Bava Metzia 105a (קה.) — the Talmud in English

Similarly, if the recipient received

two business ventures, and

wrote

one document

for both of them, the profit and loss are not calculated separately. Rather, if there is a loss of five dinars in one venture and a profit of fifteen dinars in the other, he has a total profit of ten dinars. The investor takes one-third, namely, three and one-third dinars, and the recipient takes six and two-thirds dinars.

And this is

the recipient’s loss,

because had he divided the receipt for the two ventures into two documents, the profit and loss would have been calculated separately. The investor would then have taken, from the venture that incurred the loss, half the loss, namely, two and a half dinars, and from the venture that yielded a profit, one-third, namely, five dinars.

It follows that only two and a half dinars would remain in his possession, while all twelve of the remaining dinars would be in the recipient’s possession. By making one document for the two ventures, the recipient therefore incurred a loss.

And Rava said: With regard to one who receives a business venture from another

in order to engage in it and divide the profits,

and he incurs a loss,

and the recipient then

toiled and

engaged in commerce until he

filled it,

restoring the principal to the amount it had been when he received the business venture,

but did not inform him

the owner of the loss at the time of the loss that he had incurred a loss, and he continued to engage in commerce in order to earn a profit,

the recipient cannot say to the investor

:

“Bear,”

let us first divide in half

the initial loss

that had occurred,

with me,

together with me; and afterward you will take one-third of the profit, while I will take two-thirds, so that the investor will receive less than the principal,

because he says to him:

the investor says to the recipient:

“You toiled to fill it

to restore the principal

so that they would not call you ‘one who loses business ventures.’”

That is, since you did not inform me of the loss at the time it occurred, this indicates that you were ashamed of it. Your toil to make good the loss was for your own honor, so that you would not be called “a loser” in the ventures you receive from people. Therefore, the loss is not divided between us. Consequently, the owner takes the entire principal.

And Rava said: These two

sharecroppers

who conduct a business venture together,

having agreed with the owner of the property to work and engage in his commerce until a certain time and divide the profits,

and

after some time

there was a profit,

they began to earn a profit,

and one said to the other: “Come, let us divide,”

let us divide the profits, because I do not wish to continue engaging with you in the property owner’s commerce.

The law is that

if the other says to him,

“I wish to continue the partnership, because in this way

we will earn more; the law is that he may prevent him

from dividing the partnership in the middle of the period they agreed upon for their partnership in the business venture.

And now the Gemara explains this matter step by step:

1.

If he says to him, “Give me half the profit,”

but let us continue to engage jointly with the principal, the partner

can say to him:

the partner can say to him:

“Profit is subordinated to the principal!”

As long as there is concern that we may lose the principal, the profit is subordinated to restoring the loss, and it cannot be divided.

2.

And if he says to him, “Give me half the profit and half the principal,”

meaning, “I wish to end the partnership,”

his partner says to him:

the partner says to him:

“The business venture is subordinated to one another!”

If we divide, perhaps my portion will incur a loss while your portion will earn a profit. But as long as we remain partners, each of our portions is subordinated to the other. Consequently, I will lose by the division.

3.

And if he says to him, “Let us divide the profit and divide the principal,”

let us divide the principal and the profit and dissolve the partnership,

and if a loss reaches you,

if you suffer a loss,

I will bear it,

I will pay

along with you,

I will share the loss with you, the partner

can say to him:

the partner can say to him:

“No!”

I do not agree to divide the partnership, because

“the fortune of two is better.”

The fortune of two partners together is better than the fortune of one. Therefore, he cannot end the partnership.

Mishna:

One who receives a field from another

as a ḥakhar arrangement, in which he undertakes to give the owners a fixed amount of produce each year, if this was in a place where it was customary to weed the bad grasses from the produce after the harvest,

and he did not wish

the lessee

to weed,

and he said to him,

the lessee said to the owners:

“What concern is it to you

that I do not weed, and the grasses will weaken the wheat crop? You are not losing anything by this,

since I am giving you your fixed rental payment

as we agreed”?

He is not heeded,

and he is obligated to weed,

because the lessor can

the lessor can

say to him: “Tomorrow,

when you finish your lease,

you will leave it, and

it will be

raised before me with weeds.”

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that the owner of the field can compel the recipient of the field to weed it. The Gemara now presents several claims of the lessee seeking to exempt himself from weeding, and nevertheless the owner has the power to compel him to weed.

1.

If he says to him

the lessee says: “I will harvest without weeding, and

afterward I will plow it,”

I will plow it and thereby remove the bad grasses,

he

can say to him:

the lessor can say to him:

“I want superior wheat.”

I want superior wheat, and if you do not weed, the wheat will be spoiled and weakened.

2.

And if he says to him

the lessee says to him:

“I will buy wheat for you

from the market,”

I will buy wheat for you from the market in place of that which grows in your field, in the fixed amount I undertook to give you.

He

can say to him:

the lessor can say to him:

“I want the wheat of my land!”

I wish to receive wheat that grew in my field, and not wheat from the market !

3.

And if he says to him

the lessee says to him:

“I will weed for you

only

the measure of your portion.”

I will weed only part of the land, the part in which grows the amount of wheat that you take for yourself from the field’s produce, while all the rest, which remains mine, I will not weed.

He

can say to him:

the lessor can say to him:

“You are giving my land a bad name.”

You are giving my field a bad name, as though weak wheat grows in it.

And we challenge this:

But we learned

in our Mishna that the lessor’s claim, in demanding that the field be weeded, is

because “you will leave it raised before me with weeds,”

and not because of the claims mentioned by the Gemara.

And we answer: The reason stated in our Mishna is a general reason for all the lessee’s claims, since it does not concern the deficiency in this year’s wheat, the year in which the lessee worked the field,

but

the deficiency in the produce of the following year:

Because the owner of the field says to him:

the owner of the field says to him:

“The seed

of the weeds

that falls

onto the ground and is not weeded immediately at the end of the work

has fallen;

it will take root in the ground and will no longer emerge from it even through plowing, and the bad grasses will grow again in the following year.

Mishna:

One who receives a field from another

as a sharecropper, undertaking to toil and care for the field and give the owner one-half, one-third, or one-quarter of the produce that the field yields, while taking the remainder for himself,

and it produced

only a small amount of produce, and consequently the sharecropper does not wish to care for it, since it is insufficient for his needs after he divides it with the owner,

if there is in it

produce in an amount

sufficient

to gather and

make a heap, he is obligated

the sharecropper

to care for it.

The Gemara will explain what this measure is.

Rabbi Yehuda said:

The difficulty of caring for a small field is not comparable to that of caring for a large field, and

what

relevance is there to giving every field

a fixed measure of a kor?

Rather,

Rabbi Yehuda said:

If there is enough for sowing,

if the field produced an amount of grain equal to the seed that was “cast” and sown in it—that is, enough to resow the field with the wheat that grew this year, so that produce will grow from it the following year—the sharecropper is obligated to care for it.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One who receives a field from another

as a sharecropper,

and it produced

only a small amount of produce,

if there is in it

an amount of produce

sufficient

to gather and

make a heap, he is obligated to care for it.

This is

because this is what he writes for him

the sharecropper writes for the owner of the field when he undertakes to work the field:

“I will stand and plow,”

I will stand and plow,

and sow and reap,”

I will harvest,

“and gather into sheaves,”

I will gather the produce into sheaves,

“and thresh”

the ears of grain,

“and winnow,”

I will scatter the chaff,

“and set up a heap before you,”

I will set up the heap before you,

“and you will come and take half, while I

will take

of

the produce of

my labor and of what emerges

from

my hand, half.”

And how much

produce must there be

“

sufficient to make a heap”? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina, said: Enough that

there will be in the heap an amount such that

the pitchfork will stand in it

the pitchfork, the implement with which the produce is winnowed in the wind, so that if one inserts the pitchfork into the heap, the heap will be able to hold it without its falling to the ground.

The “pitchfork” is a large fork-like implement with tines that spread out in an arc. The spreading of the tines is intended to increase the capacity for holding produce.

They raised a dilemma:

If he made a heap of a minimal measure that can indeed hold the pitchfork inserted into it, but the entire pitchfork does not become inserted into it because of the small amount of produce in the heap, rather, it was

“a pitchfork extending from this side to that side,”

so that the points of the fork are visible on both sides of the produce,

what is the law?

Come and hear:

from this statement:

Rabbi Abbahu said: “For me, it was explained to me by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Hanina,

that the measure for inserting the pitchfork is

whenever its ‘receptacle’

the receptacle for the produce on the pitchfork—that is, the entire head of the pitchfork, including its widening side

does not see the sunlight,

but is entirely inserted into the heap.

Therefore, if he made a heap of such a quantity that when the pitchfork is inserted into it, the points of its fork are still visible from outside, the sharecropper is not obligated to care for that field.

It was stated: Levi said,

the measure of a heap is

three se’a.

Whereas

the scholars

of the school of

Rabbi Yannai said: Two se’a.

Reish Lakish said: The two se’a that they said

the scholars of Rabbi Yannai, that this is the measure obligating the sharecropper to care for the field, refers to a case in which there are two se’a

apart from the expenses

that the sharecropper invested in the field.

But if the field produced grain in an amount that, after the sharecropper’s expenses are calculated in grain, leaves less than two se’a, the sharecropper is not obligated to care for the field.

The Gemara now brings several additional statements that were said in the study hall of Rabbi Yannai.

We learned there: “Overripe” olives and grapes,

[“Overripe” is an expression denoting wicked and bad], which are always unripe and whose ripening is incomplete—if water came upon them,

Beit Shammai deem them impure,

because

they have the status of food,

and they have thereby become susceptible to tum’at okhlin,

and Beit Hillel deem them pure,

since they cannot be eaten, they are not called food.

And the Gemara explains:

What are “overripe olives”?

Rav Huna said: Wicked olives,

bad olives.

Rav Yosef said: And what is the verse?

What is the scriptural source for the name “overripe”?

as it is stated [Daniel 11]] "

and the sons

of the violent men among your people shall rise to establish a vision, but they shall stumble."

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: From here:

[Ezekiel 18]

“And he begets a violent son, one who sheds blood.”

And the Gemara discusses:

And how much

will the olives have to be ripened, and yet be of such poor quality that they may be called "

violent olives”?

Rabbi Elazar said:

If the olives yield only

four kav

of oil, from the quantity of olives that they ordinarily place beneath

the beam

of the olive press in order to squeeze them, they are called violent olives.

The academy of Rabbi Yannai says:

If they yield only

two se'a

of oil, which is twelve kav from the usual quantity of olives, when they squeeze them beneath

the beam.

And the Gemara explains:

They do not disagree.

This

which Rabbi Elazar said, four kav, applies

in a place where they put one kor

of olives

into the ulala,

the receptacle beneath the beam.

This

which the academy of Rabbi Yannai said, two se'a, applies

in a place where they put three korin into the ulala,

which is beneath the beam.