Bava Metzia 109a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who receives a field

by lease-rent

,

who accepted upon himself to work the field and reap the produce, in order to take as his wage a fixed amount of the produce for himself as payment for his labor, if the rental period was

for a few years,

less than seven years,

he may not sow it

the lessee

with flax,

because sowing flax weakens the field 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

the lessee has no share

in the beams

that grow on the tree of

the sycamore,

which is a barren tree that produces beams suitable for construction every seven years. For if he takes some of the beams for himself, it turns out that at the end of the lease period the sycamore trees will be smaller than they were at the time the lease was received, and by law the lessee must return the field at least in the condition in which he received it.

Therefore, even if the sycamore trees reached the limit of their growth while he was working the field, he has no share in them, because he entered the field without intending to take from them.

But if

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

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

And

likewise, if he entered it for seven years,

he has

a share

in the sycamore beams

that grew in the first year of his entering it.

Gemara:

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

Abaye said: In the sycamore beams he has no

share, but money

in

the value of

the improvement

of the trees of

the sycamore he does have.

Therefore, when he completes his lease, he receives money corresponding 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 intending to take from the sycamore or from its improvement.

A challenge was raised: One who receives a field from another

by lease-rent,

and his time

to complete his work and

leave

the field has arrived, the lessee gives the owner what they agreed upon, and he takes the remainder for himself, and

they assess for him

the lessee whatever the field improved during his lease, and they 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,

and we reject this:

No; they assess for him vegetables and beets

that grew in the field during his lease.

And we raise a difficulty: If

vegetables and beets grew for him, let him uproot them and take them

according to his share in all the produce; why do they assess their monetary value for him?

And we conclude: This is speaking

when the market day has not arrived,

when the market day has still not arrived 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 receives a field from another

to work it by lease-rent,

and

the year

of Sabbatical year arrived, they assess for him

the lessee whatever the field improved and give it to him. Evidently, he has a share in all the improvement, including the sycamore beam, and this is difficult for Rava.

And we raise a difficulty: If the lease period has not yet ended, he is still the lessee of the field; why do they assess the improvement for him? Does

the Sabbatical year remove the land

from the possession of the owners?

And the Gemara explains:

Rather, say

so:

One who receives a field from another and

the year of

Jubilee

arrived, 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 by which the field improved.

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

And we raise another difficulty:

And still,

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

Jubilee remove

the

sharecropping

that he accepted upon himself, to work the field? But it is stated: “And the land shall not be sold permanently,” and we expound:

“Permanently,” the Merciful One said,

to one for whom, had there not been Jubilee, the field would have become permanently his. But a lessee, who from the outset entered only for work in the field—Jubilee does not cancel his lease. Why, then, do they assess the improvement for him when Jubilee arrives?

And we conclude:

Rather, say

so:

The purchaser,

who bought

a field from another, and

the year of

Jubilee

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

they assess for him

what the field improved during the years that it was in the purchaser’s possession and give it to him.

And we learn from here that even if the purchaser bought it for a few years before Jubilee, they assess for him all the improvement by which the field improved, even the improvement of the sycamore beams; and this is difficult for Rava, who said that a lessee for a few years has no share in the improvement of the sycamore beam.

And if you would say, here too,

that this statement that

they assess for him

is speaking

of vegetables and beets,

and, for example, the market day had not arrived, as we said above—

it is impossible to say so! For

beets and vegetables in the Jubilee year are ownerless.

Rather, is it not

that the statement “they assess for him”

means the improvement of the sycamore,

and it is not in accordance with Rava.

Abaye explained it in accordance with Rava: It is different there,

where one bought it for a few years and Jubilee overtook him,

for the verse says [

Leviticus 25 ]

“And the sold house shall go out,”

and we expound:

the sale returns,

this is the land itself, but

the improvement does not return.

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

And we inquire:

And let us derive from it,

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

And we answer:

There,

with a purchaser who bought a field while the Jubilee law was operative,

it is a full sale,

and consequently the entire field, together with the sycamore, belongs to the purchaser,

and

when

Jubilee arrives,

he must return the field because of

the king’s expropriation;

therefore, the field itself returns to the original owners, but regarding the improvement there was no royal expropriation, and they assess all of it, including the improvement of the sycamore, for the purchaser.

This is not so with a lessee for a few years: the field is not his, but is merely leased to him; and since he has no share in the sycamore if he leased it for less than seven years, he has no share even in the improvement of the sycamore, because he did not enter with the intention of taking from the sycamore.

Rav Pappa leased land

by lease-rent in order

to

sow it

with alfalfa,

and

saplings sprouted in it;

trees grew there by themselves and prevented Rav Pappa from sowing alfalfa in the places where they grew.

When he was withdrawing,

when the lease period was ending,

he said to them

Rav Pappa said to the owners of the field:

Give me

money corresponding to

the improvement

by which the field improved, for during my lease the trees grew in it.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: According to you, that the lessee is entitled to the improvement of the 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 buys a tree to eat its fruit for several years, and a

date palm, and

during the lease period it

becomes stronger,

it expands,

would the Master likewise want its improvement,

since it improved while in his possession!?

Certainly, he has no share in what the palm improved while in his possession, since he did not enter with this intention. And here too, you have no share in the trees that grew in the field during your lease.

He said to him,

Rav Pappa said to Rav Shisha:

There,

in the case of a date palm that became stronger, in truth

he did not enter with this intention,

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

I, here, entered with this intention,

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

And we inquire:

In accordance with whom

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

In accordance with Abaye, who said

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

but

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

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

And we reject this:

You may even say

that Rav Pappa held

in accordance with Rava,

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

There,

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

he has no loss

from their growth. This is not so

here,

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

there is a loss

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

He said to him

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

what have you lost?

Only

a measure of alfalfa,

what would have grown in the place where the trees grew;

take a measure of alfalfa and go,

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

He said to him

Rav Pappa said: If trees had not grown in the field,

I would have grown choice turmeric,

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

He said to him

the owner of the field said to Rav Pappa: By saying that you would have sown choice turmeric, and not 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

taken and removed,

and not trees that produce fruit from year to year; and with this intention

you worked

in the field.

Therefore

take the choice turmeric,

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

and go,

and now

you have only the value of the wood.

Rav Bibi bar Abaye leased land

to work it by lease-rent,

and he raised up an embankment for it,

he raised the earth at its borders in order to mark the boundary of the field.

Saplings sprouted in it,

trees grew there.

When he was withdrawing, 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 mutilated ones,

for you are from the family of the House of Eli, which is a defective family,

you say defective words,

defective statements.

For

even Rav Pappa,

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

did not say

so

except

because

he has a loss,

for the trees prevented him from sowing alfalfa.

But

here, what loss do you have

from the fact that the trees grew? Since no loss was caused to you, you have no share in the improvement of the trees that grew by themselves.

Rav Yosef had a certain tree-planter,

a gardener whose practice was to be a sharecropper permanently and to take at the end of every period half of the improvement by which the field improved.

He died,

that tree-planter,

and left five sons-in-law,

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 do not want this.

Because

until now, there were not

several laborers who

relied on one another, and

consequently

they did not cause me losses; now,

if there will be

five

gardeners,

they will rely

each one

on the other,

so that each one will place the work upon his fellow,

and they will cause me losses.

He said to them: If you take your improvement

that is due to you for the work of your deceased father-in-law, the tree-planter,

and withdraw, 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: This tree-planter

who worked in a field

who dies, his heirs withdraw without improvement.

And we conclude: What Rav Yosef said to those sons-in-law of the tree-planter, he said only in order to drive them away, so that they would not work for him.

And

in truth

it is not a valid statement.

That certain gardener,

a gardener,

who said to them

to the owner of the field before he began his work: I shall work and improve the field, and

if I cause a loss,

if the produce is spoiled, even part of it,

I shall withdraw,

I shall withdraw from my work as a gardener. And he planted trees in the field; some of them improved, and some

I shall have caused a loss.

Rav Judah said:

the law is that he

withdraws

from his work, and leaves

without the improvement.

Rav Kahana said: He withdraws

from his work as a gardener, as he undertook,

and takes the improvement.

And Rav Kahana concedes that if he said

the gardener before he began his work:

“If I cause a loss, I shall withdraw without the improvement,” he withdraws without the improvement.

Rava said:

one who undertakes an obligation to his fellow on the condition that if something occurs it will have no effect, rather

it is an asmachta,

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

And an asmachta does not acquire.

And

we challenged

Rava: What is different from this which we learned:

one who accepts a field from his fellow and leaves it untilled, it becomes untilled; they assess how much it was fit to produce and he gives it to him, for thus he writes to him in the lease document:

“If I leave it untilled,”

I shall leave it untilled,

“and I shall not work it,”

that I shall not work it properly,

“I shall pay the best.”

It follows 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; and we do not say that it is an asmachta and does not acquire.

And we answer:

There,

where he accepted a field and left it untilled,

whatever he caused a loss, he pays,

and this does not constitute an asmachta.

But

here,

where the gardener undertook to withdraw and also not to take the improvement, this constitutes an additional undertaking beyond the damage he caused, and an undertaking of this kind is an asmachta.

Therefore they assess

whatever he caused a loss,

and

we deduct it from him

from the half of the improvement that reaches him by law as a gardener, because he undertook this from the outset ,

and the other

the remainder

we give him.

And the Gemara brings an incident:

Ronya [

a person’s name],

was Ravina’s gardener

.

And it happened that some of the trees

caused a loss. Ravina dismissed him

from his work as a gardener.

Ronya came

Ronya

before Rava: He said to him, “Let the master see what he is doing to me,”

what Ravina did to me, for he dismissed me from my work unlawfully!

He said to him

Rava

: “He acted properly!”

He said to him

Ronya:

“But he did not warn me!”

He said to him

Rava: A gardener who is negligent in his work

does not need to be warned

because throughout the time of his work, he is as one already warned and standing, that if he is negligent he will be dismissed from his work.

Rava followed his own reasoning, for Rava said: “Teachers of children,

a teacher of children who is negligent in his work causes a loss that cannot be repaired, because the children have already become accustomed to their errors .

And likewise,

a gardener,

a gardener who was negligent in his work and some of the trees were spoiled ,

and

a slaughterer,

a slaughterer under whose hand an animal became an unslaughtered carcass ,

and a mohel,

one who circumcises infants ,