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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 8, 2017 | 讬壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Bava Metzia 104

Laws regarding sharecroppers are discussed. 聽What if he agrees to work an irrigated field and the river dries up? 聽Can he deduct soemthing from what he owes the owner? 聽If he agrees to sharecrop for a percentage of the yield and decides not to work the land at all, he needs the landowner according to the agreed upon percentage calculated at what the field should have yielded. 聽Rabbi Meir says this is common law that became halacha doresh lashon hedyot. 聽There are various interpretations about what this means and there are various cases listed in which this principle is used. 聽The concept of asmachta is raised in a case where a sharecropper said “if I don’t work the land I will pay you 1,000 zuzim.” 聽There is a disagreement about whether this is valid or not.

讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讚讜讜诇讗

You should have brought water in a bucket.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讞讻专谞讜转讗 讘讬谉 讘拽讘诇谞讜转讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讚讗讬转讗 讘拽讘诇谞讜转讗 诇讬转讗 讘讞讻专谞讜转讗 讜讚讗讬转讗 讘讞讻专谞讜转讗 诇讬转讗 讘拽讘诇谞讜转讗

Rav Pappa said: With regard to these first two mishnayot, you find that they are correct, concerning both tenancy, where the tenant farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, as well as the case of a contractor, who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. From this point forward, i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that which is relevant to the case of a contractor is not applicable to tenancy, and that which is relevant to tenancy is not applicable to the case of a contractor.

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 讝讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讬转 讻讜专 注驻专 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 诇转讱 讛讙讬注讜 砖诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转拽专讬 讘讬转 讻讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let the owner say to him: I told you only the name, i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor field of dirt, although the field contains only a half-kor, once the buyer purchases the dirt it has come to him, i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, as the seller sold him the dirt only by the name, and he did not mean that its size was precisely a beit kor. The baraita adds: And this is the halakha only where that field is called by people a beit kor.

讻专诪讗 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讙驻谞讬诐 讛讙讬注讜 砖诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转拽专讬 讻专诪讗 驻专讚住 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专诪讜谞讬诐 讛讙讬注讜 砖诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转拽专讬 驻专讚住讗 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱

The baraita continues: Similarly, if he said: I am selling you a vineyard, then although it does not have vines, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as the seller sold him the field only by the name; and this is the halakha only where it is called a vineyard. Likewise, if he said: I am selling you an orchard, then even though it does not have pomegranates, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as he sold him only by the name; and again this is the case only where it is called an orchard. Apparently, the seller can say to him: I told you only the name. So too here, let the seller say to him: I told you only the name.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讻讬专 诇讞讜讻专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜讻专 诇诪讞讻讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讻讬专 诇讞讜讻专 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜讻专 诇诪讞讻讬专 拽驻讬讚讗

Shmuel said: It is not difficult; this baraita is comparable to a case where the owner of the land said to the tenant farmer what he was leasing him, while in that mishna the tenant farmer said to the owner of the land what he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if the owner of the land said the terms to the tenant farmer, then he can claim that he told him only the name, and the tenant farmer cannot object. But if the tenant farmer said the terms to the owner of the land, then he was clearly particular to receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讻讬专 诇讞讜讻专 诪讚拽讗诪专 讝讛 诪讻诇诇 讚拽讗讬 讘讙讜讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 讛砖转讗

Ravina said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to a case where the owner of the land told the tenant farmer what he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but since the owner said: This irrigated field, by inference we are dealing with one who is standing inside it. Why, then, does the owner need to state the fact that it is an irrigated field? It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have said to him by way of emphasis that he is providing an irrigated field as it currently stands.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讜讘讬专讛 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇注砖讜转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讗诐 讗讜讘讬专 讜诇讗 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖诇诐 讘诪讬讟讘讗

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another as a contractor and then lets it lie fallow and does not work the land at all, the court appraises it by evaluating how much it was able to produce if cultivated, and he gives his share of this amount to the owner. The reason is that this is what a cultivator writes to the owner in a standard contract: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讜讘讬专 讜诇讗 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖诇诐 讘诪讬讟讘讗

GEMARA: Rabbi Meir would expound common language used in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer halakhot from them if they are used in legal documents. As it is taught in a baraita that presents a similar case to the mishna: Rabbi Meir says he is liable to pay, as the document states: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜讻谉 讻诇 拽专讘谉 讜拽专讘谉 砖讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讱 注诇讬 诪谉 拽讚诪转 讚谞讗

Likewise, Rabbi Yehuda would also expound common language, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, a person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife. This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. Similarly, he may bring every offering that she is obligated to bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings because this is what he writes to her in her marriage contract: I accept upon myself to repay you for all obligations that you have, even those from beforehand. Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.

讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 讗谞砖讬 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 讛讬讜 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讜讘砖注转 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讘讗讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讜讞讜讟驻讬诐 讗讜转诐 诪讛谉 讜讘拽砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 讘谞讬讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐

Similarly, Hillel the Elder would expound common language as well, as it is taught in a baraita: The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬 讻转讜讘转 讗诪讻诐 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜诪爪讗 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诇讻砖转讻谞住讬 诇讞讜驻讛 讛讜讬 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讜诇讗 注砖讜 讘谞讬讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐

Hillel the Elder said to the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: Bring me your mother鈥檚 marriage contract for examination. They brought him their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and he found that the following formulation was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife. This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, and therefore these women did not cause their children to be mamzerim by engaging in intercourse with the other man.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讬讜转专 诪讞讜讘讜 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讜 转砖诇讜诪转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讱 注诇讬 讻诇 拽讘诇 讚讬讻讬

The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 would also expound common language. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: One who lends money to another may not take more collateral from him than the value of his debt, as this is what the debtor writes to the creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor鈥檚 use: The payment to which you have a right, which it is upon me to pay, corresponds to the entire value of this item, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讻谞讜 讜讛砖讬讘 诇讜 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜诪转 砖讜诪讟讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讘谞讬讜

The Gemara infers: The reason the creditor acquires the collateral is that he wrote this to him. But if the creditor did not write this to the debtor, would the creditor not acquire the collateral? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: If a creditor took collateral from the debtor and returned the collateral to him and then the debtor died, the creditor removes the collateral from the debtor鈥檚 children. The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father鈥檚 creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it.

讗讛谞讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇讙讬专注讜谉

The Gemara answers: The writing of this statement in the document is effective for depreciation. If the collateral depreciates in value, the creditor may claim the remainder of the debt from the debtor鈥檚 property.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇注砖讜转 讻转讜讘讛 诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讜讛 诇讻驻讜诇 讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛

搂 The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yosei would also expound common language, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: In a location where they were accustomed to formulate the terms of a marriage contract as one would formulate the terms of a loan, i.e., the precise value of the her dowry is written in the marriage contract, then upon the termination of the marriage due to divorce or the husband鈥檚 death, the wife collects the sum of her dowry as a creditor would collect payment of a loan. In other words, she receives the entire sum recorded as her dowry. Conversely, in a place where the custom is to double the written sum of the dowry in the marriage contract to honor the bride, so that it should appear as though her father is providing her husband with a considerable dowry, she collects only half of the sum written in the marriage contract.

谞讛专讘诇讗讬 讙讘讜 转讬诇转讗 诪专讬诪专 诪讙讘讬 谞诪讬 砖讘讞讗

The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharbela collected, i.e., allowed the wife to collect, one-third of the stated sum, as the custom in their location was to write three times the actual amount of the dowry in the marriage contract. Mareimar would allow the wife to collect even the added value of those sums that the father of the bride had written in the marriage contract in honor of his daughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讻驻讜诇 讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛

Ravina said to Mareimar: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that in a location where the custom is to record double the amount, she collects only half? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; in this case, where Mareimar allowed the wife to collect the full sum, the husband performed an act of acquisition for the entire written amount with the father of the bride; whereas in that case, where the baraita rules that she collects only a portion of the sum written for the dowry, the husband did not perform an act of acquisition for the entire written amount with the father of the bride. Therefore, the wife would collect the sum of her dowry only in accordance with the regular custom.

专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讘讞 讜讻转讬讘 诇讘专转讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诪拽谞讗 诇讗 诪讬讻驻诇 讗讬 诪讬讻驻诇 诇讗 诪讬拽谞讗

The Gemara relates: Ravina wrote an enhancement of the value of the dowry for his daughter in her marriage contract, in keeping with the accepted custom. The groom鈥檚 family said to Ravina: Let us perform an act of acquisition with the Master, so that he would be required to give that entire sum as the dowry. Ravina said to them: If you wish to perform an act of acquisition, I will not double the sum of the dowry, but will record the actual sum I intend to provide; if you prefer that I record double the sum of the dowry in the marriage contract, I will not allow you to perform an act of acquisition.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讘专转讬 讘讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讞 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讚讗讬谞讜谉 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讗讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讘讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专 讻转讜讘讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉

The Gemara cites a related incident: There was a certain man who said to his inheritors before his death: Give four hundred dinars to my daughter in her marriage contract. Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, sent the following question to be asked before Rav Ashi: What was that man鈥檚 intention? Did he mean an actual dowry of four hundred dinars, which are written as eight hundred, or four hundred dinars written in the marriage contract, which are actually a dowry of two hundred dinars? Rav Ashi said: We examine the matter. If he said: Give her, then he meant to give her four hundred dinars, which are written as eight hundred. But if he said: Write for her, then he meant to write four hundred dinars, which are two hundred in practice.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉

There are those who say a different version of Rav Ashi鈥檚 ruling. Rav Ashi said: We examine the matter. If he said: For her marriage contract [likhtubatah], he meant four hundred dinars, which are written as eight hundred, because he indicated that this is the sum he wants to give for her dowry. But if he said: In her marriage contract [bikhtubatah], he was clearly referring to the written amount, and it is assumed that he meant to write four hundred dinars, which are two hundred in practice.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉 注讚 讚讗诪专 讛讘讜 诇讛 住转诪讗

The Gemara comments: And that is not so. There is no difference whether he said: For her marriage contract, and there is no difference whether he said: In her marriage contract. In either case her dowry is written as four hundred dinars, which are two hundred in practice, unless he simply said: Give her, without specification, i.e., without mentioning the marriage contract. In that case the full sum is given as a dowry.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘诇 讗专注讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬 诪讜讘专谞讗 诇讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讜讘讬专 转讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 转诇转 诪讗讛 讜转诇转讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

搂 The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who received land from another to cultivate. He said: If I fail to work the land and instead let it lie fallow, I will give you one thousand dinars. He let one-third of it lie fallow. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: The halakha is that he gives him 333鈪 dinars, one-third of the stipulated amount, as compensation for neglecting one-third of the field. Rava said: This kind of agreement is a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta]. And since an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, he need not pay.

讜诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讗讜讘讬专 讜诇讗 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖诇诐 讘诪讬讟讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讙讝讬诐 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讙讜讝诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讙讝讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, in what way is it different from that which we learned in the mishna concerning one who wrote: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce? The Gemara answers: There he did not exaggerate, but simply said he will pay for the owner鈥檚 losses from best-quality produce; whereas here, since he said something extra, i.e., he promised to give an excessively large sum of money, he is merely exaggerating. It is therefore not viewed as an actual monetary obligation but an asmakhta.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讬 讝专注讛 讞讬讟讬 注讘讚讗 讞讬讟讬 讻砖讜诪砖诪讬 住讘专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讻讞砖讗 讚讗专注讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man acting as a sharecropper who received land for planting sesame, which typically weakens the land but yields larger short-term profits, but he planted it with wheat instead. That year, the field produced wheat at a value similar to that of sesame. Rav Kahana thought to say that the owner must deduct the usual amount of the deterioration of the land from planting sesame from his own share, since by planting wheat the sharecropper had spared the owner the damage to his field, while the owner had received the same profit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻讞砖讗 讗专注讗 讜诇讗 诇讻讞讜砖 诪专讛

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: People say the following proverb: Let the land be weakened, but do not weaken its owner. People prefer a quick profit and discount the damage to their land. Therefore, the sharecropper is not entitled to a larger share of the yield for having spared the owner from the weakening of his field.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讬 讝专注讗 讞讬讟讬 注讘讚讗 讞讬讟讬 讟驻讬 诪谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讟讜 讛讜讗 讗砖讘讞 讗专注讗 诇讗 讗砖讘讞讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who received land for planting sesame and he planted it with wheat. Ultimately, it produced more wheat than the usual value of sesame. Ravina thought to say that the owner must give the cultivator the added value that is the difference between this, the actual value of the wheat, and that, the expected value of the sesame. Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Is that to say that the cultivator alone enhanced its value, but the land did not help to enhance it? Rather, they should divide the extra sum between them.

讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讛讗讬 注讬住拽讗 驻诇讙讗 诪诇讜讛 讜驻诇讙讗 驻拽讚讜谉 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诪诇讜讛

搂 A common type of business venture was one where the capital or merchandise was supplied by one person and managed by another, who would receive a share, commonly half of the profits, for his efforts. This arrangement can also be viewed as one where the investor is lending half of the invested capital or merchandise to the manager, with the manager agreeing to supervise the venture in exchange for receiving the loan. In order to avoid violating the prohibition of interest, the investor agrees to accept a greater share of the possible loss, e.g., two-thirds, than of the profits, e.g., one-half. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: With regard to its halakhic status, this joint venture is considered a half-loan and half-deposit, as the Sages formulated an enactment that would be satisfactory for the borrower, i.e., the manager, and equally satisfactory for the lender, i.e., the investor.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 驻诇讙讗 诪诇讜讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪砖转讬 讘讬讛 砖讻专讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 注讬住拽讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗讬注住讜拽讬 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诇诪砖转讬 讘讬讛 砖讻专讗

Now that we have said that half of the capital is viewed as a loan, it would appear that the manager may use the money in any way he chooses: If he wants to drink alcohol with it, he may well do so, regardless of any objection on the part of the investor. Rava disagreed and said: It is for this reason that it is called a joint venture, as the investor can say to the manager: When I gave the money to you it was to use it for business and not to drink alcohol with it.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诪转 谞注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 注讬住拽讗 讚讗诐 诪转 诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜

Rav Idi bar Avin said: And according to this reasoning, if the manager died, it becomes movable property in the possession of his children. Therefore, it may not be taken from them, as movable property inherited by orphans is liened for the payment of their father鈥檚 debts. Rava disagreed and said: It is for this reason that it is called a joint venture, so that if he died it does not become movable property in the possession of his children, as it is considered a partnership, not a loan.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讚讗 注讬住拽讗 讜转专讬 砖讟专讬 驻住讬讚讗 讚诪诇讜讛

Rava says: If two people conducted one joint venture and drafted it as separate ventures of equal value in two separate documents, and they suffered a heavy loss from the venture recorded in one of the documents and had a slight gain from the other, the halakha is as follows: The two documents are treated as two separate agreements, and one does not calculate the profits and losses from the two ven-tures together. Therefore, this will be to the detriment of the lender. According to the common arrangement, he will gain half of the profits from one venture and suffer two-thirds of the loss of the other.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 104

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 104

讗讬讘注讬 诇讱 诇讗转讜讬讬 讘讚讜讜诇讗

You should have brought water in a bucket.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪转谞讬转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讞讻专谞讜转讗 讘讬谉 讘拽讘诇谞讜转讗 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 讚讗讬转讗 讘拽讘诇谞讜转讗 诇讬转讗 讘讞讻专谞讜转讗 讜讚讗讬转讗 讘讞讻专谞讜转讗 诇讬转讗 讘拽讘诇谞讜转讗

Rav Pappa said: With regard to these first two mishnayot, you find that they are correct, concerning both tenancy, where the tenant farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, as well as the case of a contractor, who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. From this point forward, i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that which is relevant to the case of a contractor is not applicable to tenancy, and that which is relevant to tenancy is not applicable to the case of a contractor.

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 讝讛 [讜讻讜壮] 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 诪讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 讘讬转 讻讜专 注驻专 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讗诇讗 诇转讱 讛讙讬注讜 砖诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转拽专讬 讘讬转 讻讜专

搂 The mishna teaches: 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. The Gemara asks: But why is this so? Let the owner say to him: I told you only the name, i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. Isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor field of dirt, although the field contains only a half-kor, once the buyer purchases the dirt it has come to him, i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, as the seller sold him the dirt only by the name, and he did not mean that its size was precisely a beit kor. The baraita adds: And this is the halakha only where that field is called by people a beit kor.

讻专诪讗 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 讙驻谞讬诐 讛讙讬注讜 砖诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转拽专讬 讻专诪讗 驻专讚住 讗谞讬 诪讜讻专 诇讱 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 专诪讜谞讬诐 讛讙讬注讜 砖诇讗 诪讻专 诇讜 讗诇讗 砖诪讗 讜讛讜讗 讚诪转拽专讬 驻专讚住讗 讗诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专讬 诇讱

The baraita continues: Similarly, if he said: I am selling you a vineyard, then although it does not have vines, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as the seller sold him the field only by the name; and this is the halakha only where it is called a vineyard. Likewise, if he said: I am selling you an orchard, then even though it does not have pomegranates, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as he sold him only by the name; and again this is the case only where it is called an orchard. Apparently, the seller can say to him: I told you only the name. So too here, let the seller say to him: I told you only the name.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讻讬专 诇讞讜讻专 讛讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜讻专 诇诪讞讻讬专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讻讬专 诇讞讜讻专 砖诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讜讻专 诇诪讞讻讬专 拽驻讬讚讗

Shmuel said: It is not difficult; this baraita is comparable to a case where the owner of the land said to the tenant farmer what he was leasing him, while in that mishna the tenant farmer said to the owner of the land what he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if the owner of the land said the terms to the tenant farmer, then he can claim that he told him only the name, and the tenant farmer cannot object. But if the tenant farmer said the terms to the owner of the land, then he was clearly particular to receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讞讻讬专 诇讞讜讻专 诪讚拽讗诪专 讝讛 诪讻诇诇 讚拽讗讬 讘讙讜讛 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 诇诪讬诪专 讚拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讻讚拽讬讬诪讗 讛砖转讗

Ravina said: Both this baraita and that mishna are referring to a case where the owner of the land told the tenant farmer what he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but since the owner said: This irrigated field, by inference we are dealing with one who is standing inside it. Why, then, does the owner need to state the fact that it is an irrigated field? It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have said to him by way of emphasis that he is providing an irrigated field as it currently stands.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讜讘讬专讛 砖诪讬谉 讗讜转讛 讻诪讛 专讗讜讬讛 诇注砖讜转 讜谞讜转谉 诇讜 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讜 讗诐 讗讜讘讬专 讜诇讗 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖诇诐 讘诪讬讟讘讗

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another as a contractor and then lets it lie fallow and does not work the land at all, the court appraises it by evaluating how much it was able to produce if cultivated, and he gives his share of this amount to the owner. The reason is that this is what a cultivator writes to the owner in a standard contract: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.

讙诪壮 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讗讜讘讬专 讜诇讗 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖诇诐 讘诪讬讟讘讗

GEMARA: Rabbi Meir would expound common language used in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer halakhot from them if they are used in legal documents. As it is taught in a baraita that presents a similar case to the mishna: Rabbi Meir says he is liable to pay, as the document states: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 拽专讘谉 注砖讬专 注诇 讗砖转讜 讜讻谉 讻诇 拽专讘谉 讜拽专讘谉 砖讛讬讗 讞讬讬讘转 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讚讗讬转 诇讬讱 注诇讬 诪谉 拽讚诪转 讚谞讗

Likewise, Rabbi Yehuda would also expound common language, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, a person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife. This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. Similarly, he may bring every offering that she is obligated to bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings because this is what he writes to her in her marriage contract: I accept upon myself to repay you for all obligations that you have, even those from beforehand. Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.

讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 讗谞砖讬 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 讛讬讜 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 谞砖讜转讬讛诐 讜讘砖注转 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讘讗讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讜讞讜讟驻讬诐 讗讜转诐 诪讛谉 讜讘拽砖讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 讘谞讬讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐

Similarly, Hillel the Elder would expound common language as well, as it is taught in a baraita: The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others would come and snatch the women from their husbands. The Sages consequently sought to establish the children of these women as mamzerim. This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are mamzerim, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband.

讗诪专 诇讛谉 讛诇诇 讛讝拽谉 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讬 讻转讜讘转 讗诪讻诐 讛讘讬讗讜 诇讜 讻转讜讘转 讗诪谉 讜诪爪讗 砖讻转讜讘 讘讛谉 诇讻砖转讻谞住讬 诇讞讜驻讛 讛讜讬 诇讬 诇讗讬谞转讜 讜诇讗 注砖讜 讘谞讬讛诐 诪诪讝专讬诐

Hillel the Elder said to the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: Bring me your mother鈥檚 marriage contract for examination. They brought him their mother鈥檚 marriage contract, and he found that the following formulation was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife. This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, and therefore these women did not cause their children to be mamzerim by engaging in intercourse with the other man.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗讜诪专 讛诪诇讜讛 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 诇讗 讬诪砖讻谞谞讜 讬讜转专 诪讞讜讘讜 砖讻讱 讻讜转讘 诇讜 转砖诇讜诪转讗 讚讗讬转 诇讱 注诇讬 讻诇 拽讘诇 讚讬讻讬

The Gemara adds: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 would also expound common language. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: One who lends money to another may not take more collateral from him than the value of his debt, as this is what the debtor writes to the creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor鈥檚 use: The payment to which you have a right, which it is upon me to pay, corresponds to the entire value of this item, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 讛讗 讗讬 诇讗 讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讗 拽谞讬讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讻谞讜 讜讛砖讬讘 诇讜 讛诪砖讻讜谉 讜诪转 砖讜诪讟讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讘谞讬讜

The Gemara infers: The reason the creditor acquires the collateral is that he wrote this to him. But if the creditor did not write this to the debtor, would the creditor not acquire the collateral? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: If a creditor took collateral from the debtor and returned the collateral to him and then the debtor died, the creditor removes the collateral from the debtor鈥檚 children. The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father鈥檚 creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it.

讗讛谞讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇讙讬专注讜谉

The Gemara answers: The writing of this statement in the document is effective for depreciation. If the collateral depreciates in value, the creditor may claim the remainder of the debt from the debtor鈥檚 property.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讛 讚讜专砖 诇砖讜谉 讛讚讬讜讟 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讛讙讜 诇注砖讜转 讻转讜讘讛 诪诇讜讛 讙讜讘讛 诪诇讜讛 诇讻驻讜诇 讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛

搂 The Gemara continues: Rabbi Yosei would also expound common language, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: In a location where they were accustomed to formulate the terms of a marriage contract as one would formulate the terms of a loan, i.e., the precise value of the her dowry is written in the marriage contract, then upon the termination of the marriage due to divorce or the husband鈥檚 death, the wife collects the sum of her dowry as a creditor would collect payment of a loan. In other words, she receives the entire sum recorded as her dowry. Conversely, in a place where the custom is to double the written sum of the dowry in the marriage contract to honor the bride, so that it should appear as though her father is providing her husband with a considerable dowry, she collects only half of the sum written in the marriage contract.

谞讛专讘诇讗讬 讙讘讜 转讬诇转讗 诪专讬诪专 诪讙讘讬 谞诪讬 砖讘讞讗

The Gemara relates: The Sages of Neharbela collected, i.e., allowed the wife to collect, one-third of the stated sum, as the custom in their location was to write three times the actual amount of the dowry in the marriage contract. Mareimar would allow the wife to collect even the added value of those sums that the father of the bride had written in the marriage contract in honor of his daughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪专讬诪专 讜讛转谞讬讗 诇讻驻讜诇 讙讜讘讛 诪讞爪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛

Ravina said to Mareimar: But isn鈥檛 it taught in the baraita that in a location where the custom is to record double the amount, she collects only half? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult; in this case, where Mareimar allowed the wife to collect the full sum, the husband performed an act of acquisition for the entire written amount with the father of the bride; whereas in that case, where the baraita rules that she collects only a portion of the sum written for the dowry, the husband did not perform an act of acquisition for the entire written amount with the father of the bride. Therefore, the wife would collect the sum of her dowry only in accordance with the regular custom.

专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讘讞 讜讻转讬讘 诇讘专转讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞拽谞讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚诪专 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诪拽谞讗 诇讗 诪讬讻驻诇 讗讬 诪讬讻驻诇 诇讗 诪讬拽谞讗

The Gemara relates: Ravina wrote an enhancement of the value of the dowry for his daughter in her marriage contract, in keeping with the accepted custom. The groom鈥檚 family said to Ravina: Let us perform an act of acquisition with the Master, so that he would be required to give that entire sum as the dowry. Ravina said to them: If you wish to perform an act of acquisition, I will not double the sum of the dowry, but will record the actual sum I intend to provide; if you prefer that I record double the sum of the dowry in the marriage contract, I will not allow you to perform an act of acquisition.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 诇讘专转讬 讘讻转讜讘转讛 砖诇讞 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讚讗讬谞讜谉 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讗讜 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 讛讘讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讗讬 讗诪专 讻转讜讘讜 诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉

The Gemara cites a related incident: There was a certain man who said to his inheritors before his death: Give four hundred dinars to my daughter in her marriage contract. Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, sent the following question to be asked before Rav Ashi: What was that man鈥檚 intention? Did he mean an actual dowry of four hundred dinars, which are written as eight hundred, or four hundred dinars written in the marriage contract, which are actually a dowry of two hundred dinars? Rav Ashi said: We examine the matter. If he said: Give her, then he meant to give her four hundred dinars, which are written as eight hundred. But if he said: Write for her, then he meant to write four hundred dinars, which are two hundred in practice.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 转诪谞讬 诪讗讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉

There are those who say a different version of Rav Ashi鈥檚 ruling. Rav Ashi said: We examine the matter. If he said: For her marriage contract [likhtubatah], he meant four hundred dinars, which are written as eight hundred, because he indicated that this is the sum he wants to give for her dowry. But if he said: In her marriage contract [bikhtubatah], he was clearly referring to the written amount, and it is assumed that he meant to write four hundred dinars, which are two hundred in practice.

讜诇讗 讛讬讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讘讻转讜讘转讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讛 讝讜讝讬 讚讗讬谞讜谉 诪讗转谉 注讚 讚讗诪专 讛讘讜 诇讛 住转诪讗

The Gemara comments: And that is not so. There is no difference whether he said: For her marriage contract, and there is no difference whether he said: In her marriage contract. In either case her dowry is written as four hundred dinars, which are two hundred in practice, unless he simply said: Give her, without specification, i.e., without mentioning the marriage contract. In that case the full sum is given as a dowry.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘诇 讗专注讗 诪讞讘专讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬 诪讜讘专谞讗 诇讛 讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬 讗讜讘讬专 转讬诇转讗 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讚讬谞讗 讛讜讗 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 转诇转 诪讗讛 讜转诇转讬谉 讜转诇转讗 讜转讬诇转讗 专讘讗 讗诪专 讗住诪讻转讗 讛讬讗 讜讗住诪讻转讗 诇讗 拽谞讬讗

搂 The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who received land from another to cultivate. He said: If I fail to work the land and instead let it lie fallow, I will give you one thousand dinars. He let one-third of it lie fallow. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: The halakha is that he gives him 333鈪 dinars, one-third of the stipulated amount, as compensation for neglecting one-third of the field. Rava said: This kind of agreement is a transaction with inconclusive consent [asmakhta]. And since an asmakhta does not effect acquisition, he need not pay.

讜诇专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讗诐 讗讜讘讬专 讜诇讗 讗注讘讬讚 讗砖诇诐 讘诪讬讟讘讗 讛转诐 诇讗 拽讗 讙讝讬诐 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 讬转讬专转讗 讙讜讝诪讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讚拽讙讝讬诐

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, in what way is it different from that which we learned in the mishna concerning one who wrote: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it, I will pay with best-quality produce? The Gemara answers: There he did not exaggerate, but simply said he will pay for the owner鈥檚 losses from best-quality produce; whereas here, since he said something extra, i.e., he promised to give an excessively large sum of money, he is merely exaggerating. It is therefore not viewed as an actual monetary obligation but an asmakhta.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讬 讝专注讛 讞讬讟讬 注讘讚讗 讞讬讟讬 讻砖讜诪砖诪讬 住讘专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讻讞砖讗 讚讗专注讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man acting as a sharecropper who received land for planting sesame, which typically weakens the land but yields larger short-term profits, but he planted it with wheat instead. That year, the field produced wheat at a value similar to that of sesame. Rav Kahana thought to say that the owner must deduct the usual amount of the deterioration of the land from planting sesame from his own share, since by planting wheat the sharecropper had spared the owner the damage to his field, while the owner had received the same profit.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专讬 讗讬谞砖讬 讻讞砖讗 讗专注讗 讜诇讗 诇讻讞讜砖 诪专讛

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: People say the following proverb: Let the land be weakened, but do not weaken its owner. People prefer a quick profit and discount the damage to their land. Therefore, the sharecropper is not entitled to a larger share of the yield for having spared the owner from the weakening of his field.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇砖讜诪砖诪讬 讝专注讗 讞讬讟讬 注讘讚讗 讞讬讟讬 讟驻讬 诪谉 砖讜诪砖诪讬 住讘专 专讘讬谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 讚讘讬谞讬 讘讬谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗讟讜 讛讜讗 讗砖讘讞 讗专注讗 诇讗 讗砖讘讞讛

The Gemara relates another incident: There was a certain man who received land for planting sesame and he planted it with wheat. Ultimately, it produced more wheat than the usual value of sesame. Ravina thought to say that the owner must give the cultivator the added value that is the difference between this, the actual value of the wheat, and that, the expected value of the sesame. Rav A岣 of Difti said to Ravina: Is that to say that the cultivator alone enhanced its value, but the land did not help to enhance it? Rather, they should divide the extra sum between them.

讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 讛讗讬 注讬住拽讗 驻诇讙讗 诪诇讜讛 讜驻诇讙讗 驻拽讚讜谉 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪讬诇转讗 讚谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诇讜讛 讜谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 诇诪诇讜讛

搂 A common type of business venture was one where the capital or merchandise was supplied by one person and managed by another, who would receive a share, commonly half of the profits, for his efforts. This arrangement can also be viewed as one where the investor is lending half of the invested capital or merchandise to the manager, with the manager agreeing to supervise the venture in exchange for receiving the loan. In order to avoid violating the prohibition of interest, the investor agrees to accept a greater share of the possible loss, e.g., two-thirds, than of the profits, e.g., one-half. The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: With regard to its halakhic status, this joint venture is considered a half-loan and half-deposit, as the Sages formulated an enactment that would be satisfactory for the borrower, i.e., the manager, and equally satisfactory for the lender, i.e., the investor.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 驻诇讙讗 诪诇讜讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇诪砖转讬 讘讬讛 砖讻专讗 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 注讬住拽讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讬讛讘讬谞讗 诇讱 诇讗讬注住讜拽讬 讘讬讛 讜诇讗 诇诪砖转讬 讘讬讛 砖讻专讗

Now that we have said that half of the capital is viewed as a loan, it would appear that the manager may use the money in any way he chooses: If he wants to drink alcohol with it, he may well do so, regardless of any objection on the part of the investor. Rava disagreed and said: It is for this reason that it is called a joint venture, as the investor can say to the manager: When I gave the money to you it was to use it for business and not to drink alcohol with it.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讜讗诐 诪转 谞注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讛讻讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 注讬住拽讗 讚讗诐 诪转 诇讗 讬注砖讛 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗爪诇 讘谞讬讜

Rav Idi bar Avin said: And according to this reasoning, if the manager died, it becomes movable property in the possession of his children. Therefore, it may not be taken from them, as movable property inherited by orphans is liened for the payment of their father鈥檚 debts. Rava disagreed and said: It is for this reason that it is called a joint venture, so that if he died it does not become movable property in the possession of his children, as it is considered a partnership, not a loan.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讞讚讗 注讬住拽讗 讜转专讬 砖讟专讬 驻住讬讚讗 讚诪诇讜讛

Rava says: If two people conducted one joint venture and drafted it as separate ventures of equal value in two separate documents, and they suffered a heavy loss from the venture recorded in one of the documents and had a slight gain from the other, the halakha is as follows: The two documents are treated as two separate agreements, and one does not calculate the profits and losses from the two ven-tures together. Therefore, this will be to the detriment of the lender. According to the common arrangement, he will gain half of the profits from one venture and suffer two-thirds of the loss of the other.

Scroll To Top