Bava Metzia 105b — the Talmud in English

The Sages taught: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") A person with gonorrhea and a pure person who

climbed a tree whose strength is weak, and

likewise if they climbed

a sukka,

a thin tree branch

whose strength is weak,

since the tree or the branch bends on account of the weight of those sitting upon it, there is concern lest the person with gonorrhea leaned upon the pure person, and he is therefore

impure

with midras impurity.

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

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say: Any tree whose main trunk has no

place, across the width of the tree’s trunk,

for

a section

to be

a hole the size of

a quarter

of a kav.

What are the circumstances of a “sukka,”

a tree branch

whose strength is weak?

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

which is not thick, but rather the person holding it can hide it in the palm of his hand.

We learned there [

Oholot 18:6]:

One who walks in a beit ha-peras,

a field in which a grave was plowed, if he walked on the earth, the Sages decreed that there is concern lest the person walking there touched a small bone the size of a barley grain, which conveys impurity through contact [but they did not have concern for tent impurity], and he is impure by rabbinic ordinance. But if stones were fixed there that cannot be moved from their place, and he walked upon them, he is pure.

And if he walked

on stones that he can move

them from their place, we are concerned that at the time of his walking a small bone the size of a barley grain was moved on account of him, and he is impure.

And likewise if he rode there

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

the rider. The Maharsha wrote that from the wording of the Mishna it appears that the case of riding upon a person or an animal refers to their having walked on the earth, and Maimonides likewise explained it; but Rashi understood that in such a case the rider would be pure, because the person or animal would have moved the stone even without the rider upon them. Therefore Rashi explained that the case is one in which the person or animal walk upon the stones: if they had walked alone, they would not have moved the stone, and only on account of the rider was it moved; therefore the rider is impure.

And the Gemara explains:

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

Reish Lakish said: Anyone upon whom his rider

sits,

and whose knees knock

against one another.

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

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say: Any animal that,

when

its rider

sits upon it, it

defecates.

The scholars of the house of Rabbi Yannai say: For prayer and for tefillin,

the prohibition against carrying a burden of

four kav.

And the Gemara explains:

What is it concerning prayer?

As it was taught: One who carries a burden on his shoulder and the time for prayer arrived,

if the weight of the burden is

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

But if it has a weight of

four kav, he places

the burden

on the ground and prays.

What is it concerning tefillin?

As it was taught: If he was carrying a burden on his head and had tefillin on his head, if

because of the burden

the

tefillin

were being crushed,

flattened,

it is forbidden; but if not,

because it is light, or because the burden is not resting upon them,

it is permitted.

And

with regard to what burden did they say

that it is capable of crushing the tefillin?

With a burden of four kav.

Rabbi Chiyya taught: One who takes out

to the public domain

manure on his head,

while he is crowned with

his tefillin on his head, may not move them to the sides,

to the side of his head outside the place of the tefillin, since this involves disgrace to the tefillin,

and

likewise

he may not tie them around his loins, because he treats them with disgrace. But he may tie them

the head tefillin

upon his arm, in the place of the tefillin,

beside the hand tefillin.

They said in the name of the house of Shila: Even their cloth,

with which one wraps the tefillin during the night,

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

And

up to

what

is the measure of the burden concerning which it is forbidden to place it upon a head that has tefillin on it, according to Rav Shila?

Abaye said: Even a quarter of a quarter,

a quarter of a quarter-liter, which was the customary weight in the regions of

Pumbedita,

which is a small measure,

, is forbidden.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda said: What fixed measure is there with regard to a heap? Rather, if it has the measure of falling:

And the Gemara explains:

How much

is the measure of

“the measure of falling,”

such that if it grew by 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 where a

kor

can grow, he is obligated to tend to it, because this is the usual manner: one sows four se’a so that a kor will grow, and it follows that it grew by the measure of the falling of the seed.

But

Rabbi Ami himself,

himself,

said:

If

eight se’a grew to a kor,

in a place where a kor of grain can grow, he is obligated to tend to it, because this is the usual manner: one sows eight se’a so that a kor will grow.

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

that Rabbi Ami did not disagree with Rabbi Yohanan, his teacher.

Rather,

in the days of Rabbi Yohanan the land 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 days of Rabbi Ami, the land was depleted.

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 Rabbi Yohanan, his teacher, that the measure of grain obligating one to tend to the field is four se’a, because this was the amount of grain that they initially sowed so that a kor would grow. But in the time of Rabbi Ami, they sowed eight se’a so that a kor would grow; therefore, only if eight se’a actually grew in the end is the tenant-farmer obligated to tend to the field.

We learned there [

Peah 5:1]:

The wind that scattered the

sheaves,

and the ears of grain belonging to the field’s owner covered the ears that remained in the field as leket belonging to the poor, and it is not known how many ears below belong to the leket and how many above belong to the owners,

they assess

the court

it,

the field,

how much leket

it

is fit to produce

each and every year,

and he gives

the owner of the field

to the poor

according to the measure of leket that they assessed the field as capable of producing.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says:

There is no need to assess at all; rather,

he gives the poor “the measure of falling,”

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

And the Gemara explains:

And how much

is the measure of

“the measure of fa lling”?

When Rav Dimi came [

when Rav Dimi came from the Land of Israel 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 falling [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: Is the meaning

per a kor of seed,

that they sowed a kor of seeds in this field, and they grew and produced much more than a kor, and from all this produce, whose measure is much more than a kor, the poor take four kav?

Or per a kor of grain,

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

And if you find it saying that they take four kav from what grew from a kor of seed, there is still a doubt: Shall we assess the kor

according

to

“hand scattering,”

according to the grain growing from a kor of seeds sown by hand, by the farmer’s throwing it by hand into the furrows, and from this measure the poor take four kav?

Or according

to grain growing from a kor of seeds sown in

“ox scattering,”

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

For there is a difference between the two methods of sowing with regard to the quantity of seeds needed to produce the same quantity of grain: with sowing by ox scattering, a greater quantity of seeds is needed than with hand scattering.

Come and hear

to resolve the first dilemma:

For 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 per a kor of seed,

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

but you still have a dilemma

concerning the second uncertainty, whether the kor is assessed

according

to

hand scattering,

sowing by hand,

or according to ox scattering.

And we conclude:

Let it stand.

Mishna:

One who receives a field from his fellow

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

and

after he sowed and it grew,

a locust ate it, or it was blighted,

the grains fell from the ears by means of a storm wind, then

if it is a countrywide blow,

because all the fields around it were stricken,

he deducts,

reduces

for him

the tenant for the owner of the field

from

the measure that he stipulated with him in his

lease.

And

if it is not a countrywide blow,

because the other fields around it were not damaged, but only it was, the lessor may say to the tenant: Your fortune caused the blight! Therefore

he does not deduct for him from his lease

to which he became obligated to the owners.

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he received

the tenant

from him

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

in money, whether this way or that way,

even if it was a countrywide blow,

he does not deduct for him from his lease:

Gemara:

And the Gemara explains:

What are the circumstances of a countrywide blow?

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

the majority of the valley in which this field is located.

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

this is what is called a countrywide blow.

Ulla said: They asked in the West,

what is the measure of blight of those four fields in its four directions?

a.

If one furrow was blighted, what is the law?

Is it specifically when all the surrounding fields were blighted, or even if in all the fields only one furrow was blighted, encircling it along its entire perimeter [around it], is this also called a countrywide blow?

b. And if you find it saying that it is a countrywide blow only if all the fields were blighted, then there is a further uncertainty: if all the fields were blighted, and

there remained

among them

one furrow along its entire perimeter [

around it] that was not blighted,

what is the law?

Does it constitute a countrywide blow, since the blight struck them all, and the remnant of the furrow around it that was not blighted is of no significance?

Or does it not constitute a countrywide blow, since they were not completely damaged, but one furrow remained around it that was not damaged, and his fortune caused it?

c. And if you find it saying that the surrounding fields must be completely blighted in order for it to be called a countrywide blow, there is a further uncertainty concerning the law if

a fallow field was interposed,

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 it is a countrywide blow with regard to the surrounding fields? Or perhaps, since in actuality no blight occurred in the fallow field, there is no countrywide blow with regard to the surrounding fields?