בבא מציעא קג

בבא מציעא קג

שָׂכִיר בִּזְמַנּוֹ, נִשְׁבָּע וְנוֹטֵל.

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

שָׂכִיר הוּא דִּרְמוֹ רַבָּנַן שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ, מִשּׁוּם דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת טָרוּד בְּפוֹעֲלָיו. אֲבָל הָכָא, שׂוֹכֵר מְהֵימַן בִּשְׁבוּעָה.

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

אָמַר רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי מַאן דְּאוֹגַר לֵיהּ בֵּיתָא לְחַבְרֵיהּ לַעֲשַׂר שְׁנִין, וּכְתַב לֵיהּ שְׁטָרָא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: נְקִיטַתְּ חֲמֵשׁ שְׁנִין – מְהֵימַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, אוֹזְפֵיהּ מְאָה זוּזֵי בִּשְׁטָרָא, וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּרַעְתִּיךָ פַּלְגָא – הָכִי נָמֵי דִּמְהֵימַן?

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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – שְׁטַר לְגוּבְיָינָא קָאֵי, אִם אִיתָא דְּפַרְעֵיהּ – אִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִכְתַּבא אַגַּבֵּיהּ, אִי נָמֵי מִיכְתַּב עֲלֵיהּ תְּבָרָא. אֲבָל הָכָא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּכְתַיבִי לָךְ שְׁטָרָא – כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא תַּחְזֵק עֲלֵיהּ.

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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: שׁוֹאֵל אָדָם בְּטוּבוֹ לְעוֹלָם.

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

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרַהּ דְּבַת שְׁמוּאֵל, וְהוּא (דִּקְנֵי) [דִּקְנוֹ] מִינֵּיהּ.

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

אָמַר רַב מָרִי בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ קַתֵּיהּ.

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

אָמַר רָבָא: הַאי מַאן דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אוֹשְׁלַן מָרָא לְמִירְפַּק בֵּיהּ הַאי פַּרְדֵּיסָא״ – רָפֵיק בֵּיהּ הָהוּא פַּרְדֵּיסָא. ״פַּרְדֵּיסָא״ – רָפֵיק בֵּיהּ כֹּל פַּרְדֵּיסָא דְּבָעֵי. ״פַּרְדֵּיסֵי״ – רָפֵיק וְאָזֵיל כֹּל פַּרְדֵּיסֵי דְּאִית לֵיהּ, וּמַהְדַּר לֵיהּ קַתֵּיהּ.

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

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, הַאי מַאן דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: ״אוֹשְׁלַן הַאי גַּרְגּוּתָא״ וְנָפְלָה – לָא בָּנֵי לַהּ. ״גַּרְגּוּתָא״ וְנָפְלָה – בָּנֵי לַהּ. ״בֵּי גַרְגּוּתָא״ – כָּרֵי וְאָזֵיל כַּמָּה גַּרְגּוּתֵי בְּאַרְעֵיהּ עַד דְּמִתְרְמֵי לֵיהּ, וְצָרִיךְ לְמִיקְנֵי מִינֵּיהּ.

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

מַתְנִי׳ הַמַּשְׂכִּיר בַּיִת לַחֲבֵירוֹ וְנָפַל – חַיָּיב לְהַעֲמִיד לוֹ בַּיִת. הָיָה קָטָן – לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ גָּדוֹל, גָּדוֹל – לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קָטָן. אֶחָד – לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ שְׁנַיִם, שְׁנַיִם – לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ אֶחָד. לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִן הַחַלּוֹנוֹת וְלֹא יוֹסִיף עֲלֵיהֶם, אֶלָּא מִדַּעַת שְׁנֵיהֶם.

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

גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״בַּיִת זֶה״, נְפַל אֲזַל לֵיהּ. אִי דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: ״בַּיִת סְתָם״, אֶחָד אַמַּאי לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ שְׁנַיִם, קָטָן אַמַּאי לֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ גָּדוֹל!

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

אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ ״בַּיִת שֶׁאֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לְךָ מִדַּת אׇרְכּוֹ כָּךְ וְכָךְ״.

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

אִי הָכִי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא?

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

אֶלָּא כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: ״בֵּית כָּזֶה אֲנִי מַשְׂכִּיר לָךְ״. וְאַכַּתִּי מַאי לְמֵימְרָא? לָא צְרִיכָא: דְּקָאֵי אַגּוּדָּא דְנַהְרָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַאי ״כָּזֶה״ – דְּקָאֵי אַגּוּדָּא דְנַהְרָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

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

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹאֵל

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ, מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקְצוֹר – יִקְצוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר – יַעֲקוֹר, לַחְרוֹשׁ אַחֲרָיו – יַחְרוֹשׁ, הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּתְּבוּאָה, כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּתֶּבֶן וּבַקַּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּיַּיִן, כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין

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

בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת וּבַקָּנִים, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים.

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

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקְצוֹר – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

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

לִקְצוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, הַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּתִתַּבַּן לִי אַרְעַאי, וְהַאי אָמַר: לָא מָצֵינָא. לַעֲקוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר, הַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּתִינַּקַּר אַרְעַאי, וְהַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא תִּיבְנָא.

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

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה, לְמָה לִי? מַה טַּעַם קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם לִקְצוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

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

לַחְרוֹשׁ אַחֲרָיו – יַחְרֹשׁ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא מְנַכְּשִׁי – וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְנַכֵּישׁ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דְּנַכֵּישְׁנָא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּלָא כָּרֵיבְנָא לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

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

הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. ״הַכֹּל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע – מַשְׂכִּירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נָהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר – אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין.

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

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר מַשְׂכִּירִין – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָהֲבִי בְּתִילְתָּא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְיַהֲבֵיהּ בְּרִיבְעָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּבְצַרִי לָךְ, אַדַּעְתָּא דְּלָא יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ בָּאִילָנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

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

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר – אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְקַבְּלִי בְּרִיבְעָא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְקַיבְּלַהּ בְּתִילְתָּא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּטְפַאי לָךְ אַדַּעְתָּא דִּיהַבְתְּ לִי בְּאִילָנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

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

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בִּתְבוּאָה – כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בְּתֶבֶן וּבְקַשׁ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּבָבֶל נְהִיגוּ דְּלָא יָהֲבִי תִּיבְנָא לַאֲרִיסָא. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ דְּיָהֵיב – עַיִן יָפָה הוּא וְלָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.

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

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בּוּכְרָא וְטָפְתָא וְאַרְכַּבְתָּא וּקְנֵי דְחִיזְרָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, וְחִזְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ דַּאֲרִיסָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא: כֹּל עִיקַּר בְּלָמָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, נְטִירוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא – דַּאֲרִיסָא. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרָא וּזְבִילָא וְדַוְולָא וְזַרְנוּקָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲרִיסָא עָבֵיד בֵּי יְאוֹרֵי.

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

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּיַּיִן – כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת וּבַקָּנִים. קָנִים מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: קָנִים הַמּוּחְלָקִין, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַגְּפָנִים.

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

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים. לְמָה לִי? מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹלְקִין בַּקָּנִים – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים.

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

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִיא בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן – אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״חֲכוֹר לִי שָׂדֶה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין זוֹ״ אוֹ ״שְׂדֵה בֵּית הָאִילָן זֶה״, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן – מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחֲכוֹרוֹ.

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

גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּיבַשׁ נַהֲרָא רַבָּה, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּיבַשׁ נַהֲרָא זוּטָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ:

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