Bava Metzia 109a (קט.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who accepts a field

under a lease arrangement

from another,

who undertook to work the field and harvest its produce in exchange for a fixed portion of the produce as payment for his labor, if the lease period was

for only a few years,

fewer than seven years,

he may not sow it

the lessee

with flax,

because sowing flax weakens the soil for the following seven years, and he must return the field at the end of the lease in the same condition in which it was when he received it.

And

likewise,

he has no

share

in the beams

that grow on the

sycamore

tree, which is a nonfruit-bearing tree that produces beams suitable for construction every seven years. This is because if he were to take some of the beams for himself, then at the end of the lease period the sycamore trees would be smaller than they were when he received the field, whereas legally the lessee must return the field at least in the condition in which he received it.

Therefore, even if the sycamore trees reached the full extent of their growth while he was working the field, he has no share in them, since he did not enter the field with the understanding that he would take from them.

But if

he received it from him for seven years, he may sow it with flax during the first year

and after seven years it will again be improved to the condition it was in when he received it; but during the second year he may not sow it with flax.

And

likewise, if he entered the field for seven years,

he has

a share

in the sycamore beams

that grew during the first year of his tenancy.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who accepts a field for only a few years has no share in the beams of the sycamore.

Abaye said: He has no share in sycamore beams,

but he does have money

for

the value of the

improvement

of the

sycamore.

Therefore, when his lease ends, he receives money equivalent to the improvement of the sycamore.

And Rava said: Even in the improvement

by which the

sycamore improved, he likewise has no share,

because he did not enter the field with the understanding that he would take either from the sycamore or from its improvement.

He raised an objection: One who accepts a field from another

under a lease arrangement,

and his time

to complete his work and

leave

the field has arrived, the lessee gives the landowner what they agreed upon and takes the rest for himself; and

they assess for him

the lessee the improvement produced by the field during his lease and give it to him.

What, is it not that they assess for him the improvement

by which the

sycamore improved? And this is difficult for Rava.

We reject this:

No; they assess for him vegetables and beets

that grew in the field during his lease.

We ask: If vegetables and beets grew for him,

should he not uproot them and take them

according to his share of all the produce? Why, then, do they assess their monetary value for him?

We conclude: The case here is

when the market day has not yet arrived,

the market day has not yet come, and the lessee has no benefit from a large quantity of vegetables. Therefore, they assess their monetary value for him.

Come and hear: One who accepts a field from another

to work it under a lease arrangement,

and

the

seventh year arrives, they assess for him

the lessee the improvement produced by the field and give it to him. It follows that he has a share in all the improvement, including the sycamore beams, and this is difficult for Rava.

We ask: If the lease period has not yet ended, he is still the lessee of the field. Why, then, do they assess the improvement for him? Does

the Sabbatical year remove the land

from the possession of its owners?

The Gemara explains:

Rather, say

this:

One who accepts a field from another, and

the year of

Jubilee

arrives, when the field returns to its original owners, and consequently he must complete his work because the original owners did not hire him to work it,

they assess for him

the improvement produced by the field.

But this is again difficult for Rava, who said that he has no share even in the improvement of the sycamore, whereas the beraita implies that they assess all the improvement for him, including the sycamore beams.

We ask:

And still,

why does the lessee not continue his work in the field? Does

the Jubilee remove

the

sharecropping arrangement

that he undertook, to work the field? But it is stated: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity,” and we derive:

“In perpetuity,” the Torah said,

meaning to one for whom, had there been no Jubilee, the field would have become permanently his. But a lessee, who entered the field from the outset only for the purpose of working it, is not removed by the Jubilee from his lease. Why, then, do they assess the improvement for him when the Jubilee arrives?

We conclude:

Rather, say

this:

The purchaser,

who purchased

a field from another, and

the year of

Jubilee

arrived, and he must return the field to the original owners,

they assess for him

the improvement produced by the field during the years it was in the purchaser’s possession and give it to him.

We learn from here that even if the purchaser bought it for only a few years before the Jubilee, they assess for him all the improvement produced by the field, including the improvement of the sycamore beams. This is difficult for Rava, who said that a lessee for only a few years has no share in the improvement of the sycamore beams.

And if you say that here too,

the statement that

they assess for him

concerns

vegetables and beets,

as we said above, for example, when the market day had not yet arrived,

it is impossible to say so! For

beets and vegetables in the Jubilee are ownerless.

Rather, is it not

the statement that they assess for him

the improvement of the sycamore,

and it is not in accordance with Rava?

Abaye explained the matter according to Rava: The case there is different,

as it concerns one who purchased the field for only a few years and the Jubilee overtook him,

as the verse says [Leviticus 25:]

Leviticus 25 ]

“And the sale of a house shall go out,”

and we derive:

The sale returns,

this refers to the land itself, but

the improvement does not return.

Therefore, he has a right to the improvement of the sycamore; but a lessee for only a few years does not.

We inquire:

And let us derive from it,

from the purchaser in the Jubilee, with regard to a lessee for only a few years, that he too should take a share in the improvement of the sycamore!?

We answer:

There

the purchaser bought a field while the Jubilee was in force;

it was a valid sale,

and consequently the entire field, including the sycamore, belonged to the purchaser.

And

when the

Jubilee

arrives, he must return the field because of

the king’s expropriation;

therefore, the land itself returns to the original owners, but the improvement was not subject to the king’s expropriation, and all of it, including the improvement of the sycamore, is assessed for the purchaser.

This is not so with regard to a lessee for only a few years. The field is not his; it is merely leased to him. Since he has no share in the sycamore when he leased it for fewer than seven years, he likewise has no share in the improvement of the sycamore, as he did not enter the field with the intention of taking from the sycamore.

Rav Pappa accepted a field

under a lease arrangement in order

to

sow it with

alfalfa,

and

saplings sprouted in it,

trees grew there on their own, preventing Rav Pappa from sowing alfalfa in the places where they grew.

When he was leaving

when the lease period ended,

he said to them

Rav Pappa said to the owners of the field:

Give me

money corresponding to the

improvement

produced by the field, since the trees grew there during my lease.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: According to you, that the lessee is entitled to the improvement of trees that grew in the field,

According to you, that a leaseholder is entitled to the increase in value of trees that grew in the field,

from now on,

if one purchases a tree to eat its fruit for several years, and a

date palm

grows in the field and

thickens

during the lease period,

does the Master likewise want its improvement,

since it improved while it was in his possession!?

It is certainly the case that he has no share in whatever improvement the date palm produced while it was in his possession, since he did not enter the arrangement with that intention. Likewise here, you have no share in the trees that grew in the field during your lease.

Rav Pappa said

to Rav Shisha:

There,

in the case of a date palm that thickened, in truth

he did not enter with that intention,

as you said, since he entered with the intention of eating its fruit, and the improvement of the date palm is not part of the fruit. But

I, here, entered with that intention,

that I would take a share in whatever grew in the field; and if trees grew there, I would take my share in them.

We inquire:

According to whom

did Rav Pappa necessarily maintain that a lessee has a share in everything that grew in the field?

According to Abaye, who said

that one who leases a field for fewer than seven years has no share in the sycamore beams,

but

he does have a share in the improvement of the sycamore;

so too here, he has the right to receive money corresponding to the trees that grew during his lease, although he cannot take the trees themselves.

We reject this:

You may even say

that Rav Pappa maintained

in accordance with Rava,

who said that a lessee for only a few years has no share in the improvement of the sycamore.

There,

he has no share specifically because the sycamore trees did not interfere with his plowing and work in the field, and

he suffered no loss

from their growth. This is not so

here,

where trees grew for Rav Pappa within the field of alfalfa and prevented him from sowing alfalfa in their place;

there is a loss

from their growth, and for that reason Rav Pappa maintained that he has a share in the improvement of the trees.

The owner said

to Rav Pappa: According to you, that you have a share in the trees because they prevented the sowing of alfalfa where they grew, if so,

what loss have I caused you?

Only

a measure of alfalfa,

what would have grown where the trees grew;

take the measure of alfalfa and go,

and you have no share in the trees, which are worth much more than the value of the alfalfa.

Rav Pappa said

to him: Had trees not grown in the field,

I would have cultivated expensive turmeric,

I would have sown expensive turmeric in the same place where the trees grew, and the growth of the trees prevented me from sowing that turmeric.

The owner said

to Rav Pappa: By saying that you would have sown expensive turmeric, rather than saying that you would have planted trees in order to eat their fruit,

you have revealed your intention that

your desire was to sow something that could be

weighed and removed,

and not trees that produce fruit year after year; and with that intention

you worked

the field.

Therefore,

take the expensive turmeric,

uproot the trees that grew as though they were expensive turmeric,

and go,

and now

you have only the value of the wood.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye accepted a field

to work it under a lease arrangement,

and he raised an embankment around it,

raising the soil along its borders to mark the boundaries of the field.

Saplings sprouted in it,

and trees grew there.

When he was leaving, Rav Bibi said to the owner of the field: Give me my improvement,

the trees that grew in the field during my lease!

Rav Pappi said: Because you come from the family of the disfigured,

meaning that you are descended from the family of Eli, a defective family,

you say defective things,

poor arguments.

For

even Rav Pappa,

who demanded to receive the trees that grew during his lease,

did not say

so

except

because

he suffered a loss,

as the trees prevented him from sowing alfalfa.

But

here, what loss have you suffered

from the growth of the trees? Since you suffered no loss, you have no share in the improvement of the trees that grew on their own.

Rav Yosef had a certain orchard worker,

a gardener whose practice was to serve perpetually as a sharecropper and receive half the improvement produced by the field at the end of each period.

He died,

that orchard worker,

and left five sons-in-law,

and the five sons-in-law wished to continue their father-in-law’s work in the field.

Rav Yosef said:

Rav Yosef said:

Until now

there was one gardener;

now

there will be

five,

and I am not pleased with this.

Because

until now, there were not

several workers who

relied on one another, and

consequently

they did not cause me loss; now,

if there are

five

gardeners,

they will rely

each

on the other,

with each one leaving the work to his fellow,

and they will cause me loss.

He said to them: If you take your improvement

the amount due to you for the work of your deceased father-in-law, the orchard worker,

and leave, it is better. But if not, I will dismiss you without improvement.

For Rav Yehuda said, and some say Rav Huna, and some say Rav Naḥman: In the case of this orchard worker

who worked in a field

and died, his heirs withdraw without improvement.

We conclude: Rav Yosef’s statement to those sons-in-law of the orchard worker was made only to push them away, so that they would not work for him.

And

in truth,

it is not a valid ruling.

A certain orchard worker,

a gardener,

who said to them

to the owner of the field before beginning his work: “I will work and improve the field, and

if I cause a loss,

if the produce is lost, even partially,

I will withdraw,

I will leave my work as an orchard worker.” He planted trees in the field; some of them flourished, while some

I caused to be lost.

Rav Yehuda said:

the law is that he

withdraws

from his work and leaves

without receiving compensation for the improvement.

Rav Kahana said: He withdraws

from his work as an orchard worker, as he had undertaken to do,

and he takes compensation for the improvement.

And Rav Kahana concedes that if he said

before beginning his work as an orchard worker:

“If I cause a loss, I will withdraw without receiving compensation for the improvement,” he withdraws without receiving compensation for the improvement.

Rava said:

One who undertakes an obligation to his fellow on the condition that if something occurs the undertaking will have no effect,

it is an asmakhta,

a mere promise that he made to him so that the other would rely on his words.

And an asmakhta does not acquire.

And

we challenge

Rava: What is different from that which we learned:

If one accepts a field from another and leaves it fallow, so that it becomes uncultivated, its value is assessed according to what it was fit to produce, and he gives that amount to the owner, for this is what he writes for him in the lease document:

“If I leave it fallow,

I will leave it uncultivated,

and I will not work it,

so that I will not cultivate it properly,

I will pay with the best produce,”

This indicates that one who undertakes an obligation to his fellow on the condition that if he does such and such he must conduct himself according to his undertaking is bound by it, and we do not say that it is an asmakhta and does not acquire.

And we answer:

There,

where he accepted a field and left it uncultivated,

he pays for whatever loss he caused,

and this does not involve an asmakhta.

But

here,

where the orchard worker undertook both to withdraw and not to take compensation for the improvement, this involves an additional undertaking beyond the damage he caused, and an undertaking of this kind is an asmakhta.

Therefore, the value of

whatever loss he caused

is assessed, and

we deduct it

from the half of the improvement that he is entitled to by law as an orchard worker, because he undertook this from the outset ,

and the other

remainder

we give him.

And the Gemara relates an incident:

Ronya [

a man's name ],

was Ravina’s orchard worker

.

And it happened that some of the trees

were lost. Ravina dismissed him

from his work as an orchard worker.

Ronya came

before

Rava and said to him: “See, my master, what he is doing to me,”

what Ravina did to me, dismissing me from my work unjustly!

Rava said

to him:

“He acted properly!”

Ronya said

to him:

“But he did not warn me!”

Rava said

to him: An orchard worker who is negligent in his work

does not need to be warned

because throughout the period of his employment he is considered warned and standing, since if he is negligent he will be dismissed from his work.

Rava follows his own reasoning, as Rava said: “A teacher of children,”

a teacher of young children who is negligent in his work causes an irreparable loss, because the children have already become accustomed to their mistakes .

And likewise,

an orchard worker,

a gardener who was negligent in his work and caused some of the trees to be lost ,

and

a butcher,

a slaughterer under whose care an animal became a neveila ,

and a circumciser,

one who performs circumcision on infants ,