Bava Metzia 103b (קג:) — the Talmud in English

the grapes,

so

they

divide

the vine branches,

the branches cut from the vine,

and

also

the poles,

on which the vines are supported; they divide them even though they are not part of the increase of the land,

and

the Gemara explains that the reason is that

both of them supply the poles.

Gemara:

The tanna

taught in a beraita: A laborer who undertook to tend a field and must harvest it according to the custom of the region:

a.

In a place where it is customary to harvest

the grain with a sickle,

he may not uproot

the grain by hand together with its roots.

b. In a place where it is customary

to uproot

by hand rather than with a sickle, he

may not harvest

with a sickle.

And both of them,

the landowner and the recipient,

can prevent one another

from deviating from the custom.

The Gemara now explains what is stated in the beraita:

What the beraita initially stated, that in a place where it is customary

to harvest

with a sickle,

he may not uproot by hand—

refers to a case in which

this one,

the landowner,

said: “I want my field to be provided with straw,”

as he wants the straw to remain in the soil so that it will fertilize it for the following year, and therefore he wants it harvested with a sickle, whereas the recipient wishes to deviate from the custom and uproot the grain together with its roots. In such a case, the landowner can prevent him from doing so and require him to harvest according to the custom rather than uproot it.

Likewise, in the opposite case, if the landowner wishes to deviate from the custom of harvesting with a sickle and says to the recipient, “Uproot it by hand,”

and this one,

the recipient,

says: “I cannot!”

as uprooting is difficult for him, since uprooting is more difficult than harvesting, then the recipient may harvest with a sickle according to the custom, and he is not obligated to uproot it at the landowner’s request.

And what the beraita stated, that in a place where it is customary

to uproot

by hand, the recipient

may not harvest—

refers to a case in which

this one,

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

said: “I want my field to be cleaned,”

so that it will be free of roots, which need not remain there and fertilize it. The recipient wishes to deviate from the custom and harvest, but he may not deviate, and must uproot.

Likewise, in the opposite case, if the landowner wishes to deviate from the custom and tells the recipient to harvest,

and this

the recipient

says: “I need straw,”

as he needs it to feed his animals and therefore must uproot the grain together with its roots, the recipient may prevent the landowner from doing so and uproot it according to the custom.

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 we raise an objection: Since we learned at the beginning of the beraita that where there is an established custom, neither of them may deviate, then why did the beraita add the statement,

“And both of them can prevent one another”? We already learn it from the first clause!?

And we answer: The latter clause

“states the reason.”

What is the reason

that we say that where it is customary

to harvest, he may not uproot,

and where it is customary

to uproot, he may not harvest? Because

both of them have claims on whose basis they can

prevent one another.

We learned in the Mishna: In a place where it is customary

to plow after it, he must plow.

And we challenge this: Since we learned, “Everything follows the custom of the region,” then

it is obvious

that in a place where it is customary to plow after harvesting, he may not deviate from the custom!?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to state this here,

in a place where they do not weed,

in a place where they do not usually weed the harmful plants from among the grain,

and he went and weeded.

Lest you say

that he can

say to him,

the recipient to the landowner:

“The fact that I weeded

the grain

was with the intention that I would not plow it,

so that I would not need to plow, since weeding serves in place of plowing, as it too cleans the soil of harmful weeds.”

It teaches us that

if the recipient wishes to weed instead of plow,

he must

the recipient

explain to him

that he intends to weed instead of plow.

We learned in the Mishna:

Everything follows the custom of the region.

The Gemara explains: This statement that the Mishna taught,

“Everything”

follows the custom of the region—

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

As the Sages taught:

An aris who undertook to work a grain field, and trees also grew in that field, although they do not require tending:

In a place where it is customary to rent

the

trees

in the field to the aris as well, so that he has the right to partake of some of their produce,

in addition,

along with his arisut in the produce of the

land,

and the aris divides their produce as he divides the produce of the field, the law is that ordinary landowners

rent

the trees to the aris as well, in accordance with the local custom, even if they did not explicitly say so. But

in a place where it is not customary to rent

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

they do not rent them.

And we challenge this: What you said,

“In a place where it is customary to rent”

trees,

they rent them,

and the recipient takes a share in their increase—this

is obvious,

since that is the local custom.

And we answer:

It is necessary

to state this in a case

where everyone gives

the aris land on the condition that the landowner take

a

share of the produce of the field

of one-third,

and the aris takes two-thirds for himself.

But

here,

he went,

he,

the landowner,

and gave it

to the aris

for one-quarter,

on the condition that the landowner take only one-quarter of the field’s produce and the aris take three-quarters, so the landowner added to the aris more than is customary.

Therefore,

lest you say that he can say to him,

the landowner to the aris:

“The fact that I reduced

my share and added to yours was

with the intention that I would give you no share at all in the trees,”

but only in the field—

it teaches us

that if the landowner wishes not to give the aris a share in the trees and to add to his share of the land in exchange,

he must

the landowner

explain to him this intention.

We learned in a beraita:

In a place where it is not customary to rent them, they do not rent them.

And we inquire about this:

Is it obvious

that one follows the custom!?

The Gemara explains:

It is necessary, for all

the arisim of

the world

accept the field for cultivation on the condition that the landowner take

one-quarter, and he went,

the aris,

and accepted it

on the understanding that the landowner would take

one-third.

Thus, the aris added to the landowner more than the customary amount.

Lest you say

that he can

say to him,

the aris to the landowner:

“The fact that I increased

what I gave

you

beyond what was 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, in exchange, increase the landowner’s share,

he must

the aris

explain this to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

Just as they divide

the aris and the landowner

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

Rav Yosef said:

Although we learned that the landowner must divide the straw with the aris, everything depends on the custom, and

in Babylonia it was customary not to give straw to the aris!

What practical difference does this make? If there is someone who gives

straw to an aris in a place where it is not customary to give it, this is merely an indication that the landowner is

generous, and we do not derive the custom from him;

one cannot learn from him that this is the proper practice.

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

Rav Yosef said: “Bukhra,”

the construction of the boundary, like a wall, around the field, called bukhra [and this was their practice in building the wall: they made a ditch around the field, and from the earth removed from the ditch they raised an earthen embankment around the boundary of the field].

“Utefta,”

and likewise the making of the tefta atop the bukhra: after the earth of the bukhra had been beaten down, they added more earth to it [called tefta, from tefei, meaning “more”],

“And arkhevta,”

and likewise the placing of earth a third time, called arkhevta, since the third layer of earth rides above all the others.

And

likewise the making of

the poles of the fence,

which are poles driven into the ground, upon which thorns or boards are hung as a partition around the field.

All these are at the expense of

the landowner;

they are his responsibility.

But

as for the

fence itself

[the thorns and boards], it is

the aris’s

responsibility to install it.

The general principle is: Everything

whose

primary

function is

the fence,

which is the essential protection and guarding of the field, is the responsibility

of the landowner

to install.

But an item made only for

additional protection,

as an extra measure of guarding so that he will not need to guard the field at all, is the responsibility

of the aris

to install.

And Rav Yosef said: “A mara,”

an axe used for digging,

“and a zavila,”

tools used for carrying earth,

“and a duvla,”

a bucket for irrigating the field,

“and a zarnuka,”

a skin used for drawing water, in a place where it is customary to draw water with skins—all these it is the responsibility

of the landowner

to purchase for the work of the field.

But

the aris must make 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 poles:

And we inquire about this:

The poles—what purpose do they serve!?

What need is there for them?

The school of Rabbi Yannai said:

Our Mishna is speaking of

smoothed poles,

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 poles:

And we challenge this: Since we learned that they both divide the poles supporting the vines, even though they are not part of the increase growing in the field, it necessarily follows that the reason is that both of them brought the poles, and each takes his poles at the end of the work.

If so, why did the tanna repeat the statement, “And both of them supply the poles,”

why do I need it?

And we answer: The tanna of our Mishna is not stating an additional law here; rather, he

“states the reason,”

as follows:

What is the reason that both divide the poles? Because

from the outset

both of them supply the poles.

и это поле — beit hashelahin,

на поле beit hashelahin,