Bava Metzia 103b — the Talmud in English

the grapes,

so

they

divide ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

the vine branches,

the branches cut from the vine,

and

also

the canes,

upon which the vines are supported, they divide, even though they are not part of the increase of the land,

and

the Gemara explains that the reason for this is that

both of them supply the canes.

Gemara:

A tanna taught,

we learned in a beraita: A laborer who accepted upon himself to tend the field must reap it according to the custom of the country; therefore:

a.

Where it is customary to reap

the grain with a sickle,

he is not permitted to uproot

the grain by hand together with its roots.

b. Where it is customary

to uproot

by hand and not with a sickle, he is not

permitted to reap

with a sickle.

And both of them,

the landowner and the recipient,

may prevent one another

from changing the custom.

The Gemara now explains what is stated in the beraita:

What the beraita first said, where it is customary

to reap

with a sickle,

he is not permitted to uproot by hand—

it is speaking when

this one,

the landowner,

said, “I want my field to be made straw-filled,”

I want the straw to remain in the soil, so that it will fertilize it for the following year, and for that purpose it must be reaped with a sickle, whereas the recipient wishes to change the custom and uproot the grain by its roots. In such a case the landowner can prevent him, so that he will reap according to the custom and not uproot.

And likewise on the other side, if the landowner wishes to change the custom of reaping with a sickle and says to the recipient, “Uproot by hand,”

and this one,

the recipient,

said, “I cannot!”

It is difficult for me to uproot, since uprooting is more difficult than reaping—in this case the recipient may reap with a sickle according to the custom, and he is not obligated to uproot at the landowner’s request.

And what the beraita said, where it is customary

to uproot

by hand, the recipient

is not permitted to reap—

it is speaking in a case where

this one,

the landowner, wishes to uproot by hand according to the custom, and

said, “I want my field to be made clean,”

so that it will be clean of roots, which need not remain in it and fertilize it. And the recipient wishes to change the custom and reap; he is not permitted to change, and he must uproot.

And likewise on the other side, if the owner of the field wishes to change the custom and says to the recipient, “Reap,”

and this one

the recipient

said, “I need my straw,”

I need straw to give to my animals, and for that purpose I must uproot the grain together with the roots, the recipient may prevent the landowner and uproot according to the custom. The later authorities wondered: Why, when the aris prefers uprooting, do we say that the reason is that he needs straw, whereas when the landowner prefers uprooting, we say that he wants the field to be clean of its roots, and do not say in both cases that the reason for preferring uprooting is that he needs straw? The Maharsha answered that the landowner’s reason is superior; therefore they stated that he says, “I want my field to be made clean,” and this does not apply to the recipient. See the Rashash.

And we raise an objection: Since we learned at the beginning of the beraita that where there is a custom, neither of them may change, then why did the beraita add and say

“And both of them may prevent one another”—what do I need it for?

We learn it from the first clause!

And we answer: The final clause

“What is the reason,” it says.

What is the reason

we say that where it is customary

to reap, he is not permitted to uproot,

and where it is customary

to uproot, he is not permitted to reap? Because

both of them have claims, on account of which they

may prevent one another.

We learned in the Mishna: Where it is customary

to plow after it, he shall plow.

And we ask: Since we learned “Everything follows the custom of the country,” then

it is obvious

that in a place where they are accustomed to plow after the reaping, he is not permitted to change the custom!

And we answer:

It is necessary,

here it is speaking

in a place where they do not weed,

in a place where they are not accustomed to weed the bad plants from among the grain of the field,

and he went and weeded.

You might have said

he could

say to him,

the recipient to the owner of the field,

“The fact that I weeded the grain

was

was with the intention that I would not plow it,”

so that I would not need to plow, because weeding takes the place of plowing, since it too cleans the soil of bad plants.

It teaches us that

if the recipient wishes to weed instead of plow,

it is necessary for him

the recipient

to explain to him

that he intends to weed instead of plow.

We learned in the Mishna:

Everything follows the custom of the country.

And the Gemara explains: This that it taught,

everything

follows the custom of the country—

what does it come to include? It comes to include this—

For the Sages taught:

An aris who accepted upon himself to work a grain field, and trees also grew in that field, which do not require tending:

Where it is customary to rent out

to the aris also the

trees

in the field, so that he has the right to partake of part of their fruit,

by virtue of,

by virtue of the arisut of the grain of the

land,

and the aris divides their fruit as he divides the grain of the field, the law is that ordinary owners of fields

rent out

the trees also to the aris, according to the custom of the place, even if they did not explicitly say so. But

where it is not customary to rent out

the trees, if they gave him the land without specification,

they do not rent them out.

And we ask: This that you said,

where it is customary to rent out

trees,

they rent them out,

and the recipient takes a share in their increase—this matter

is obvious,

for that is the custom of the place.

And we answer:

It is necessary,

it is necessary to teach this in a place

where everyone gives

the aris land on condition that the landowner take

a

third of the increase of the grain from the field,

one-third,

and the aris takes two-thirds for himself.

And

if here

he went,

he,

the landowner,

and gave it,

and gave it to the aris

at one-quarter,

on condition that the landowner take only one-quarter of the grain of the field for himself, and the aris take three-quarters, it follows that the landowner added to the aris more than the customary amount.

Therefore,

you might have said that he said to him,

the landowner to the aris:

“This that I reduced for you,

what I reduced from my share and added to you, was

with the intention that I would not give you any share in the trees

at all.”

It teaches us

that if the landowner wishes not to give the aris a share in the trees and to add to him in return from the land,

it is necessary for him

the owner of the field

to explain to him:

We learned in a beraita:

Where it is customary not to rent them out, they do not rent them out.

And we inquire about this:

It is obvious

that one follows the custom!?

And the Gemara explains:

It is necessary, for everyone

the arisim of

the world

accept the field for work on condition that the landowner take

one-quarter, and he went,

the aris,

and accepted it

with the understanding that the owner of the field take

one-third,

so it follows that the aris added to the landowner more than the custom.

You might have said

he could

say to him

the aris to the owner of the field:

“This that I increased,

what I added

to you

beyond what is due to you, was

with the intention that you would give me

a share

in the trees,”

it teaches us that

if the aris wishes to take a share in the trees and for this to increase the owners’ share,

it is necessary for the aris

to

explain to him:

We learned in the Mishna:

Just as they divide

the aris and the owner of the field

the grain, so they divide the straw and the stubble:

Rav Yosef said:

Even though we learned that the landowner must divide with the aris also in the straw, everything depends upon the custom, and

in Babylonia they were accustomed not to give straw to the aris!

What practical difference does it make? That if there is someone who gives

straw to the aris in a place where they are not accustomed to give it, this means only that the owner is

generous, and we do not learn from him,

one cannot learn from him that this is how one should act.

The Gemara now explains which tasks in the field are imposed upon the owners and which upon the aris.

Rav Yosef said: A bukhra,

the making of the boundary, like a wall, around the field, called a bukhra [and such was their practice in building the wall: they made a trench around the field, and from the earth removed from the trench they raised an earthen mound around it, along the boundary of the field].

And a taftei,

and likewise the making of the taftei upon the bukhra: after the earth of the bukhra had been trampled, they would add more earth upon it [called taftei, like tafei, which is an expression of increase],

and an arkevta,

and likewise the placing of earth a third time, called an arkevta, because the third layer of earth rides above all of them.

And

likewise the making of

the kanei de-hizra,

which are canes that are driven into the ground, upon which thorns or boards are hung as a partition for the field.

All these are at the expense of

the landowner;

they are his responsibility.

And

as for the

fence itself

[the thorns and boards], it is the obligation

of the aris

to install it.

The general principle of the matter: Everything

that

whose essence

is

a boundary,

which is the main part of the fence and protection of the field, it is the obligation

of the landowner

to install it.

But anything made only for

additional protection,

for an added measure of protection so that he will not need to guard the field at all, it is the obligation

of the aris

to install it.

And Rav Yosef said: A mara,

an axe with which one digs,

and a zavila,

tools with which earth is carried,

and a duvla,

a bucket for irrigating the field,

and a zarnuka,

a leather flask with which water is drawn, in a place where they are accustomed to draw water with flasks—it is the obligation

of the landowner

to purchase them for the needs of working the field.

But

the aris makes irrigation channels,

he must prepare channels from the river in order to irrigate the field.

We learned in the Mishna:

Just as they divide the wine, so they divide the vine branches and the canes:

And we inquire about this:

Canes—what work do they serve!?

What need is there for them?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said:

Our Mishna is speaking of

smoothed canes,

whose bark has been removed,

with which they set up

and support

the vines.

We learned in the Mishna:

And both of them supply the canes:

And we object: Since we learned that they both divide the canes that support the vines, even though they are not part of the increase that grows in the field, it necessarily follows that the reason is that both of them brought the canes, and each one takes his canes at the conclusion of the work.

If so, this that the tan­ nay repeated and said, “And both of them supply the canes,”

what do I need it for?

And we answer: The tan­ nay in our Mishna is not stating an additional law here, but rather, in the language of

“What is the reason,” it says

this:

What is the reason that both of them divide the canes? Because

from the outset

both of them supply the canes.

Mishna:

One who accepts a field from his fellow

by lease,

and it is a spring-irrigated field,

in which a spring of water issues forth in the field; and there is a particular advantage to such a field, since it is a dry field, which does not suffice with rainwater alone but also requires irrigation, and therefore the presence of the spring within it enables irrigation without great exertion.

Or

who undertook to work a “white field,” which is

a tree field,

a grain field that has trees in it, and it is preferable in his eyes to every other field, because he can also eat some of the fruit of the tree that grows in it, without exertion, in addition to the payment for his work in the field.

And after he began working in it,

the spring dried up

of the spring-irrigated field,

and the tree was cut down

of the tree field.

Since the recipient did not explicitly state that he accepted the lease of the field because of the spring or because of the tree within it,

he does not deduct for him,

the recipient does not reduce

from his lease payment,

from what he undertook to deliver at the completion of the work to the owner of the field; rather, he pays as they initially agreed.

But

if the recipient said to him

explicitly:

Lease

lease out]

to me this spring-irrigated field, or this tree field,

thereby revealing his opinion that because of the spring or the tree in the field he is taking this particular field specifically in order to work it,

And after some time

the spring dried up, and the tree was cut down; he deducts for him

the recipient

from his lease payment

that he undertook to deliver to the owner of the field,

Because the recipient made his acceptance of the field conditional upon there being a spring or a tree in it. And since he did not receive what he stipulated for, he is not obligated to deliver to the owner of the house the entire sum that he undertook to pay him; rather, he deducts for him the amount of the additional work added to him by the drying up of the spring, or the loss of the fruit from the cutting down of the tree.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: If the spring dried up, he does not deduct for him from his lease payment.

And we raise an objection to it:

What are the circumstances?

What is being discussed?

If you say that the great river dried up,

that the central river, from which all the owners of the fields irrigate, dried up,

why

do we say that the lessee

does not deduct for him

for the owner of the house

from his lease payment? Let him say to him

the lessee to the owner of the field: “The fact that the river dried up”

is a provincial calamity!

for it dried up for all the owners of the fields, and below we learned: If a field was ruined, if it was because of a provincial calamity, the lessee deducts from his lease payment!

Said

in answer

Rav Pappa:

The matter here concerns

the small river drying up,

which conveys the water from the great river to the field,

for the owner of the field said to him

the owner of the field said to the lessee: “Your fortune caused the river to dry up. And the proof is that the river dried up only in your portion. Therefore, you cannot deduct from the lease payment; and when you wish to irrigate the field,

you should bring it,

to bring the water,

with a bucket,

with a pail.