֵר לַעֲשׂוֹת לוֹ מְזוּזָה, וּכְשֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא – לֹא יִטְּלֶנָּה בְּיָדוֹ וְיֵצֵא. וּמִנׇּכְרִי, נוֹטְלָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וְיוֹצֵא. וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנְּטָלָהּ בְּיָדוֹ וְיָצָא, וְקָבַר אִשְׁתּוֹ וּשְׁנֵי בָּנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: If **one rents out a house to another,** the responsibility **to prepare a *mezuza* for it** and affix it is **upon the renter. And when he leaves, he may not take it in his hand and leave** with it; rather, he must leave it there. **But** if he rented a house **from a gentile, he may take it in his hand and leave** with it. **And** there was **an incident in** which a renter **took** his *mezuza* **in his hand and left** with it, **and** as a punishment **he** eventually **buried his wife and two sons.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:3
[Bava Metzia 102a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:3)

מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: אַרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Was the **incident** cited **to contradict** the ruling immediately preceding it, which permits one to take the *mezuza*? **Rav Sheshet said:** The incident relates **to the first clause.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:4
[Bava Metzia 102a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:4)

הַזֶּבֶל שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְאֵין לַשּׂוֹכֵר אֶלָּא הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וּמִן הַכִּירַיִם בִּלְבַד. בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בְּחָצֵר דַּאֲגִירָ[א] לֵיהּ לְשׂוֹכֵר וְתוֹרֵי דְּשׂוֹכֵר – אַמַּאי שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת? אֶלָּא בְּחָצֵר דְּלָא אֲגִירָא לְשׂוֹכֵר וְתוֹרֵי דְּמַשְׂכִּיר, פְּשִׁיטָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **The manure** found in the courtyard of a rented house, is the property **of the landlord, and the renter has** rights **only** to the ashes **that come out of the oven and the stove,** which can also be used as a fertilizer. The Gemara asks: **With what are we dealing? If we say** that the mishna is referring **to a courtyard that is rented out to the renter, or** where the manure was produced by the **oxen of the renter,** then **why** should it be the property **of the landlord?** It is clearly the property of the renter. **Rather,** the mishna must be **referring to a courtyard that is not rented out to the renter, and** the manure was produced by the **oxen of the landlord.** The Gemara asks: But if so, the ruling is **obvious** and need not have been taught.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:5
[Bava Metzia 102a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:5)

לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּחָצֵר דְּמַשְׂכִּיר, וְתוֹרֵי דְּאָתוּ מֵעָלְמָא קָמוּ בַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **No,** the ruling is **necessary** in a case **where** the manure is **in a courtyard of the landlord, and** the source of the manure was **oxen that came from the world** at large and **stood in** the courtyard and produced the manure. The mishna rules that in such a case, the manure belongs to the landlord.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:6
[Bava Metzia 102a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:6)

מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: That ruling in the mishna that any manure deposited in the landlord’s courtyard belongs to him **supports** the ruling **of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: A person’s courtyard effects acquisition for him** of an item placed in it, even **without his knowledge.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:7
[Bava Metzia 102a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:7)

מֵיתִיבִי: אִם אָמַר ״כׇּל מְצִיאוֹת שֶׁיָּבֹאוּ לְתוֹכוֹ הַיּוֹם תִּקְנֶה לִי חֲצֵרִי״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאִם אִיתָא לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, אַמַּאי לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to this ruling from a *baraita*: **If** one **says: Any lost items that come into** my courtyard **today, my courtyard should effect acquisition** of them **for me, he has not said anything** of legal significance, and does not acquire those items. The Gemara explains the objection: **And if it is so, that this** ruling **that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** is correct, i.e., that **a person’s courtyard effects acquisition for him** of an item placed in it, even **without his knowledge,** then **why has he not said anything** of legal significance?


###### Bava Metzia 102a:8
[Bava Metzia 102a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:8)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara resolves the difficulty: **With what are we dealing here** in the *baraita*? We are dealing **with a courtyard that is not secured,** as the *halakha* is that such a courtyard does not effect acquisition of items for its owner.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:9
[Bava Metzia 102a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:9)

אִי הָכִי אֵימָא סֵיפָא: יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם מְצִיאָה בָּעִיר – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין. וְאִי בְּחָצֵר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מִשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת, כִּי יָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם מְצִיאָה בָּעִיר, מַאי הָוֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this resolution: **If so, say** and try to explain accordingly **the latter clause** of the *baraita* that states: If **knowledge of** the existence of that **lost item spread through the town, his statement stands** and his courtyard acquires it. The Gemara explains the difficulty: **And if** the *baraita* is referring **to a courtyard that is not secured,** even **where knowledge of** the existence of that **lost item spread through the town, what of it?** Such a courtyard is unable to effect acquisition for its owner of items placed in it.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:10
[Bava Metzia 102a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:10)

כֵּיוָן דְּיָצָא לוֹ שֵׁם מְצִיאָה בָּעִיר – מִיבְדָּל בְּדִילִי אִינָשֵׁי מִינַּהּ, וְהָוְיָא לַהּ כְּחָצֵר הַמִּשְׁתַּמֶּרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Once knowledge of** the existence of that **lost item spreads though the town, people withdraw themselves from it,** as they assume that the owner of the courtyard will take it. Therefore, no one will even try to take it **and** the courtyard **will be like a secured courtyard** which can effect acquisition of items for its owner.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:11
[Bava Metzia 102a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:11)

מֵיתִיבִי: זֶבֶל הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַתַּנּוּר וּמִן הַכִּירַיִם וְהַקּוֹלֵט מִן הָאֲוִיר – הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ, וְשֶׁבָּרֶפֶת וְשֶׁבֶּחָצֵר – שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. וְאִם אִיתָא לְהָא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, דְּאָמַר חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ, קוֹלֵט מֵאֲוִיר אַמַּאי הֲרֵי הוּא שֶׁלּוֹ? אֲוִיר חֲצֵרוֹ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling from a *baraita*: **Refuse of the oven and of the stove,** i.e., ashes, **and that which is collected** in the renter’s vessel **from** the **airspace** of the courtyard, **is** the renter’s property. **And** refuse **that is in the cowshed and in the courtyard,** i.e., the manure, is the property **of the landlord.** The Gemara explains the question: **And if it is so, that this** ruling **that Rabbi Yossi, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** is correct, i.e., that **a person’s courtyard effects acquisition for him** of an item placed in it even **without his knowledge,** then with regard to refuse **collected from the airspace** of the courtyard, **why is it** the renter’s property? It was first in the **airspace of** the landlord’s **courtyard,** and should consequently be acquired by him immediately.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:12
[Bava Metzia 102a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:12)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּמַדְבִּיק כְּלִי בְּשׁוּלֵי פָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said:** The *baraita* is referring to a case **where** the renter **attached** his **vessel to a cow’s rear.** Any manure produced by the cow would immediately enter the renter’s vessel, without first entering the airspace of the courtyard, and the renter would consequently acquire it.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:13
[Bava Metzia 102a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:13)

רָבָא אָמַר: אֲוִיר שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָנוּחַ – לָאו כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** An item in the **airspace** of a courtyard **that will not eventually come to rest** in the courtyard itself **is not** regarded **as though it had come to rest.** Accordingly, even if the refuse traveled through the airspace of the courtyard, since it was always on course to enter the renter’s vessel, it is not acquired by means of the landlord’s courtyard.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:14
[Bava Metzia 102a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:14)

וּמִי פְּשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא? וְהָא מִיבְעֵי בָּעֵי לַהּ, דְּבָעֵי רָבָא: זָרַק אַרְנָקִי בְּפֶתַח זֶה וְיָצָאתָה בְּפֶתַח זֶה, מַהוּ? אֲוִיר שֶׁאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָנוּחַ כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָאו כְּמוּנָּח דָּמֵי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And is** this principle really so **obvious to Rava? But didn’t he raise it as a dilemma? As Rava raised a dilemma:** If one **cast a purse through this doorway** of a house and it went through the house **and exited through that doorway, what is** the *halakha*? Is an item in the **airspace** of a courtyard **that will not eventually come to rest** in the courtyard itself regarded **as though it had come to rest, or** is it **not** regarded **as though it had come to rest?**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:15
[Bava Metzia 102a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:15)

הָתָם לָא מַיפְסֵק וְלָא מִידֵּי, הָכָא מַיפְסֵק כְּלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that Rava’s dilemma concerned a different case: **There,** in the case of the purse, **nothing at all interposes** between the purse and the floor of the house, and therefore Rava was unsure about the *halakha*. **Here,** where the renter’s **vessel interposes,** it was obvious to Rava that the renter’s vessel effects acquisition of the item.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:16
[Bava Metzia 102a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:16)

וְשֶׁבָּרֶפֶת וְשֶׁבֶּחָצֵר, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. תַּרְתֵּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the latter clause of the above cited *baraita*: **And** refuse **that is in the cowshed and in the courtyard** is the property **of the landlord.** The Gemara asks: Can these **two** statements coincide? By stating that the refuse in the cowshed belongs to the landlord, it indicates that the refuse in the courtyard belongs to the renter. How, then, can the *baraita* continue to rule that even the refuse in the courtyard belongs to the landlord?


###### Bava Metzia 102a:17
[Bava Metzia 102a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:17)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: וְשֶׁבָּרֶפֶת שֶׁבֶּחָצֵר – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת: הַמַּשְׂכִּיר חֲצֵירוֹ סְתָם – לֹא הִשְׂכִּיר רֶפֶת שֶׁבָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said** that **this** is what the *baraita* **is saying: And** refuse **that is in the cowshed that is** located **in the courtyard** rented out to the renter is the property **of the landlord.** Extrapolating from Abaye’s statement, **Rav Ashi said: That is to say** that **one who rents out his courtyard without specification** of what is included in the rental agreement **has not rented out a cowshed that is** located **in it.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:18
[Bava Metzia 102a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:18)

מֵיתִיבִי: יוֹנֵי שׁוֹבָךְ וְיוֹנֵי עֲלִיָּיה חַיָּיבוֹת בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, וַאֲסוּרוֹת בְּגָזֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rabbi Yosei’s ruling from another *baraita*: There is a mitzva to dispatch a mother bird if one wishes to take eggs from her nest (Deuteronomy 22:6–7). The mitzva applies only if the bird and eggs are ownerless. **Doves of a dovecote and doves of an attic are subject to the obligation of dispatching** the mother bird, as they are ownerless. Nevertheless, **they are subject to the prohibition of robbery, due to** a rabbinic ordinance to maintain the **ways of peace.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:19
[Bava Metzia 102a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:19)

וְאִם אִיתָא לְהָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: חֲצֵרוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם קוֹנָה לוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מִדַּעְתּוֹ. קְרִי כָּאן ״כִּי יִקָּרֵא״ – פְּרָט לִמְזוּמָּן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the question: **And if it is so, that this** ruling **that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says** is correct, i.e., that **a person’s courtyard effects acquisition for him** of an item placed in it even **without his knowledge,** then a dovecote or attic will effect acquisition for its owner of any eggs inside them. Accordingly, one should **apply here** the principle that the mitzva to dispatch the mother bird from upon her nest applies only: **“If it happened** before you” (Deuteronomy 22:6) which **excludes** a bird or egg that is **readily accessible,** such as one that one owns, from the mitzva to dispatch the mother. Yet the *baraita* rules that the mitzva does apply in this case.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:20
[Bava Metzia 102a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:20)

אָמַר רָבָא: בֵּיצָה בִּיצִיאַת רוּבָּהּ הוּא דְּאִיחַיַּיבָה לַהּ בְּשִׁילּוּחַ, וּמִיקְנָא לָא קַנְיָא עַד דְּנָפְלָה לַחֲצֵרוֹ, וְכִי קָתָנֵי ״חַיָּיבוֹת בְּשִׁילּוּחַ״ – מִקַּמֵּי דְּתִיפּוֹל לַחֲצֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** It is **from the** time of the **emergence of the majority of an egg** from a mother bird’s body **that** one **becomes subject to the obligation of dispatching** her from upon her eggs. **And** the owner of a courtyard **does not acquire** the egg **until it** fully emerges and **falls into his courtyard. And** therefore, **when** the *baraita* **teaches** that in the case of doves of a dovecote and of an attic, one is **subject to the obligation of dispatching** the mother bird, it is referring to a time **before** the egg **falls into his courtyard.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:21
[Bava Metzia 102a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:21)

אִי הָכִי, אַמַּאי אֲסוּרוֹת מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל! אַאִמָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the *baraita* is referring to a case where the egg has not fully emerged, **why** does the *baraita* rule that **they are forbidden** by rabbinic law for others to take **due to** the prohibition of **robbery?** The Gemara answers: That ruling of the *baraita* is referring **to their mother,** i.e., the mother bird.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:22
[Bava Metzia 102a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:22)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: לְעוֹלָם אַבֵּיצִים, וּמִדְּנָפֵיק רוּבַּהּ דַּעְתֵּיהּ עִילָּוַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** instead: **Actually,** that ruling is referring **to** the **eggs, and** the reason the Sages enacted that taking them is robbery is because **once** the **majority** of an egg **emerges,** the dovecote or attic’s owner’s **mind is upon** the eggs to acquire them, although technically he will not acquire them until they fully emerge.


###### Bava Metzia 102a:23
[Bava Metzia 102a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:23)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לִזְכּוֹת בַּבֵּיצִים כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהָאֵם רוֹבֶצֶת עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״שַׁלֵּחַ תְּשַׁלַּח אֶת הָאֵם״ וַהֲדַר ״אֶת הַבָּנִים תִּקַּח לָךְ״. אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא דִּנְפַלָה לַהּ לַחֲצֵרוֹ, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיהוּ מָצֵי זָכֵי לֵיהּ – חֲצֵרוֹ זָכְיָא לֵיהּ, וְכֹל הֵיכָא דְּאִיהוּ לָא מָצֵי זָכֵי לֵיהּ – חֲצֵרוֹ נָמֵי לָא זָכְיָא לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And now that Rav Yehuda says** that **Rav says: It is prohibited to acquire the eggs as long as the mother bird is upon them, as it is** first **stated: “Send away the mother” and** only **then:** “And **take the young for yourself”** (Deuteronomy 22:7), **even** if **you say that** the eggs fully emerged and **fell into his courtyard,** he will not acquire them, because in **any case** in which a courtyard owner **is able to acquire** an item by himself, **his courtyard can effect acquisition** of it **for him, but** in **any case** in which **he is unable to acquire** an item by himself, **his courtyard cannot effect acquisition** of it **for him either.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:24
[Bava Metzia 102a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:24)

אִי הָכִי: אֲסוּרוֹת בְּגָזֵל מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם? אִי דְּשַׁלְּחַהּ – גָּזֵל מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, אִי דְּלָא שַׁלְּחַהּ – הָא בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹחַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that the *baraita* is referring to a case where the courtyard cannot effect acquisition of the eggs for him, why does the *baraita* rule: **They are subject to the prohibition of robbery, due to** a rabbinic ordinance to maintain **the ways of peace? If one dispatched** the mother bird, in which case the courtyard would automatically effect acquisition of the eggs, then taking them would be **full-fledged robbery,** and **if one did not dispatch** the mother bird, **doesn’t he need to dispatch her** before it is permitted to take the eggs? Either way, one will have transgressed Torah law. Why, then, does the *baraita* refer to a rabbinic prohibition of robbery, rather than one by Torah law?


###### Bava Metzia 102a:25
[Bava Metzia 102a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:25)

בְּקָטָן דְּלָאו בַּר שִׁילּוּחַ הוּא. קָטָן בַּר דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם הוּא? הָכִי קָאָמַר: אָבִיו שֶׁל קָטָן חַיָּיב לְהַחְזִיר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The *baraita* is referring **to a minor, who is not subject to** the mitzva of **dispatching** the mother bird. The Gemara challenges this answer based on the latter clause of the *baraita*: Is **a minor subject to** the rabbinic prohibition of robbery enacted to maintain **the ways of peace?** The Gemara explains: **This** is what the latter clause of the *baraita* **is saying:** The **father of a minor** who took such eggs **is obligated to return** them **to** the owner of the dovecote or attic, **due to** the rabbinic prohibition of robbery instituted to maintain the **ways of peace.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:26
[Bava Metzia 102a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:26)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ לְשָׁנָה, נִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה – נִתְעַבְּרָה לַשּׂוֹכֵר. הִשְׂכִּיר לוֹ לָחֳדָשִׁים, נִתְעַבְּרָה הַשָּׁנָה – נִתְעַבְּרָה לַמַּשְׂכִּיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who rents out a house to another for a year** and then **the year was intercalated,** adding an additional month to that year, the fact that **it was intercalated** is **to** the benefit of **the renter.** Since the rental was defined in terms of a year, the additional month is automatically included, and the renter need not pay additional rent for it. If a landlord **rented out** a house **to** another for a year, with the price set as a certain sum **for** each of the **months,** and then **the year was intercalated,** the fact that **it was intercalated** is **to** the benefit of **the landlord.**


###### Bava Metzia 102a:27
[Bava Metzia 102a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/102a:27)

מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצִיפּוֹרִי בְּאֶחָד שֶׁשָּׂכַר מֶרְחָץ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בִּשְׁנֵים עָשָׂר זָהָב לְשָׁנָה, מִדִּינַר זָהָב לְחֹדֶשׁ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**An incident** occurred **in Tzippori involving one who rented a bathhouse from another** where they stated that the rent would be: **Twelve gold** dinars **per year, a gold dinar per month,** and then the year was intercalated.