Midas Sodom

(10) There are four Midot among people: one who says "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" that's an average Midah. Some that is the Midah of Sodom. "what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" is an am ha'arets (ignoramus). "what is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" is a pious person. "what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine" is a wicked person.

A person's house has access to two alleys, one that made an Eruv and other that did not. He himself did not participate in the one alley's Eruv. Were he to retain access to that alley, he would invalidate the Eruv due to his not having participated in it. Therefore, we compel him to make use of the alley that did not make an eruv. We compel him not to have a Sodomite trait.

[He must make use of the alley that did not make an eruv. The Gemara says that this is because he can use the other alley with no loss. Hence, he must use the other alley, rather than causing the one alley to lose its eruv. To have made use of the one alley and render its eruv invalid would be a Sodomite trait, as the Sodomites would refuse to allow others to make use of their possessions, even if it would cause them themselves no loss.]

A certain person bought land on the boundary of his father’s property. When he and his brothers were dividing their father’s estate, he said to his brothers, “Give me a tract of land that borders on my existing property.” Rabbah said, “In an instance such as this we coerce people not to act in the Midot of Sodom.” Rav Yosef challenged: But his brothers can say to him, “The field that you request is as valuable to us as the property of the Ber Meryon household. [The Gemara discusses fields that subsist solely on rainfall. Thus even if the soils of such fields are of equal quality, they will still produce different yields if they receive different amounts of rain. The brothers can therefore say, “We want the field that you want, because it might receive more rainfall and produce more.” - Rashi]. And the halachah is in accordance with Rav Yosef.

Rav Chisda said to Rami bar Chama, “You were not with us last evening, when we inquired about excellent things.” He said, “What were the excellent things?” He said to him, “The inquiry was, if one lives in the yard of his fellow without the latter’s knowledge, does he have to pay him rent or does he not have to?” What are the circumstances? If you say that it refers to a yard that is not for rent and a person who does not usually rent, then this one does not benefit, and this one does not lose anything. Rather it refers to a yard that is for rent and a person who usually rents. But in this case this one benefits and this one loses. Rather, the inquiry is regarding a yard that is not for rent but a person who usually rents. What is the law? Can the squatter say to the owner, “What loss have I caused you?” Or can the owner say, “But, you have benefited?”