Bava Metzia 107a — the Talmud in English

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

is lenient.

According to his words, it is permitted for the collectors to change the money of Purim for the other days of the year, and likewise the poor person who received it for the purpose of Purim may change it and use the money for another purpose.

Thus, it is evident that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that there is no insistence concerning the recipient’s changing the money from the intention of the giver. And why did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbid the tenant-farmer to change from wheat to barley and from legumes to grain,

said

Abaye

explained: The reason of Rabban Shimon

is as Rav said.

For the Master said: One for whom it is pleasing that his field become barren

that his field become a fallow field and be unable to produce,

should sow it one year

he should sow it for one year

with wheat, and one year

the following year he should sow

with barley.

And likewise, if he sows

one year along

along the length of the field

and one year

the following year

across,

across the width of the field.

Because the change in the species sown, or in the manner of sowing, weakens and ruins the field and turns it into a fallow field. Therefore Rabbi Shimon forbade the tenant-farmer to change, whether from wheat to barley or from barley to wheat, because perhaps the owners told him to sow a particular species specifically, since in the previous year he had sown that same species; and if the tenant-farmer changes from the words of the master of the house, he will thereby damage his field.

And we said this only

that there is damage in changing the sowing from year to year

when he did not plow,

when he did not plow after the harvest,

and did not plow again,

he did not return and repeat the plowing for the following year.

But

if

he plowed,

he plowed after harvesting the wheat,

and plowed again,

in the following year he again plowed before sowing the barley,

we have no concern.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Grain: he may not sow it with legumes”

and so on:

Rav Yehuda taught Ravin,

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 we learned: ‘Grain: he may not sow it with legumes’!?

Rav Yehuda said to him: It is not difficult.

This

what we learned

“Grain: he may not sow it with legumes,”

was stated

for us,

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

And that

what I taught you

“He may sow grain with legumes,”

was stated

for them,

the people of Babylonia, which is located in a place sloping with water, and there is no concern lest the field be weakened through the change from grain to legumes.

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

my friend

! These

those

plants of the flax,

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

one who gathers those

pods and takes them for himself

is not subject to theft,

because he thereby improves the owner’s flax,

and if

they stand

those pods

on

the

borders

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

there is theft involved,

for the owners have no benefit from taking the pods; on the contrary, they want them, and therefore it is forbidden to take them.

And if

the pods stood with the flax for many days until they

hardened

became hard and dried so that they can be used

for seed, even those of the flax

which are found inside the flax itself

also involve theft,

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

“What it would have lost,”

what the flax could have lost and been damaged by the pods, has already

been lost,

and he does not want the pods uprooted.

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

since our fields are adjacent to one another, there are trees of mine that draw nourishment from your field, and there are trees of yours that draw nourishment from my field, and

these

trees

of mine

that draw nourishment from yours, by strict law their fruits are

yours,

and the trees

of yours

that draw nourishment from my field, by strict law their fruits are

mine.

Because of

the practice of the people of the border

those whose fields border one another, that

a tree

in one field whose root inclines

here,

to the second field, they judge it as belonging

here,

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

whose root inclines

its root

here,

they judge it as belonging

here.

We too shall follow the custom, and each one shall take the trees that draw nourishment from his field, even though the tree itself stands in his fellow’s field.

For it was stated: A tree standing on the boundary,

adjacent to the boundary between the two fields,

Rav said ,

a tree whose root inclines

here

belongs

here.

And one whose root inclines

here

belongs

here,

And Shmuel said: They divide .

It raises an objection to Rav from what we learned:

A tree standing on the boundary

between the two fields

they divide it.

A refutation of Rav,

who said that the one inclining here belongs here, and that they follow the nourishment.

And we answer:

Shmuel interpreted it in accordance with Rav,

Shmuel explained these words of the beraita so that they would not contradict Rav’s method:

What are we dealing with here?

With

a tree that

fills

its roots throughout

the entire boundary

[which belongs to both]. Since part of the roots are in this one’s portion and part are in that one’s portion, they therefore divide,

And we ask:

If so, what does it teach us!?

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

And we answer:

It is necessary, where its branches hang,

where the branches and fruits hang in such a way that they incline more

to one side,

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

And again we ask:

But still, what does it teach us,

since the roots draw nourishment equally from both, they must divide even if the branches incline to one side; and what does the tanna come to teach us by stating that they divide the fruits? And we conclude:

Lest you say that he says to him

one to the other

“Let us divide in this manner,”

let us divide according to the way the fruits grow, so that each one takes the fruits closer to his portion,

it teaches us

that they are partners in everything,

for he says to him

his fellow:

“What have you seen that you divide in this manner,”

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

divide in this manner,

to divide the boundary across its width, and thus I will take my half.

Rav Yehuda said to Ravin bar Rav Nahman: 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 adjacent to and visible from the city.

Because

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

and look

at his fellow’s field when it is standing in its produce,

when it is full of sheaves before the harvest,

so that

he not cause the evil eye to prevail over the field. And a field adjacent to the city is commonly looked at by people, and they will cast the evil eye upon it.

And we ask:

Is that so!?

Did Rav indeed hold that one should refrain from purchasing a field in a place where people might cast the evil eye upon it?

But there was an incident in which

he found

Rabbi

Abba

the students of Rav,

and

said to them

Rabbi Abba:

“What did he say,”

he explained

Rav concerning 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

the students of Rav

, “Thus Rav said”:

“Blessed are you in the city

means

that your house should be adjacent to the synagogue.

“Blessed are you in the field,”

means

that your possessions should be close to the city,

so that there will not be trouble bringing the produce into his house.

“Blessed are you when you come” —

that you should not find your wife

even

in doubt —

a menstruant at the time of your coming from the road.

“Blessed are you when you go” —

that the offspring of your womb should be like you.”

And he said to them

Rabbi Abba to Rav’s students

, “Rabbi Yohanan did not say so,”

but explained it as follows:

“Blessed are you in the city” —

that the privy should be adjacent to your table,

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

and Rabbi Yohanan held that “Blessed are you in the city” cannot be explained as meaning that one’s house should be adjacent to the synagogue, because there is no blessing in that, but rather a loss of reward.

And Rabbi Yohanan follows his own reasoning, for he said: There is reward for footsteps

for the very walking to the synagogue; therefore it is preferable for a person to go to the synagogue from far away from his house, so that he will receive reward for footsteps.

“Blessed are you in the field” —

that your possessions 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 stricken, the others will remain for deliverance.

“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 your departure from the world should be without sin.

And the Gemara asks: How did Rav Yehuda say to Ravin that he should not purchase a field adjacent to the city because of concern for the evil eye, whereas Rav’s students said in his name, in explaining the verse “Blessed are you in the field,” that his possessions should be close to the city, implying that there is no concern for the evil eye?