Bava Metzia 106b (קו:) — the Talmud in English

And we challenge this again:

And let the owner say to him:

the owner,

Although with regard to a great miracle,

that the animals would be saved on their own,

we would not have seen it,

perhaps

with regard to a minor miracle

precise page location

we would have seen it,

and perhaps, had you remained there, you would have been able to save them,

And we conclude:

Difficult.

The Gemara now cites an apparent contradiction between two beraitot:

One taught:

One who accepts a field from another as a ḥakhar arrangement, in order to sow it and give the owner a fixed amount from its produce at the end of each year,

the first and second times

he sows it;

for if a locust consumed the crop or it was blighted after he sowed it once, he must try to sow it again; and if, after he sowed it a second time, a locust consumed the crop, then the

third time, he need not sow it.

And another taught:

If the field was blighted twice, he must sow it a

third

time,

but the fourth time he need not sow it,

but the

fourth time he need not sow it,

And we answer:

This is not difficult: this beraita is in accordance with Rabbi, and that beraita is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The one

that we learned, that the third time he need not sow it,

is in accordance with Rabbi, who says: After two occurrences, there is a presumption.

Here too, after two occurrences the field has acquired the status of a field that is habitually blighted, and he need not pay the owner.

And

the one

that we learned, that he sows it three times, but the fourth time he need not sow it,

is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says: After three occurrences, there is a presumption;

only after the field has been blighted three times has it acquired the status of a blighted field.

Reish Lakish said:

This that we learned, that if the leased field was blighted by a regional disaster, the lessee deducts from the produce he owes the landowner,

was taught only when he sowed it and it sprouted, and

eventually

a locust consumed the crop.

But if he sowed it and it did not sprout

at all,

the landowner can say to him:

the owner of the land,

Throughout the entire sowing season,

as long as the sowing period continues,

keep sowing it and going!

Perhaps the time for sowing has not yet arrived, and that is why it did not sprout; therefore, you must sow it now. But if, after it failed to sprout, the sharecropper refrained from sowing, he cannot deduct from the amount he agreed to give the landowner.

And the Gemara explains:

Until when

is the duration of the sowing season?

The Gemara explains the duration of the sowing season according to the order of the constellations in the heavens.

A. Among the many stars in the firmament, there are twelve groups of stars called “mazalot.”

B. Each constellation has a particular form and a name, such as “the Bull” or “the Archer,” and the like.

C. These twelve constellations appear in the firmament in a fixed order, one after another.

D. Six of the constellations are always “above,” on the visible side of the firmament, and six are always “below,” on the other, invisible side.

E. Every two hours, a new constellation rises on one side of the firmament, while at the same time another constellation sets on the opposite side—the constellation that had been in the firmament for twelve hours.

F. Each month, at the beginning of the day, a different constellation rises in the firmament, in a fixed order. Thus, the times of the year can be determined by the rising of the constellations in the firmament.

And this is the order of the constellations that rise in the firmament in the morning, according to the months of the year:

Nisan—the Ram. Iyyar—the Bull. Sivan—the Twins. Tammuz—the Scorpion. Av—the Lion. Elul—the Maiden. Tishrei—the Scales. Marḥeshvan—the Scorpion. Kislev—the Archer. Tevet—the Goat. Shevat—the Water Carrier. Adar—the Fish.

As stated, every morning six constellations rise in the firmament, opposite six that descend; and this is the order of their rising: In the month of Nisan, the constellation of the Ram rises at the beginning of the day. Two hours later, the constellation of the Bull rises. And so, every two hours throughout the day, another constellation is added to the firmament, while opposite it another constellation sets, in the established order.

Thus, at the end of the day in the month of Nisan, at the twelfth hour of the day, six of the constellations are in the expanse of the world. At their head—that is, at the far end of the firmament—is the Ram, and at their end—at the first, opposite edge of the firmament—is the Maiden.

In the month of Adar, the constellation of the Fish rises first in the morning. After two hours, the Ram rises, completing its ascent in the fourth hour.

After it, the Bull begins to rise at the beginning of the fifth hour, and completes its ascent entirely, at the edge of the firmament, at the end of the sixth hour, which is midday.

It follows that the constellation of the Fish, which rises first in the month of Adar, stands in the middle of the expanse of the world at the end of the sixth hour—and remains there for two hours. Two other constellations, the Ram and the Bull, have already risen after it, and there is still room for three more constellations to rise during the day.

And when the constellation of the Twins, which follows the Bull, rises at the beginning of the seventh hour, the Ram is then standing in the middle of the expanse of the world, from midday until the end of the eighth hour. At the beginning of the ninth hour, the Scorpion rises at the edge of the firmament.

Then, at the beginning of the ninth hour, the Bull is the constellation standing in the middle of the firmament. Nevertheless, the “tail” of the Ram, which preceded it, still remains, hanging together with the Bull, whose time has now come to stand in the middle of the firmament.

At this time, a person walking in the marketplace—if the constellations could be seen during the day—would see the head of the Bull, which is in the middle of the firmament, as though it were inside the tail of the Ram before it.

Rav Pappa said:

The sowing season lasts

until

the time when

the sharecroppers come from the fields,

from their place of work in the field, which is the ninth hour of the day,

and

it appears as though

Kima is standing

the tail of the Ram,

above their heads,

above their heads.

And this refers to the month of Adar, when, at the end of the ninth hour of the day, the tail of the Ram is in the middle of the expanse of the world.

Meytivi

from a beraita, in which we learned:

The six seasons of the year were promised to Noah, as it is stated [Genesis 8:22]: “While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.” The Gemara now explains when each season occurs.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the name of Rabbi Meir, says—and Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya likewise used to say in accordance with his opinion:

A.

Half of Tishrei, Marḥeshvan, and half of Kislev

is the time when the rains begin, and this is the season of

“seed.”

B.

Half of Kislev, Tevet, and half of Shevat

is

winter [the term denotes the strength and intensity of autumn].

C.

Half of Shevat, Adar, and half of Nisan—

cold.

D.

Half of Nisan, Iyyar, and half of Sivan

is the beginning of the sunny season, and this is the season of

harvest.

E.

Half of Sivan, Tammuz, and half of Av—

summer,

when dried figs are prepared.

F.

Half of Av, Elul, and half of Tishrei—

heat.

And

Rabbi Yehuda counts from Tishrei.

That is: Tishrei and Marḥeshvan are “seed,” Kislev and Tevet are winter, and so on in this order.

And

Rabbi Shimon counts from Marḥeshvan.

That is: Marḥeshvan and Kislev are “seed,” Tevet and Shevat are winter, and so on.

The Gemara infers from the beraita:

Who is lenient concerning all of them,

according to whose view is the sowing season the latest?—

Rabbi Shimon!

For he maintains that the sowing season lasts until the end of Kislev.

And

he too

does not say all this,

that the sowing season lasts until the middle of Adar.

If so, according to whose opinion did Rav Pappa state his ruling?

And we answer:

This is not difficult. The one

case in which the beraita indicates that the latest time is Kislev is

when

he received from him

seeds that must be sown

early,

such as wheat and rye seeds.

But

the one

case to which Rav Pappa referred, in which the sowing season is in Adar, is

when he received from him

seeds to sow

late,

such as barley and legumes, which are sown in Adar.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he accepted it from him for money, in either case he does not deduct from the produce he owes him.

There was a certain man who accepted land

as a rental arrangement

to sow garlic in it,

and the field was

on the bank

of

the Elder King River [the name of the river], on the condition that he pay the owner

so many

coins

per year. In the end,

the Elder King River dried up,

as the water ceased to flow through it.

The tenant came

before

Rava,

and sought a ruling exempting him from what he had undertaken to pay the owner of the field.

Rava said to him

the owner:

The Elder King River does not ordinarily dry up;

its waters are not expected to cease flowing, and if they did cease, it is certainly

a regional disaster. Go and deduct for him

for the tenant.

The Sages said to Rava: We learned in the Mishna

that

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he accepted it from him for money, in either case he does not deduct from the produce he owes him,

since the exemption due to a regional disaster does not apply to money!

Rabbi Yehuda says: If he accepted it from him in exchange for money, in either case he does not deduct from his fixed rent,

He said to them: No one takes Rabbi Yehuda into consideration!

Therefore, the tenant deducts from the rent he owes the owners. Mishna:

One who accepts a field from another

as a rental arrangement

for ten kor of wheat per year, and it was blighted,

the tenant

gives him

the produce he undertook to give him

from it.

And similarly, if

its wheat was superior

to the ordinary wheat,

the tenant

may not say to him

the owner:

I am taking wheat from the market

ordinary wheat with which to pay you the produce I owe you,

but he gives him from it:

Gemara:

There was a certain man who accepted land

as a rental arrangement

to sow alfalfa,

with the understanding that he would pay the landowner

with market barley

from the market. He sowed it, and

the alfalfa grew.

And

afterward,

, he plowed it and sowed barley,

so that he could pay the lessor with the barley that he had undertaken to give him from what would grow in that very field, without having to purchase barley for him in the market.

But this barley was blighted.

Rav Ḥaviva of Sura on the Euphrates sent the following question to Ravina: In a case like this, what is the ruling?

Can he pay the produce he owes from the defective barley that the tenant grew in the landowner’s field,

since “if it was blighted, he gives him from it” applies?

Or not,

but the tenant must purchase other, sound barley in the market in order to pay the produce he owes.

He said to him: Are the cases comparable?

The Mishna says that if the wheat was blighted, he pays from it!

But

there, the field did not fulfill the agency of its owner.

For the owner instructed him to sow wheat; therefore, if it was blighted, he pays the owner from it.

But here,

as he leased it for the purpose of sowing alfalfa,

the field did fulfill the agency of its owner!

The alfalfa was not blighted; only the barley, which he sowed contrary to the owner’s instructions, was blighted. Therefore, he cannot pay the owner from the blighted barley; rather, he must give him sound barley from the market.

There was a certain man who accepted an orchard [a vineyard]

from another as a rental arrangement,

on the condition that at the end of the year the tenant would pay the owner

with ten wine barrels [barrels of wine] that he would produce from the vineyard. In the end, after the vines grew properly, the tenant made wine from them,

and

that wine turned sour,

the wine fermented excessively and spoiled. The lessor did not wish to accept spoiled wine, but only new wine from the market.

Rav Kahana thought to say

that this case

is identical to the Mishna,

which teaches: One who accepts a field from another and

it was blighted, he gives him from it.

Here too, the lessor should accept spoiled wine produced from the vines of the very field he leased.

Rav Ashi said to him: Are the cases comparable? There,

in the Mishna, the produce was spoiled while it was still attached to the ground,

the field did not fulfill its agency,

as it did not produce good fruit. Therefore, he gives the lessor produce from it, saying: This is what came forth from your field.

But

here,

where he agreed with the lessor to give him wine,

the field did fulfill its agency,

as the vines were not damaged; only the wine made after the grapes were harvested turned sour. The tenant therefore cannot say: This is what came forth from your field. Rather, he must give the lessor new wine from the market.

But

And Rav Ashi concedes with regard to grapes that became worm-eaten,

that became infested while he left them to dry in the field,

and with regard to a field whose sheaves were blighted,

where the sheaves that he gathered after the harvest were spoiled, the tenant gives the owner the produce he owes from it, since the produce still needs to remain on the ground; we therefore consider it as though the field did not fulfill its agency.

Mishna: One who accepts a field from another

as a rental arrangement, in order to give the landowner a fixed amount from the produce each year, and the landowner told him to sow it

with barley, he may not sow it with wheat,

because wheat depletes the soil more than barley.

Mishna:

And if he accepted it on the understanding that he would sow it

with wheat, he may sow it with barley,

since by doing so he benefits the owner, as his field will not be depleted.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibits this.

And similarly, if he accepted it in order to sow grain, he may not sow it with legumes,

as legumes deplete the field more than grain. But if he accepted it in order to sow

legumes, he may sow it with grain.

And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibits this:

Gemara:

Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

who prohibits changing the crop even for the owner’s benefit?

It is because

it is written [Zephaniah 3:13]:

“The remnant of Israel shall not commit injustice, nor speak lies, nor shall a deceitful tongue be found

in their mouth,”

and since he accepted upon himself to sow one thing, he may not change it to another.

Meytivi

from that which was taught: Charity collectors who collected the

collection

of

Purim

shall give all the money to the poor

for

the

Purim

meal, and they do not scrutinize the matter

to see whether perhaps the poor need less, leaving the surplus for the charity fund.

And

likewise,

the poor person is not permitted

to change the money he received for the Purim meal for another use, such as

taking from it a strap for his sandal, unless he stipulated

that he could change the charity

in the presence

of, with the agreement of,

the townspeople; these are the words of Rabbi Yaakov, who said

this

in the name of Rabbi Meir,

in the presence

with the agreement of

the townspeople. These are the words of Rabbi Yaakov, who said

this

in the name of Rabbi Meir.