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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 13, 2017 | 讟状讜 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Bava Metzia 109

Does a cultivator have to the increase in value of the field that happened while he was cultivating the property? 聽Can a cultivator leave in the middle of his agreement? 聽What if he does? 聽If he causes a loss to the field, can he be聽removed from his job?


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

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇砖谞讬诐 诪讜注讟讜转 诇讗 讬讝专注谞讛 驻砖转谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讘拽讜专讜转 砖拽诪讛 拽讬讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诇砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讝专注谞讛 驻砖转谉 讜讬砖 诇讜 讘拽讜专讜转 砖拽诪讛

MISHNA: One who receives a field from another to cultivate for a few years, i.e., fewer than seven, may not plant flax in it, as flax greatly weakens the soil, and if a sycamore tree was growing in the field, he does not have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree. Therefore, he may not cut down its branches for his own use, as it takes many years for new ones to grow. If he received the field from him for seven years, in the first year he may plant flax in it, and he does have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽讜专讜转 砖拽诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诇讜

GEMARA: Abaye says: Although he does not have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree, he does have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore tree, i.e., the value of its growth that occurred while he was cultivating the field. And Rava says: He does not even have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore tree.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇爪讗转 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 诇讗 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讬专拽讗 讜住讬诇拽讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: With regard to one who receives a field from another to cultivate and his time to leave arrives, the court appraises its value for him. What, is it not that the court appraises for him the value of the enhancement of the sycamore or other trees? The Gemara responds: No, the court appraises for him the value of the vegetables and beets left in the field.

讬专拽讗 讜住讬诇拽讗 谞注拽讜专 讜谞砖拽讜诇 讘讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讬讜诪讗 讚砖讜拽讗

The Gemara challenges: If it is referring to vegetables and beets, let him uproot and take them. The Gemara explains: It is referring to a case where the market day has not yet arrived, so that if he uproots them now he will not be able to sell them. He therefore leaves them for the owner of the land and receives money instead.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讬 拽讗 诪驻拽注讗 讗专注讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 砖诪讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and the Sabbatical Year arrived, the court appraises it for him. The Gemara first expresses puzzlement over the baraita itself: Does the Sabbatical Year release land from the one who contracted to cultivate it? The arrangement is in effect it during this time, so why is there a need for an appraisal? The Gemara responds: Rather, say that the baraita reads as follows: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and the Jubilee Year arrived, the court appraises it for him.

讜讗讻转讬 讬讜讘诇 诪讬 诪驻拽注讗 拽讘诇谞讜转 诇爪诪讬转转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 砖诪讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: But still, this is difficult; does the Jubilee Year release the term of a contractor? The Merciful One states: 鈥淧ermanently鈥 (Leviticus 25:23), which indicates that only land that was permanently sold returns to its owner, whereas land that was rented does not revert to the owner at the Jubilee Year. Rather, say that the baraita reads as follows: In the case of one who purchases a field from another and the Jubilee Year arrives, the court appraises it for him.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讘讬专拽讗 讜住讬诇拽讗 住讬诇拽讗 讜讬专拽讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讛驻拽讬专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛

And if you would say that so too here it means that the court appraises it for him with regard to vegetables and beets, this cannot be, as vegetables and beets in the Jubilee Year are ownerless. This is because the Jubilee is like the Sabbatical Year in that any produce that grows is ownerless and may be taken by anyone. Rather, is the baraita not referring to the enhancement of the value of the sycamore that occurred during the time he had owned the field? It must be referring to this, and therefore presents a difficulty to Rava.

转专讙诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 诪诪讻专 讘讬转 诪诪讻专 讞讜讝专 砖讘讞 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜谞讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讛转诐 讝讘讬谞讬 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讬讜讘诇 讗驻拽注转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讛讬讗

Abaye interpreted the baraita so that it is in accordance with the opinion of his disputant Rava: There it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淭hen the house that was sold shall go out鈥n the Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:33), which teaches that the house or field that was sold returns to its owner, but the value of its enhancement does not return, but remains with the buyer. The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive from it a general halakha that the value of enhancement need not be returned. The Gemara answers: The two cases are dissimilar, as there, in the baraita, it is a full-fledged sale, and the Jubilee released it, as it is a release of the King, a Divine decree. Since the buyer had been in full ownership of the field, he keeps the value of the enhancement that occurred while it was his. By contrast, one who receives a field to cultivate is not an owner.

专讘 驻驻讗 拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇讗住驻住转讗 拽讚讞讜 讘讛 转讗诇讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪住转诇拽 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讘讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗诇讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘注讬 诪专 砖讘讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 谞讞讬转 讗谞讗 讛讻讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 谞讞讬转谞讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa received land as a contractor for growing hay. During the time he was cultivating it, palm trees sprouted in the ground. When he left the land he said to the owners of the field: Give me the value of the enhancement to the field from the palm trees. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so, i.e., if your claim is justified, then in a situation where there was a palm tree and it grew thick, so too would the Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, want to be paid for the value of the tree鈥檚 enhancement? Rav Pappa said to him: There, in that theoretical case, the cultivator did not descend to the field with that possibility in mind, as the cultivator considered only the consumption of the date palm鈥檚 fruit, not its growth. Here, in my case, I did indeed descend to the field with this in mind, as I anticipated receiving compensation for any growth of the field.

讻诪讗谉 讻讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘讗 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he make this statement? Is it not in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that he does have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore? The Gemara refutes this claim: You may even say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as there the cultivator suffers no loss when the sycamore grows in the field, so he is not entitled to the value of the enhancement as compensation. By contrast, here there is a loss, as the palm trees that sprouted occupied space designated for hay.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 驻住讚转讬讱 讬讚讗 讚讗住驻住转讗 砖拽讜诇 讬讚讗 讚讗住驻住转讗 讜讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讜专讻诪讗 专讬砖拽讗 专讘讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讗讚注转讱 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜讗住转诇讜拽讬 注讘讚转 砖拽诇 讻讜专讻诪讗 专讬砖拽讗 讜讝讬诇 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Rav Sheisha said to Rav Pappa: But here too, the owner of the field can say: What loss have I caused you? I have caused you to lose a handful of hay. Take a handful of hay and go. Rav Pappa said to him: I claim that I grew garden saffron there. He claimed that he lost land that he could have used for the cultivation of expensive produce, not only hay. Rav Sheisha said to him: Even so, you admit that you wanted the land for other plantings, not to plant palm trees, and you have thereby revealed your intention that you acted so as to take the produce and leave. Take your garden saffron and leave, as you have rights only to the value of wood alone. Since you did not mean to grow these trees, you are entitled only to the price you could have received for the palm trees had you had uprooted them and sold them as wood during the time you cultivated the field.

专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 讜讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜谞讬转讗 拽讚讞讜 讘讬讛 讝专讚转讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬住转诇拽 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讘讞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗讬转 诇讱

The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Beivai bar Abaye received land to cultivate and he surrounded it with a fence made of earth. In the meantime, trees sprouted in it. When he left the field he said to the owners: Give me my value of the enhancement of the trees that sprouted. Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate people that you say unfortunate and unsound words? Abaye鈥檚 family came from the family of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age. Rav Pappi explains: Even Rav Pappa said only that he is entitled to the value of the enhancement of the palm trees when he has suffered a loss, as they take up part of the field. Here, by contrast, what loss do you have? As the trees sprouted in a place that would have been left unplanted, you have not lost anything and you are not entitled to compensation.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 砖转诇讗 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 讞诪砖讛 讞转谞讜讜转讗 讗诪专 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讞讚 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 住诪讻讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 诪驻住讚讜 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖讛 住诪讻讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诪驻住讚讜 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 砖拽诇讬转讜 砖讘讞讬讬讻讜 讜诪住转诇拽讬转讜 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪住诇讬拽谞讗 诇讻讜 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef had a certain planter whose job it was to plant trees, similar to a sharecropper. He died and left behind five sons-in-law. Rav Yosef said: Until now I had to deal with only one person; now there are five. Until now they did not rely on each other to plant the trees and did not cause me a loss, as the responsibility was their father-in-law鈥檚, but now that they are five they will rely on each other to plant the trees and cause me a loss. In light of these considerations, he decided to discontinue the agreement with them. Rav Yosef said to them: If you take the value of your enhancement that you brought to the field and remove yourselves, all is well, but if not, I will remove you without giving you the value of the enhancement.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 砖转诇讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讬讜专砖讬诐 讚讬诇讬讛 诪住转诇拽讬谉 诇讛讜 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 讜诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

Rav Yosef explains his statement: As Rav Yehuda says, and some say it was Rav Huna, and some say it was Rav Na岣an: With regard to this planter who died, his heirs may be removed without receiving the value of the enhancement. The Gemara comments: But this is not correct, as the halakha is not in accordance with this opinion.

讛讛讜讗 砖转诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诪驻住讚讬谞讗 诪住诇拽谞讗 讗驻住讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪住转诇拽 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诪住转诇拽 讜砖拽讬诇 砖讘讞讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专 讗讬 驻住讬讚谞讗 诪住转诇拽谞讗 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 诪住转诇拽 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 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

The Gemara relates another incident. There was a certain planter who said to the owner: If I cause a loss to the vineyard by ruining its plants I will leave the field. Ultimately, he indeed caused a loss to the plants, but some enhancement from the time he began did still exist. Rav Yehuda said: He leaves without receiving payment for the enhancement, while Rav Kahana said: He leaves and takes the payment for the enhancement resulting from his work. And Rav Kahana concedes that if he said: If I cause a loss I will leave without receiving payment for the enhancement, he indeed leaves without receiving payment for the enhancement. Conversely, Rava said: A promise of this kind, which he does not expect to have to fulfill, is a transaction with inconclusive intent [asmakhta], and the halakha is that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition and is therefore not legally binding.

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 诪讗讬 讚讗驻住讬讚 诪砖诇诐 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讚讗驻住讬讚 诪谞讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, in what way is it different from that which we learned in a mishna (104a) that the recipient of the field stipulates: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it I will pay with the best-quality produce, in which case he is obligated to fulfill his promise? The Gemara answers: There, he pays for the loss he caused, while here, we deduct from him the loss that he caused, and we give him the other portion of the money. He does not forfeit all that was due to him just because some of his plantings were unsuccessful.

专讜谞讬讗 砖转诇讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讗驻住讬讚 住诇拽讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讛转专讛 讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛转专讜转 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 砖转诇讗 讟讘讞讗 讜讗讜诪谞讗

The Gemara relates that Runya was the planter of Ravina. He caused a loss, and Ravina removed him from his field. Runya came before Rava and said to him: Let the Master see what Ravina has done to me. Rava said to him: Ravina did well, as you caused him a loss. Runya said to him: But Ravina did not warn me beforehand. How can he force me to leave without prior warning? Rava said to him: In this case it is not necessary to provide a warning. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: With regard to a teacher of children, a planter, a ritual slaughterer, and a bloodletter,

讜住驻专 诪转讗 讻讜诇谉 讻诪讜转专讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讚诪讬 讻诇诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻诇 驻住讬讚讗 讚诇讗 讛讚专 讻诪讜转专讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讚诪讬

and a town scribe who drafts documents on behalf on the local residents, all of these are considered forewarned. Therefore, any loss incurred due to them is deducted from their wages, and they are fined without the need for prior warning. The principle of this matter is: With regard to any loss that is not recoverable they are considered forewarned.

讛讛讜讗 砖转诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讘讞讗讬 讚讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬住拽 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬讛讜 讗砖讘讞 讗专注讗 诇讗 讗砖讘讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 驻诇讙讗 讚砖讘讞讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻诇讙讗 讜砖转诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讛砖转讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诪谞转讗 诇讗专讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬讘注讗 讚砖讘讞讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain planter who said to the owner of the field: Give me the value of my enhancement because I wish to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The owner came for a ruling before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who said to him: Give the planter the value of his enhancement. Rava said to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Did he alone enhance the field, while the land did not enhance it? He cannot be credited with all the improvement. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to Rava: I am telling you that he is entitled to half the value of the enhancement. Rava said to him: Until now the owner of the land would take half and the planter would take half, while the planter would work the field. Now the owner also needs to give a portion to the sharecropper, so that the sharecropper will continue working the field. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: I am telling you to give him one-quarter of the value of the enhancement, half of the sum to which he is entitled.

住讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪讬诪专 专讬讘注讗 讚讛讜讗 讚谞拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 砖转诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讜讗专讬住讗 转讬诇转讗 讛讗讬 砖转诇讗 讚讘注讬 诇讗住转诇讜拽讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 讜诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞诪讟讬讬讛 讛驻住讚 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转

Rav Ashi thought to say that when he referred to one-quarter he meant one-quarter that is one-sixth, i.e., one-quarter of the sum due to the owner, as the sum due to the owner is two-thirds of the entire yield. This payment would therefore amount to one-sixth of the total. As Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Na岣mi, said: In a location where the planter takes half the fruit and the sharecropper takes one-third, with regard to a planter who wants to leave, we give him his share of the value of the enhancement and remove him in such a manner so that the homeowner should suffer no loss.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬讘注讗 讚讛讜讗 讚谞拽讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讬讘注讗 诪诪砖 拽讗 诪讟讬 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讗

Granted, if you say that he meant one-quarter that is one-sixth, this is well and the calculations are in order, but if you say he referred to an actual quarter, the homeowner suffers the loss of half of one-sixth. This is because if the owner had paid the planter initially he would have given him only one-half, whereas now he must give the planter one-quarter and the sharecropper one-third. He thereby pays an extra twelfth.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞转 诪谞转讗 讚讬诇讱 讛讘 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讗 讜讗谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬谞讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 讘讬讛 讗诪专 讻讬 诪讟讬转 诇砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 转讗 讜讗拽砖讬 诇讬

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: Let the planter say to the owner: You give your portion to the sharecropper, and I will do what I wish with my portion. I performed my half of the work properly, so why should I suffer a loss because you want to pay the sharecropper? Rav Ashi said to him: When you reach the tractate of: The slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zeva岣m, come and ask this difficulty to me. In other words, your question is a good one, worthy of a difficult tractate full of complex reasoning such as Zeva岣m.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 砖转诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讜讗专讬住讗 转讬诇转讗 讛讗讬 砖转诇讗 讚讘注讬 讗讬住转诇讜拽讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讬讛 讜诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬驻住讜讚 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 拽讜驻讗 住讘讗 驻诇讙讗 砖讟驻讛 谞讛专讗 专讬讘注讗

With regard to the matter itself, Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Na岣mi, said: In a location where the planter takes half the fruit and the sharecropper one-third, with regard to a planter who wants to leave, we give him his share of the value of the enhancement and remove him in such a manner so that the homeowner should suffer no loss. Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Na岣mi, further said: With regard to an old vine in a vineyard, the planter receives half. Although he did not plant the vine, since he was placed in charge of the entire vineyard, he receives a portion of that which was there before. If a river flooded the vineyard and the owner and the planter come to divide the trees that fell down, the planter receives one-quarter.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚诪砖讻讬谉 驻专讚讬住讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诇注砖专 砖谞讬谉 讜拽砖 诇讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专谞讗 讛讜讬 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讜 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who mortgaged an orchard to another, i.e., the creditor, for ten years in order that the latter should use the profits gained from the orchard as repayment of the debt. But the orchard aged after five years and no longer produced quality fruit. Consequently, the only way to proceed was to cut down its trees and sell them as wood. Abaye said: This wood is considered as produce of the orchard, and therefore the creditor is entitled to cut them down and sell them. Rava said: The wood is classified as principal and is therefore viewed as part of the orchard itself. Consequently, the creditor has no rights to the wood itself, but other land is purchased with the profits from the sale of the wood and the creditor consumes the produce of that land until the debt is repaid.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讘砖 讛讗讬诇谉 讗讜 谞拽爪抓 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讜 讬诪讻专讜 诇注爪讬诐 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬讘砖 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞拽爪抓 诪讛 谞拽爪抓 讘讝诪谞讜 讗祝 讬讘砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讜拽转谞讬 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗诇诪讗 拽专谞讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita that discusses the halakhot of a mortgage: If the tree dried up or was chopped down, it is forbidden for both the creditor and the debtor to take it for themselves. How should they proceed? It is sold for wood, and land should be purchased with the proceeds, and he, i.e., the creditor, consumes the produce from that land. The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not referring to a dry tree that is similar to one that was chopped down, in that just as the tree was chopped down at its proper time, so too, the tree dried at its proper time? And yet the tanna teaches that land should be purchased with the money and the creditor consumes the produce. Apparently, the wood is considered part of the principal, not the profits. This supports Rava鈥檚 opinion and presents a difficulty to Abaye.

诇讗 谞拽爪抓 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讘砖 诪讛 讬讘砖 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讜 讗祝 谞拽爪抓 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the chopped-down tree mentioned in the baraita is similar to the dry one: Just as that tree dried up before its time, so too, this one was chopped down before its time. Since this did not occur naturally, the wood is classified as produce; had the orchard dried up at the expected time, its trees would be considered as part of the land.

转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讝讬转讬诐 讝拽谞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof to Rava鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Ketubot 79b): If a woman after her marriage had old vines and olive trees that were bequeathed to her by means of inheritance,

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 109

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 109

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 诇砖谞讬诐 诪讜注讟讜转 诇讗 讬讝专注谞讛 驻砖转谉 讜讗讬谉 诇讜 讘拽讜专讜转 砖拽诪讛 拽讬讘诇讛 讛讬诪谞讜 诇砖讘注 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讬讝专注谞讛 驻砖转谉 讜讬砖 诇讜 讘拽讜专讜转 砖拽诪讛

MISHNA: One who receives a field from another to cultivate for a few years, i.e., fewer than seven, may not plant flax in it, as flax greatly weakens the soil, and if a sycamore tree was growing in the field, he does not have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree. Therefore, he may not cut down its branches for his own use, as it takes many years for new ones to grow. If he received the field from him for seven years, in the first year he may plant flax in it, and he does have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽讜专讜转 砖拽诪讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 诇讜

GEMARA: Abaye says: Although he does not have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree, he does have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore tree, i.e., the value of its growth that occurred while he was cultivating the field. And Rava says: He does not even have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore tree.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 讝诪谞讜 诇爪讗转 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 诇讗 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讬专拽讗 讜住讬诇拽讗

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava鈥檚 opinion from a baraita: With regard to one who receives a field from another to cultivate and his time to leave arrives, the court appraises its value for him. What, is it not that the court appraises for him the value of the enhancement of the sycamore or other trees? The Gemara responds: No, the court appraises for him the value of the vegetables and beets left in the field.

讬专拽讗 讜住讬诇拽讗 谞注拽讜专 讜谞砖拽讜诇 讘讚诇讗 诪讟讗 讬讜诪讗 讚砖讜拽讗

The Gemara challenges: If it is referring to vegetables and beets, let him uproot and take them. The Gemara explains: It is referring to a case where the market day has not yet arrived, so that if he uproots them now he will not be able to sell them. He therefore leaves them for the owner of the land and receives money instead.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 砖讘讬注讬转 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 砖讘讬注讬转 诪讬 拽讗 诪驻拽注讗 讗专注讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诪拽讘诇 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 砖诪讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and the Sabbatical Year arrived, the court appraises it for him. The Gemara first expresses puzzlement over the baraita itself: Does the Sabbatical Year release land from the one who contracted to cultivate it? The arrangement is in effect it during this time, so why is there a need for an appraisal? The Gemara responds: Rather, say that the baraita reads as follows: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and the Jubilee Year arrived, the court appraises it for him.

讜讗讻转讬 讬讜讘诇 诪讬 诪驻拽注讗 拽讘诇谞讜转 诇爪诪讬转转 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诇讜拽讞 砖讚讛 诪讞讘讬专讜 讜讛讙讬注 讬讜讘诇 砖诪讬谉 诇讜

The Gemara asks: But still, this is difficult; does the Jubilee Year release the term of a contractor? The Merciful One states: 鈥淧ermanently鈥 (Leviticus 25:23), which indicates that only land that was permanently sold returns to its owner, whereas land that was rented does not revert to the owner at the Jubilee Year. Rather, say that the baraita reads as follows: In the case of one who purchases a field from another and the Jubilee Year arrives, the court appraises it for him.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 砖诪讬谉 诇讜 讘讬专拽讗 讜住讬诇拽讗 住讬诇拽讗 讜讬专拽讗 讘讬讜讘诇 讛驻拽讬专讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛

And if you would say that so too here it means that the court appraises it for him with regard to vegetables and beets, this cannot be, as vegetables and beets in the Jubilee Year are ownerless. This is because the Jubilee is like the Sabbatical Year in that any produce that grows is ownerless and may be taken by anyone. Rather, is the baraita not referring to the enhancement of the value of the sycamore that occurred during the time he had owned the field? It must be referring to this, and therefore presents a difficulty to Rava.

转专讙诪讗 讗讘讬讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讗 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬爪讗 诪诪讻专 讘讬转 诪诪讻专 讞讜讝专 砖讘讞 讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讜谞讙诪专 诪讬谞讬讛 讛转诐 讝讘讬谞讬 诪注诇讬讗 讛讜讗 讜讬讜讘诇 讗驻拽注转讗 讚诪诇讻讗 讛讬讗

Abaye interpreted the baraita so that it is in accordance with the opinion of his disputant Rava: There it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淭hen the house that was sold shall go out鈥n the Jubilee鈥 (Leviticus 25:33), which teaches that the house or field that was sold returns to its owner, but the value of its enhancement does not return, but remains with the buyer. The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive from it a general halakha that the value of enhancement need not be returned. The Gemara answers: The two cases are dissimilar, as there, in the baraita, it is a full-fledged sale, and the Jubilee released it, as it is a release of the King, a Divine decree. Since the buyer had been in full ownership of the field, he keeps the value of the enhancement that occurred while it was his. By contrast, one who receives a field to cultivate is not an owner.

专讘 驻驻讗 拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 诇讗住驻住转讗 拽讚讞讜 讘讛 转讗诇讬 讻讬 拽讗 诪住转诇拽 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讘讞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讚讬拽诇讗 讜讗诇讬诐 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚讘注讬 诪专 砖讘讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛转诐 诇讗讜 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 谞讞讬转 讗谞讗 讛讻讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 谞讞讬转谞讗

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa received land as a contractor for growing hay. During the time he was cultivating it, palm trees sprouted in the ground. When he left the land he said to the owners of the field: Give me the value of the enhancement to the field from the palm trees. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so, i.e., if your claim is justified, then in a situation where there was a palm tree and it grew thick, so too would the Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, want to be paid for the value of the tree鈥檚 enhancement? Rav Pappa said to him: There, in that theoretical case, the cultivator did not descend to the field with that possibility in mind, as the cultivator considered only the consumption of the date palm鈥檚 fruit, not its growth. Here, in my case, I did indeed descend to the field with this in mind, as I anticipated receiving compensation for any growth of the field.

讻诪讗谉 讻讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讘砖讘讞 砖拽诪讛 讬砖 诇讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻专讘讗 讛转诐 诇讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讛讻讗 讗讬讻讗 驻住讬讚讗

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he make this statement? Is it not in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that he does have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore? The Gemara refutes this claim: You may even say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as there the cultivator suffers no loss when the sycamore grows in the field, so he is not entitled to the value of the enhancement as compensation. By contrast, here there is a loss, as the palm trees that sprouted occupied space designated for hay.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 驻住讚转讬讱 讬讚讗 讚讗住驻住转讗 砖拽讜诇 讬讚讗 讚讗住驻住转讗 讜讝讬诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 讻讜专讻诪讗 专讬砖拽讗 专讘讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讙诇讬转 讗讚注转讱 讚诇诪砖拽诇 讜讗住转诇讜拽讬 注讘讚转 砖拽诇 讻讜专讻诪讗 专讬砖拽讗 讜讝讬诇 讗讬谉 诇讱 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 注爪讬诐 讘诇讘讚

Rav Sheisha said to Rav Pappa: But here too, the owner of the field can say: What loss have I caused you? I have caused you to lose a handful of hay. Take a handful of hay and go. Rav Pappa said to him: I claim that I grew garden saffron there. He claimed that he lost land that he could have used for the cultivation of expensive produce, not only hay. Rav Sheisha said to him: Even so, you admit that you wanted the land for other plantings, not to plant palm trees, and you have thereby revealed your intention that you acted so as to take the produce and leave. Take your garden saffron and leave, as you have rights only to the value of wood alone. Since you did not mean to grow these trees, you are entitled only to the price you could have received for the palm trees had you had uprooted them and sold them as wood during the time you cultivated the field.

专讘 讘讬讘讬 讘专 讗讘讬讬 拽讘讬诇 讗专注讗 讜讗讛讚专 诇讬讛 诪砖讜谞讬转讗 拽讚讞讜 讘讬讛 讝专讚转讗 讻讬 拽讗 诪讬住转诇拽 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讘讞讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗转讬转讜 诪诪讜诇讗讬 讗诪专讬转讜 诪讬诇讬 诪讜诇讬讬转讗 讗驻讬诇讜 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 驻住讬讚讗 讗讬转 诇讱

The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Beivai bar Abaye received land to cultivate and he surrounded it with a fence made of earth. In the meantime, trees sprouted in it. When he left the field he said to the owners: Give me my value of the enhancement of the trees that sprouted. Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate people that you say unfortunate and unsound words? Abaye鈥檚 family came from the family of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age. Rav Pappi explains: Even Rav Pappa said only that he is entitled to the value of the enhancement of the palm trees when he has suffered a loss, as they take up part of the field. Here, by contrast, what loss do you have? As the trees sprouted in a place that would have been left unplanted, you have not lost anything and you are not entitled to compensation.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 砖转诇讗 砖讻讬讘 讜砖讘拽 讞诪砖讛 讞转谞讜讜转讗 讗诪专 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讞讚 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇讗 讛讜讜 住诪讻讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诇讗 诪驻住讚讜 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讞诪砖讛 住诪讻讜 讗讛讚讚讬 讜诪驻住讚讜 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 砖拽诇讬转讜 砖讘讞讬讬讻讜 讜诪住转诇拽讬转讜 诪讜讟讘 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪住诇讬拽谞讗 诇讻讜 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗

搂 The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef had a certain planter whose job it was to plant trees, similar to a sharecropper. He died and left behind five sons-in-law. Rav Yosef said: Until now I had to deal with only one person; now there are five. Until now they did not rely on each other to plant the trees and did not cause me a loss, as the responsibility was their father-in-law鈥檚, but now that they are five they will rely on each other to plant the trees and cause me a loss. In light of these considerations, he decided to discontinue the agreement with them. Rav Yosef said to them: If you take the value of your enhancement that you brought to the field and remove yourselves, all is well, but if not, I will remove you without giving you the value of the enhancement.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讗讬 砖转诇讗 讚砖讻讬讘 讬讜专砖讬诐 讚讬诇讬讛 诪住转诇拽讬谉 诇讛讜 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 讜诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

Rav Yosef explains his statement: As Rav Yehuda says, and some say it was Rav Huna, and some say it was Rav Na岣an: With regard to this planter who died, his heirs may be removed without receiving the value of the enhancement. The Gemara comments: But this is not correct, as the halakha is not in accordance with this opinion.

讛讛讜讗 砖转诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诪驻住讚讬谞讗 诪住诇拽谞讗 讗驻住讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪住转诇拽 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 诪住转诇拽 讜砖拽讬诇 砖讘讞讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讚讗讬 讗诪专 讗讬 驻住讬讚谞讗 诪住转诇拽谞讗 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 诪住转诇拽 讘诇讗 砖讘讞讗 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

The Gemara relates another incident. There was a certain planter who said to the owner: If I cause a loss to the vineyard by ruining its plants I will leave the field. Ultimately, he indeed caused a loss to the plants, but some enhancement from the time he began did still exist. Rav Yehuda said: He leaves without receiving payment for the enhancement, while Rav Kahana said: He leaves and takes the payment for the enhancement resulting from his work. And Rav Kahana concedes that if he said: If I cause a loss I will leave without receiving payment for the enhancement, he indeed leaves without receiving payment for the enhancement. Conversely, Rava said: A promise of this kind, which he does not expect to have to fulfill, is a transaction with inconclusive intent [asmakhta], and the halakha is that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition and is therefore not legally binding.

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 诪讗讬 讚讗驻住讬讚 诪砖诇诐 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讚讗驻住讬讚 诪谞讻讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬讚讱 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, in what way is it different from that which we learned in a mishna (104a) that the recipient of the field stipulates: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it I will pay with the best-quality produce, in which case he is obligated to fulfill his promise? The Gemara answers: There, he pays for the loss he caused, while here, we deduct from him the loss that he caused, and we give him the other portion of the money. He does not forfeit all that was due to him just because some of his plantings were unsuccessful.

专讜谞讬讗 砖转诇讗 讚专讘讬谞讗 讛讜讛 讗驻住讬讚 住诇拽讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讝讬 诪专 诪讗讬 拽讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖驻讬专 注讘讬讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 诇讗 讛转专讛 讘讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 诇讛转专讜转 专讘讗 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪拽专讬 讚专讚拽讬 砖转诇讗 讟讘讞讗 讜讗讜诪谞讗

The Gemara relates that Runya was the planter of Ravina. He caused a loss, and Ravina removed him from his field. Runya came before Rava and said to him: Let the Master see what Ravina has done to me. Rava said to him: Ravina did well, as you caused him a loss. Runya said to him: But Ravina did not warn me beforehand. How can he force me to leave without prior warning? Rava said to him: In this case it is not necessary to provide a warning. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: With regard to a teacher of children, a planter, a ritual slaughterer, and a bloodletter,

讜住驻专 诪转讗 讻讜诇谉 讻诪讜转专讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讚诪讬 讻诇诇讗 讚诪讬诇转讗 讻诇 驻住讬讚讗 讚诇讗 讛讚专 讻诪讜转专讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬谉 讚诪讬

and a town scribe who drafts documents on behalf on the local residents, all of these are considered forewarned. Therefore, any loss incurred due to them is deducted from their wages, and they are fined without the need for prior warning. The principle of this matter is: With regard to any loss that is not recoverable they are considered forewarned.

讛讛讜讗 砖转诇讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬 砖讘讞讗讬 讚讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬住拽 诇讗专注讗 讚讬砖专讗诇 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讘讜 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬讛讜 讗砖讘讞 讗专注讗 诇讗 讗砖讘讞 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 驻诇讙讗 讚砖讘讞讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讚 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讛讜讛 砖拽讬诇 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻诇讙讗 讜砖转诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讛砖转讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转讘 诪谞转讗 诇讗专讬住讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬讘注讗 讚砖讘讞讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain planter who said to the owner of the field: Give me the value of my enhancement because I wish to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The owner came for a ruling before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who said to him: Give the planter the value of his enhancement. Rava said to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Did he alone enhance the field, while the land did not enhance it? He cannot be credited with all the improvement. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to Rava: I am telling you that he is entitled to half the value of the enhancement. Rava said to him: Until now the owner of the land would take half and the planter would take half, while the planter would work the field. Now the owner also needs to give a portion to the sharecropper, so that the sharecropper will continue working the field. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: I am telling you to give him one-quarter of the value of the enhancement, half of the sum to which he is entitled.

住讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪讬诪专 专讬讘注讗 讚讛讜讗 讚谞拽讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 砖转诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讜讗专讬住讗 转讬诇转讗 讛讗讬 砖转诇讗 讚讘注讬 诇讗住转诇讜拽讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讗 讜诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 谞诪讟讬讬讛 讛驻住讚 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转

Rav Ashi thought to say that when he referred to one-quarter he meant one-quarter that is one-sixth, i.e., one-quarter of the sum due to the owner, as the sum due to the owner is two-thirds of the entire yield. This payment would therefore amount to one-sixth of the total. As Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Na岣mi, said: In a location where the planter takes half the fruit and the sharecropper takes one-third, with regard to a planter who wants to leave, we give him his share of the value of the enhancement and remove him in such a manner so that the homeowner should suffer no loss.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 专讬讘注讗 讚讛讜讗 讚谞拽讗 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 专讬讘注讗 诪诪砖 拽讗 诪讟讬 诇讬讛 驻住讬讚讗 诇讘注诇 讛讘讬转 驻诇讙讗 讚谞拽讗

Granted, if you say that he meant one-quarter that is one-sixth, this is well and the calculations are in order, but if you say he referred to an actual quarter, the homeowner suffers the loss of half of one-sixth. This is because if the owner had paid the planter initially he would have given him only one-half, whereas now he must give the planter one-quarter and the sharecropper one-third. He thereby pays an extra twelfth.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讗谞转 诪谞转讗 讚讬诇讱 讛讘 诇讬讛 诇讗专讬住讗 讜讗谞讗 诪谞转讗 讚讬诇讬 诪讗讬 讚讘注讬谞讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 讘讬讛 讗诪专 讻讬 诪讟讬转 诇砖讞讬讟转 拽讚砖讬诐 转讗 讜讗拽砖讬 诇讬

Rav A岣, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: Let the planter say to the owner: You give your portion to the sharecropper, and I will do what I wish with my portion. I performed my half of the work properly, so why should I suffer a loss because you want to pay the sharecropper? Rav Ashi said to him: When you reach the tractate of: The slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zeva岣m, come and ask this difficulty to me. In other words, your question is a good one, worthy of a difficult tractate full of complex reasoning such as Zeva岣m.

讙讜驻讗 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 讘讗转专讗 讚砖拽讬诇 砖转诇讗 驻诇讙讗 讜讗专讬住讗 转讬诇转讗 讛讗讬 砖转诇讗 讚讘注讬 讗讬住转诇讜拽讬 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讬讛 砖讘讞讬讛 讜诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬驻住讜讚 讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞讜诪讬 拽讜驻讗 住讘讗 驻诇讙讗 砖讟驻讛 谞讛专讗 专讬讘注讗

With regard to the matter itself, Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Na岣mi, said: In a location where the planter takes half the fruit and the sharecropper one-third, with regard to a planter who wants to leave, we give him his share of the value of the enhancement and remove him in such a manner so that the homeowner should suffer no loss. Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Na岣mi, further said: With regard to an old vine in a vineyard, the planter receives half. Although he did not plant the vine, since he was placed in charge of the entire vineyard, he receives a portion of that which was there before. If a river flooded the vineyard and the owner and the planter come to divide the trees that fell down, the planter receives one-quarter.

讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚诪砖讻讬谉 驻专讚讬住讗 诇讞讘专讬讛 诇注砖专 砖谞讬谉 讜拽砖 诇讞诪砖 砖谞讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 驻讬专讗 讛讜讬 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专谞讗 讛讜讬 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讜 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who mortgaged an orchard to another, i.e., the creditor, for ten years in order that the latter should use the profits gained from the orchard as repayment of the debt. But the orchard aged after five years and no longer produced quality fruit. Consequently, the only way to proceed was to cut down its trees and sell them as wood. Abaye said: This wood is considered as produce of the orchard, and therefore the creditor is entitled to cut them down and sell them. Rava said: The wood is classified as principal and is therefore viewed as part of the orchard itself. Consequently, the creditor has no rights to the wood itself, but other land is purchased with the profits from the sale of the wood and the creditor consumes the produce of that land until the debt is repaid.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讬讘砖 讛讗讬诇谉 讗讜 谞拽爪抓 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬诐 讘讜 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讜 讬诪讻专讜 诇注爪讬诐 讜讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讬讘砖 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞拽爪抓 诪讛 谞拽爪抓 讘讝诪谞讜 讗祝 讬讘砖 讘讝诪谞讜 讜拽转谞讬 讬诇拽讞 讘讛谉 拽专拽注 讜讛讜讗 讗讜讻诇 驻讬专讜转 讗诇诪讗 拽专谞讗 讛讜讬

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita that discusses the halakhot of a mortgage: If the tree dried up or was chopped down, it is forbidden for both the creditor and the debtor to take it for themselves. How should they proceed? It is sold for wood, and land should be purchased with the proceeds, and he, i.e., the creditor, consumes the produce from that land. The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not referring to a dry tree that is similar to one that was chopped down, in that just as the tree was chopped down at its proper time, so too, the tree dried at its proper time? And yet the tanna teaches that land should be purchased with the money and the creditor consumes the produce. Apparently, the wood is considered part of the principal, not the profits. This supports Rava鈥檚 opinion and presents a difficulty to Abaye.

诇讗 谞拽爪抓 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讘砖 诪讛 讬讘砖 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讜 讗祝 谞拽爪抓 讘诇讗 讝诪谞讜

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the chopped-down tree mentioned in the baraita is similar to the dry one: Just as that tree dried up before its time, so too, this one was chopped down before its time. Since this did not occur naturally, the wood is classified as produce; had the orchard dried up at the expected time, its trees would be considered as part of the land.

转讗 砖诪注 谞驻诇讜 诇讛 讙驻谞讬诐 讜讝讬转讬诐 讝拽谞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof to Rava鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Ketubot 79b): If a woman after her marriage had old vines and olive trees that were bequeathed to her by means of inheritance,

Scroll To Top