Bava Metzia 109b — the Talmud in English

And the city scribe,

the city's scribe

, all of them are deemed as warned and standing.

They may be removed from their work without a warning.

The general principle of the matter: every loss that does not return,

which cannot be restored and repaired,

is deemed as warned and standing.

And the Gemara brings a case involving

a certain shetala,

a gardener who accepted upon himself to sow, cultivate, and harvest the produce, on condition of taking half of the increase that the field would produce; and after he sowed and the field brought forth produce, he wanted to retract and stop working,

for he said to them

to the owner of the field:

Give me my increase,

what the field has increased until now,

for I desire to ascend

to go up

to the Land of Israel,

to the Land of Israel.

He came before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who said to them

to the owner of the field,

Give him his increase

to the aris.

Rava said

to Rav Pappa: And will the aris take all the increase, as though

he

alone

increased it, while the

land

which belongs to its owners

did not increase it?

After all, from the outset they agreed that the aris would take only half of the increase.

He said to him,

Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Even

I said to you, “half of the increase,”

and I did not intend that the aris should take all the increase.

He said to him,

Rava:

Until now,

had the shetala not stopped his work, then when he completed his work,

the owner would take half and the shetala half,

as they had agreed beforehand.

Now,

since the shetala wishes to stop his work and take half, it follows that the owner will receive less than half the increase, because he will have to hire an aris to complete the shetala’s work, and for his work

he must give a share

a third, as is the custom of the arisin,

to the arisa,

so why should the owner lose when the shetala retracts in the middle of the work?

Rav Pappa said to him:

Rav Pappa said: Even when I said that the shetala should take half,

I meant a quarter of the increase.

And now he explains it and proceeds.

Rav Ashi thought to say

that the quarter should be calculated after deducting the aris’s share: if the increase is divided into six parts, first the aris’s share, which the owner must hire against his will, must be removed; his wage is a third of the profit, namely two parts out of six. And from the four remaining parts the shetala would take

a quarter,

one part, which

is

in practice only

a danka,

one-sixth of the entire increase.

It follows that the aris will receive two parts, the shetala one, and the remaining three, which are half the increase, the owner of the field will take.

For Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Nahumi, said: In a place

where they were accustomed

that a shetala takes

as his wage

half, and an aris takes

a portion

a third, this shetala who wishes to withdraw

in the middle of his work,

we give him the increase and remove him in such a way

in a manner

that no loss reaches the owner.

Granted, if you say

that the shetala takes

a quarter

of the increase after deducting the aris’s wage,

which is

in practice only

a danka,

one-sixth of the entire increase, and the owner takes three parts, then

it works well

that which Rav Minyumi said, that the increase is to be divided in a manner that causes no damage to the owner.

But if you say

that the shetala has in the increase

an actual quarter

out of the six parts of the increase, namely one and a half parts,

a loss reaches the owner,

for he must hire an aris to complete the shetala’s work and pay him two parts, namely a third of the increase; it follows that only two and a half parts will remain in his possession, and he will lose

half a danka

which he could have received had the shetala not stopped in the middle of his work.

And from Rav Minyumi’s words it is implied that if the shetala retracts, he is to be given an increase in an amount such that the owner will not lose. Necessarily, the shetala has no more than one part out of the entire increase.

Rav Aha, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi:

Why do they calculate the aris’s wage according to his work in the entire field, which is two parts of the increase?

And let him say to him

the shetala to the owner of the field:

You,

you will take three-quarters of the field together with its increase for yourself, namely four and a half parts of the increase; and in your portion you should bring down an aris who will work and complete the work in the field, and when you come to pay him a third of the profit,

from your share give it to the arisa,

from the four and a half parts give him one and a half, and it follows that half the field together with its increase will remain in your share.

And I

will take for myself

my share,

which is the remaining one and a half dinars, and

whatever I wish I will do with it,

if I wish I will bring down an aris, and if not, I will not bring him down. But why should the owner bring down an aris to a field in which I have a share and cause me to lose half a dinar?

He said

to him, Rav Ashi: You have asked well;

when you reach the slaughter of sacred offerings,

in tractate Zevahim,

come and ask me

questions of this kind, to sharpen the teachings.

The essential matter: Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Nahumi, said: In a place where a shetala takes half

of the increase

and an aris a third, this shetala who wishes to withdraw

and stop his work in the field

we give him his increase, and remove him in such a way that the owner will not lose.

Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Nahumi, said:

A gardener who entered the work of a vineyard on condition of taking half as his wage, and a

kufa,

vine

old

became old and produced little fruit, the shetala takes

half

of the fruit and of the shoots that grew in the vineyard. He cannot demand that the owner add to his wage, because he entered the vineyard with this understanding.

If the river washed it away

and the field was damaged in a manner that makes it impossible to sow it again for several years, the shetala is judged as one who stopped in the middle of his work, and he has only

a quarter

of the value of the increase that had been in the field before it was washed away.

One who lends money to his fellow, and the borrower gives him a field as collateral for his debt, may the lender say: I will eat the produce of the field for a period, such as ten years, whether it produces much produce or produces little, and after ten years you will be exempt from paying your debt.

Even if the produce will be worth more than the amount of his loan, the Sages said that it is permitted to do so and this does not constitute interest, because he took the produce by way of purchase and sale. And this is mashkanta de-Sura.

A certain man

borrowed money from his fellow, and

mortgaged an orchard to his fellow

the lender

for ten years,

so that he would eat its produce during them on condition that he be exempt from paying, according to the law of mashkanta de-Sura,

and

the field

became kash,

old, no longer producing fruit,

after

five

years,

and only shoots and dry trees suitable for burning remained in the field.

Abaye said:

Those trees

are produce,

and just as the lender had the right to eat the fruit in the trees, so he may take the dry trees for his use.

Rava said:

Those trees

are principal,

and the lender has no right to consume the principal of the borrower; therefore, they should sell the old field,

and

with the money they receive for it

land shall be purchased with it, and he,

the lender,

shall eat the produce

for five years.

He objected:

A borrower who gave land to a lender so that he would eat its produce as mashkanta de-Sura for ten years, and in the middle of the period of the lender’s eating

the tree dried up or was cut down, both of them,

the lender and the borrower,

are forbidden concerning it,

for if the borrower takes the trees, from where will the lender collect his debt? And if the lender takes them, he has no right to consume the borrower’s principal.

Therefore,

what shall they do? They shall sell the trees, and

with the money they receive for them

land shall be purchased with it, and he,

the lender,

shall eat the produce.

And we infer: It teaches, “the tree dried up or was cut down.”

What, is it not that “dried up” is analogous to “was cut down”? As “was cut down”

necessarily speaks

of

the time having arrived

for its time

to be cut down—for a person cuts down his tree only when it has ceased producing fruit—

so too, “dried up”

speaks

of

the time having arrived

for its time to dry up; and it teaches, “land shall be purchased with them, and he shall eat the produce,” thus

they judge the trees that dried up as the borrower’s property, for

they are principal,

and the lender has no right to consume the borrower’s principal. This is difficult for Abaye, who says that they are produce.

And we reject this:

No,

do not infer this. Rather, say:

“Was cut down” is analogous to “dried up.” As “dried up”

speaks

without its time,

for if it were at its time, it should have said “became old”;

so too, “was cut down”

which it teaches is

without

the time having arrived

for its time

to be cut down.

And specifically when the tree dried up not at its time do we say that both are forbidden concerning it, because the lender did not enter the field with the intention that he would collect his debt from the dry trees. But if its time to be cut down had arrived, and the lender entered the field with this intention, Abaye holds that those trees are produce, and the lender may consume them.

Come and hear:

A married woman whose father died and

there fell to her

by inheritance trees of

old vines and olive trees,

the law is that the husband has no right to consume the trees and burn them.