💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Bava_Metzia_109 captured on 2024-06-16 at 12:49:19. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
1 [1] **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.
[2] **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.
[3] The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rava’s 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.
[4] 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.
[5] 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.**
[6] The Gemara asks: **But still,** this is difficult; **does** the **Jubilee** Year **release** the term of **a contractor? The Merciful One states: “Permanently”** (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.**
[7] **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.
[8] **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: “Then the house that was sold shall go out**…in the Jubilee” (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.
[9] 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’s **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’s 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.
[10] 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.
[11] 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.
[12] 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’s 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.
[13] § 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’s, 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.**
[14] Rav Yosef explains his statement: **As Rav Yehuda says, and some say** it was **Rav Huna, and some say** it was **Rav Naḥman:** 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.
[15] 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.
[16] 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.
[17] 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,**
2 [1] **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.**
[2] § 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.
[3] **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 Naḥumi, 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.**
[4] **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.
[5] **Rav Aḥa, 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 *Zevaḥim*, **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 *Zevaḥim*.
[6] With regard to **the** matter **itself, Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Naḥumi, 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 Naḥumi,** 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.**
[7] § 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.
[8] 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’s opinion and presents a difficulty to Abaye.
[9] 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.
[10] The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a proof to Rava’s 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,
Mishneh Torah, Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee
Version: William Davidson Edition - English
Source: https://korenpub.com/collections/the-noe-edition-koren-talmud-bavli-1
License: CC-BY-NC