Siman 319

One who requested of his fellow that he lease him his house to bring his produce into it, and the lessor did not want to, and the lessee deceived him in some matter until he brought the produce into his house—like the incident in the Gemara [Bava Metzia 101b] regarding one who requested of a woman to bring his barrels of wine into her house and she did not want to, and he promised her that he would marry her and betrothed her, and she gave him space and he brought in the wine and immediately divorced her—and the sages said that as he has done, so shall be done to him, his recompense shall return upon his head. For even if the house is available for lease, she can say, "To any person I am willing to lease it, but not to you, for you are like a lurking lion to me in that you deceived me." Therefore, in a case where one deceived his fellow in some matter until he permitted him to bring [produce] in, and afterwards it was revealed that he deceived him, the homeowner is permitted to take from the merchandise and hire laborers and cast it outside. And so too in any similar case, such as one who entered to dwell in his house by means of deception, it is proper to remove him outside at the expense of the lessee if he does not want to leave on his own [it appears to me].

The Rambam wrote in chapter 7 that it is a measure of piety to inform the beit din, and they shall rent a place for a portion of their value for the sake of returning a lost object to the owners, for when he casts them into the marketplace they will deteriorate significantly; therefore, it is a measure of piety to inform even though he acted improperly. It is clear from his words that this is not according to the law but only a measure of piety, and even according to the measure of piety, he only needs to inform the beit din. However, some say that according to the law he must inform the owner of the produce first before he removes them, and if they were lost to an accident after he informed him, he is exempt, but if they were lost to an accident before he informed him, he is liable. And there is one who says that this is also the opinion of the Rambam: that after he removes them to the marketplace he is obligated to inform him so that he may see that the produce does not deteriorate, and if he did not inform him and they deteriorated, he is liable according to the law of garmi; rather, it is a measure of piety to inform the beit din even before he removed them so that they may rent a place for him, but he does not need to inform the owner of the produce beforehand because he does not want him to enter his house. And the "some say" also hold this way, that the notification is after he removed them to the marketplace, and they do not disagree at all [Sma and Bach]. But the wording of the Rambam does not indicate this, and it is found explicitly among the great Rishonim who hold that he does not need to inform him at all, and even if his produce deteriorates [Shita Mekubetzet], for since he acted improperly and misled him with deceit, he has no business with him, and "as he has done, so shall be done to him" is an absolute law and not merely a penalty [Tosafot Gittin 40b].

The Rambam, of blessed memory, wrote there that the law is the same for one who brought his produce into the house of his fellow without his knowledge, even though he did not mislead him in any matter but rather acted without his knowledge. There are those who disagree regarding this, for granted that a person may take the law into his own hands to remove them from his house, but since he did not mislead him but rather acted without permission, he is not permitted to sell from the body of the merchandise to hire laborers with their value to remove them, and he is also not permitted to remove them to a place of hefker; for this was only permitted in a case where he misled him. And there are those who distinguish: in a courtyard that is available for rent, it is forbidden for him to do anything to cause him loss since it stands to be rented, even though he acted without knowledge; but in a courtyard that is not available for rent, he may take the law into his own hands as the Rambam wrote [Rabbenu Yerucham]. And this too is specifically when he needs the place for himself, for in this case it was permitted for him to hire laborers from this and remove them even to the market if he has no other place, for what is he to do since he needs the place? And also in this manner one should interpret the words of the Rambam, of blessed memory [Taz], and such is the primary ruling [ibid.]. See siman 308, section 14.

In a time of fear and panic, may the Merciful One save us, one who rescues his belongings to the house of his fellow without his knowledge, the homeowner certainly must guard them until the wrath passes. And if he himself requires the space, he is obligated at the very least to notify him first. If he cannot notify him, he should notify the beit din. If a beit din is not available, he should notify three people and rent a guarded place for them, and the owner of the objects shall pay for the space. If the owner of the objects left the city, he shall pay from the objects themselves, for in a time of concern for loss, the sages gave permission to act without the knowledge of the owners, as was written in siman 264 and at the end of siman 308; see there.