Bava Metzia 101a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said: And the fourth that they stated

in the Mishna does not mean that from a se'a of olives a fourth [of a log] of oil emerged, but rather that he gained a fourth [of a log] of oil

apart from the expenses

that he incurred for the harvesting and pressing.

We learned in our Mishna:

If a river swept away his olive trees

and placed them in his fellow’s field, this one says: My olives grew [the fruit], and this one says: My land grew [the fruit]—they divide.

A tree that was uprooted from its place and took root in another place is viewed as a new planting, and its fruit is forbidden with the prohibition of orla, even though the years of orla had already passed for it in its first place.

And if it was uprooted together with the soil surrounding its roots, and the tree could live with that soil, and it took root in another ground, then its fruit is not forbidden. [Orla, chapter 1, Mishna 3]

In the language of the Gemara, this matter is called “trees uprooted with their clods.”

Ulla said that Reish Lakish said: They taught [this] only when they were uprooted

the trees

with their clods, and

even though they did not become forbidden during the three years from the time the river swept them away, nevertheless, the law of division applies only

after three

years,

but during three

years,

everything belongs to the owner of the olives.

For he can say to him

the owner of the olives to the owner of the field:

If you had planted

trees in your field,

would you have eaten [

would you have eaten] their fruit during the three years? And since the olives are permitted on account of my clods, you have no share in them.

And we raise an objection:

Let him say to him

the owner of the field:

If I had planted

trees, then

after three

years,

I would have eaten all of it, [

I would have eaten all the fruit],

now you eat half of it together with me! [

Now you will eat half together with me!]

The claim of the owner of the field is as follows: In truth, my field together with your trees grew the fruit, and it would have been proper to divide after three years. But I have the right to say to you: Take your trees from my field, and I did not agree to leave them in my field on the understanding that I would lose, and you too understood this; you did not leave them so that during the three years all the fruit would be yours, and after three years we would make a division.

And the Gemara brings another version of Reish Lakish’s statement:

Rather, when Ravin came, he said that Reish Lakish said: They taught

in the Mishna the law of division

only when they were uprooted with their clods and during the three years,

for then the owner of the field does not suffer a loss from the division.

But after three years, everything belongs to the owner of the land, for he can say to him: If I had planted them, after three years, would I not have eaten all of it!

And we raise an objection:

Let him say to him

the owner of the olives:

If you

had planted

trees,

during the three years you would not have eaten

any fruit at all, because of the prohibition of orla;

now you eat half of it together with me! [

Now you will eat half together with me!] And behold, you have no loss at all if I eat all the fruit during the three years!

And we answer:

Because he can say to him

the owner of the field:

If I had planted them, they would have been small, [

if I had planted them, the trees would have been small] during the first three years,

and I would have sown beets and vegetables beneath them [

and I would have been able to sow beets and vegetables there], because there would not have been shade there interfering with their growth. And the partnership was on the understanding that I would have a share even during the three years.

The Gemara brings a beraita that adds a law not written in the Mishna.

The tanna taught: He said: I am taking my olives

that the river swept away

they do not heed him,

rather, the owner of the trees is obligated to leave them in his fellow’s field.

What is the reason?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Because of the settlement of the Land of Israel,

so that there will be fruit trees in it. And outside the Land of Israel he may take the trees.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: In a case such as this, it requires a great [sage] [

such a matter requires a great sage like Rabbi Yohanan to state it], and we could not have stated it from our own reasoning.

The following sugya deals with the explanation of a Mishna in tractate Demai [6:2], and it was brought here because it concludes with Rabbi Yirmeya’s statement, “In a case such as this, it requires a great [sage].”

The sugya speaks of one who receives and one who leases a field from a non-Jew in the Land of Israel. “

A ‘lessee’ is one who receives a field and works it, and undertakes to pay the owner of the field every year a fixed number of kurim from the produce, while the rest of the produce the lessee receives.”

A lessee is obligated to pay the owner of the field the number of kurim even if the field produced no produce at all. “

The ‘recipient’ mentioned in this sugya is the sharecropper, who receives the field to work it and divides the produce with the owner of the field by half, by a third, or by a fourth.”

When the owner of the field in the Land of Israel is a non-Jew, it must be considered whether the lessee or the recipient is obligated to tithe the produce that he gives to the non-Jew. This is what the sugya deals with.

We learned there:

One who leases a field from a non-Jew tithes and gives it to him. [Demai, chapter 6, Mishna 2]

According to the first tanna, the lessee is obligated to tithe all the produce before giving the non-Jew the produce that he owes him, while the recipient is exempt from tithing the non-Jew’s portion.

The reason for the distinction is that the owner of the field and the recipient are partners in the produce; therefore, the recipient is obligated to tithe only his portion. But the lessee owns all the produce, except that he became obligated to give the owner of the field a number of kurim, and he is thus paying a debt to the owner of the field, and one may not pay a debt with untithed produce.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even

one who receives the field of his fathers from a non-Jew tithes and gives it to him

like the law of the lessee.

They assumed [

the amoraim assumed] that Rabbi Yehuda’s words should be explained as follows:

What [

what is the meaning] of “

the field of his fathers,”

which Rabbi Yehuda stated?—

The Land of Israel.

And why do they call it “the field of his fathers”?

Because the Land of Israel is

the field of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,

our forefathers.

And he holds

that Rabbi Yehuda has two foundations upon which his words are built:

a.

A non-Jew’s acquisition in the Land of Israel does not remove the obligation of tithing,

and not like the opinion that holds that a non-Jew who purchases land in the Land of Israel removes the sanctity of the land with regard to the mitzvot dependent upon it, and a Jew who purchases produce from him is not obligated to tithe it.

b.

And a recipient

of a field from a non-Jew

is equivalent to a lessee.

Just as a lessee,

whose law is that

whether he worked

the field and it produced grain

or whether he did not work

it and it produced grain, and he pays the non-Jew other produce,

must tithe and give it to him, [

he must tithe and then give it to him], and he cannot give untithed produce,

for he is considered like one who pays his debt.

So too, a recipient,

who does not pay the owner of the field if the field did not produce grain,

is also considered like one who pays his debt,

and the entire difference is only in the payment condition. Therefore he

tithes

even the non-Jew’s portion

and gives it to him.

.

He said to him

[and] challenged

Rav Kahana Rav Pappa

about this explanation from a beraita,

and some say [

and some say that Rav Kahana raised this difficulty]

to Rav Zevid:

Rather, concerning that which was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who receives the field of his fathers from a troublesome

[a robber]

non-Jew tithes and gives it to him. [

And in the beraita, Rabbi Yehuda adds that his words were stated specifically when the non-Jew robbed the land.]

Why specifically “troublesome”? Even when he is not troublesome, too!

Why is the case specifically one of a troublesome person, according to what we explained of Rabbi Yehuda’s words?!

Rather, in truth

Rabbi Yehuda did not hold either of the two foundations to explain his words.

Rather, it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda holds:

A non-Jew has an acquisition in the Land of Israel that removes the obligation of tithing,

and the non-Jew’s field is exempt from terumot and tithes.

Therefore, one who receives a field from a non-Jew who is not a robber is exempt from separating terumot and tithes, and likewise one who leases from him is exempt.

And it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda holds: A non-Jew does not have an acquisition in the Land of Israel, and one who leases from a non-Jew is obligated to tithe before giving it to the non-Jew,

but a recipient is not equivalent to a lessee,

and he is not considered one who pays a debt to the non-Jew, but rather like a partner who divides with the non-Jew.

Therefore, one who receives a field from a non-Jew who is not a robber is exempt from separating [tithes] for the non-Jew’s portion.

And what is “the field of his fathers”?

The field of his fathers ממש,

which the troublesome person robbed from his father or from his grandfather.

But if he received from the troublesome person land that was not his fathers’, he is not obligated to tithe for his portion, since there is no obligation to tithe as a matter of primary law, for the reasons explained , and only one who receives the field of his fathers is obligated to tithe and give it to the non-Jew as a penalty.

And if you say: Why did they impose a penalty only upon the son of the robbed person and not upon another person?

And it was him for whom the Sages imposed the penalty,

because there is benefit in the penalty,

for since it is dear to him, all the more so he will go and receive it. [

Because the field is dear to him, he will be prepared to add more tithes than any sharecropper, and he will receive it.]

But an ordinary person, no [

but another person will not receive it as a sharecropper if we obligate him to tithe even the non-Jew’s portion. And it is not the concern of the Sages that they prevent people from receiving the field from the non-Jew].

And the Gemara asks:

And for him, what is the reason the Sages imposed the penalty?

What sin did he commit?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The Sages wanted the sharecropper to make an effort to purchase the field from the non-Jew, and they imposed upon him the obligation to tithe

so that it would be clear [

clear] and established

in his possession,

and he would purchase it because it would be difficult for him to tithe the non-Jew’s portion, and the non-Jew would sell it for little money, since he had paid nothing for it but had merely robbed it.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: In a case such as this, a great necessity [for stating the ruling] exists,

and we could not have said this from reasoning alone.

Now, the Gemara returns and discusses a case similar to the case in the Mishna, “A river swept away his olive trees.”

It was stated: One who enters his fellow’s field and plants

trees,

without permission

of the field’s owner, and demands payment for this.

There is no doubt that the field’s owner cannot leave the trees with him and not pay the planter, for he benefits from it, and his property was improved through the planting.

However, it is necessary to discuss: What is the amount of the payment?

Rav said: They assess for him

for the planter his expenses for the planting, and how much the field was improved through the planting,

and his hand is on the lower side.

If the field was improved by one hundred dinars, and the one entering spent fifty dinars, the field’s owner pays him fifty dinars. And if he spent one hundred and fifty dinars, he pays him only one hundred dinars .

And Shmuel said: They assess how much a person wishes to give

to a planter

in order to plant this field,

and the planter receives like the other planters of the city, according to the custom of the land , if the planter receives a third or a quarter of the produce, so the one entering receives.

Rav Pappa said: And they do not disagree [

Rav and Shmuel did not disagree; rather, they spoke about different cases].

Here [

Shmuel’s words were stated]

in a field fit for planting ,

which is more suited to planting than to sowing. And presumably the field’s owner wishes to plant it.

Here [

Rav’s words were stated]

in a field not fit for planting,

and therefore the hand of the one entering is on the lower side.

This

which Rav Pappa said

that Rav

said “his hand is on the lower side” only in a field not fit for planting,

was not stated explicitly

by Rav,

it was stated [

it was said],

but

by implication [

from the implication of the incident that occurred]

it was stated.

That

man

who came before Rav

for judgment, having been sued to pay for saplings that his fellow had planted in his field without his permission, and the field was a field not fit for planting .

He said to him,

Rav:

Go, assess for him

Pay him. And Rav did not know whether the field was fit for planting or not; therefore he did not tell him how to assess.

He said to him,

the field’s owner to Rav:

I do not want it [

I do not want it]. Rav understood that his intention was to say that he did not want saplings in his field.

He said to him,

Rav: If so,

Go, assess for him, and his hand is on the lower side

according to the law of a field not fit for planting.

He said to him: I do not want it.

Rav understood that his intention was to say: Let the other one take his saplings. Therefore he remained silent toward him, because in truth the field’s owner can say to the one entering: Take your saplings and go.

Ultimately, he saw that he had fenced it and was guarding it. [

In the end, Rav saw that the field’s owner had fenced it and was guarding it.]

He said to him,

Rav:

You have revealed your mind that it is pleasing to you, [

you have revealed that your mind is satisfied with the saplings, and you do not want the one entering to take them],

Go, assess for him, and his hand is on the upper side

according to the law of a field fit for planting, for through your actions you demonstrate that you want the saplings; if your desire was for seeds, you should have waited until he took his saplings .

It is proven from this incident that there is a difference between a field fit for planting and a field not fit for planting. At first Rav thought that the field’s owner did not want saplings in his field; therefore he ruled that his hand was on the lower side. And in the end, when Rav saw that he wanted saplings and did not want to pay for them, he ruled that “his hand is on the upper side.”

It was stated: One who enters his fellow’s ruin and builds it without his permission, and says to him

the one entering to the owner of the ruin:

I am taking my wood and my stones,

because you are not paying me as I wish.

Rav Nahman said: We heed him

the one entering.

Rav Sheshet said: We do not heed him.

They raised an objection [

the amoraim raised an objection to Rav Nahman from a beraita]:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

One who enters his fellow’s ruin and builds it without his permission, and says to him, “I am taking my wood and my stones,”

Beit Shammai say:

We heed him.

And Beit Hillel say: We do not heed him.

And we ask:

Shall we say that Rav Nahman said [his ruling] in accordance with Beit Shammai!

But Beit Shammai in a place where Beit Hillel [disagrees] is not a Mishna!

And we answer:

He said [his ruling] in accordance with this tanna [

Rav Nahman holds in accordance with the tanna who said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree concerning this matter].

And the Gemara brings a beraita:

For it was taught: We heed him

when he says, “I am taking my wood and my stones,”

the words of Rabbi

Shimon ben Elazar.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Beit Shammai say: We heed him.

And Beit Hillel say: We do not heed him.

The Gemara asks:

What was concluded concerning it? [

[What is the law in this matter?]