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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 10, 2017 | 讬状讘 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 106

One who cultivates another’s land (chocher in Hebrew) and a plague or windblast ruins the crops – in which scenarios can he pay less than the agreed upon amount. 聽Various theological arguments are raised here which mostly lead to protecting the landowner.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讗讬 讝专注 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讞讬讟讬 诇讙讘讬 砖注讜专讬诐 讻讝专注 讗讞专 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讘砖讚驻讜谉 讜砖诇讜 讘讬专拽讜谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讬专拽讜谉 讜砖诇讜 讘砖讚驻讜谉 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

what is the halakha? If the surrounding fields were planted with a different type of seed, what is the halakha? Likewise, is wheat, in relation to barley, considered like a different type of seed or not? Furthermore, if the entire world, i.e., all the surrounding fields, were blighted by windblasts and his was affected by mildew; or alternatively, if the fields of the entire world were struck by mildew, and his were blighted with windblasts, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: No resolution is found to any of these dilemmas, and the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝专注讛 讞讬讟讬 讜讗讝诇 讛讜讗 讜讝专注讛 砖注专讬 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 谞诪讬 讛谞讱 砖注专讬 讚讬诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讝专注转讛 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 谞诪讬 诪砖转讚驻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讝专注转讛 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讜转讙讝专 讗诪专 讜讬拽诐 诇讱

The Gemara poses another question: If the owner said to the tenant farmer: Plant the field with wheat, and he went and planted it with barley, and most of the valley was wind blasted, and these fields with barley of his were also wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that the tenant farmer can say to him: Even if I had planted it with wheat it would likewise have been wind blasted, as all the surrounding fields suffered the same fate, or perhaps the owner can say to him: Had you planted it with wheat, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淎nd you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways鈥 (Job 22:28), since you might have merited greater success by following my wishes.

诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讝专注转讛 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讜转讙讝专 讗诪专 讜讬拽诐 诇讱 讜注诇 讚专讻讬讱 谞讙讛 讗讜专

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to him: Had you planted it with wheat it would have fulfilled for me: 鈥淎nd you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways.鈥

谞砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 诪讞讻讬专 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 谞诪讬 讛讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 诇讗 诪谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转讚讜祝 讻讜诇讛讜 讗专注转讬讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇转讱 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 诪砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讱

The Gemara presents another question: If all the fields of the owner of the land were wind blasted and this one was also wind blasted with them, but the majority of the valley was not wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the majority of the valley was not wind blasted the tenant farmer does not subtract for the owner the amount owed for his tenancy, as this is not a regional disaster, or perhaps could one claim that since all the lands of the owner were wind blasted the tenant can say to the owner: This happened due to your bad fortune, as all your fields were wind blasted?

诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讛 诪砖转讬讬专 诇讬 驻讜专转讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞砖讗专谞讜 诪注讟 诪讛专讘讛

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to the tenant: If it was due to my bad fortune, a little would have been left for me, as it is written: 鈥淔or we are left but a few from many鈥 (Jeremiah 42:2), which indicates that even one suffering from misfortune does not lose all he has.

谞砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讜讻专 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 谞诪讬 讛讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 诪谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转讚讜祝 讻讜诇讛讜 讗专注转讬讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇转讱 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 诪砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讱 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讱 讛讜讗

The Gemara discusses a similar case: If all the fields of the tenant farmer were wind blasted and most of the valley was wind blasted and this field was also wind blasted with them, what is the halakha? Do we say that since most of the valley was wind blasted the tenant farmer subtracts for the owner the amount owed for his tenancy and does not pay, or perhaps, since all the tenant鈥檚 lands were wind blasted, the owner can say to the tenant: The damage is due to your bad fortune, as all your fields were wind blasted. The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to him: It occurred due to your bad fortune.

讗诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讛讜讛 诪砖讬讬专 诇讬 驻讜专转讗 讚讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讻讬 谞砖讗专谞讜 诪注讟 诪讛专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬转 诇讗讬砖转讬讜专讬 诇讱 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讛 诪砖转讬讬专 诇讱 诪讚谞驻砖讱

The Gemara asks: Why should this be so? Here too, let us say to the owner: If it was due to my bad fortune, a little would have been left for me, as the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淔or we are left but a few from many.鈥 The Gemara answers: This is not a valid claim because the owner can say to the tenant: Had you been worthy of something being left for you, it would have been left from your own private land, not the field you paid to cultivate.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬转讛 砖谞转 砖讚驻讜谉 讜讬专拽讜谉 讗讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讻砖谞讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna to the ruling that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The halakha is that if one sells his field in Eretz Yisrael in a time when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are in effect, he does not have the right to purchase it from the buyer until two years have passed. The mishna teaches (Arakhin 29b): If it was a year of wind-blasted crops or mildew or it was the Sabbatical Year, or if those years were like the years of Elijah in which no rain fell (see I聽Kings 17:1, 18:1鈥2), they do not count as part of his tally of years before he may repurchase his land.

拽转谞讬 砖讚驻讜谉 讜讬专拽讜谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖谞讬诐 讻砖谞讬 讗诇讬讛讜 诪讛 砖谞讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 转讘讜讗讛 讻诇诇 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 转讘讜讗讛 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讘讜讗讛 住诇拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讻转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This tanna teaches that the cases of windblasts and mildew are similar to the case where the years were like the years of Elijah. Just as the years of Elijah is referring to a time when there was no produce at all, so too, here, windblasts and mildew are referring to cases when there was no produce at all. But by inference, one can learn that if there was some produce, it counts toward his tally of years before he may repurchase his land, and we do not say that it is a regional disaster.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 砖谞讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 转讘讜讗讛 讘注讜诇诐

The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There, the case with regard to the sold field is different, as the verse states with regard to the sale and leasing of fields: 鈥淎ccording to the numbers of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15), which is referring to years in which there is produce harvested in the world.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讘讬注讬转 转注诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转讘讜讗讛 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讗驻拽注转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讛讬讗

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If that is so, the Sabbatical Year should count for him as part of his tally of years, as at least there is produce outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kahana said to him: The Sabbatical Year is an abrogation of the King, i.e., God. Therefore, it should not be included in the number of the years before land is repurchased.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗 转注诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讙讬专讜注 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 谞讜转谉 住诇注 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讞讝讬讗 诇诪讬砖讟讞讗 讘讛 驻讬专讬

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: If that is so, that the Sabbatical Year is entirely disregarded, then in the case of one who consecrates his field and wants to redeem it, the Sabbatical Year should not count for him for the deduction of the price of the field when it is redeemed. Why did we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 25a) that the one who consecrated his field gives a sela and a pundeyon coin, which is worth 16 perutot, to the Temple treasury for each year remaining until the Jubilee Year, including the Sabbatical Year, in accordance with the payment prescribed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:16鈥19)? The amount to be paid per year, which is fifty shekels divided by the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, should not take the upcoming Sabbatical Years into account. Ravina said to him: There it is different, as it is suitable for laying out produce on it. Although one may not plant the field during the Sabbatical Year, one may use it for other purposes.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝专注讛 讜爪诪讞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讞讙讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讝专注讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讝专注转讛 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 诇讗 讬讘砖讜 讘注转 专注讛 讜讘讬诪讬 专注讘讜谉 讬砖讘注讜

Shmuel said: They taught the halakha that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy only if the tenant planted the field and it sprouted and then grasshoppers consumed it, or if he planted it with a different seed, but if he did not plant it at all, the tenant is not entitled to subtract from the amount he owes even if there was a regional disaster. This is because the owner can say to him: Had you planted it, perhaps my merit would have prevented the field from being affected by the epidemic, and the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淭hey will not be shamed in the time of evil, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied鈥 (Psalms 37:19).

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讜注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讜注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注讚专讜 讜讘讗 诇注讬专 讜讘讗 讝讗讘 讜讟专祝 讜讘讗 讗专讬 讜讚专住 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 讛讬讛 诪爪讬诇 讗诇讗 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讬转 讛转诐 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讙诐 讗转 讛讗专讬 讙诐 讛讚讜讘 讛讻讛 注讘讚讱

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a shepherd who was herding the animals of others, and he left his flock and came to the town, and in the meantime a wolf came and tore an animal to pieces, or a lion came and trampled one of the flock, we do not say definitively that had he been there he would have rescued them and therefore he is liable due to his absence. Rather, the court estimates with regard to him: If he could have rescued his animal by chasing a beast of this kind away, he is liable, as his departure from the scene was certainly a contributing factor to the damage. If not, he is exempt from liability. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, why is the shepherd exempt from liability? Let the owner say to him: Had you been there, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淵our servant smote both the lion and the bear鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:36).

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讬转 讞讝讬转 诇讗讬转专讞讜砖讬 诇讱 谞讬住讗 讛讜讛 讗讬转专讞讬砖 诇讱 谞讬住讗 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 讚诪转讬讬谉 注讬讝讬 讚讜讘讬 讘拽专谞讬讬讛讜 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚诇谞讬住讗 专讘讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬谞讗 诇谞讬住讗 讝讜讟讗

The Gemara answers: This is because the shepherd could say to the owner: If you were worthy of a miracle occurring to you, a miracle would have indeed occurred to you as it did to Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa, when his goats brought bears impaled on their horns without any assistance on the part of a shepherd (see Ta鈥檃nit 25a). The Gemara asks: And let the owner say to him: Granted that I was not worthy of a great miracle, but of a small miracle

讞讝讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗

I was worthy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讝讜专注讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谞讜 讝讜专注讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 砖诇讬砖讬转 讝讜专注讛 专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讝讜专注讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻专讘讬 讛讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 It is taught in one baraita: With regard to one who cultivates a field, the first and second time he plants the field again if the crops were destroyed by some mishap, but the third time he is not required to plant it again. And it is taught in another baraita that on the third occasion, he must plant it the field again, but after the fourth time the crops are destroyed, he is not required to plant it again. These two baraitot appear to contradict one another. The Gemara explains: That is not difficult, as this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讛讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 讘转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讛讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘转诇转 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛

The Gemara clarifies: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who says that presumptive status is established by two occasions, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that presumptive status is established by three occasions.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝专注讛 讜爪诪讞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讞讙讘 讗讘诇 讝专注讛 讜诇讗 爪诪讞讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 讬诪讬 讝专注 讝专注讗 诇讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讜注讚 讗讬诪转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注讚 讚讗转讜 讗专讬住讬 诪讚讘专讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讻讬诪讛 讗专讬砖讬讬讛讜

Reish Lakish said: They taught that a cultivator plants a limited number of times only if he planted the field and it sprouted and locusts consumed the crops, but if he planted it and the crops did not sprout at all, the landowner can say to him: You should continue planting it on all the days that are fit for planting. The Gemara asks: And until when does the period of planting last? The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: Until such time that the sharecroppers come in from the field and the stars of Pleiades are stationed over their heads, which occurs roughly during the month of Shevat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜 讞爪讬 转砖专讬 诪专讞砖讜谉 讜讞爪讬 讻住诇讬讜 讝专注

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita that discusses the verse: 鈥淲hile the earth remains, planting and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease鈥 (Genesis 8:22). The baraita interprets this verse as referring to six seasons of the year: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: The second half of Tishrei, all of Mar岣shvan, and the first half of Kislev are the days of planting.

讞爪讬 讻住诇讬讜 讟讘转 讜讞爪讬 砖讘讟 讞讜专祝 讞爪讬 砖讘讟 讗讚专 讜讞爪讬 谞讬住谉 拽讜专 讞爪讬 谞讬住谉 讗讬讬专 讜讞爪讬 住讬讜谉 拽爪讬专 讞爪讬 住讬讜谉 转诪讜讝 讜讞爪讬 讗讘 拽讬抓 讞爪讬 讗讘 讗诇讜诇 讜讞爪讬 转砖专讬 讞讜诐

The second half of Kislev, all of Tevet, and the first half of Shevat are the winter days. The second half of Shevat, all of Adar, and the first half of Nisan are the period of cold; the second half of Nisan, all of Iyar, and the first half of Sivan are the harvest period. The second half of Sivan, all of Tammuz, and half of Av are the summer season, while the second half of Av, all of Elul, and the first half of Tishrei are the season of heat.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜谞讛 诪转砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜谞讛 诪诪专讞砖讜谉

The baraita adds: Rabbi Yehuda also would divide the year into these six seasons, but he counts from the beginning of Tishrei rather than from the middle. Rabbi Shimon counts from Mar岣shvan, so that Mar岣shvan and Kislev constitute the season of planting, and so on.

诪讗谉 诪讬拽诇 讘讻讜诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讞专驻讬 讛讗 讚拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讗驻诇讬

The Gemara states its objection: Who is the most lenient of all of them in that the period of planting occurs at the latest time of the year? It is Rabbi Shimon, and even he did not say that the planting season extends that far to the time when Pleiades is above their heads. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as this is referring to a cultivator who accepted from the owner the planting of early crops, while that case involves a cultivator who accepted from the owner the planting of late crops, performed at a much later date.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽讘诇讛 诪诪谞讜 讘诪注讜转 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇诪讬讝专注讛 讘讛讜 转讜诪讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 住讘讗 讘讝讜讝讬 讗讬住转讻专 谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 住讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 住讘讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讚诪讬住讻专 诪讻转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讝讬诇 谞讻讬 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received land to plant garlic on it on the bank of the river Malka Sava in exchange for a specified sum of money. The bank of the river Malka Sava became dammed up. The case came before Rava, who said to the cultivator: The river Malka Sava does not usually dam up. Therefore, it is classified as a regional disaster; go subtract this loss from the payment you owe to the owner.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘诪注讜转 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讞讻讜专讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara continues the story: The Rabbis said to Rava: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna here: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether this way or whether that way, i.e., whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. Rava said to them: There is no one who is concerned for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda since it is a minority opinion that is rejected.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘注砖专讛 讻讜专 讞讟讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讜诇拽转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛 讛讬讜 讞讟讬讛 讬驻讜转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讗诇讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate in return for the payment of ten kor of wheat per year, and its produce was blighted by a crop disease or the like, the cultivator gives the owner the ten kor of wheat from it but does not have to provide him with high quality wheat. If the wheat stalks produced by the field were particularly good stalks of wheat, the cultivator may not say to the owner: I will buy regular wheat from the market; rather, he gives him from inside the field itself.

讙诪壮 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇讗住驻住转讗 讘讻讜专讬 讚砖注专讬 注讘讚讗 讗住驻住转讗 讜讞专砖讛 讜讝专注讛 砖注专讬 讜诇拽讜 讛谞讬 砖注专讬 砖诇讞讛 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪住讜专讗 讚驻专转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讻讬 诇拽转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received land to grow hay in exchange for paying the owner several kor of barley. After the field produced hay, the recipient plowed and sowed it with barley, and that barley was blighted. The worker sought to pay the owner from the damaged barley he had cultivated. Rav 岣viva from Sura in the Euphrates sent the following question before Ravina: What is the halakha with regard to a case of this kind? Is it considered similar to an instance of: If it was blighted, he gives him from inside the field, or not?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讚诪专讛 讛讻讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讚诪专讛

Ravina said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the mishna, the land did not perform its owner鈥檚 mission, and the cultivator also received blighted produce, whereas here, the land did perform its owner鈥檚 mission, as the cultivator took the land for the purpose of growing hay, which it produced. His additional crop of barley was not part of their agreement and therefore he cannot pay his debt with blighted barley.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘诇 驻专讚住 诪讞讘专讬讛 讘注砖专 讚谞讬 讞诪专讗 转拽讬祝 讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 住讘专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇拽转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讛讻讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received an orchard from another to cultivate in exchange for paying the owner ten barrels of wine, but that wine produced from the orchard鈥檚 grapes turned sour. Rav Kahana thought to say that this is an example of the ruling of the mishna that if it was blighted he may give him from inside the field. Rav Ashi said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the mishna, the land did not perform its owner鈥檚 mission, as the crop was blighted, whereas here, the land did perform its owner鈥檚 mission, as there was nothing wrong with the grapes themselves, and the wine turned sour in the cultivator鈥檚 possession.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讘注讬谞讘讬 讚讻讚讜诐 讜讘砖讚讛 砖诇拽转讛 讘注讜诪专讬讛

The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi concedes with regard to grapes that shrunk over the course of their growth and with regard to a field whose sheaves were blighted that since the damage occurred to the crop itself, the cultivator can pay his debt from the produce of the field.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讝专注讛 砖注讜专讬诐 诇讗 讬讝专注谞讛 讞讟讬诐 讞讟讬诐 讬讝专注谞讛 砖注讜专讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜住专 转讘讜讗讛 诇讗 讬讝专注谞讛 拽讟谞讬转 拽讟谞讬转 讬讝专注谞讛 转讘讜讗讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜住专

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another in order to plant it with barley, he may not plant it with wheat, as wheat weakens the field more than barley does. But if he receives it in order to plant wheat, he may plant it with barley if he wishes, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it. Similarly, if he receives it to plant it with grain he may not plant it with legumes, as they weaken the field more than grains do, but if he receives it in order to plant legumes he may plant it with grain, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讻转讬讘 砖讗专讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬注砖讜 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讚讘专讜 讻讝讘 讜诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘驻讬讛诐 诇砖讜谉 转专诪讬转

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda said: What is the reason of the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The landowner has apparently suffered no loss from the cultivator鈥檚 actions. His reasoning is as it is written: 鈥淭he remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth鈥 (Zephaniah 3:13). In other words, one may not retract from an obligation accepted upon oneself, even if no one suffers as a result.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讙讘转 驻讜专讬诐 诇驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘讚讘专 讜讗讬谉 讛注谞讬 专砖讗讬 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 专爪讜注讛 诇住谞讚诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛转谞讛 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: The Purim collection is only for the Purim feast, but one does not scrutinize the matter by limiting the allocation for the poor to the exact costs of the meal and no more. And it is not permitted for a poor person to purchase even a strap for his sandal from it unless he stipulated in the presence of the people of the city that he may do as he wishes with the money he receives. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 106

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 106

诪讗讬 讝专注 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讞讬讟讬 诇讙讘讬 砖注讜专讬诐 讻讝专注 讗讞专 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讘砖讚驻讜谉 讜砖诇讜 讘讬专拽讜谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜 讘讬专拽讜谉 讜砖诇讜 讘砖讚驻讜谉 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

what is the halakha? If the surrounding fields were planted with a different type of seed, what is the halakha? Likewise, is wheat, in relation to barley, considered like a different type of seed or not? Furthermore, if the entire world, i.e., all the surrounding fields, were blighted by windblasts and his was affected by mildew; or alternatively, if the fields of the entire world were struck by mildew, and his were blighted with windblasts, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: No resolution is found to any of these dilemmas, and the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝专注讛 讞讬讟讬 讜讗讝诇 讛讜讗 讜讝专注讛 砖注专讬 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 谞诪讬 讛谞讱 砖注专讬 讚讬诇讬讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讝专注转讛 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 谞诪讬 诪砖转讚驻讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讝专注转讛 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讜转讙讝专 讗诪专 讜讬拽诐 诇讱

The Gemara poses another question: If the owner said to the tenant farmer: Plant the field with wheat, and he went and planted it with barley, and most of the valley was wind blasted, and these fields with barley of his were also wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that the tenant farmer can say to him: Even if I had planted it with wheat it would likewise have been wind blasted, as all the surrounding fields suffered the same fate, or perhaps the owner can say to him: Had you planted it with wheat, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淎nd you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways鈥 (Job 22:28), since you might have merited greater success by following my wishes.

诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讝专注转讛 讞讬讟讬 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讜转讙讝专 讗诪专 讜讬拽诐 诇讱 讜注诇 讚专讻讬讱 谞讙讛 讗讜专

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to him: Had you planted it with wheat it would have fulfilled for me: 鈥淎nd you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways.鈥

谞砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 诪讞讻讬专 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 谞诪讬 讛讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 诇讗 诪谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转讚讜祝 讻讜诇讛讜 讗专注转讬讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇转讱 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 诪砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讱

The Gemara presents another question: If all the fields of the owner of the land were wind blasted and this one was also wind blasted with them, but the majority of the valley was not wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the majority of the valley was not wind blasted the tenant farmer does not subtract for the owner the amount owed for his tenancy, as this is not a regional disaster, or perhaps could one claim that since all the lands of the owner were wind blasted the tenant can say to the owner: This happened due to your bad fortune, as all your fields were wind blasted?

诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讛 诪砖转讬讬专 诇讬 驻讜专转讗 讻讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 谞砖讗专谞讜 诪注讟 诪讛专讘讛

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to the tenant: If it was due to my bad fortune, a little would have been left for me, as it is written: 鈥淔or we are left but a few from many鈥 (Jeremiah 42:2), which indicates that even one suffering from misfortune does not lose all he has.

谞砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讜 砖诇 讞讜讻专 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 讜讗砖转讚讜祝 谞诪讬 讛讗 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转讚讜祝 专讜讘讗 讚讘讗讙讗 诪谞讻讬 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗砖转讚讜祝 讻讜诇讛讜 讗专注转讬讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇转讱 讚讬讚讱 讛讜讗 讚讛讗 诪砖转讚驻讜 讻诇 砖讚讜转讬讱 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讱 讛讜讗

The Gemara discusses a similar case: If all the fields of the tenant farmer were wind blasted and most of the valley was wind blasted and this field was also wind blasted with them, what is the halakha? Do we say that since most of the valley was wind blasted the tenant farmer subtracts for the owner the amount owed for his tenancy and does not pay, or perhaps, since all the tenant鈥檚 lands were wind blasted, the owner can say to the tenant: The damage is due to your bad fortune, as all your fields were wind blasted. The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to him: It occurred due to your bad fortune.

讗诪讗讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 诪砖讜诐 诇转讗讬 讚讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讛讜讛 诪砖讬讬专 诇讬 驻讜专转讗 讚讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讻讬 谞砖讗专谞讜 诪注讟 诪讛专讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讛 讞讝讬转 诇讗讬砖转讬讜专讬 诇讱 诪讬讚讬 讛讜讛 诪砖转讬讬专 诇讱 诪讚谞驻砖讱

The Gemara asks: Why should this be so? Here too, let us say to the owner: If it was due to my bad fortune, a little would have been left for me, as the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淔or we are left but a few from many.鈥 The Gemara answers: This is not a valid claim because the owner can say to the tenant: Had you been worthy of something being left for you, it would have been left from your own private land, not the field you paid to cultivate.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讬转讛 砖谞转 砖讚驻讜谉 讜讬专拽讜谉 讗讜 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 砖谞讬诐 讻砖谞讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讗讬谞讜 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉

The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna to the ruling that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The halakha is that if one sells his field in Eretz Yisrael in a time when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are in effect, he does not have the right to purchase it from the buyer until two years have passed. The mishna teaches (Arakhin 29b): If it was a year of wind-blasted crops or mildew or it was the Sabbatical Year, or if those years were like the years of Elijah in which no rain fell (see I聽Kings 17:1, 18:1鈥2), they do not count as part of his tally of years before he may repurchase his land.

拽转谞讬 砖讚驻讜谉 讜讬专拽讜谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚砖谞讬诐 讻砖谞讬 讗诇讬讛讜 诪讛 砖谞讬 讗诇讬讛讜 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 转讘讜讗讛 讻诇诇 讗祝 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讜讬 转讘讜讗讛 讻诇诇 讗讘诇 讚讗讬讻讗 转讘讜讗讛 住诇拽讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讻转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This tanna teaches that the cases of windblasts and mildew are similar to the case where the years were like the years of Elijah. Just as the years of Elijah is referring to a time when there was no produce at all, so too, here, windblasts and mildew are referring to cases when there was no produce at all. But by inference, one can learn that if there was some produce, it counts toward his tally of years before he may repurchase his land, and we do not say that it is a regional disaster.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘诪住驻专 砖谞讬 转讘讜讗转 讬诪讻专 诇讱 砖谞讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 转讘讜讗讛 讘注讜诇诐

The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: There, the case with regard to the sold field is different, as the verse states with regard to the sale and leasing of fields: 鈥淎ccording to the numbers of years of the crops he shall sell to you鈥 (Leviticus 25:15), which is referring to years in which there is produce harvested in the world.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讘讬注讬转 转注诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛诪谞讬谉 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 转讘讜讗讛 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讘讬注讬转 讗驻拽注转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讛讬讗

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If that is so, the Sabbatical Year should count for him as part of his tally of years, as at least there is produce outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kahana said to him: The Sabbatical Year is an abrogation of the King, i.e., God. Therefore, it should not be included in the number of the years before land is repurchased.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 砖讘讬注讬转 诇讗 转注诇讛 诇讜 诪谉 讛讙讬专讜注 讗诇诪讛 转谞谉 谞讜转谉 住诇注 讜驻讜谞讚讬讜谉 诇砖谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讞讝讬讗 诇诪讬砖讟讞讗 讘讛 驻讬专讬

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: If that is so, that the Sabbatical Year is entirely disregarded, then in the case of one who consecrates his field and wants to redeem it, the Sabbatical Year should not count for him for the deduction of the price of the field when it is redeemed. Why did we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 25a) that the one who consecrated his field gives a sela and a pundeyon coin, which is worth 16 perutot, to the Temple treasury for each year remaining until the Jubilee Year, including the Sabbatical Year, in accordance with the payment prescribed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:16鈥19)? The amount to be paid per year, which is fifty shekels divided by the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, should not take the upcoming Sabbatical Years into account. Ravina said to him: There it is different, as it is suitable for laying out produce on it. Although one may not plant the field during the Sabbatical Year, one may use it for other purposes.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝专注讛 讜爪诪讞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讞讙讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讝专注讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讝专注转讛 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 诇讗 讬讘砖讜 讘注转 专注讛 讜讘讬诪讬 专注讘讜谉 讬砖讘注讜

Shmuel said: They taught the halakha that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy only if the tenant planted the field and it sprouted and then grasshoppers consumed it, or if he planted it with a different seed, but if he did not plant it at all, the tenant is not entitled to subtract from the amount he owes even if there was a regional disaster. This is because the owner can say to him: Had you planted it, perhaps my merit would have prevented the field from being affected by the epidemic, and the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淭hey will not be shamed in the time of evil, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied鈥 (Psalms 37:19).

诪转讬讘 专讘 砖砖转 专讜注讛 砖讛讬讛 专讜注讛 讜讛谞讬讞 注讚专讜 讜讘讗 诇注讬专 讜讘讗 讝讗讘 讜讟专祝 讜讘讗 讗专讬 讜讚专住 讗讬谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬诇讜 讛讬讛 砖诐 讛讬讛 诪爪讬诇 讗诇讗 讗讜诪讚讬谉 讗讜转讜 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻讟讜专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讬转 讛转诐 讛讜讛 诪拽讬讬诐 讘讬 讙诐 讗转 讛讗专讬 讙诐 讛讚讜讘 讛讻讛 注讘讚讱

Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a shepherd who was herding the animals of others, and he left his flock and came to the town, and in the meantime a wolf came and tore an animal to pieces, or a lion came and trampled one of the flock, we do not say definitively that had he been there he would have rescued them and therefore he is liable due to his absence. Rather, the court estimates with regard to him: If he could have rescued his animal by chasing a beast of this kind away, he is liable, as his departure from the scene was certainly a contributing factor to the damage. If not, he is exempt from liability. According to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion, why is the shepherd exempt from liability? Let the owner say to him: Had you been there, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: 鈥淵our servant smote both the lion and the bear鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:36).

诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 讛讜讬转 讞讝讬转 诇讗讬转专讞讜砖讬 诇讱 谞讬住讗 讛讜讛 讗讬转专讞讬砖 诇讱 谞讬住讗 讻专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘谉 讚讜住讗 讚诪转讬讬谉 注讬讝讬 讚讜讘讬 讘拽专谞讬讬讛讜 讜谞讬诪讗 诇讬讛 谞讛讬 讚诇谞讬住讗 专讘讛 诇讗 讛讜讛 讞讝讬谞讗 诇谞讬住讗 讝讜讟讗

The Gemara answers: This is because the shepherd could say to the owner: If you were worthy of a miracle occurring to you, a miracle would have indeed occurred to you as it did to Rabbi 岣nina ben Dosa, when his goats brought bears impaled on their horns without any assistance on the part of a shepherd (see Ta鈥檃nit 25a). The Gemara asks: And let the owner say to him: Granted that I was not worthy of a great miracle, but of a small miracle

讞讝讬谞讗 拽砖讬讗

I was worthy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

转谞讬 讞讚讗 驻注诐 专讗砖讜谞讛 讜砖谞讬讛 讝讜专注讛 讜砖诇讬砖讬转 讗讬谞讜 讝讜专注讛 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 砖诇讬砖讬转 讝讜专注讛 专讘讬注讬转 讗讬谞讜 讝讜专注讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讻专讘讬 讛讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

搂 It is taught in one baraita: With regard to one who cultivates a field, the first and second time he plants the field again if the crops were destroyed by some mishap, but the third time he is not required to plant it again. And it is taught in another baraita that on the third occasion, he must plant it the field again, but after the fourth time the crops are destroyed, he is not required to plant it again. These two baraitot appear to contradict one another. The Gemara explains: That is not difficult, as this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

讛讗 讻专讘讬 讚讗诪专 讘转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛 讛讗 讻专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗诪专 讘转诇转 讝讬诪谞讬 讛讜讬 讞讝拽讛

The Gemara clarifies: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who says that presumptive status is established by two occasions, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that presumptive status is established by three occasions.

讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝专注讛 讜爪诪讞讛 讜讗讻诇讛 讞讙讘 讗讘诇 讝专注讛 讜诇讗 爪诪讞讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘注诇 讛拽专拽注 讻诇 讬诪讬 讝专注 讝专注讗 诇讛 讜讗讝讬诇 讜注讚 讗讬诪转 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 注讚 讚讗转讜 讗专讬住讬 诪讚讘专讗 讜拽讬讬诪讗 讻讬诪讛 讗专讬砖讬讬讛讜

Reish Lakish said: They taught that a cultivator plants a limited number of times only if he planted the field and it sprouted and locusts consumed the crops, but if he planted it and the crops did not sprout at all, the landowner can say to him: You should continue planting it on all the days that are fit for planting. The Gemara asks: And until when does the period of planting last? The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: Until such time that the sharecroppers come in from the field and the stars of Pleiades are stationed over their heads, which occurs roughly during the month of Shevat.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讻讚讘专讬讜 讞爪讬 转砖专讬 诪专讞砖讜谉 讜讞爪讬 讻住诇讬讜 讝专注

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita that discusses the verse: 鈥淲hile the earth remains, planting and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease鈥 (Genesis 8:22). The baraita interprets this verse as referring to six seasons of the year: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: The second half of Tishrei, all of Mar岣shvan, and the first half of Kislev are the days of planting.

讞爪讬 讻住诇讬讜 讟讘转 讜讞爪讬 砖讘讟 讞讜专祝 讞爪讬 砖讘讟 讗讚专 讜讞爪讬 谞讬住谉 拽讜专 讞爪讬 谞讬住谉 讗讬讬专 讜讞爪讬 住讬讜谉 拽爪讬专 讞爪讬 住讬讜谉 转诪讜讝 讜讞爪讬 讗讘 拽讬抓 讞爪讬 讗讘 讗诇讜诇 讜讞爪讬 转砖专讬 讞讜诐

The second half of Kislev, all of Tevet, and the first half of Shevat are the winter days. The second half of Shevat, all of Adar, and the first half of Nisan are the period of cold; the second half of Nisan, all of Iyar, and the first half of Sivan are the harvest period. The second half of Sivan, all of Tammuz, and half of Av are the summer season, while the second half of Av, all of Elul, and the first half of Tishrei are the season of heat.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讜谞讛 诪转砖专讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讜谞讛 诪诪专讞砖讜谉

The baraita adds: Rabbi Yehuda also would divide the year into these six seasons, but he counts from the beginning of Tishrei rather than from the middle. Rabbi Shimon counts from Mar岣shvan, so that Mar岣shvan and Kislev constitute the season of planting, and so on.

诪讗谉 诪讬拽诇 讘讻讜诇讛讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讞专驻讬 讛讗 讚拽讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讘讗驻诇讬

The Gemara states its objection: Who is the most lenient of all of them in that the period of planting occurs at the latest time of the year? It is Rabbi Shimon, and even he did not say that the planting season extends that far to the time when Pleiades is above their heads. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as this is referring to a cultivator who accepted from the owner the planting of early crops, while that case involves a cultivator who accepted from the owner the planting of late crops, performed at a much later date.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽讘诇讛 诪诪谞讜 讘诪注讜转 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇诪讬讝专注讛 讘讛讜 转讜诪讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 住讘讗 讘讝讜讝讬 讗讬住转讻专 谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 住讘讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讛专 诪诇讻讗 住讘讗 诇讗 注讘讬讚 讚诪讬住讻专 诪讻转 诪讚讬谞讛 讛讬讗 讝讬诇 谞讻讬 诇讬讛

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received land to plant garlic on it on the bank of the river Malka Sava in exchange for a specified sum of money. The bank of the river Malka Sava became dammed up. The case came before Rava, who said to the cultivator: The river Malka Sava does not usually dam up. Therefore, it is classified as a regional disaster; go subtract this loss from the payment you owe to the owner.

讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讗谞谉 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讘诪注讜转 讘讬谉 讻讱 讜讘讬谉 讻讱 讗讬谞讜 诪谞讻讛 诇讜 诪谉 讞讻讜专讜 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讬转 讚讞砖 诇讛 诇讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara continues the story: The Rabbis said to Rava: Didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna here: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether this way or whether that way, i.e., whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. Rava said to them: There is no one who is concerned for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda since it is a minority opinion that is rejected.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讘注砖专讛 讻讜专 讞讟讬诐 诇砖谞讛 讜诇拽转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛 讛讬讜 讞讟讬讛 讬驻讜转 诇讗 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讛专讬谞讬 诇讜拽讞 诪谉 讛砖讜拽 讗诇讗 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate in return for the payment of ten kor of wheat per year, and its produce was blighted by a crop disease or the like, the cultivator gives the owner the ten kor of wheat from it but does not have to provide him with high quality wheat. If the wheat stalks produced by the field were particularly good stalks of wheat, the cultivator may not say to the owner: I will buy regular wheat from the market; rather, he gives him from inside the field itself.

讙诪壮 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇讗住驻住转讗 讘讻讜专讬 讚砖注专讬 注讘讚讗 讗住驻住转讗 讜讞专砖讛 讜讝专注讛 砖注专讬 讜诇拽讜 讛谞讬 砖注专讬 砖诇讞讛 专讘 讞讘讬讘讗 诪住讜专讗 讚驻专转 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬谞讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讻讬 诇拽转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received land to grow hay in exchange for paying the owner several kor of barley. After the field produced hay, the recipient plowed and sowed it with barley, and that barley was blighted. The worker sought to pay the owner from the damaged barley he had cultivated. Rav 岣viva from Sura in the Euphrates sent the following question before Ravina: What is the halakha with regard to a case of this kind? Is it considered similar to an instance of: If it was blighted, he gives him from inside the field, or not?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讚诪专讛 讛讻讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讚诪专讛

Ravina said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the mishna, the land did not perform its owner鈥檚 mission, and the cultivator also received blighted produce, whereas here, the land did perform its owner鈥檚 mission, as the cultivator took the land for the purpose of growing hay, which it produced. His additional crop of barley was not part of their agreement and therefore he cannot pay his debt with blighted barley.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚拽讘诇 驻专讚住 诪讞讘专讬讛 讘注砖专 讚谞讬 讞诪专讗 转拽讬祝 讛讛讜讗 讞诪专讗 住讘专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诇诪讬诪专 讛讬讬谞讜 诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇拽转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讜 诪转讜讻讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 诇讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗 讛讻讗 注讘讚讗 讗专注讗 砖诇讬讞讜转讗

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received an orchard from another to cultivate in exchange for paying the owner ten barrels of wine, but that wine produced from the orchard鈥檚 grapes turned sour. Rav Kahana thought to say that this is an example of the ruling of the mishna that if it was blighted he may give him from inside the field. Rav Ashi said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the mishna, the land did not perform its owner鈥檚 mission, as the crop was blighted, whereas here, the land did perform its owner鈥檚 mission, as there was nothing wrong with the grapes themselves, and the wine turned sour in the cultivator鈥檚 possession.

讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讘注讬谞讘讬 讚讻讚讜诐 讜讘砖讚讛 砖诇拽转讛 讘注讜诪专讬讛

The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi concedes with regard to grapes that shrunk over the course of their growth and with regard to a field whose sheaves were blighted that since the damage occurred to the crop itself, the cultivator can pay his debt from the produce of the field.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇讝专注讛 砖注讜专讬诐 诇讗 讬讝专注谞讛 讞讟讬诐 讞讟讬诐 讬讝专注谞讛 砖注讜专讬诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜住专 转讘讜讗讛 诇讗 讬讝专注谞讛 拽讟谞讬转 拽讟谞讬转 讬讝专注谞讛 转讘讜讗讛 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜住专

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another in order to plant it with barley, he may not plant it with wheat, as wheat weakens the field more than barley does. But if he receives it in order to plant wheat, he may plant it with barley if he wishes, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it. Similarly, if he receives it to plant it with grain he may not plant it with legumes, as they weaken the field more than grains do, but if he receives it in order to plant legumes he may plant it with grain, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讻转讬讘 砖讗专讬转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讬注砖讜 注讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讬讚讘专讜 讻讝讘 讜诇讗 讬诪爪讗 讘驻讬讛诐 诇砖讜谉 转专诪讬转

GEMARA: Rav 岣sda said: What is the reason of the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The landowner has apparently suffered no loss from the cultivator鈥檚 actions. His reasoning is as it is written: 鈥淭he remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth鈥 (Zephaniah 3:13). In other words, one may not retract from an obligation accepted upon oneself, even if no one suffers as a result.

诪讬转讬讘讬 诪讙讘转 驻讜专讬诐 诇驻讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讚拽讚拽讬谉 讘讚讘专 讜讗讬谉 讛注谞讬 专砖讗讬 诇讬拽讞 诪讛谉 专爪讜注讛 诇住谞讚诇讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讛转谞讛 讘诪注诪讚 讗谞砖讬 讛注讬专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: The Purim collection is only for the Purim feast, but one does not scrutinize the matter by limiting the allocation for the poor to the exact costs of the meal and no more. And it is not permitted for a poor person to purchase even a strap for his sandal from it unless he stipulated in the presence of the people of the city that he may do as he wishes with the money he receives. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

Scroll To Top