Bava Metzia 107a (קז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel

is lenient.

According to his view, the collectors are permitted to redirect the money collected for Purim to other days of the year; likewise, a poor person who received money for Purim may redirect it and use the money for another purpose.

Evidently, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel maintains that there is no concern when the recipient redirects the money contrary to the donor's wishes. Why, then, did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibit the tenant farmer from changing from wheat to barley and from legumes to grain?

He said

he explained:

Abaye said: The reason of Rabban Shimon

is as follows.

For the Master said: With regard to one who wishes that his field become barren,

that it become a field unable to produce crops,

he should sow it one year

he should sow it for one year

with wheat, and one year

the following year, he should sow it

with barley.

And likewise, if he sows

one year along the length

of the field

and the following year

he sows it

along the width

of the field.

This is because changing either the species sown or the manner of sowing weakens and damages the field, turning it into a barren field. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon prohibited the tenant farmer from changing whether from wheat to barley or from barley to wheat, because perhaps the owner told him to sow specifically a particular species, since he had sown that same species the previous year; and if the tenant farmer deviates from the owner's instructions, he will thereby damage his field.

And we said this

that changing the sowing from one year to the next causes damage

only when he did not plow,

meaning that he did not plow after the harvest,

and did not repeat the plowing,

meaning that he did not plow again the following year.

But

if he

did plow,

after harvesting the wheat,

and repeated the plowing,

meaning that the following year he plowed again before sowing the barley,

there is no concern.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Grain: he may not sow it with legumes”

and so on:

Rav Yehuda taught Ravin the Mishna,

he taught him our Mishna as follows:

If the tenant farmer accepted the field in order to sow it with grain, he may sow it with legumes.

Ravin said to him: But didn't we learn: “Grain: he may not sow it with legumes”?!

Rav Yehuda said to him: It is not difficult.

This

that we learned

“Grain: he may not sow it with legumes”

was stated

for us,

the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, which is a mountainous region, and we are concerned that if one changes from grain to legumes, the field will be weakened.

And this

that I taught you

“He may sow grain with legumes”

was stated

for them,

the inhabitants of Babylonia, which is located in a place abundant in water, and there is no concern that changing from grain to legumes will weaken the field.

Rav Yehuda said to Ravin bar Rav Naḥman: Ravin, my brother,

my friend,

these

ones,

the wild plants of the flax,

plants resembling pods that grow together with flax and damage it while they grow alongside it,

one who gathers them

those pods and takes them for himself

does not violate the prohibition of theft,

because by doing so he improves the owner's flax.

But if

they stand

those plants

on

the

borders

of the flax bed and do not grow together with it ממש

there is a prohibition of theft,

because their removal provides no benefit to the owner; on the contrary, he wants to keep them, and therefore it is prohibited to take them.

And if

the plants stood together with the flax for many days, until they

hardened

became hard and dried out so that they could be used

for seed, even those growing among the flax

that are found within the flax itself

also involve a prohibition of theft.

What is the reason? Because the owner of the flax says:

Whatever damage it was to suffer,

whatever damage the flax could have suffered from the wild plants, it has already

suffered,

and he does not want the plants uprooted.

Rav Yehuda said to Ravin bar Rav Naḥman: Ravin, my brother,

Since our fields are adjacent to one another, some of my trees draw nourishment from your field, and some of your trees draw nourishment from my field, and

these

trees

of mine

that draw nourishment from your field, legally their fruit is

yours,

while the trees

of yours

that draw nourishment from my field, legally their fruit is

mine.

This is

the practice of people whose fields adjoin

who have fields bordering one another: If a

tree

in one field extends its roots

here,

into the second field, it is considered to belong

here,

to the field where its roots are planted. And likewise, if a tree stands in the second field,

whose roots extend

its roots

here,

it is considered to belong

here.

We too shall follow this practice, and each of us will take the fruit of the trees that draw nourishment from his field, even though the tree itself stands in the other person's field.

For it was stated: With regard to a tree standing on the boundary,

adjacent to the border between the two fields,

Rav said ,

a tree whose roots extend

here

belongs

here.

And one whose roots extend

here

belongs

here.

And Shmuel said: They divide it .

Rav was challenged from what we learned:

A tree standing on the boundary

between the two fields

is divided between them.

A refutation of Rav:

he said that a tree extending here belongs here, and that one follows the nourishment it receives.

And we explain:

Shmuel interpreted the beraita in accordance with Rav,

Shmuel explained the words of this beraita so that they would not contradict Rav's position:

What are we dealing with here?

With

a tree whose roots

fill

the

entire boundary

[which belongs to both of them]. Since some of the roots are in one person's portion and some are in the other's portion, they divide the produce.

And we ask:

If so, what is the purpose of stating this?!

It is obvious that if the trees grew in the domain of both of them, they divide the produce between them.

And we explain:

No, it is necessary where its branches hang,

with the branches and fruit extending more

to one side,

and it teaches us that even in such a case they divide the produce.

And we ask again:

But still, what is the purpose of stating this?

Since the roots draw nourishment equally from both fields, they should divide the produce even if the branches extend to one side. What, then, does the tanna teach us by stating that they divide the fruit? And we conclude:

Lest you say that one says to the other

one of the partners says to the other:

Let us divide it in this manner,

let us divide it according to the way the fruit grows, so that each one takes the fruit nearer to his portion,

it teaches us

that they are partners in everything,

as one says to

his fellow:

Why do you see fit to divide it in this manner,

along the length of the boundary, so that each one takes what is nearer to him? I want to

divide it in this manner,

dividing the boundary across its width, so that I will take my half.

Rav Yehuda said to Ravin bar Rav Naḥman: Ravin, my brother,

when you come to purchase a field for yourself,

, do not buy

do not purchase

a field adjacent to the city,

a field that is close to and visible from the city.

This is because

Rabbi Abbahu said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: It is prohibited for a person to stand

and look

at another's field when it is standing in its stalks,

when it is full of sheaves before the harvest,

so that

he does not cause an evil eye to rest upon the field. And a field adjacent to the city is frequently observed by people, who may cast an evil eye upon it.

And we ask:

Is that so?!

Did Rav really maintain that one should refrain from purchasing a field in a place where people might cast an evil eye upon it?

But there was an incident in which

he encountered

met

Rabbi

Abba, the students of Rav,

and

said to them

Rabbi Abba said to them:

What did he say,

how did

Rav interpret these verses

[Deuteronomy 28]: “

Blessed are you in the city, and blessed are you in the field. Blessed are you when you come, and blessed are you when you go.”

And they said to him

Rav's students

, “This is what Rav said”:

“Blessed are you in the city”

means

that your house should be near the synagogue.

“Blessed are you in the field”

means

that your property should be near the city,

so that it will not be burdensome to bring the produce into his house.

“Blessed are you when you come” —

that you should not find your wife

even

possibly —

a menstruant woman when you return from the road.

“Blessed are you when you go” —

that your offspring should be like you.

And he said to them

Rabbi Abba said to Rav's students

“Rabbi Yoḥanan did not say this;

but he interpreted the verses as follows:

“Blessed are you in the city” —

that the lavatory should be near your table,

so that you will not need to go far away to relieve yourself in the fields,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan maintained that “blessed are you in the city” cannot mean that one's house should be near the synagogue, because that is not a blessing but a loss of reward.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan follows his own reasoning, as he said: There is reward for steps

for the very act of walking to the synagogue. Therefore, it is preferable for a person to go to a synagogue far from his house, so that he will receive reward for the steps.

“Blessed are you in the field” —

that your property should be divided into three,

divided among three types of produce

, one-third grain, one-third olives, and one-third grapevines,

so that if one field is struck by blight, the others will remain as a remnant.

“Blessed are you when you come, and blessed are you when you go” —

that your departure from the world should be like your arrival in the world. Just as your arrival in the world was without sin, so too your departure from the world should be without sin.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty: How could Rav Yehuda tell Ravin not to purchase a field adjacent to the city because of concern for an evil eye, while Rav's students said in his name that he interpreted the verse “Blessed are you in the field” to mean that one's property should be near the city, implying that there is no concern for an evil eye?