## Bava Metzia Daf 116b

###### Bava Metzia 116b:1
[Bava Metzia 116b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:1)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲלִיָּיה** שֶׁל שְׁנַיִם, שֶׁנָּפְלוּ – שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹלְקִין בָּעֵצִים וּבָאֲבָנִים וּבֶעָפָר. וְרוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֲבָנִים הָעֲשׂוּיוֹת לְהִשְׁתַּבֵּר. אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַכִּיר מִקְצָת אֲבָנָיו – נוֹטְלָן, וְעוֹלוֹת לוֹ מִן הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **the house and the upper story belonging to two** people, i.e., the lower story was owned by one individual, while the upper story belonged to someone else, **that collapsed, the two of them divide the timber and the stones and the earth** of the collapsed structure. **And** the court **considers which stones were likely to break,** those of the lower or upper story, and gives those broken stones to the one who presumably owned them. **If one of them recognized some of his stones** he may **take them** for himself, **and they count toward his amount** of stones, and the other party takes other stones accordingly. They do not divide the remaining stones equally.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:2
[Bava Metzia 116b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** מִדְּקָתָנֵי רוֹאִין – מִכְּלָל דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵיקַם עֲלַיְיהוּ, אִי בְּחַבְסָא נְפִיל, אִי בְּחַבְטָא נְפִיל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **From** the fact **that** the mishna **teaches** that the court **considers** which stones were likely to break, it can be understood **by inference** that the case is one in **which it is possible to establish with regard to** the stones, by looking at the debris, how the accident occurred: **Whether it fell with pressure [*ḥavasa*],** i.e., the lower story collapsed, and the upper story followed, or **whether it fell with a blow,** i.e., the upper story collapsed, and caused the lower story to follow suit. In the first instance, it is the stones of the lower story that were likely to break, in the latter instance, the stones of the upper story.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:3
[Bava Metzia 116b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:3)

אִי הָכִי, רֵישָׁא אַמַּאי חוֹלְקִין? נֶחְזֵי אִי בְּחַבְטָא נְפִיל – עִלָּיָיתָא אִיתְּבוּר, אִי בְּחַבְסָא נְפִיל – תַּתָּיָיתָא אִיתְּבוּר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If that is so,** that it is possible to ascertain how the collapse occurred, then **why,** in **the first clause** of the mishna, do they **divide** the stones without taking the circumstances into consideration? **Let us see: If** the house **fell with a blow,** it means that **the** stones of the **upper** story **broke,** and the owner of the lower story takes the unbroken stones. And **if it fell with pressure,** it means that the stones of **the lower** story **broke,** and the owner of the upper story takes the unbroken stones.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:4
[Bava Metzia 116b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:4)

לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּנְפִיל בְּלֵילְיָא. וְלֶחְזִינְהוּ בְּצַפְרָא? דְּפַנִּינְהוּ. וְלִיחְזֵי מַאן פַּנִּינְהוּ וּלְשַׁיְילֵיהּ? דְּפַנִּינְהוּ בְּנֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וַאֲזַלוּ לְעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this analysis: **No,** it is **necessary** to state the ruling of the mishna in a case **when** the house **collapsed at night,** and no one saw how it fell. The Gemara challenges: **But** in such a case, **let them see** the stones **in the morning** to ascertain how the house collapsed. The Gemara answers: The first clause of the mishna is referring to a case **where they had cleared** away the stones, and consequently there is no way to determine what occurred. The Gemara challenges: **But** even in such a case, **let them see who cleared them** away, **and let them ask them** what happened. The Gemara explains: The ruling of the first clause of the mishna is stated with regard to a case **where the general public cleared them** away **and left,** so that they cannot be asked.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:5
[Bava Metzia 116b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:5)

וְלִיחְזֵי בִּרְשׁוּתָ[א] דְּמַאן יָתְבָן, וְלִיהְוֵי אִידַּךְ הַמּוֹצִיא מֵחֲבֵירוֹ עָלָיו הָרְאָיָה! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּיָיתְבָן בְּחָצֵר דְּתַרְוַיְיהוּ, אִי נָמֵי בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שׁוּתָּפִין בְּכִי הַאי גַּוְונָא לָא קָפְדִי אַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But** even in such a case, **let them see in whose domain** the stones **are situated. And** once this is determined, the *halakha* will be that **the burden of proof rests upon the claimant,** i.e., the owner of the stones situated in the other’s domain. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state the ruling of the mishna in a case **where** the stones **are situated in a courtyard that** belongs to **both of them,** or **alternatively,** if the stones fell **into the public domain. And if you wish, say** that **partners in cases like this are not particular with each other** about dividing the courtyard in such a way that the one cannot leave his belongings on the other’s side of the courtyard, and therefore the presence of the stones in the area of the courtyard belonging to one of them does not substantiate a claim for the stones.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:6
[Bava Metzia 116b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:6)

אִם הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן מַכִּיר כּוּ׳. וְהַלָּה מָה טוֹעֵן? אִי דְּקָאָמַר אִין – פְּשִׁיטָא! וְאִי לָא אָמַר אִין, לָמָּה נוֹטֵל?! אֶלָּא דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **If one of them recognized** his stones he may take them. The Gemara asks: **And the other, what** does **he claim? If he says: Yes,** they belong to the other, this *halakha* is **obvious,** so why would the mishna need to state this? **And if he does not say yes, why** does the one that recognizes the stones **take** them? What proof does he have that they are his? **Rather,** it must be **that** the other **says to him: I don’t know** whose stones they are, and consequently, the one who stated a definitive claim is deemed credible.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:7
[Bava Metzia 116b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:7)

לֵימָא תִּהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַב נַחְמָן, דְּאִיתְּמַר: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמְרִי: חַיָּיב. רַב נַחְמָן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Shall we say that it is a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Naḥman?** As **it was stated** that the *amora’im* disagreed about the following case: With regard to one who approaches another and says: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don’t know, Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say:** The respondent is **liable** to pay, because he did not deny the claim. **Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** He is **exempt** from payment. It appears from the mishna that the response: I don’t know, is tantamount to an admission.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:8
[Bava Metzia 116b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:8)

כִּדְאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵסֶק שְׁבוּעָה בֵּינֵיהֶן. הָכָא נָמֵי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁיֵּשׁ עֵסֶק שְׁבוּעָה בֵּינֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this contention: Just **as Rav Naḥman says** in that context: He is liable to pay only in a case **where there is a matter of an oath between them, here too,** it is a case **where there is a matter of an oath between them.** In that case, Rav Naḥman rules that he is liable to pay only if he is already liable to take an oath concerning his denial of part of the claim. Since he does not know if he owes this sum, and he is therefore unable to take the oath he is liable to take, he must pay. In this case as well, the mishna is discussing a case where the one who says he does not know is liable to take an oath.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:9
[Bava Metzia 116b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:9)

הֵיכִי דָּמֵי עֵסֶק שְׁבוּעָה? כִּדְרָבָא. דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵין לְךָ בְּיָדִי אֶלָּא חֲמִשִּׁים, וְהַשְּׁאָר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ. מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִישָּׁבַע – יְשַׁלֵּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of **a matter of an oath?** The Gemara explains: This **in accordance with** the statement **of Rava, as Rava says:** One who approaches another and says: **I** have **one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: You have in my possession only fifty** dinars that I am sure about, **and** as for **the rest, I don’t know.** As one who admitted to part of a claim, he is liable, by Torah law, to take an oath that he does not owe the other fifty dinars. **Since he cannot take an oath** to that effect, as he is unsure if he owes it, **he must pay.**


###### Bava Metzia 116b:10
[Bava Metzia 116b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:10)

וְעוֹלוֹת לוֹ מִן הַחֶשְׁבּוֹן. סָבַר רָבָא לְמֵימַר לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁבוּרוֹת. אַלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, רִיעַ טְפֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one of them recognized some of his stones he may take them for himself, **and they count toward his amount** of stones, and the other party takes other stones accordingly. **Rava thought to say** that this means they count **toward** his **amount** of his **broken** stones. In other words, the first party takes the unbroken stones he recognized, in place of a similar amount of broken stones, and the other party takes an amount of broken stones correspond-ing to the amount of unbroken stones claimed by the first person. **Apparently, since he said: I don’t know,** his legal status **is worse.**


###### Bava Metzia 116b:11
[Bava Metzia 116b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: אַדְּרַבָּה, הָא רִיעַ טְפֵי. מִדְּהָנֵי יָדַע, טְפֵי לָא יָדַע – תּוּ לֵית לֵיהּ, וְאִידַּךְ כּוּלְּהוּ דְּהַיְאךְ נִינְהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: On the contrary, this one,** the one who recognizes some of his stones, **is worse** off. He is worse off **because since he knows** and recognizes **these** stones, **he** evidently **does not know** anything about any **more** stones, and therefore **he has no** rights to any **more** unbroken stones, **and all the others are** the property **of the other** party.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:12
[Bava Metzia 116b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:12)

אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְפִי חֶשְׁבּוֹן שְׁלֵימוֹת. אִי הָכִי מַאי קָמְהַנֵּי לֵיהּ? לְמַלְבְּנָא רַוְוחָא. אִי נָמֵי טִינָא דִּמְעַבְּדָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Abaye said** that it means they count **toward** his **amount** of his **unbroken** stones. In other words, the first party takes the unbroken stones he recognized, in place of a similar amount of unbroken stones, and the other party takes an amount of unbroken stones corresponding to the amount of unbroken stones claimed by the first person. The Gemara asks: **If so, what did** the first party **gain** from recognizing his own stones? The Gemara answers: He gains with regard **to** bricks from the structure made in **a wide brick mold.** If his bricks were constructed from a wider mold, he is entitled to these slightly larger ones. **Alternatively,** if the **clay** from which his bricks were formed was **processed** better, he gains by obtaining superior bricks.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:13
[Bava Metzia 116b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲלִיָּיה. נִפְחֲתָה הָעֲלִיָּיה, וְאֵין בַּעַל הַבַּיִת רוֹצֶה לְתַקֵּן – הֲרֵי בַּעַל הָעֲלִיָּיה יוֹרֵד וְדָר לְמַטָּה, עַד שֶׁיְּתַקֵּן לוֹ אֶת הָעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If there was **a house and an upper story** owned by one person, and the upper story was rented out to another, if the floor of **the upper story was broken,** i.e., it fell in or collapsed, **and the owner of the house does not want to repair** it, **the resident of the upper story can go down and live** in the house **below until the** owner **repairs the upper story for him.**


###### Bava Metzia 116b:14
[Bava Metzia 116b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:14)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: הַתַּחְתּוֹן נוֹתֵן אֶת הַתִּקְרָה, וְהָעֶלְיוֹן אֶת הַמַּעֲזִיבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says:** With regard to a house of two stories owned by two people, i.e., the lower level was owned by one and the upper level by the other, in which the ceiling collapsed; the owner of **the lower** story **provides the ceiling** of beams or stones, **and** the owner of **the upper** story provides **the plaster.**


###### Bava Metzia 116b:15
[Bava Metzia 116b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:15)

**גְּמָ׳** נִפְחֲתָה בְּכַמָּה? רַב אָמַר: בְּרוּבָּהּ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: בְּאַרְבָּעָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: In the case of the floor of an upper story that **was broken, to what extent** did it break? What is the extent of damage that permits the upper resident to say that he is no longer able to live there? **Rav says: Most of it** was damaged, **and Shmuel says:** A break **of four** handbreadths occurred.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:16
[Bava Metzia 116b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:16)

רַב אָמַר: בְּרוּבָּהּ, אֲבָל בְּאַרְבָּעָה – לֹא: אָדָם דָּר חֶצְיוֹ לְמַטָּה וְחֶצְיוֹ לְמַעְלָה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר, בְּאַרְבָּעָה: אֵין אָדָם דָּר חֶצְיוֹ לְמַטָּה וְחֶצְיוֹ לְמַעְלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes their opinions. **Rav says: Most of it** was damaged, **but** if the break is only **of four** handbreadths, this *halakha* does **not** apply, since the owner of the upper story can use the lower story to place the item that would normally be placed in the area of the hole, and **a person** can **reside partially** on a level **below and partially** on a level **above.** In other words, the upper story remains inhabitable even if he must use the lower story to house some of his belongings. **And Shmuel says** a break **of four** handbreadths is sufficient for the *halakha* to apply, since **a person cannot reside partially** on a level **below and partially** on a level **above.**


###### Bava Metzia 116b:17
[Bava Metzia 116b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:17)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּאָמַר עֲלִיָּיה זוֹ – אֲזַדָא! אֶלָּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ עֲלִיָּיה סְתָם – לוֹגַר לֵיהּ אַחֲרִיתִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the case in the mishna? **If** the owner **said** at the time of the rental that he is renting **this upper story** to the tenant, the tenant has rights only to this upper story, and he has **lost** the ability to live there. **Rather,** the owner **said to him** that he wants to rent **an upper story** to him, **without specifying** which one. If so, the renter is certainly entitled to functional living quarters, and the owner **must rent him** an upper story in **a different** house belonging to this owner where he can live.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:18
[Bava Metzia 116b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:18)

אָמַר רָבָא, לָא צְרִיכָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: עֲלִיָּיה זוֹ שֶׁאֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לָךְ, כִּי סָלְקָא – סְלֵיק בַּהֲדַהּ, וְכִי נָחֲיתָ[א] – חוּת בַּהֲדַהּ. אִי הָכִי, מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rava says: No,** it is **necessary** to state the ruling of the mishna in a case **where** the owner **said to him: This upper story that I am renting to you, when it is up,** i.e., functional, live **up there in it, and when it descends,** i.e., it is no longer functional, **descend with it** and live in the lower story. The Gemara asks: **If so, what** is the purpose **of** the mishna **stating** this ruling, as there was an explicit condition to this effect?


###### Bava Metzia 116b:19
[Bava Metzia 116b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:19)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״עֲלִיָּיה זוֹ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי בַּיִת זֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לָךְ״, דְּהָא שַׁעְבֵּיד בַּיִת לַעֲלִיָּיה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, Rav Ashi said:** This is a case **where** the owner **said to him: I am renting to you this** particular **upper story, which is on top of this** particular **house. As** by emphasizing that the upper story is above that particular house, the owner thereby **rendered the house as liened with regard to the upper story,** although he did not explicitly state that the renter will have the right to live in the house were the upper story to become non-functional.


###### Bava Metzia 116b:20
[Bava Metzia 116b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:20)

וְכִי הָא דְּאָמַר רָבִין בַּר רַב אַדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁאָמַר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״דָּלִית שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי פַּרְסֵק זֶה אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, וְנֶעֱקַר הַפַּרְסֵק. וּבָא מַעֲשֶׂה לִפְנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא, וְאָמַר: חַיָּיב אַתָּה לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ פַּרְסֵק כׇּל זְמַן שֶׁהַדָּלִית קַיֶּימֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **And** this is **in accordance with that** which **Ravin bar Rav Adda said** that **Rabbi Yitzḥak said:** There was **an incident involving one who said to another: I am selling to you** the **vine that is on top of** this **peach tree [*parsek*], and** then **the peach tree was uprooted. And** the **incident came before Rabbi Ḥiyya, and he said: You are obligated to erect for him a peach tree** to support the vine, **as long as the vine exists.**


###### Bava Metzia 116b:21
[Bava Metzia 116b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/116b:21)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rabbi Abba bar Memel raised a dilemma:**