Bava Metzia 105b (קה:) — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught:

a zav and a pure person who

climbed a tree whose strength is weak, and

likewise if they climbed

a sukkah,

on a thin tree branch,

whose strength is weak,

since the tree or branch bends under the weight of those sitting upon it, there is concern that the zav may have leaned upon the pure person, in which case he is

impure

with midras impurity.

What are the circumstances of a tree whose strength is weak?

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Yannai said: Any tree whose trunk lacks

a hole, across the width of the tree’s trunk,

the size of

a

quarter

of a

quarter

of a kav .

What are the circumstances of a “sukkah,”

a tree branch,

whose strength is weak?

Reish Lakish said: Any branch that is concealed in its fist,

meaning that it is not thick, but a person holding it can conceal it in the palm of his hand .

We learned there [

Oholot 18:6]:

One who walks through a beit ha-peras,

a field in which a grave was plowed, if he walked upon the soil, the Sages decreed that there is concern that while walking he touched a small bone the size of a barley grain, which transmits impurity through contact [but they did not institute concern with regard to tent impurity], and he is impure by rabbinic decree. But if stones were set there that cannot be moved from their place, and he walked upon them, he is pure.

And if he walked

upon stones that he can move

from their place, we are concerned that while he was walking, a small bone the size of a barley grain was moved because of him, and he is impure.

And likewise, if he rode there

upon a person or an animal whose strength is weak, the rider is impure

the rider. Since the strength of the person or animal being ridden is weak, if the ridden entity moved a stone, and it in turn moved a human bone beside it, it follows that the rider’s weight was what moved the stone from its place; therefore, the movement of the bone caused by moving the stone is attributed to him .

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a person “whose strength is weak”?

Reish Lakish said: Anyone whose rider

sits upon him

and whose knees knock

against one another.

What are the circumstances of an animal “whose strength is weak”?

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Yannai said: Any animal that

when

its rider

sits upon it

defecates.

The scholars of the academy of Rabbi Yannai said: With regard to prayer and phylacteries,

the prohibition against carrying a load was stated for

four kav.

And the Gemara explains:

What is the matter with regard to prayer?

As it was taught in a beraita: One who carries a load on his shoulder and the time for prayer arrives,

if the load weighs

less than four kav, he throws it behind him and prays.

But if it weighs

four kav, he places

the load

on the ground and prays.

What is the matter with regard to phylacteries?

As it was taught in a beraita: If one was carrying a load on his head and had phylacteries on his head, if

because of the load

the

tefillin

phylacteries were being crushed,

being compressed,

it is forbidden; but if not,

because it was light, or because the load was not resting upon them,

it is permitted.

And

with regard to what load did they say

that it has sufficient weight to crush the phylacteries?

A load of four kav .

Rabbi Hiyya taught: One who carries

to the public domain

manure on his head

while wearing

phylacteries on his head must not move them to the sides,

to the side of his head outside the place of the phylacteries, since this constitutes contempt for the phylacteries,

and

likewise

he must not tie them around his waist, because he is treating them contemptuously. But he may tie them

the head phylacteries

on his arm, in the place of the phylacteries,

beside the arm phylacteries.

They said in the name of the academy of Sheila: Even their cloth,

with which the phylacteries are wrapped at night,

is forbidden to place on a head that has phylacteries upon it.

And

up to

how much

is the measure of a load with regard to which it is forbidden to place it on a head that has phylacteries upon it, according to Rav Sheila?

Abaye said: Even a quarter of a quarter,

a quarter of a quarter-litra, which was the customary weight in the region

of Pumbedita,

a small measure

, is forbidden.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: What fixed measure is there for a pile? Rather, if it contains enough for sowing:

And the Gemara explains:

How much

is the measure of

“enough for sowing,”

such that if it grew to this measure he is obligated to tend to it?

Rabbi Ami said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan:

If

four se’a

grew in a place capable of producing

a kor,

he is obligated to tend to it, because this is the normal practice: four se’a are sown so that a kor will grow, and therefore it grew to the measure of the seed that had fallen.

But

Rabbi Ami himself

himself,

said:

If

eight se’a grew to a kor,

in a place capable of producing a kor of grain, he is obligated to tend to it, because this is the normal practice: eight se’a are sown so that a kor will grow.

A certain elder said to Rav Hama, son of Rabba bar Avuha: I will explain it to you:

Rabbi Ami did not disagree with his master, Rabbi Yohanan.

Rather,

in the time of Rabbi Yohanan the soil was fertile,

the land was of high quality,

and

if they wanted a kor to grow, they sowed only four se’a. But

in the time of Rabbi Ami, the soil was poor.

Therefore, they needed to sow eight se’a in order to produce a kor.

And for this reason Rabbi Ami said in the name of his master, Rabbi Yohanan, that the measure of grain that obligates one to tend to the field is four se’a, because that was the amount of grain they originally sowed in order to produce a kor. But in Rabbi Ami’s time, they sowed eight se’a in order to produce a kor; therefore, only if eight se’a ultimately grew is the sharecropper obligated to tend to the field.

We learned there [

Pe’a 5:1]:

If the wind scattered the

sheaves,

and the stalks belonging to the field’s owner covered the stalks that had remained in the field as leket, which belongs to the poor, and it is not known how many stalks below belong to the leket and how many above belong to the owner,

the court estimates

the field

it,

the field,

how much leket

it

is fit to produce

each year,

and the owner gives

the field’s owner

to the poor

the amount of leket that they estimated the field can produce.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

there is no need to estimate it at all. Rather,

he gives the poor “enough for sowing,”

according to the amount that “falls” for the purpose of sowing; this is the fixed measure of leket at harvest time.

And the Gemara explains:

And how much

is the measure of

“enough for sowing”?

When Rav Dimi came [

when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia],

he said

in the name of

Rabbi Elazar, and some say

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan: Four kav

of seed is the measure of sowing

for

every

kor.

Therefore, the poor take four kav from a kor, as will be explained below.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

The four kav per kor that they said—does this refer

to a kor of seed,

where a kor of seed was sown in this field and grew into much more than a kor, and from all this produce, whose measure is much greater than a kor, the poor take four kav?

Or does it refer to a kor of grain,

so that from every kor of harvested grain the poor take four kav?

And if you say that they take four kav from what grew from a kor of seed, there is still a dilemma: Do we assess the kor

according

to

“hand sowing,”

according to the produce that grows from a kor of seed sown by hand, by the farmer casting the seed by hand into the furrows, and from this measure the poor take four kav?

Or according

to produce that grows from a kor of seed sown by means of

“ox sowing,”

where oxen draw a perforated wagon, and the seeds fall through the holes in the wagon onto the ground?

For there is a difference between these two methods of sowing with regard to the quantity of seed needed to produce the same amount of grain: With ox sowing, a greater quantity of seed is needed than with hand sowing.

Come and hear

to resolve the first dilemma:

When Ravin came, Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Elazar,

and some say Rabbi Yohanan said: The four kav

that they said are

for a kor of seed,

so that from what grows from a kor of seed, the poor take four kav.

And you still have a dilemma

concerning the second uncertainty: Do we assess the kor

according

to

hand sowing,

sowing by hand,

or according to ox sowing?

And we conclude:

Teyku.

Mishna:

One who accepts a field from another

as a lease, on the condition that he give the landowner a fixed amount of the produce at the end of the year and take the remainder for himself,

and

after he sowed it and it sprouted,

a locust ate it, or it was blighted,

the kernels fell from the ears because of a storm wind, then

if it is a regional calamity,

because all the surrounding fields were stricken,

he deducts

reduces

for him

the tenant from the amount owed to the landowner

from

the amount stipulated with him in his

lease.

And

if it is not a regional calamity,

because the other surrounding fields were not damaged and only this field was damaged, the lessor can say to the tenant: Your fortune caused the blight! Therefore,

he does not deduct from his lease

the amount he owes the owners.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he accepted

the field from the landowner

from him

on the condition that he pay at the end of the year

in money, in either case,

even if it was a regional calamity,

he does not deduct from his lease:

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a regional calamity?

Rav Yehuda said: For example, when most of the valley was blighted,

most of the valley in which this field is located.

Ulla said: For example, when four fields in the four directions were blighted,

this is called a regional calamity.

Ulla said: In the West, they raised the following dilemmas:

What is the measure of blight in those four fields in the four directions?

a.

If one furrow was blighted, what is the law?

Does this apply specifically when all the surrounding fields were blighted, or even if in all the fields only one furrow was blighted, encircling this field on all sides, is this also called a regional calamity?

b. And if you say that it is a regional calamity only when all the surrounding fields were blighted, there is still a dilemma: If all the fields were blighted, but

one furrow remained

among them

running around its entire perimeter [

around it] that was not blighted,

what is the law?

Do we say that it is a regional calamity, since the blight struck them all, and the surviving furrow around it is insignificant?

Or is it not a regional calamity, since they were not completely damaged; rather, one furrow remained around it that was not damaged, and his fortune caused it?

c. And if you say that the surrounding fields must be completely blighted for it to be called a regional calamity, there is a dilemma concerning the case where

a fallow field intervened,

a fallow field between the tenant’s field and the surrounding fields, which were also blighted:

what is the law?

Do we say that if there had been grain in the fallow field, it too would have been blighted, and therefore the surrounding fields constitute a regional calamity? Or perhaps, since in fact no blight occurred in the fallow field, there is no regional calamity with regard to the surrounding fields?