Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

June 10, 2024 | 讚壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖驻状讚

  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Bava Metzia 103

If the landlord claims that the tenant hasn’t paid rent and the tenant claims they already paid, the tenant takes an oath verifying their claim and is exempt from payment. If a rental contract was written for a specific amount of years, but no date was included in the contract, even though the contract is in the hands of the tenant, since the landlord is the one who has original rights to the land, if the landlord and tenant disagree about the end date of the contract, the landlord is believed. Why does this case differ from one where the lender brings a promissory note to the borrower who claims that half was already paid? If one lends a vessel to a friend to be used by the friend while the vessel is “in good shape” forever, the friend can continue to borrow it multiple times, even after returning it, if they performed a kinyan sudar regarding the arrangement. Rava and Rav Papa discuss other cases where one lent items to another to be used in a specific manner – what is included within each phrase? If one rents a house to another, and the house falls, the landlord needs to provide another house. In what ways does it need to be the same as the original house that was rented? The month chapter begins with the laws of sharecroppers – both arisim and chakhirim. The expectations of how they will work in the field depend on the local custom. Which costs are to be covered by the landowner and which by the sharecropper?

砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇


If a hired laborer claims his wages at the proper time, on the day his wages are due, and the employer claims to have already paid him, the laborer takes an oath that he did not receive his wages and takes his wages. So too, in the case of rent, if the landlord demands payment, and the renter claims to have paid, the landlord should be able to take an oath and then take the payment.


砖讻讬专 讛讜讗 讚专诪讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 砖讜讻专 诪讛讬诪谉 讘砖讘讜注讛


The Gemara explains: Generally, one takes an oath to exempt oneself from paying, not to collect. And it is specifically in the case of a hired laborer that the Sages imposed an oath upon him, due to the fact that the employer is busy with his workers and might mistakenly think he paid a particular worker when in fact he had paid a different one. But here, in the case of rent, where there is no such concern, the renter is deemed credible that he already paid the rent, provided that he takes an oath.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讙专 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诇注砖专 砖谞讬谉 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞拽讬讟转 讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 诪讛讬诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讜讝驻讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讘砖讟专讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 驻诇讙讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讬诪谉


Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: In the case of one who rented out a house to another for ten years and had written him an undated document attesting to that fact, and later the landlord said to the renter: You have already taken five years of your rental period, he is deemed credible. The burden of proof is not on the landlord, and the renter cannot use the document to demonstrate that he has a right to rent for ten more years. Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: If that is so, then if one lent a hundred dinars to another, with a promissory note, and later, the borrower said to him: I have already repaid you half the loan, so too should he be deemed credible? This is not the halakha.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 砖讟专 诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讗讬 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讻转讘讗 讗讙讘讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讻转讘 注诇讬讛 转讘专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讻转讬讘讬 诇讱 砖讟专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讞讝拽 注诇讬讛


Ravina said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the loan, the promissory note exists to allow the lender to collect the debt, and if it is so that the borrower repaid part of the debt, the lender should have written that fact on the note itself; alternatively, he could have written a receipt to enable the borrower to prove he had paid. But here, in the case of rent, the landlord could say to the renter: The fact that I wrote the document for your rental of the property was only in order to ensure that you would not be able to establish a presumptive ownership of the property and thereby be able to claim it belongs to you. Therefore, the bill cannot be used to prove that the renter has a right to occupy the property.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 讘讟讜讘讜 诇注讜诇诐


Rav Na岣an says: A person may borrow another鈥檚 utensil in its good working order forever, i.e., if he requests to borrow it as long as it is in good working order, then even after returning it to the owner, he may continue to take it and use it indefinitely and the owner cannot prevent him from doing so.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讛 讚讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said: And that is only if he performed an act of acquisition concerning this right with the owner. Otherwise, once he returns the utensil to the owner, he can no longer borrow it again without his consent.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 拽转讬讛


Rav Mari, son of Rav Ashi, said: And if the utensil breaks, the borrower may no longer keep it but must return its handle, i.e., the remaining parts, to the owner.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讜砖诇谉 诪专讗 诇诪讬专驻拽 讘讬讛 讛讗讬 驻专讚讬住讗 专驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 驻专讚讬住讗 驻专讚讬住讗 专驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讻诇 驻专讚讬住讗 讚讘注讬 驻专讚讬住讬 专驻讬拽 讜讗讝讬诇 讻诇 驻专讚讬住讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 拽转讬讛


Rava says: In the case of one who says to another: Lend me a hoe in order to dig up this orchard, he may use it only to dig up that orchard that he specified. If he said: Lend it to me to dig up an orchard, then he may use it to dig up any one orchard that he desires. If he said: Lend it to me to dig up orchards, then he may use it to dig up all the orchards he has, however numerous they are. And in all these cases, if it breaks, he must return its handle, i.e., the remaining parts, to the owner.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讜砖诇谉 讛讗讬 讙专讙讜转讗 讜谞驻诇讛 诇讗 讘谞讬 诇讛 讙专讙讜转讗 讜谞驻诇讛 讘谞讬 诇讛 讘讬 讙专讙讜转讗 讻专讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讻诪讛 讙专讙讜转讬 讘讗专注讬讛 注讚 讚诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讜爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Pappa says: In the case of one who says to another: Lend me this well for me to use to irrigate my fields, and then its walls fell down, the borrower may not rebuild it and then use it, as he had specified that he was borrowing that particular well. If he said: Lend me a well, and then its walls fell down, the borrower may rebuild that well and use it, but may not take a different well. If he said: Lend me a place in your land for a well, he may continually dig many different wells in the lender鈥檚 land until he happens upon a water source that is suitable for his needs. But in order to have this indefinite right, he needs to perform an act of acquisition concerning this right with the owner.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞驻诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讘讬转 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 拽讟谉 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜住讬祝 注诇讬讛诐 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐


MISHNA: In the case of one who rented out a house to another, and then the house fell, the landlord is obligated to provide the renter with another house. If the original house was small, the landlord may not construct a large house as a replacement, and if the original was large, he may not construct a small house as a replacement. If the original had one room, he may not construct the replacement with two rooms, and if the original had two rooms, he may not construct the replacement with one. He may not reduce the number of windows, nor add to them, except with the agreement of both of them.


讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讝讛 谞驻诇 讗讝诇 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 住转诐 讗讞讚 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 拽讟谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇


GEMARA: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? If it is a case where the landlord said to the renter: I am renting this house to you, once it has fallen, it has gone and the rental agreement does not obligate the landlord to provide another one. If it is a case where the landlord said to him: I am renting a house to you, without specification, then even if the original house had one room, why may the landlord not construct its replacement with two rooms, and if the original was small, why may the landlord not construct a large house as a replacement?


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讻讱 讜讻讱


Reish Lakish said: The case is where he said to him: The house that I am renting to you, the measurement of its length is such and such, and its width is such and such. Since he did not specify a specific house, he is obligated to provide a replacement, but it must be of a similar size and structure.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗


The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating this ruling; it is obvious?


讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讻讝讛 讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 讜讗讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讝讛 讚拽讗讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rather, when Ravin came, he said that Reish Lakish said: The case is where he said: I am renting to you a house like this. The Gemara persists: But still, what is the purpose of stating this ruling; it is obvious. The Gemara answers: No, the ruling is necessary where the house the landlord spoke of was standing on the bank of a river. Lest you say that what the landlord meant by saying: A house like this, was that he would provide the renter with a house that stands on the bank of a river, therefore, the mishna teaches us that if he uses such an expression, it is taken to refer to the dimensions and structure of the house.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛砖讜讗诇



诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇拽爪讜专 讬拽爪讜专 诇注拽讜专 讬注拽讜专 诇讞专讜砖 讗讞专讬讜 讬讞专讜砖 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘讜讗讛 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘谉 讜讘拽砖 讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉


MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another to cultivate, either as a tenant farmer, who, in exchange for the right to farm the land, gives a set amount of the produce to the owner, or as a sharecropper, who cultivates the land and receives a set proportion of the produce, the halakha is as follows: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, this one must cut it as well. In a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, not to cut it with a sickle or a scythe, this one must uproot it as well. If they were accustomed to plow the land after harvesting the produce, this one must plow as well. All farming of the land shall be conducted in accordance with regional custom. Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the produce, so too the halakha is that they divide the stubble and the straw. Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the wine, so too the halakha is that they divide


讘讝诪讜专讜转 讜讘拽谞讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪住驻拽讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐


the branches pruned from the vines and the poles. And the two of them, i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both supply the poles.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注拽讜专 诇注拽讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽爪讜专 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛


GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot it, and in a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, he is not permitted to cut it. And the two of them, i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom.


诇拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注拽讜专 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讚转转讘谉 诇讬 讗专注讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇注拽讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽爪讜专 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讚转讬谞拽专 讗专注讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 转讬讘谞讗


The Gemara explains the baraita: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot the produce even if he wants to, because this one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce cut, can say: I want my land to be fertilized with stubble, i.e., the remains of the plants. And if the owner wants him to uproot the produce, that one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can say: I cannot uproot the produce, since that is too labor intensive. Similarly, if the custom is to uproot the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to cut it even if he wants to, because this one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce uprooted, can say: I want my land to be cleared of stubble. And if the owner wants him to cut the produce, that one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can say: I want to uproot what remains so that I can use the stubble.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 诇拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注拽讜专 诇注拽讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽爪讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讬讛诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛


The baraita teaches: And the two of them, i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this statement and what is its purpose? The Gemara answers that the baraita is saying what the reason is for its ruling: What is the reason that in a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot the produce, and in a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, he is not permitted to cut it? It is because the two of them can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom, as each has a justified reason for opposing the deviation desired by the other.


诇讞专讜砖 讗讞专讬讜 讬讞专砖 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讻砖讬 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜谞讻讬砖 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚谞讻讬砖谞讗 讗讚注转讗 讚诇讗 讻专讬讘谞讗 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专讜砖讬 诇讬讛


The mishna teaches: If they were accustomed to plow the land after harvesting the produce, this cultivator must plow as well. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he cannot deviate from the custom? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the situation of a place where the custom is not to weed the fields, and the one cultivating this field went and weeded anyway. Lest you say that he could say to the landowner: When I weeded the field, I did so with the intention of not plowing it subsequently. Therefore, he should not be obligated to plow it. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that the renter should have specified this intention explicitly to the landowner beforehand in order to exempt him from the requirement to plow.


讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 讗讬诇谞讜转 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讛讙讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬谉


The mishna teaches: All farming of the land shall be conducted in accordance with regional custom. The Gemara asks: What is added by the use of the term all? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which the Sages taught: In a location where landowners were accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruits despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be rented out. In a location where landowners were not accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are not presumed to be rented out.


诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讛讘讬 讘转讬诇转讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讬讛讘讬讛 讘专讬讘注讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讘爪专讬 诇讱 讗讚注转讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专讜砖讬 诇讬讛


The baraita teaches: In a location where landowners were accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruit despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be rented out. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling in order to include the case where everyone in that region gives land to sharecroppers to cultivate in return for one-third of the yield, and he, the landowner, went and gave it for one-quarter. Lest you say that the landowner can say to him: This concession on my part, that I reduced my portion of the yield for you, was done with the intention that I would not give you a share of the fruits of the trees in the field, the baraita teaches us that the landowner should have specified this to him in advance.


诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讻讬专 讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讘专讬讘注讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜拽讬讘诇讛 讘转讬诇转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讟驻讗讬 诇讱 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讛讘转 诇讬 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专讜砖讬 诇讬讛


The baraita teaches: In a location where landowners were not accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are not presumed to be rented out. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling in order to include the case where all the cultivators in that region receive land in return for giving one-quarter of the yield to the owner, and this cultivator went and received the land in return for giving one-third of the yield to the owner. Lest you say that the cultivator can say to him: This concession on my part, that I added to your portion, was done with the intention that you would also give me a share of the fruit from the trees, the baraita teaches us that the cultivator should have specified this to him in advance.


讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘讜讗讛 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘谉 讜讘拽砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讘讘诇 谞讛讬讙讜 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘讬 转讬讘谞讗 诇讗专讬住讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讛讬讘 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛


搂 The mishna teaches: Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the produce, so too the halakha is that they divide the stubble and the straw. Rav Yosef said with regard to this statement: In Babylonia those who enter into such arrangements are accustomed not to give stubble to the sharecropper. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from the assertion that this is the practice in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: The difference is that if there is a person in Babylonia who gives the sharecropper the stubble in addition to the produce, it is considered merely as though he has a generous disposition, but we do not learn from his actions that this is the general practice.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讜讻专讗 讜讟驻转讗 讜讗专讻讘转讗 讜拽谞讬 讚讞讬讝专讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讞讝专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讚讗专讬住讗 讻诇诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻诇 注讬拽专 讘诇诪讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讚讗专讬住讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讗 讜讝讘讬诇讗 讜讚讜讜诇讗 讜讝专谞讜拽讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗专讬住讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬 讬讗讜专讬


Rav Yosef says: The first, second, and third elements of the earthen barrier surrounding the field and the poles used to support a thorn fence are the responsibility of the owner of the land, but the fashioning of the thorn fence itself is the responsibility of the sharecropper. The Gemara explains: The principle of the matter is that the main part of the boundary of the field is the responsibility of the owner of the land, while any additional protection required is the responsibility of the sharecropper. Rav Yosef says: The hoe and the shovel and the bucket and the irrigation device must be provided by the owner of the land, while the sharecropper must make the irrigation channels.


讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讝诪讜专讜转 讜讘拽谞讬诐 拽谞讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 拽谞讬诐 讛诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 砖讘讛谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗转 讛讙驻谞讬诐


The mishna teaches: Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the wine, so too the halakha is that they divide the branches pruned from the vines and the poles. The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of the poles used for the vines? They said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: This is referring to long poles that were divided in half, with which they support the vines.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪住驻拽讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讬讛诐 诪住驻拽讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐


The mishna teaches: And the two of them, i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both supply the poles. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state this? The Gemara answers that the mishna is saying what the reason is for its ruling: What is the reason that the two of them divide the poles? It is because the two of them supply the poles.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讬讗 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讜 讘讬转 讛讗讬诇谉 讬讘砖 讛诪注讬谉 讜谞拽爪抓 讛讗讬诇谉 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讞讻讜专讜 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讞讻讜专 诇讬 砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讝讜 讗讜 砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛讗讬诇谉 讝讛 讬讘砖 讛诪注讬谉 讜谞拽爪抓 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪讞讻讜专讜


MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and it is an irrigated field or a field with trees, if the spring that irrigated the field dried up or the trees were cut down, he does not subtract from the produce he owes the owner as part of his tenancy, despite the fact that he presumably considered these factors when agreeing to cultivate the field. But if the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy.


讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讘砖 谞讛专讗 专讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讞讻讜专讜 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讻转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬讘砖 谞讛专讗 讝讜讟讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the ruling of the mishna? If we say that the large river from which all the channels originate dried up, why does he not subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy? Let the cultivator say that it is the result of a regional disaster. Consequently, he should be able to subtract from the produce he owes. Rav Pappa said: The case in the mishna is where a small river that irrigates this field alone dried up, as the landowner can say to him:


  • Masechet Bava Metzia is sponsored by Rabbi Art Gould in memory of his beloved bride of 50 years, Carol Joy Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah v鈥橸ehuda Tzvi.

    专讘讜转 讘谞讜转 注砖讜 讞讬诇 讜讗转 注诇讬转 注诇志讻诇谞讛

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Bava Metzia 103: Sharecroppers and Tenant Farmers

The 8th perek finishes with a discussion about replacing a rented house that fell. The ninth perek discussed the laws...

Bava Metzia 103

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 103

砖讻讬专 讘讝诪谞讜 谞砖讘注 讜谞讜讟诇


If a hired laborer claims his wages at the proper time, on the day his wages are due, and the employer claims to have already paid him, the laborer takes an oath that he did not receive his wages and takes his wages. So too, in the case of rent, if the landlord demands payment, and the renter claims to have paid, the landlord should be able to take an oath and then take the payment.


砖讻讬专 讛讜讗 讚专诪讜 专讘谞谉 砖讘讜注讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讟专讜讚 讘驻讜注诇讬讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 砖讜讻专 诪讛讬诪谉 讘砖讘讜注讛


The Gemara explains: Generally, one takes an oath to exempt oneself from paying, not to collect. And it is specifically in the case of a hired laborer that the Sages imposed an oath upon him, due to the fact that the employer is busy with his workers and might mistakenly think he paid a particular worker when in fact he had paid a different one. But here, in the case of rent, where there is no such concern, the renter is deemed credible that he already paid the rent, provided that he takes an oath.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讜讙专 诇讬讛 讘讬转讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诇注砖专 砖谞讬谉 讜讻转讘 诇讬讛 砖讟专讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞拽讬讟转 讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 诪讛讬诪谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讗讜讝驻讬讛 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讘砖讟专讗 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻专注转讬讱 驻诇讙讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讛讬诪谉


Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: In the case of one who rented out a house to another for ten years and had written him an undated document attesting to that fact, and later the landlord said to the renter: You have already taken five years of your rental period, he is deemed credible. The burden of proof is not on the landlord, and the renter cannot use the document to demonstrate that he has a right to rent for ten more years. Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: If that is so, then if one lent a hundred dinars to another, with a promissory note, and later, the borrower said to him: I have already repaid you half the loan, so too should he be deemed credible? This is not the halakha.


讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讛转诐 砖讟专 诇讙讜讘讬讬谞讗 拽讗讬 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚驻专注讬讛 讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讻转讘讗 讗讙讘讬讛 讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讬讻转讘 注诇讬讛 转讘专讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讻转讬讘讬 诇讱 砖讟专讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 转讞讝拽 注诇讬讛


Ravina said to him: How can these cases be compared? There, in the case of the loan, the promissory note exists to allow the lender to collect the debt, and if it is so that the borrower repaid part of the debt, the lender should have written that fact on the note itself; alternatively, he could have written a receipt to enable the borrower to prove he had paid. But here, in the case of rent, the landlord could say to the renter: The fact that I wrote the document for your rental of the property was only in order to ensure that you would not be able to establish a presumptive ownership of the property and thereby be able to claim it belongs to you. Therefore, the bill cannot be used to prove that the renter has a right to occupy the property.


讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 砖讜讗诇 讗讚诐 讘讟讜讘讜 诇注讜诇诐


Rav Na岣an says: A person may borrow another鈥檚 utensil in its good working order forever, i.e., if he requests to borrow it as long as it is in good working order, then even after returning it to the owner, he may continue to take it and use it indefinitely and the owner cannot prevent him from doing so.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讛 讚讘转 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讜讗 讚拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Mari, son of the daughter of Shmuel, said: And that is only if he performed an act of acquisition concerning this right with the owner. Otherwise, once he returns the utensil to the owner, he can no longer borrow it again without his consent.


讗诪专 专讘 诪专讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 拽转讬讛


Rav Mari, son of Rav Ashi, said: And if the utensil breaks, the borrower may no longer keep it but must return its handle, i.e., the remaining parts, to the owner.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讜砖诇谉 诪专讗 诇诪讬专驻拽 讘讬讛 讛讗讬 驻专讚讬住讗 专驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 驻专讚讬住讗 驻专讚讬住讗 专驻讬拽 讘讬讛 讻诇 驻专讚讬住讗 讚讘注讬 驻专讚讬住讬 专驻讬拽 讜讗讝讬诇 讻诇 驻专讚讬住讬 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讜诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 拽转讬讛


Rava says: In the case of one who says to another: Lend me a hoe in order to dig up this orchard, he may use it only to dig up that orchard that he specified. If he said: Lend it to me to dig up an orchard, then he may use it to dig up any one orchard that he desires. If he said: Lend it to me to dig up orchards, then he may use it to dig up all the orchards he has, however numerous they are. And in all these cases, if it breaks, he must return its handle, i.e., the remaining parts, to the owner.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讞讘专讬讛 讗讜砖诇谉 讛讗讬 讙专讙讜转讗 讜谞驻诇讛 诇讗 讘谞讬 诇讛 讙专讙讜转讗 讜谞驻诇讛 讘谞讬 诇讛 讘讬 讙专讙讜转讗 讻专讬 讜讗讝讬诇 讻诪讛 讙专讙讜转讬 讘讗专注讬讛 注讚 讚诪转专诪讬 诇讬讛 讜爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛


Rav Pappa says: In the case of one who says to another: Lend me this well for me to use to irrigate my fields, and then its walls fell down, the borrower may not rebuild it and then use it, as he had specified that he was borrowing that particular well. If he said: Lend me a well, and then its walls fell down, the borrower may rebuild that well and use it, but may not take a different well. If he said: Lend me a place in your land for a well, he may continually dig many different wells in the lender鈥檚 land until he happens upon a water source that is suitable for his needs. But in order to have this indefinite right, he needs to perform an act of acquisition concerning this right with the owner.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪砖讻讬专 讘讬转 诇讞讘讬专讜 讜谞驻诇 讞讬讬讘 诇讛注诪讬讚 诇讜 讘讬转 讛讬讛 拽讟谉 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇 讙讚讜诇 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 拽讟谉 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讗讞讚 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪谉 讛讞诇讜谞讜转 讜诇讗 讬讜住讬祝 注诇讬讛诐 讗诇讗 诪讚注转 砖谞讬讛诐


MISHNA: In the case of one who rented out a house to another, and then the house fell, the landlord is obligated to provide the renter with another house. If the original house was small, the landlord may not construct a large house as a replacement, and if the original was large, he may not construct a small house as a replacement. If the original had one room, he may not construct the replacement with two rooms, and if the original had two rooms, he may not construct the replacement with one. He may not reduce the number of windows, nor add to them, except with the agreement of both of them.


讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讝讛 谞驻诇 讗讝诇 诇讬讛 讗讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 住转诐 讗讞讚 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 砖谞讬诐 拽讟谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讬注砖谞讜 讙讚讜诇


GEMARA: What are the circumstances of the mishna鈥檚 case? If it is a case where the landlord said to the renter: I am renting this house to you, once it has fallen, it has gone and the rental agreement does not obligate the landlord to provide another one. If it is a case where the landlord said to him: I am renting a house to you, without specification, then even if the original house had one room, why may the landlord not construct its replacement with two rooms, and if the original was small, why may the landlord not construct a large house as a replacement?


讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 砖讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 诪讚转 讗专讻讜 讻讱 讜讻讱


Reish Lakish said: The case is where he said to him: The house that I am renting to you, the measurement of its length is such and such, and its width is such and such. Since he did not specify a specific house, he is obligated to provide a replacement, but it must be of a similar size and structure.


讗讬 讛讻讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗


The Gemara asks: If that is so, what is the purpose of stating this ruling; it is obvious?


讗诇讗 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讻讝讛 讗谞讬 诪砖讻讬专 诇讱 讜讗讻转讬 诪讗讬 诇诪讬诪专讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚拽讗讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讻讝讛 讚拽讗讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Rather, when Ravin came, he said that Reish Lakish said: The case is where he said: I am renting to you a house like this. The Gemara persists: But still, what is the purpose of stating this ruling; it is obvious. The Gemara answers: No, the ruling is necessary where the house the landlord spoke of was standing on the bank of a river. Lest you say that what the landlord meant by saying: A house like this, was that he would provide the renter with a house that stands on the bank of a river, therefore, the mishna teaches us that if he uses such an expression, it is taken to refer to the dimensions and structure of the house.


讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讛砖讜讗诇



诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇拽爪讜专 讬拽爪讜专 诇注拽讜专 讬注拽讜专 诇讞专讜砖 讗讞专讬讜 讬讞专讜砖 讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘讜讗讛 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘谉 讜讘拽砖 讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉


MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another to cultivate, either as a tenant farmer, who, in exchange for the right to farm the land, gives a set amount of the produce to the owner, or as a sharecropper, who cultivates the land and receives a set proportion of the produce, the halakha is as follows: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, this one must cut it as well. In a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, not to cut it with a sickle or a scythe, this one must uproot it as well. If they were accustomed to plow the land after harvesting the produce, this one must plow as well. All farming of the land shall be conducted in accordance with regional custom. Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the produce, so too the halakha is that they divide the stubble and the straw. Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the wine, so too the halakha is that they divide


讘讝诪讜专讜转 讜讘拽谞讬诐 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪住驻拽讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐


the branches pruned from the vines and the poles. And the two of them, i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both supply the poles.


讙诪壮 转谞讗 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注拽讜专 诇注拽讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽爪讜专 讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛


GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot it, and in a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, he is not permitted to cut it. And the two of them, i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom.


诇拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注拽讜专 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讚转转讘谉 诇讬 讗专注讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讗 诇注拽讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽爪讜专 讛讗讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 讚转讬谞拽专 讗专注讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讗诪专 讘注讬谞讗 转讬讘谞讗


The Gemara explains the baraita: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot the produce even if he wants to, because this one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce cut, can say: I want my land to be fertilized with stubble, i.e., the remains of the plants. And if the owner wants him to uproot the produce, that one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can say: I cannot uproot the produce, since that is too labor intensive. Similarly, if the custom is to uproot the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to cut it even if he wants to, because this one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce uprooted, can say: I want my land to be cleared of stubble. And if the owner wants him to cut the produce, that one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can say: I want to uproot what remains so that I can use the stubble.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 诇拽爪讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇注拽讜专 诇注拽讜专 讗讬谞讜 专砖讗讬 诇拽爪讜专 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讬讛诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讝讛 注诇 讝讛


The baraita teaches: And the two of them, i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this statement and what is its purpose? The Gemara answers that the baraita is saying what the reason is for its ruling: What is the reason that in a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot the produce, and in a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, he is not permitted to cut it? It is because the two of them can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom, as each has a justified reason for opposing the deviation desired by the other.


诇讞专讜砖 讗讞专讬讜 讬讞专砖 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讗转专讗 讚诇讗 诪谞讻砖讬 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜谞讻讬砖 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚谞讻讬砖谞讗 讗讚注转讗 讚诇讗 讻专讬讘谞讗 诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专讜砖讬 诇讬讛


The mishna teaches: If they were accustomed to plow the land after harvesting the produce, this cultivator must plow as well. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that he cannot deviate from the custom? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the situation of a place where the custom is not to weed the fields, and the one cultivating this field went and weeded anyway. Lest you say that he could say to the landowner: When I weeded the field, I did so with the intention of not plowing it subsequently. Therefore, he should not be obligated to plow it. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that the renter should have specified this intention explicitly to the landowner beforehand in order to exempt him from the requirement to plow.


讛讻诇 讻诪谞讛讙 讛诪讚讬谞讛 讛讻诇 诇讗转讜讬讬 诪讗讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 讗讬诇谞讜转 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 谞讛讙讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬谉


The mishna teaches: All farming of the land shall be conducted in accordance with regional custom. The Gemara asks: What is added by the use of the term all? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which the Sages taught: In a location where landowners were accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruits despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be rented out. In a location where landowners were not accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are not presumed to be rented out.


诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇讛砖讻讬专 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讬讛讘讬 讘转讬诇转讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜讬讛讘讬讛 讘专讬讘注讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讘爪专讬 诇讱 讗讚注转讗 讚诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专讜砖讬 诇讬讛


The baraita teaches: In a location where landowners were accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruit despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be rented out. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling in order to include the case where everyone in that region gives land to sharecroppers to cultivate in return for one-third of the yield, and he, the landowner, went and gave it for one-quarter. Lest you say that the landowner can say to him: This concession on my part, that I reduced my portion of the yield for you, was done with the intention that I would not give you a share of the fruits of the trees in the field, the baraita teaches us that the landowner should have specified this to him in advance.


诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 砖诇讗 诇讛砖讻讬专 讗讬谉 诪砖讻讬专讬谉 驻砖讬讟讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪拽讘诇讬 讘专讬讘注讗 讜讗讝诇 讗讬讛讜 讜拽讬讘诇讛 讘转讬诇转讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 讚讟驻讗讬 诇讱 讗讚注转讗 讚讬讛讘转 诇讬 讘讗讬诇谞讜转 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇驻专讜砖讬 诇讬讛


The baraita teaches: In a location where landowners were not accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are not presumed to be rented out. The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling in order to include the case where all the cultivators in that region receive land in return for giving one-quarter of the yield to the owner, and this cultivator went and received the land in return for giving one-third of the yield to the owner. Lest you say that the cultivator can say to him: This concession on my part, that I added to your portion, was done with the intention that you would also give me a share of the fruit from the trees, the baraita teaches us that the cultivator should have specified this to him in advance.


讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘讜讗讛 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘转讘谉 讜讘拽砖 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讘讘诇 谞讛讬讙讜 讚诇讗 讬讛讬讘讬 转讬讘谞讗 诇讗专讬住讗 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讚讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讗讬谞讬砖 讚讬讛讬讘 注讬谉 讬驻讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 诪讬谞讬讛


搂 The mishna teaches: Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the produce, so too the halakha is that they divide the stubble and the straw. Rav Yosef said with regard to this statement: In Babylonia those who enter into such arrangements are accustomed not to give stubble to the sharecropper. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from the assertion that this is the practice in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: The difference is that if there is a person in Babylonia who gives the sharecropper the stubble in addition to the produce, it is considered merely as though he has a generous disposition, but we do not learn from his actions that this is the general practice.


讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讜讻专讗 讜讟驻转讗 讜讗专讻讘转讗 讜拽谞讬 讚讞讬讝专讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讞讝专讗 讙讜驻讬讛 讚讗专讬住讗 讻诇诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻诇 注讬拽专 讘诇诪讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 谞讟讬专讜转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讚讗专讬住讗 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讗 讜讝讘讬诇讗 讜讚讜讜诇讗 讜讝专谞讜拽讗 讚讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗专讬住讗 注讘讬讚 讘讬 讬讗讜专讬


Rav Yosef says: The first, second, and third elements of the earthen barrier surrounding the field and the poles used to support a thorn fence are the responsibility of the owner of the land, but the fashioning of the thorn fence itself is the responsibility of the sharecropper. The Gemara explains: The principle of the matter is that the main part of the boundary of the field is the responsibility of the owner of the land, while any additional protection required is the responsibility of the sharecropper. Rav Yosef says: The hoe and the shovel and the bucket and the irrigation device must be provided by the owner of the land, while the sharecropper must make the irrigation channels.


讻砖诐 砖讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讬讬谉 讻讱 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘讝诪讜专讜转 讜讘拽谞讬诐 拽谞讬诐 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讬讛讜 讗诪专讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 拽谞讬诐 讛诪讜讞诇拽讬谉 砖讘讛谉 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 讗转 讛讙驻谞讬诐


The mishna teaches: Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the wine, so too the halakha is that they divide the branches pruned from the vines and the poles. The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of the poles used for the vines? They said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: This is referring to long poles that were divided in half, with which they support the vines.


讜砖谞讬讛诐 诪住驻拽讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讞讜诇拽讬谉 讘拽谞讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讚砖谞讬讛诐 诪住驻拽讬谉 讗转 讛拽谞讬诐


The mishna teaches: And the two of them, i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both supply the poles. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state this? The Gemara answers that the mishna is saying what the reason is for its ruling: What is the reason that the two of them divide the poles? It is because the two of them supply the poles.


诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讬讗 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讜 讘讬转 讛讗讬诇谉 讬讘砖 讛诪注讬谉 讜谞拽爪抓 讛讗讬诇谉 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讞讻讜专讜 讗诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讞讻讜专 诇讬 砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讝讜 讗讜 砖讚讛 讘讬转 讛讗讬诇谉 讝讛 讬讘砖 讛诪注讬谉 讜谞拽爪抓 讛讗讬诇谉 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪讞讻讜专讜


MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and it is an irrigated field or a field with trees, if the spring that irrigated the field dried up or the trees were cut down, he does not subtract from the produce he owes the owner as part of his tenancy, despite the fact that he presumably considered these factors when agreeing to cultivate the field. But if the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy.


讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讬讘砖 谞讛专讗 专讘讛 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讞讻讜专讜 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 诪讻转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讬讘砖 谞讛专讗 讝讜讟讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛


GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the ruling of the mishna? If we say that the large river from which all the channels originate dried up, why does he not subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy? Let the cultivator say that it is the result of a regional disaster. Consequently, he should be able to subtract from the produce he owes. Rav Pappa said: The case in the mishna is where a small river that irrigates this field alone dried up, as the landowner can say to him:


Scroll To Top