Rambam - 3 Chapters a Day

When a person rents a donkey to lead it through the mountains, and instead leads it through a valley, he is not liable if it slips, even though he went against the intentions of the owners. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is liable. If he rented it to lead it through a valley, and instead leads it through a mountain, he is liable if it slips, because one is more likely to slip in a mountain than in a valley. If it is harmed due to heat, the renter is not liable, since valleys are warmer than mountains, because there is wind blowing in the mountains. If, however, it becomes overheated due to the effort in climbing to the heights, he is liable. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

Similarly, if a person rents a cow to plow on a mountain and plows with it in a valley, the renter is not liable should the cylinder of the plow break. The owner of the cow may sue the workers who did the plowing. Similarly, if the renter did not go against the owner's instructions and the cylinder of the plow broke, the owner of the cow may sue the workers. If he rented it to plow in a valley, and instead plowed on a mountain, and the cylinder of the plow breaks, the renter is liable. The renter may sue the workers.

What is the ruling regarding the workers who break a plow while plowing? They must pay.

Who must pay? The one who holds the utensil while plowing." If, however, the field has several plateaus, they share the liability for the cost of the cylinder - both the person holding the guiding pole and the person holding the utensil.

If a person rented a cow to thresh beans and he used it to thresh grain, he is not liable if it slips. If he rented it for grain and used it to thresh beans, he is liable, for beans cause slippage.

An incident occurred with regard to a person who rented his donkey to a colleague and told him: "Do not go with it on the way of the Pikud Ravine, where there is water, but rather on the way of the Neresh Ravine, where there is no water." The person who hired the donkey went on the way of the Pikud Ravine and the donkey died. There were no witnesses who were able to testify to which way he went, but the person himself admitted: "I went on the way of the Pikud Ravine, but there was no water, and the donkey died due to natural causes."

Our Sages ruled: "Since there are witnesses that there is always water in the Pikud Ravine, he is obligated to pay, for he deviated from the instructions of the owner. And we do not say: "Of what value would it be for him to lie," in a situation where witnesses were present.

When a person rents an animal to bring 200 litra of wheat, and instead, brings 200 litra of barley, he is liable if the animal dies. For the additional volume] is more difficult to carry, and barley takes more space than wheat. The same laws apply if he hired an animal to carry grain, and instead used it to carry straw. If, by contrast, he rented an animal to carry barley and instead, brought the same weight of wheat, he is not liable if the animal dies. Similar principles apply in all analogous situations.

If a person rented an animal for a man to ride upon, he should not have a woman ride upon it. If he rented it for a woman to ride upon, he may have a man ride upon it. And he may have any woman ride upon it, whether she is small or large, even if she is both nursing and pregnant.

The following rules apply when a person rents an animal with the intent that it carry a burden of a specific weight, and the renter added to that weight. If he added a thirtieth to the weight that he specified, and the animal died, he is liable. If it was a lesser measure, he is not liable. He must, however, pay the fee appropriate for the extra measure.

If the renter rented the animal without specifying a measure, he may load upon it the burden that is the local standard for that animal. If he added more than a thirtieth to that weight - e.g., it usually carried 30 measures and he loads it with 31 - and it dies or becomes injured, he is liable. Similarly, if a person loaded a ship with one thirtieth more than its ordinary cargo and it sank, he is liable to make restitution for its worth.

When a person added one kav to the burden of a porter, and the porter was injured because of this burden, the other person is liable for his injury. For although the porter is a conscious being and feels the weight of the extra burden, he might think that it feels heavy because he is ill.

When a person rents a donkey with the intent of riding upon it, he may place his garments, his flask, and his food for this journey upon it, for it is not customary for a renter to stop at each inn to purchase food. The owner of the donkey may prevent the renter from carrying with him anything more.

Similarly, the owner of the donkey may place barley and straw for the donkey's food on it for that day. The renter may prevent him from loading anything more, for it is possible for him to purchase these supplies at every inn. Therefore, if there is no place for him to purchase, he may load his food and food for his animal for the entire journey.

All of these guidelines apply when a person hires an animal without making any specifications in a place that has no known custom. If, however, there is an accepted local custom, everything follows that custom.

The following rules apply when a person rents an animal and it becomes sick, goes mad, or is conscripted for the king's service, even when it will not be returned. If it was taken or became sick or mad as the renter was journeying to his destination, the owner may tell the renter: "Behold the animal you hired is before you," and the renter is required to pay the full fee. When does the above apply? When he rented it to carry a burden that can be thrown to the ground without worry. If, however, he rented the donkey with the intent of riding on it or carrying glass utensils or the like, the owner of the donkey is required to provide another donkey for him if he hired a donkey without making any further specifications. If he does not provide another donkey, he must return the fee, and then a calculation should be made with regard to how much he should be paid for the portion of the journey that he traveled.

The following rules apply in the above situation if the animal died or was injured, regardless of whether it was rented to carry a burden or to ride. If the owner said: "I am renting you a donkey," without specifying the beast, he is required to provide another donkey for the renter. If he does not, the renter may sell the animal and purchase another animal with [the proceeds, or rent another animal until he arrives at the destination agreed upon if the proceeds are not sufficient to purchase another animal.

Different rules apply if the owner told the renter: "I am renting you this donkey." When he rented it to ride upon it or to carry glass utensils and it died in the middle of the way, he should purchase another animal with the proceeds from the sale of the carcass if that is possible. If the proceeds are not sufficient for that, he should rent an animal, even if this demands all the proceeds of the sale to transport him to the destination specified. If the proceeds are not sufficient - neither to purchase nor to rent an animal - the renter must pay the owner the fee for the portion of the journey. With regard to the remainder, all he has against him is complaints.

If he hired it to carry a burden that was not fragile, since the owner said "this donkey," and it died in the middle of the journey, he is not required to provide another donkey for him. Instead, the renter must pay him the fee for the portion of the journey and leave him the carcass.

The following rules apply when a person hires a ship and it sinks in the midst of the journey. If the owner told the renter, "I am renting you this ship," and the renter hired it to carry wine without specifying which wine he would be carrying, even if the renter already paid the owner his fee, the owner must return it in its entirety. For the renter can tell him: "Bring the actual ship that I rented from you, for I was very specific in wanting this ship. When you do, I will bring wine and transport it on it."

If the owner does not specify a ship and the renter hires one to transport a specific shipment of wine, even though he did not pay the owner any portion of the fee, he is required to pay him the entire amount. For the owner can tell him: "Bring me the wine that you specified and I will transport it for you." He must, however, deduct compensation for the difficulty for half the journey, for a person who works to sail a ship cannot be compared to someone who is idle.

The following rules apply if the owner told the renter: "I am renting you this ship," and the renter mentioned a specific shipment of wine. If the renter already paid the owner his fee, he cannot require him to return it. If the renter did not pay it, he need not. The rationale is that the owner cannot bring that ship, nor can the renter bring that wine. If the rental agreement did not specify the ship or the wine, the fee should be divided between them.

When a person rents a ship and unloads in the midst of the journey, he must pay the fee for the entire journey. If, however, the renter finds another person who will rent the ship in his place until the location he originally agreed, he may rent it out to him. The owner of the ship has, however, a complaint against him.

Similarly, if the renter sold all the merchandise on the ship to another person in the middle of the way and descended, and the purchaser ascended in his place, the owner of the ship takes half the rent from the first one and half from the second. The owner has a complaint against the renter, because he required him to accommodate the opinion of another person with whom he is not familiar. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

From this, I conclude that when a person rents a house from a colleague for a specific period and the renter desires to sublet the house to another person until the end of the lease, he may, provided there are the same number of people in the subletter's household as in his own. If, however, there are four in his own household, he should not sublet it to a household of five. The rationale is that our Sages' statement that a renter may not sublet the object that he rents applies only with regard to movable property.

The motivating principle for that restriction is that the owner may tell the renter: "I do not desire that my object be entrusted to the hands of another person." With regard to landed property or a ship, by contrast, its owner is with it at all times, and this objection is not relevant.

Similarly, I conclude that if the owner of the home tells the renter: "Why should you trouble yourself to rent my house to others? If you do not desire to continue dwelling within it, leave and leave it alone; I am freeing you from the rent," the renter may not sublet it to anyone else. For in such an instance, the charge: "Do not withhold good from its owner" applies. For instead of renting it out to someone else, the tenant should leave this person his own home.

There are those who rule that the renter may not sublet the dwelling at all and must pay the rent until the appointed time. To me, this does not appear a true ruling.

When a person tells a colleague: "I am renting you this house," and after he rented it to him, it fell, he is not required to rebuild it for him. Instead, he should calculate the amount of rent due for the time during which he used it and return the remainder of the rent. If, however, the owner tears down the house, he is obligated to provide another home for the renter or rent a similar dwelling for him.

Similarly, if after renting the house to this person, he rented it or sold it to a gentile or to a person who does not abide by the law who supplanted the rental of the first person, the owner is obligated to rent a similar house for him. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

If a person rented a house to a colleague without specifying the house, and afterwards the house fell, the owner is required to build it for him or provide him with another housed Even if the new house he gives him is smaller than the house that fell, the renter cannot prevent him from giving him this one, provided it is called a house. If, however, he told him: "I am renting you a house like this," the owner is obligated to provide him with a house that it is the same length and width as the house that he originally showed him. He cannot tell him: "My intent was only that the house should be close to the river," "... to the marketplace," or "... to the bathhouse, as this one is." Instead, he is obligated to provide him with a house of that size and shape."

Therefore, if it was large, he should not make it small. If it was small, he should not make it large. If it was a one-room apartment, he should not make it two. If it was a two-room apartment he should not make it one. He should not reduce the number of windows that it possessed, nor should he add to them unless they both agree.

When a person rents out a loft without any specifications, he is required to provide any such structure for the renter. If the owner tells him: "I am renting you the loft on top of this house," he made the house subservient to the loft. Therefore, if four handbreadths or more of the loft become ruined, the owner is obligated to fix it. If he does not fix it, the renter may descend and dwell in the house together with the owner until he fixes it.

The following rules apply when there are two lofts, one on top of the other: if the upper loft becomes ruined, he may dwell in the lower one. If the lower one becomes ruined, there is a doubt whether he has the right to dwell in the upper loft or the house. Therefore, he should not dwell in either of them. If, however, he dwells in one of them, he cannot be forced to leave.

An incident occurred when a person told a colleague: "I am renting you this vine that is draped over this peach tree," and then the peach tree became uprooted from its place. The question was brought to the Sages and they told the owner: "You are obligated to provide the peach tree for him for as long as the vine exists." Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.

When a person rents an apartment to a colleague in a large building, the renter may use the protrusions and the walls of the larger structure for four cubits. He may also use the garden in the courtyard and the yard behind the building. In a place where it is customary to use the thickness of the walls, the renter may use the thickness of walls.

In all these matters, we follow the prevailing local custom and the terminology that is in common usage, as we have stated with regard to purchases and sales.

When a person rents out his courtyard without making any specific statements, we assume that he did not rent out the barn located within it.

When a person rents a house to a colleague, he is obligated to provide doors for him, to open any windows that have been damaged, to strengthen the roof, to support a beam that is broken, to make a bolt and a lock, and to provide any other necessity that requires a craftsman's work and that is a fundamental necessity when dwelling in a home and courtyard.

The renter is required to make a guardrail, affix a mezuzah and prepare the place for the mezuzah from his own resources. Similarly, if he desires to build a ladder, fix a slanted roof, or plaster the roof, he should do this from his own resources.

When a person rents out a loft to a colleague and its floor becomes opened for four square handbreadths or more, the owner is obligated to fix the ceiling of the lower apartment and the plaster upon it, for the plaster is support for the ceiling.

The dung in the courtyard belongs to the renter. Therefore, he is responsible to make the effort of clearing it out. If, however, there is a prevailing local custom, it takes precedence.

When does the above apply? When the animals that made the dung belong to the renter. If, however, the animals belong to other people, the dung belongs to the owner of the courtyard. For a courtyard that belongs to a person acquires property on his behalf without his knowledge, even when it is rented out to another person.

When a person rents out a house, a courtyard, a store or another property for a fixed time, the owner has the right to compel the renter to leave at the end of the prescribed period. He is not required to wait even one hour for him.

When a person rents a house to sleep in without making any specifications, the minimum is one night. If he rents it for the Sabbath, the minimum is two days. If he rents it for a marriage, the minimum is 30 days.

When a person rents a house to a colleague without specifying the termination of the contract, he may not force him to leave the home unless he notifies him 30 days in advance, so that he can look for another place and will not be homeless. After 30 days, however, he must leave.

When does the above apply? In the summer. In the winter, by contrast, he may not force him to leave from Sukkot until Pesach.

When the owner gives the renter 30 days notice before Sukkot, if even one day from the 30 is after Sukkot, the owner may not compel him to leave until after Pesach. And he must notify him 30 days previously.

When does the above apply? In small towns. In large cities, by contrast, whether in the summer or the winter, the owner must notify the renter twelve months in advance.

Similarly, with regard to a store, whether in a large city or in a small town, the owner must notify the renter twelve months in advance.

Just as the owner is obligated to notify the renter, the renter is obligated to notify the owner 30 days before leaving in a small town and twelve months before leaving in a large city, in order for the owner to be able to look for a tenant so that his house will not be empty. If he does not notify him, he may not leave unless he pays rent regardless.

Although the owner may not send away the renter, nor may the renter leave the dwelling until one notifies the other a proper time beforehand, if the price of renting homes increases, the owner can raise the rent and tell the renter: "Either rent it at its present value or depart."

Similarly, if the price of renting homes decreases, the renter may decrease the rent, telling the owner: "Either rent me your home at its present value, or I am leaving it for you."

If the house in which the owner is living falls, he may compel the renter to leave his house, telling him: "It is not appropriate that you dwell in my home until you find a dwelling while I am homeless. You have no greater right to this home than I do."

The following rules apply when the owner gives the house to his son to hold a wedding with his wife. If he knew that his son was getting married at this and this time and he could have notified the tenant earlier, but failed to do so, the owner may not force the tenant to leave.

If, however, the marriage came about suddenly and the son is wedding the woman in the immediate future, the owner may compel the renter to leave the home. For it is not appropriate that the renter dwell in the owner's home while the owner's son must rent a home in which to make the wedding.

If the owner sold the dwelling, gave it as a present or died and it was transferred as part of his inheritance, the new owner may not compel the renter to leave unless he notifies him 30 days or twelve months beforehand. For the renter may tell the new owner: "You have no greater privileges than the person from whom you acquired the home."