Sechirut - Chapter 6

By renting the apartment, he also receives the right to use certain portions of the larger property.

He has the right to use the hollowed out portions of the wall to use for storage.

Even if the local custom runs against the principles stated by our Sages, the local custom is given priority.

See Chapter 26 of Hilchot Mechirah (and several other places within the Mishneh Torah), where the Rambam states that, unless a specific stipulation to the contrary is made, all business law is subservient to the prevailing local custom. The rationale is that we assume that both parties to the transaction had the intent of following that custom. Similarly, unless otherwise specified, we assume that the terminology used in a business transaction should be interpreted according to the terminology commonly used in that locale.

For the barn is a separate structure and is considered to be a distinct entity.

The general theme is that the owner is obligated to make the dwelling fit for ordinary living.

Sefer Me’irat Einayim 314:1 states that this applies even when there is much light in the room. Nevertheless, if a window is broken, the owner is required to fix it.

The commentaries explain that the Hebrew wording the Rambam uses implies that even if the damage takes place after the renter begins living in the home, as long as the damage does not come as a result of the renter’s negligence, the owner is responsible. As the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 314:1) states, this applies provided the owner did not specify the house he was renting, but said that he would rent him a house.
The Ramah also states that even if the renter saw the problem when he rented the home and did not protest, the owner has the responsibility of fixing it.

The wooden slats that cover the home.

The crossbeams that support these slats.

To secure the entrance from inside.

To lock it from the outside.

In Talmudic times, it was customary for the doorposts to be of stone, and for a place for a mezuzah to be hewed out of the stone.

For as the Rambam writes in Hilchot Mezuzah 5:11 and Hilchot Rotzeach UShemirat Nefesh 11:1, the observance of these mitzvot is incumbent on the person dwelling in the home and not on the owner. If there is no one dwelling in the home, neither a mezuzah nor a guardrail is necessary.

So that he can ascend to the roof and make use of it.

So that rain will flow downward and not collect on the roof.

To prevent water from leaking in.

These tasks can be effectively performed even by a person who is not an expert craftsman.

The Maggid Mishneh states that this applies when the owner does not specify the loft he is renting. If, however, he specified the loft, he is not responsible, as in Chapter 5, Halachah 8, which speaks about renting out a loft that fell.

This interpretation is evident from the Rambam’s Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 10:2) and Bava Metzia 116b, on which that commentary is based.

We do not say that the renter gives up ownership of the dung and it is acquired by the owner by virtue of its presence within his field.

If the renter does not desire the dung.

I.e., even when he does not realize that there is an object in his domain, as stated in Hilchot Zechiyah UMatanah 4:8.

The Ra’avad and other commentaries question the Rambam’s ruling, because as he states in Chapter 7, Halachah 1, renting a property is equivalent to selling it for a limited time.
The Maggid Mishneh notes that Bava Metzia I 02a, the source for this halachah, appears to support the Rambam’s ruling. Sefer Me’irat Einayim 313:1 attempts to justify the Rambam’s ruling, explaining that the owner is renting only the right to benefit from the property. The essence of the field, by contrast, remains the property of its owner, and he has the right to acquire unexpected property deposited within it. This is reinforced by the Lechem Mishneh (in his gloss to Chapter 7, Halachah 1), who explains that it is as if there is a stipulation made by the owner that he has rented out the field only for its ordinary use, but not for the acquisition of unexpected property.
Ketzot HaChoshen 313:1 objects to this explanation, noting that a renter does acquire ownerless objects found in the field he rents. He makes a distinction between the acquisition of property through its presence in its domain and a domain serving as an extension of the owner’s person. The first point applies to a renter as well, but the second only to the owner.
Merkevet HaMishneh explains that both the owner and the renter have the right to acquire property placed in the courtyard. Nevertheless, when weighing their rights against each other, as must be done in this instance - for the dung can be given to only one person - the owner’s right is given precedence, since he owns the body of the property.
Despite the objections of the commentaries and the difficulties in explaining the Rambam’s position, it is accepted by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 313:3), and the Ramah does not quote a dissenting view.

In contrast to the following halachot, which speak about renting without mentioning a fixed period.

Nor must he inform him that he desires his dwelling back, nor must he wait until the renter has time to find an alternate dwelling. Since a specific date was mentioned in the rental contract, the renter was forewarned and knew that he had to seek an alternate dwelling.

We assume that he desired to use the home on Friday to prepare for the Sabbath.

See Ketubot 4a and 8a, from which it is evident that there are certain aspects of the wedding celebrations that continue for 30 days.

The owner and the renter specified a monthly fee for the rental, but did not place a limit on the span of the rental contract.

For homes are usually available for rental then. When people desire to move, they usually move in the summer.

I.e., the beginning of the holiday (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 312:7)

Here the intent is the conclusion of the Pesach holiday.
It is uncomfortable and difficult to move in the rainy season. Therefore, it is unlikely that a dwelling will be empty and the renter will not be able to find an alternative home.

Thus, the notice must be given on the fourteenth of Elul.

He cannot rely on the notice he gave him originally. Since that notice is not binding, it is of no consequence whatsoever (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 312:8).

That the restrictions are only 30 days or in the winter.

Where the population is not very dense, and there is no scarcity of dwellings.

For the crowding in the cities makes housing difficult to find, and a full year may be necessary.

Rashi (Bava Metzia lOlb) explains that it is customary for a store owner to offer credit to his customers. If he is forced to move immediately, he will not be able to collect his debts. Therefore, he is given a year for this purpose.

First of all, the owner must find a renter and that might be difficult. And the renter must be a suitable person who will both pay his rent and not maltreat the property.

As the commentaries on Chapter 5, Halachah 5, mention, the renter has the right to sublet the dwelling to another person for the duration of the rental contract. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 312:7) quotes this law, but states that if the renter sublets the dwelling to a person who is not fitting, the owner may nullify the agreement.

This is speaking about an instance when there is no set term to the rental agreement. If there is a set term, the owner may not raise the rent during the term of that agreement [Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 312:10)].

Depart immediately. This applies both in the summer and the winter.
The rationale is that in principle, the owner [and the renter] have the right to terminate the rental agreement at any time. As a matter of consideration to each other, either is required to maintain the rental for the amount of time mentioned above, but he is not required to bear a financial loss for showing this consideration.

Bava Metzia 10 I b mentions only the situation when the price increases, but since the renter’s obligations resemble the owner’s, one may deduce that the same principles apply.

The rationale is that since allowing the renter to stay in the home is just a matter of consideration, when that consideration conflicts with the owner’s own interests, it is overlooked, because the owner is not required to suffer hardship himself to show consideration to the renter.
Sefer Me’irat Einayim 312:16 states that the renter must have dwelt at least 30 days in the home. For a rental agreement is never for less than 30 days.
The Maggid Mishneh and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 312:11) state that this law applies only in an instance when there is no set term to the rental agreement. If there is a set term, the owner may not require the renter to leave the home during the term of that agreement.

Since he did not have the courtesy of notifying the tenant sufficiently in advance, he is not given the right to compel him to leave.

For he did not have the opportunity of notifying him beforehand.

In the summer in a small town, as stated in Halachah 7.

In a larger city, as stated in Halachah 8.

Just as the previous owner would have been required to wait this period of time before requiring him to leave, so must the new owner.