Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) COMPENSATION FOR WHAT A DEVELOPER LEAVES BEHIND

(a) (Mishnah): Reuven rented a field for a small period of time - he may not plant flax, and he may not cut branches of sycamore trees;

1. If he rented it for seven years, he may plant flax and cut branches of sycamore trees the first year (since the loss will not be felt in the land and the tree when the land goes back).

(b) (Gemara - Abaye): He may not cut branches of sycamore trees, but he is compensated for their increased value (when he leaves).
(c) (Rava): He is not even compensated for their increased value.
(d) Question (Beraisa): If Reuven rented a field, when it is time for him to leave, we estimate for him.

1. Suggestion: We estimate the increased value of the sycamore trees!

(e) Answer: No, we estimate the value of the vegetables and beets.
(f) Question: Why estimate them - he may uproot them and take them!
(g) Answer: They will not last until the market day (when one gets the proper price for them).
(h) Question (Beraisa): If Reuven rented a field and Shemitah came, we estimate for him.

1. Objection: Shemitah does not force him to leave the land!

(i) Correction (Beraisa): Rather, if Yovel came, we estimate for him.

1. Objection: Yovel does not apply to rental - the Torah only forbids a permanent sale - "Li'Tzmisus"

(j) Correction (Beraisa): Rather, if Reuven bought a field and Yovel came, we estimate for him.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps here also, we estimate the value of the vegetables and beets.
2. Rejection: In Yovel, vegetables and beets (and all produce) are Hefker!
3. Rather, we estimate the increased value of the sycamore trees!

(k) Answer (Abaye on behalf of Rava): Yovel is different, for the Torah said "V'Yatza Mimkar Bayis" - the sale goes back, the improvements do not go back.
(l) Question: We should learn from Yovel to a renter!
(m) Answer: When one buys land, even though it goes back in Yovel, he is not like a renter - he is a full buyer, just Hash-m uproots his ownership in Yovel (and returns it to the seller).

1. Rav Papa rented a land to plant fodder; trees sprouted on it. When he left, he asked for the increased value.
2. Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi: If one rents a date tree to eat its fruit, and it got thicker, does he get the improvement?!
3. Rav Papa: That is different - there, he did not rent it for the wood - but I rented the field for whatever will grow.
4. Suggestion: Rav Papa holds like Abaye.
5. Rejection: He can hold like Rava - Rava only said that he gets no improvements when he did not lose; here, Rav Papa lost.
6. Question: His loss was a small area in which he could have grown fodder - that is all he is entitled to!
7. Answer: No, he could have grown saffron (which is very dear).
8. Question: You admit that you did not intend for lasting improvements, therefore you are only entitled to the value of wood (not the value of growing trees).

(n) Rav Bibi bar Abaye rented a field; he raised the borders, and sorb trees sprouted in it. When he left, he asked for the improvements.
(o) Rav Papi: No - even Rav Papa only demanded improvements because he suffered a loss - you suffered no loss from these!

(a) Rav Yosef had a permanent planter (a sharecropper that did all the work in the field, starting with plating); he died, leaving five sons-in-law. Rav Yosef did not want them to continue for their father - each would rely on the others, and the field would not be properly cared for.

1. Rav Yosef: I offer you the improvements on the field - if you refuse, you will get (letter of the law, i.e.) nothing.

i. (Rav Yehudah): If a planter dies, the owner may expel his heirs without giving the improvements.
ii. This is wrong (they are entitled to improvements).

(b) (Rav Yehudah): If a planter said 'If I cause a loss, I will leave' and he caused a loss, he does not get the improvements;
(c) (Rav Kahana): He gets the improvements.

1. Rav Kahana admits, if he said 'If I cause a loss, I will leave without improvements', he gets no improvements.
2. (Rava): This is Asmachta (an exaggerated promise) - it is not binding (he gets the improvements).
2. Question (Mishnah): 'If I will leave it fallow and not work it, I will pay what it would have produced' (this is binding).
3. Answer: There, he pays for the loss he caused;

i. Here also, we deduct the loss he caused, and he gets the balance of the improvements.

(d) Runya was Ravina's planter; he caused a loss, and Ravina fired him. Runya complained to Rava, who defended Ravina.

1. Runya: He did not warn me (that he would fire me if I cause a loss)! 2. Rava: There is no need for warning.

i. (Rava): The following may be fired (for negligence) without warning: one who teaches children, a planter, a slaughterer, a bloodletter, and the town scribe (Rashi - to write Sifrei Torah; Tosfos - to write documents);

ii. The general rule is: any mistake that cannot be corrected, we considered the worker to be warned.

(a) A planter asked for the improvements (after he planted), because he wanted to go to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Papa bar Shmuel ruled that the owner must give him.

1. Rava: The land also caused the increased value!
2. Rav Papa bar Shmuel: Indeed, I meant that he shares the improvements.
3. Rava: The agreement was that the owner gets half - but he will now have to hire a sharecropper (to finish the work for a planted field)!
4. Rav Papa bar Shmuel: Indeed, I meant that he gets a quarter of the improvements.

(b) Rav Ashi: Rav Papa meant, a quarter of the owner's share, a sixth of the total improvements;

1. (Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): In a place where a planter gets half the crop and a sharecropper (who works a planted field) gets a third, a planter who leaves after planting gets a share of the improvements (i.e. a sixth), in order that the owner does not lose (he still gets a half).
2. If the planter would get a quarter of the produce, the owner would lose!

(c) Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Yosef): Why can't the planter say 'give (a quarter) from your (three quarters) share to hire a sharecropper to finish working your share, I will do with my share (a quarter) as I want'?
(d) Version #1 (Rashi) Admission (Rav Ashi): Indeed, he can say so (and Rav Papa meant, a quarter of the produce).
(e) Version #2 (R. Chananel) Answer (Rav Ashi): He cannot say this because one cannot find a sharecropper for less than a third.
(f) (Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): In a place where a planter gets half the crop and a sharecropper gets a third, a planter who leaves after planting gets a share of the improvements in order that the owner does not lose.
(g) Version #1 - Rashi - (Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): A planter gets half of an old vine (just as he gets half the produce), for this is normal; if a river flooded the field (and the trees will not produce fruits for a long time), the planter gets half the wood (like the law of a planter who leaves early).
(h) Version #2 - R. Chananel - (Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): If a planter uproots old vines and plants new ones, he gets half the produce (for this is much work); if a river flooded the field (and uprooted the trees) and he plants new ones, he gets a quarter of the produce.
(i) Reuven gave his orchard as collateral for a loan for ten years (its rental value for each year was to be deducted from the loan). After five years, the trees stopped producing, for they were old.
(j) (Abaye): The wood is considered like produce, the lender gets it;
(k) (Rava): The wood is considered like principal, they buy land with it and the lender eats the produce (for the remaining five years, after which Reuven keeps it).
(l) Question (Beraisa): (Reuven took Shimon's tree according to Mashkanta of Sura (after a certain time, the tree goes back for free.)) If the tree dried (and no longer gives fruit) or was cut, neither Reuven nor Shimon may use it;

1. They should sell it and buy land, Reuven eats the produce.
2. Since the land reverts to the owner in Yovel, the principal is consumed!
3. Suggestion: The case when it dries is like when it is cut: just as (presumably) it was cut in the proper time (when it ceased to bear fruit), also it dried in the proper (i.e. expected) time - and it says, they buy land with it and the lender eats the produce!
4. This shows that the wood is principal!

(m) Answer: No - the case when it is cut is like when it dries: just as 'dried' connotes before the proper time (it does not say 'it grew old'), also it was cut before the proper time.
(n) Question (Mishnah): If a married woman inherited old vines or date trees, we sell the wood to buy land and her husband eats the produce.
(o) Answer #1: The Mishnah says that 'they grew old'.
(p) Answer #2: As we established the Mishnah (in Kesuvos) - she inherited trees in another person's field (since she has nothing after they are cut, Abaye agrees that they are considered principal).