Bava Metzia 105a — the Talmud in English

And likewise, if the borrower received

two business ventures, and

wrote

one document

for both of them, they do not calculate the profit and the loss separately. Rather, if there is a loss of five dinars in one business and a profit of fifteen dinars in the other business, it is found that he has altogether a profit of ten dinars; the provider takes one-third, namely three and one-third dinars, and the recipient takes six and two-thirds dinars.

And this is

the loss of the borrower,

for had he divided the receipt of the two businesses into two documents, they would have judged the profit and the loss separately. Then the provider would have taken, from the portion of the loss, half the loss, namely two and one-half dinars, and from the portion of the profit one-third, namely five dinars.

And it is found that only two and one-half dinars would remain in his possession, while all twelve of the remaining dinars would be in the possession of the borrower; and by making one document for the two businesses, the borrower lost.

And Rava said: This one who receives a business venture from his fellow

in order to engage in it and divide the profits,

and he loses,

and the recipient returns and

strives, and

engages in merchandise until he

fills it,

restoring the amount of the principal to what it had been at the time he received the business venture,

but he did not inform him

the owner of the house, at the time of the loss, that he had suffered a loss, and he continued to engage in merchandise in order to profit.

He cannot say to him

the recipient to the provider:

Wait,

let us first divide in half the

initial loss

that had been at the beginning,

with me,

together with me, and afterward you will take one-third of the profit and I will take two-thirds, with the result that the provider will receive less than the principal,

because he said to him

the provider to the recipient:

For this reason you exerted yourself to fill it,

to complete 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, it is a sign that you were ashamed of it; and your exertion to fill the loss was for your honor, so that you would not be called “a loser” in the businesses that you receive from people. Therefore, the loss is not divided between us. Consequently, the owner of the house takes the entire principal.

And Rava said: These two

sharecroppers

who conduct a business venture together,

who agreed with the owner of the house to work and engage in his merchandise until a certain time and divide the profits,

and

after some time

there was profit,

they began to profit,

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

let us divide the profits, for I do not wish to continue engaging with you in the merchandise of the owner of the house.

The law is that

if the other said to him,

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

we will profit more,” it is the law that he can prevent him

from dividing in the middle of the time that they agreed upon for being partners in the business venture.

And now he explains it and proceeds:

a.

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

but we will continue engaging together with regard to the principal, he can

say to him

the partner:

“Profit is subordinate to the principal!”

As long as there is concern that we may lose the principal, the profit is subordinate to completing the loss, and it is impossible to divide it.

b.

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

for I wish to terminate the partnership.

He said to him

the partner:

“The business venture is mutually subordinated!”

If we divide, perhaps my portion will lose and your portion will profit; whereas now, while we are in the partnership, each one’s portion is subordinated to the other. It follows that I will lose through the division.

c.

And if he said to him, “Let us divide the profit and let us 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

with you,

I will share the loss with you, he can

say to him

the partner:

“No!”

I do not agree to divide, because

“the fortune of two is better.”

The fortune of two, the partners among themselves, is better than the fortune of one. Therefore, he cannot terminate the partnership.

Mishna:

One who receives a field from his fellow

on a lease, in order to give the owners a fixed amount of produce per 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 to the owners:

“What concern is it to you

that I do not weed and the grasses will weaken the yield of the wheat? After all, you do not lose through this,

since I give you your lease payment

as we agreed!”

They do not listen to him,

and he is obligated to weed,

because the lessor can

the lessee

say to him: “Tomorrow,

when you finish your lease,

you are leaving it, and

it will be

left before me full of grasses.”

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that the owner of the field can compel the one who receives the field to weed it. The Gemara now brings several claims of the lessee in order to be exempt from weeding, and nevertheless the owner of the house has the power to compel him to weed.

a.

If he said to him

the lessee: “I will harvest without weeding, and

after this I will plow it,”

I will plow it and thereby remove the bad grasses,

he can

say to him

the lessor:

“I want superior wheat.”

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

b.

And if he said to him

the lessee:

“I will buy wheat for you

from the market,”

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

He can

say to him

the lessor:

“I want the wheat of my land!”

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

c.

And if he said to him

the lessee:

“I will weed for you

only

the measure of your portion,”

I will weed only part of the land, that same part in which grows the quantity of wheat that you take for yourself from the field’s produce; but all the rest, what remains for me, I will not weed.

He can

say to him

the lessor:

“You are giving a bad name to my land.”

You are giving my field a bad name, that thin wheat grows in it.

And we raise an objection:

But we learned

in our Mishna that the lessor’s claim, who wants weeding, is

“because you are leaving before me a field full of grasses,”

and not because of the claims mentioned in the Gemara.

And we answer: The reason mentioned in our Mishna is a general reason for all the lessee’s claims, since he is not dealing with the deficiency of the wheat of this year, in which the lessee worked,

but

with the deficiency of the produce of the following year:

Because the owner of the field says to him:

the owner of the field:

“Seed,”

the seed of the grasses,

that fell

upon the ground and was not weeded immediately at the end of the work,

has fallen;

it will take root in the ground, and afterward it will not leave it even through plowing, and the bad grasses will again grow in the following year.

Mishna:

One who receives a field from his fellow

as a sharecropper, in order to exert himself and tend the field and give the owner of the house half, or one-third, or one-quarter of the produce that the field produces, while he takes the rest for himself,

and it did not produce

anything but a little produce, and because of this the sharecropper does not wish to tend it, since it does not contain enough for his needs after he divides with the owner of the house,

if there is in it

produce in a quantity

sufficient

to gather and

make a pile, he is obligated

the sharecropper

to tend it.

And the Gemara will explain what this measure is.

Rabbi Judah said:

After all, the difficulty of tending a small field is not comparable to tending a large field, and

what

connection is there to give every field

a fixed measure of one kor!?

Rather,

said Rabbi Judah:

If there is in it enough for sowing,

if produce grew in the measure of the seed that he “cast” and sowed in it—that is, he can return and sow the field with the wheat that grew this year, so that produce will grow from it in the following year—the sharecropper is obligated to tend it.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One who receives a field from his fellow

as a sharecropper,

and it did not produce

anything but a little produce,

if there is in it

a quantity of produce

sufficient

to gather and

make a pile, he is obligated to tend it.

Since

this is what he writes to him

the sharecropper to 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 make sheaves,

I will gather the produce into sheaves, sheaves,

and thresh

the stalks,

and winnow,

I will scatter the chaff,

and set up a pile before you,

I will set up the pile before you,

and you will come and take half, and I

will take

from the

fruits of

my labor, and from what comes forth

and from what comes out from beneath

my hand, half.

And how much

produce is there

“sufficient to make a pile in it”?

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said: Enough that

there be in the pile a measure in which

the rake will stand

[a pitchfork, which is the implement by which one tosses the produce to the wind], so that if he thrusts the rake into the pile, the pile will have the strength to hold it without its falling to the ground.

The “rake” is a pitchfork, resembling a large fork with teeth that spread in the form of an arc. The spreading of the teeth is intended to enlarge the receptacle for the produce.

They raised a question before them:

If he made a pile of a minimal measure, which indeed can hold the pitchfork thrust into it, but the entire pitchfork is not thrust into it because of the minimal quantity of produce in the pile, but it was

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

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

what

Come and hear,

from this

that Rabbi Abbahu said: “It was explained to me by Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina himself,

that the measure for thrusting in a rake is:

Whenever its ‘receptacle’

[the receptacle for the produce that is in the rake, namely the entire head of the pitchfork, including its widening side]

does not see the face of the sun,

but is entirely thrust into the pile.

Therefore, if he made a pile of such a quantity that, when the rake is thrust into it, its points are still visible from outside, the sharecropper is not obligated to tend that field.

It was stated: Levi said,

the measure of a pile is

three seahs.

But

the scholars of

the school of

Rabbi Yannai said: two seahs.

Reish Lakish said: The two seahs that they said

the scholars of the school of Rabbi Yannai, that this is the measure obligating the sharecropper to tend that field, refers to when there are two seahs

apart from the expense

that the sharecropper invested in the field.

But if the field produced produce in a measure such that, when the sharecropper’s expenses in produce are calculated, less than two seahs remain, the sharecropper is not obligated to tend the field.

The Gemara now brings several more statements that were said in the school of Rabbi Yannai.

We learned there: “Unripe” olives and grapes,

[“unripe,” in the language of wicked and bad], which are always unripe and have not completed their ripening—if water came upon them—

Beit Shammai deem them impure,

because

they have the status of food,

and they were prepared to receive food impurity

, and Beit Hillel deem them pure,

since it is impossible to eat them, they are not called food.

And the Gemara explains:

What are “unripe olives”?

Rav Huna said: Wicked olives,

bad olives.

Rav Yosef said: And what is its verse?

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

as it is stated [Daniel 11] "

and the sons]

of the rebellious ones of your people will rise up to establish a vision, and they will stumble."

Rabbi Nahman bar Yitzhak said, from here: [Ezekiel 18]

[Ezekiel 18]

"And he fathers a rebellious son, one who sheds blood."

And the Gemara discusses:

and how many

must the olives be cooked, and nevertheless be bad, to the extent that they can be called

"inferior olives"?

Rabbi Elazar said:

If the olives produce only

four kavs

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

the beam

of the oil press, in order to press them, they are called inferior olives.

Those of Rabbi Yannai's academy say:

If they produce only

two seah

of oil, which are twelve kavs from the ordinary quantity of olives, when they press them beneath

the beam.

And the Gemara explains:

And they do not disagree.

This

which Rabbi Elazar said, four kavs, is

in a place where they bring in a kor

of olives

into the ul'la,

into the receptacle beneath the beam.

This

which those of Rabbi Yannai's academy said, two seah, is

in a place where they bring in three kors into the ul'la,

which is beneath the beam.