Bava Metzia 101a (קא.) — the Talmud in English

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

in the Mishna does not mean that a se'a of olives yielded a fourth of a log of oil; rather, that he profited a fourth of a log of oil

apart from the expenses

that he incurred for harvesting and pressing.

We learned in our Mishna:

If the river swept away his olive trees

and deposited them in another person's field, this one says: “My olives grew [the fruit],” and that one says: “My land grew [the fruit]”—they divide it.

A tree that was uprooted from its place and took root elsewhere is regarded as a new planting, and its fruit is prohibited due to the prohibition of orla, even though the years of orla had already elapsed while it was in its original place.

But if it was uprooted together with the soil surrounding its roots, and the tree can survive with this soil, and it took root in other soil, its fruit is not prohibited. [Orla 1:3]

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

Ulla said that Reish Lakish said: They taught this

with regard to the trees

with their clods of earth, and

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

after three

years;

but during the three

years,

everything belongs to the owner of the olives.

For he can say to him

the owner of the olives can say 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? Since the olives are permitted because of my clods of earth, you have no share in them.

And we challenge this:

Let

the owner of the field

say to him: If I had planted

trees, then

after three

years,

I would have eaten all of it

[I would have eaten all the fruit],

but now you are eating 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: Indeed, my field together with your trees produced the fruit, and it would have been appropriate to divide it after three years. But I have the right to say to you: Take your trees out of my field. I did not agree to leave them in my field on the understanding that I would suffer a loss, and you too understood this. You did not leave them so that during the three years all the fruit would be yours and afterward we would divide it .

The Gemara brings another version of the statement of Reish Lakish:

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

when the owner of the field does not lose 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 challenge this:

Let

the owner of the olives

say to him: If you

had planted

trees,

during the three years, you would not have eaten

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

but now you are eating half of it together with me!

[Now you will eat half together with me!] You would have no loss if I ate all the fruit during the three years!

And we answer:

Because he can say to him

the owner of the field can say:

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 could have sown beets and vegetables there], since there would not have been shade to interfere with their growth. The partnership was undertaken on the understanding that I would have a share even during the three years .

The Gemara cites a beraita that adds a law not stated in the Mishna.

The tanna taught: If the other says: I will take my olive trees

that the river swept away,

we do not heed him;

rather, the owner of the trees must leave them in the other person's field .

What is the reason?

Rabbi Yohanan said: Because of the settlement of Eretz Yisrael

so that there would be fruit trees in it . And outside Eretz Yisrael he may take the trees.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: In a case such as this, a great authority is needed

[a matter such as this requires a great sage such as Rabbi Yohanan] to state it, and we could not have said it on our own reasoning.

The following discussion deals with the interpretation of a Mishna in tractate Demai [6:2], and it is brought here because it concludes with Rabbi Yirmeya's statement, “In a case such as this, a great authority is needed.”

The discussion concerns one who accepts a field from a gentile as a sharecropper and one who leases a field from a gentile in Eretz Yisrael. “

A lessee” is one who receives a field and works it, undertaking to pay the owner of the field a fixed number of kur of produce every year, while the lessee receives the rest of the produce.

A lessee must pay the owner of the field the specified number of kur, even if the field produced no crops at all. “

A sharecropper” mentioned in this discussion is an aris, who receives the field to work it and divides the produce with the owner of the field, by halves, thirds, or quarters.

When the owner of the field in Eretz Yisrael is a gentile, the question arises whether the lessee or sharecropper must tithe the produce that he gives to the gentile. This is the subject of the discussion.

We learned there:

One who leases a field from a gentile must tithe and give the produce to him [Demai 6:2].

According to the first tanna, the lessee must tithe all the produce before giving the gentile the produce owed to him, whereas the sharecropper is exempt from tithing the gentile's share.

The reason for the distinction is that the owner of the field and the sharecropper are partners in the produce; therefore, the sharecropper need tithe only his share. But the lessee owns all the produce, except that he is obligated to give the owner of the field a certain number of kur. He is therefore repaying a debt to the owner of the field, and a debt cannot be repaid with tevel.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

Even

one who accepts his ancestral field from a gentile as a sharecropper must tithe and give it to him

as is the law with regard to a lessee.

They assumed

[the amoraim assumed] that Rabbi Yehuda's statement was to be interpreted as follows:

What

[what is the meaning] of

“his ancestral field”

that Rabbi Yehuda mentioned?—

Eretz Yisrael.

And why did they call it “his ancestral field”?

Because Eretz Yisrael is

the field of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob

our forefathers.

And he holds

that Rabbi Yehuda bases his statement on two principles:

a.

A gentile's acquisition in Eretz Yisrael does not remove the obligation of tithing

and not in accordance with the opinion that a gentile who purchases land in Eretz Yisrael removes the sanctity of the land with regard to the mitzvot dependent on it, so that a Jew who purchases produce from him is not obligated to tithe it.

b.

And a sharecropper

who accepts a field from a gentile

is equivalent to a lessee.

Just as a lessee

whose law is that

whether he worked

the field and it produced crops

or whether he did not work it

and pays the gentile other produce,

he must tithe and give it to him

[he must tithe it and then give it to him], and he cannot give him tevel,

because he is considered to be repaying his debt.

So too, a sharecropper

who does not pay the owner of the field if the field produced no crops

is likewise considered to be repaying his debt;

the only difference is in the terms of payment. Therefore, he

must tithe

even the gentile's share

and give it to him .

.

He said to him

he challenged

Rav Kahana challenged Rav Pappi

on this interpretation, based on a beraita,

and some say

[there are those who say] that Rav Kahana raised this objection

to Rav Zevid:

But with regard to that which was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: One who accepts his ancestral field from a gentile oppressor

[a robber]

must tithe and give it to him.

[And in the beraita, Rabbi Yehuda adds that his statement applies specifically when the gentile robbed the land.]

Why specifically an “oppressor”? Even when there is no oppressor, too!

Why is the case specifically one involving an oppressor, according to the way we interpreted Rabbi Yehuda's statement?

Rather, actually

Rabbi Yehuda did not hold either of the two principles as an explanation of his statement.

Rather, it is possible that Rabbi Yehuda holds:

A gentile's acquisition in Eretz Yisrael does remove the obligation of tithing

and the gentile's field is exempt from terumot and tithes.

Therefore, one who accepts a field from a gentile who is not a robber is exempt from separating terumot and tithes, and one who leases a field from him is likewise exempt.

Alternatively, Rabbi Yehuda may hold that a gentile's acquisition in Eretz Yisrael does not remove the obligation, and one who leases a field from a gentile must tithe before giving it to the gentile,

but a sharecropper is not equivalent to a lessee

and is not considered to be repaying a debt to the gentile, but rather a partner who divides the produce with the gentile.

Therefore, one who accepts a field from a gentile who is not a robber is exempt from separating tithes from the gentile's share.

And what is meant by “his ancestral field”?

His actual ancestral field,

which the oppressor robbed from his father or his grandfather.

But if he accepted from the oppressor land that was not his ancestral land, he is not obligated to tithe his share, since there is no basic obligation to tithe for the reasons explained ; only one who accepts his ancestral field is obligated to tithe and give it to the gentile as a penalty.

And if you say: Why did they impose the penalty only on the son of the one who was robbed, and not on another person?

It was specifically for him that the Sages imposed the penalty,

because the penalty serves a purpose:

Since it is dear to him, he will go further and accept it.

[Because the field is dear to him, he will be prepared to accept a greater burden of tithes than any other sharecropper and will accept it.]

But an ordinary person, no

[but another person] would not accept it as a sharecropper if we obligated him to tithe the gentile's share as well. There is no reason for the Sages to cause people to refrain from accepting the field from the gentile .

And the Gemara asks:

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

What sin had he committed?

Rabbi Yohanan said:

The Sages wanted the sharecropper to make an effort to purchase the field from the gentile, and they obligated him to tithe

so that it would be clear

[clear] and established

in his possession,

and he would purchase it because tithing the gentile's share would be difficult for him, while the gentile would sell it for little money, since he had paid nothing for it but had merely robbed it .

Rabbi Jeremiah said: In a case such as this, it is a major necessity—

we could not have said this on the basis of reasoning alone.

Now, the Gemara returns to discuss a case similar to that of the Mishna: “A river swept away his olive trees.”

It was stated: If one enters his fellow’s field and plants

trees

without permission

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

There is no doubt that the owner of the field may not leave the trees in his possession without paying the planter, since he has benefited from them and his property has been improved by the planting.

However, the question must be considered: What is the amount of the payment?

Rav said: They appraise for him

the planter’s expenses for the planting, as well as the extent to which the field was improved by the planting,

and his hand is on the lower side.

If the field was improved by one hundred dinars and the person who entered the field spent fifty dinars, the owner of the field pays him fifty dinars. But if he spent one hundred and fifty dinars, he pays him only one hundred dinars.

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

a planter

to plant this field,

and the planter receives the same as the other planters of the city, in accordance with the local custom. If the planter receives one-third or one-quarter of the produce, so too does the person who entered the field receive that share.

Rav Pappa said: They do not disagree—

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

Here—

Shmuel’s statement was said

with regard to a field fit for planting ,

as it is more suitable for planting than for sowing. And presumably the owner of the field wants to plant it.

Here—

Rav’s statement was said

with regard to a field not fit for planting,

and therefore the hand of the person who entered it is on the lower side.

This

that Rav Pappa said

of Rav

that he said “his hand is on the lower side” only with regard to a field not fit for planting,

was not stated explicitly

by Rav;

it was stated [

that it was said]

rather

by implication—

from the incident that occurred

it was stated.

There was a certain

man

who came before Rav

for judgment. He had been sued to pay for trees that another person had planted in his field without his permission, and the field was not fit for planting.

He said to him,

Rav:

Go and assess it for him,

pay him. Rav did not know whether the field was fit for planting or not, and therefore he did not tell him how it should be assessed.

He said to him,

the owner of the field said to Rav:

I do not want it—

I do not want it. Rav understood that he meant that he did not want the trees in his field.

He said to him,

Rav said to him: If so,

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

as is the law with regard to a field not fit for planting.

He said to him: I do not want it.

Rav understood that he meant: Let the other man take his trees. Therefore, he remained silent, since in truth the owner of the field could say to the person who entered it: Take your trees and leave.

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

In the end, Rav saw that the owner of the field had fenced it and was protecting it.

He said to him,

Rav said to him:

You have revealed your דעת that you are pleased with it,

you have revealed that you are satisfied with the trees, and you do not want the person who entered the field to take them,

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

as is the law with regard to a field fit for planting. Through your actions you demonstrate that you want the trees; if you wanted grain, you should have waited until he took his trees.

It is evident from this incident that there is a distinction between a field fit for planting and a field not fit for planting. Initially, Rav thought that the owner of the field did not want trees in his field, and therefore ruled that the person’s hand was on the lower side. Ultimately, when Rav saw that he wanted the trees but did not want to pay for them, he ruled that “his hand is on the upper side”.

It was stated: If one enters the ruin of his fellow and rebuilds it without his permission, and he said to him

the person who entered it said to the owner of the ruin:

I am taking my wood and my stones,

because you are not paying me according to my wishes.

Rav Naḥman said: We heed him

the person who entered the property.

Rav Sheshet said: We do not heed him.

Meytivi—

the amoraim challenged Rav Naḥman from a beraita:

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

One who enters the ruin of his fellow and rebuilds 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 raise the objection:

Shall we say that Rav Naḥman said his ruling in accordance with Beit Shammai?

But a ruling of Beit Shammai in a place where Beit Hillel disagrees is not considered a Mishna.

And we answer:

He stated his opinion in accordance with this tanna—

Rav Naḥman follows the tanna who said that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel did not disagree in this matter.

And the Gemara cites a beraita:

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 conclusion was reached?

What is the halakha in this matter?