Previous daf

1)

(a) If the borrower supplements the running losses of the Iska from his own pocket without informing the owner, and then asks the owner to pay half - he is not obligated to do so says Rava. He can counter that, from the fact that the borrower did not inform him of the loss, it is clear that he supplemented the losses to spare himself the embarrassment.

(b) What gives him the right to refuse is - the fact that by asking him to accept half the loss and then to receive only half the profits, he will be part of the principle.

(c) In a case where two people enter into a joint Iska with the owner and, after making a profit, one of the two borrowers wants to pull out completely or in part, and the other one wants to carry on for the full duration of the deal - the law is on his side, because, he can argue, the profits are Meshubad to the principle (and they cannot be split), as we will now explain.

(d) The gist of his argument in a case where he asks ...

1. ... to divide the profits but to carry on working together with the Iska is - that the current profits are needed to supplement any subsequent losses.
2. ... to take his share of the profits plus the principle (in which case, the his colleague will continue with the Iska on his own is - that since they undertook to work together on the Iska, his partner does not have the right to withdraw in the middle, since who knows whether he (the remaining partner) will succeed on his own.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that in a case where the Mekabel refuses to weed the growing crops claiming that the owner will receive his due anyway and that it is he who will lose out, since the weeds spoil the corn, the owner can object - on the grounds that 'tomorrow you will withdraw from the Chakirus, and leave me with a field full of weeds'.

(b) The Tana can only be speaking about Chakirus - because in a case of Kablanus, where the owner takes a percentage of the annual produce, it is obvious that he cannot refuse to weed the field.

(c) In fact, the Mekabel might have presented any one of three arguments to counter the owner's claim. The owner can refute the argument that he intends to ...

1. ... weed the field before returning it to him - on the grounds that in the meantime he will be receiving poor quality crops (just like the Mekabel).
2. ... buy him crops from the market - on the grounds that he wants crops from his own field not from somebody else's.
3. ... clean his portion before giving it to him - on the grounds that this will not help remove the stigma that will result from the poor yields which result in turn, from the weeds.

(a) The Tana rules that a field that yielded very little, and the Mekabel is not interested in tilling it, because it is not worth his while - must yield less than enough to make a pile to justify the Mekabel's claim.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah objects, because then there would be no difference between a small field and a large one. So according to him, the minimum Shiur is - when not sufficient will grow to plant the following year's crops.

(c) The source of the Tana Kama's ruling - lies in the wording of the Sh'tar which the Mekabel writes for the owner (as we shall now see).

(a) The Mekabel writes in the Sh'tar that he will plant, plow ... and make a pile from which the owner will take half. When he adds 'va'Ana ba'Amali u've'Nafkus Yadi Palga', he means - that he receives his half on account of his efforts and expenses.

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina defines 'a pile' as - large enough for a spade to stick into it.

(c) When they asked in Yeshivah what the Din would be if the shovel was stuck into the pile, but its sides could still be seen, Rebbi Avahu explained that what Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina meant was - that the entire shovel except for the handle was engulfed by the pile and could not see the sun.

(d) Levi gives the Shiur as three Sa'ah, Rebbi Yanai - as two.

(e) Resh Lakish seems to follow Rebbi Yanai's opinion. He qualifies it - by obligating the Mekabel to continue to work on the field only if it produces two Sa'ah over and above the expenses.

(a) The Mishnah in Uktzin discusses Paritzei Zeisim va'Anavim - which are olives and grapes that never ripen fully.

(b) Rav Yosef learn from the Pasuk in Daniel "u'Venei Paritzei Amcha Yinas'u Le'ha'amid Chazon ve'Nichshalu", and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak from the Pasuk in Yechezkel "ve'Holid ben Paritz Shofech Dam" - that 'Paritzei' means bad.

(c) Beis Shamai declare Paritzei Zeisim va'Anavim, Tamei. Beis Hillel declare them - Tahor.

(d) According to Rebbi Elazar, the olives need to produce as little as four Kabin per beam (in the olive-press) to be termed 'Paritzei Zeisim'. Rebbi Yanai says - two Sa'ah (twelve Kabin).

(e) We conclude that they do not argue, because they are referring to different size olive-presses. Rebbi Elazar is speaking about an olive-press which holds one sack-full of olives, Rebbi Yanai - about one that holds three.

6)

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Zavin that if a Zav and a Tahor person are climbing a weak tree or a weak branch, the former renders the latter Tamei - because the one bears the other's weight (Tum'as Heset, through which a Zav transmits Tum'ah).

(b)

1. Rebbi Yanai defines a weak tree - as one that is too small to carve a hole the size of a quarter of a Kav into it.
2. Resh Lakish defines a weak branch - as one that is ss thin that the part that is being gripped by a hand is completely covered by it.

(c) It makes no difference whether the Zav is leaning on the Tahor person or the Tahor person on the Zav - either way, the Tahor person becomes Tamei through Tum'as Heset.

(a) The Mishnah in Ohalos discusses someone who is riding on the back of a person or an animal walking through a Beis ha'P'ras. Chazal decreed Tum'ah in a Beis ha'P'ras (a field in which a grave was dug up) - in case one inadvertently touches or moves a tiny bone the size of a barley (though not through Tum'as Ohel) which is barely discernible.

(b) A loose stone in the field will transmit Tum'ah - to the person who moves it, if, in turn, it moves a bone the size of a barley.

(c) A stone will transmit Tum'ah to the one who is riding on the person or animal's back, even though the former is not actually touching it - if the person or the animal is weak.

(d) de'Bei Rebbi Yanai defines ...

1. ... a weak person as - someone whose knees knock together from the weight that he is carrying.
2. ... a weak animal as - one that leaves droppings because of the weight on its back.

(a) What all these cases and the subsequent ones have in common is - the fact that de'Bei Rebbi Yanai is the one to define the Shiur in each of them.

(b) In a case where the time to Daven the Amidah arrives, and someone is carrying a burden on his shoulders of ...

1. ... less than four Kabin - he may sling it over his shoulders (because *it will not disturb his concentration*).
2. ... four Kabin or more - he must put it down (because is *will*).

(c) Another Beraisa forbids someone who is wearing Tefilin to carry a burden on his head if the burden will squash the Tefillin. According to Amri de'Bei Rebbi Yanai, the Tana is talking about a burden - of four Kabin.

(d) Someone wearing Tefilin who is carrying manure should not move the Tefilin shel Rosh to the side or tie them to his loins (because it is degrading) - he ties them on his arm next to the Tefilin shel Rosh.

(e) de'Bei Rebbi Shilo forbids a person wearing Tefilin to even place the Tefilin bag on one's head. According to Abaye, de'Bei Rebbi Shilo forbids - even a sixteenth of a Pumbedisian Litra.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah requires 'K'dei Nefilah' to obligate the Mekabel to continue working on the field. Rebbi Ami Amar Rebbi Yochanan defines this as four Sa'ah of seeds from which one can plant a Beis- Kur of land - which is an area fifty Amos by one thousand five hundred.

(b) The Chatzer of the Mishkan was two Beis-Sa'ah. Fifty by fifty Amos comprise an area of one Beis-Sa'ah.

(c) This is the opinion of Rebbi Ami quoting Rebbi Yochanan. Rebbi Ami himself gives the Shiur as eight Sa'ah of seeds from which can plant a Beis- Kur of land.

(d) That old man told Rav Chamah B'rei de'Rabah bar Avuhah that Rebbi Ami does not dispute the opinion of his Rebbe Rebbi Yochanan. And the different Shiur that he gave is due to the fact - that the quality of land had deteriorated to such an extent, that it took eight Sa'ah of seeds to produce the same Kur of produce that only one generation earlier had required only four.

(a) The Tana Kama in the Mishnah in Pe'ah rules that, in a case where a wind scattered the sheaves around the field, covering the grains that constitute Leket, denying the poor access to them - we assess how much Leket probably fell, and obligate the owner to give that amount to the poor.

(b) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel fixes the Shiur as K'dei Nefilah. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted ... Rebbi Elazar or Rebbi Yochanan - who defined 'K'dei Nefilah as four Kabin per Kur.

(c) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether he meant per Kur of produce or per Kur of seeds. Assuming the second side of the She'eilah, he asked further - whether he was referring to a field of seeds that were sown by hand or one that was sown by an ox and cart (with holes in the cart through which the seeds would fall as the ox walked along the furrows).

(d) Seeds that are sown by hand are sown more sparsely than those sown by an ox and cart - and the size of land concerned would therefore be larger.

(a) When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he quoted ... Rebbi Elazar or Rebbi Yochanan as specifically referring to - four Kabin per Kur of *seeds*.

(b) He gave no indication however - whether he was referring to an area that was sown by hand or by oxen.

(c) The second She'eilah therefore - remains unresolved.

(a) Our Mishnah discusses a field which someone is Mekabel and which is ravaged by locusts or drought. The Tana permits the Mekabel to deduct from the Chakirus - only if it was a Makas Medinah (a widespread phenomenon, not confined to the field in question, because if it were, the owner could attribute to the Mekabel's Mazel, for which he is not obligated to pay).

(b) Rebbi Yehudah rules that if the Mekabel pays money rather than crops - then either way, he does not deduct from the Chakirus.

(c) The Tana is talking specifically about Chakirus - because with regard to Kablanus, there would be no reason to deduct anything under any circumstances.

(d) Rav defines Makas Medinah as where the majority of fields in that valley (others explain the majority of fields belonging to that town) were stricken, Ula, as - where the four fields that surrounded the field in question were stricken too.

(a) The B'nei Eretz Yisrael asked a number of She'eilos based on Ula's explanation. In a case where ...

1. ... only one furrow all the way round the field in question became stricken, they asked - whether it is nevertheless considered a Makas Medinah, or whether one row is not comparable to four fields.
2. ... the four fields surrounding it were stricken, but one row immediately surrounding the perimeter of his field was not - they asked whether that row is considered a buffer, interrupting between his field and the surrounding ones, removing the aspect of Makas Medinah, or whether one row is not sufficiently significant to do that.

(b) They then asked about a case where four fallow fields divided between the field in question and the four stricken fields, or four fields that were planted with Aspasta, whether this is considered Makas Medinah or not - whether we say that at the end of the day, the four dividing fields were not stricken (and therefore serve as a buffer), or that, had they been planted with crops like the one in the middle, they too, would have been stricken, in which case we ignore them, and assume it to be a Makas Medinah.

(c) When they then asked 'Zera Acher Mai', they meant - assuming that Aspasta is not considered a buffer, a barrier of a properly seeded field, perhaps is (seeing as they are both kinds of seeds).

(a) And they finally asked - whether it will be considered a Makas Medinah if the field of the Mekabel was stricken with blight and the four surrounding ones with mildew, or vice-versa - whether that is called a Makas Medinah or not, seeing as on the one hand, both resulted in the crops being stricken, but on the other they are different plagues, and the fact that the Mekabel alone was stricken with one particular type of plague, it cannot be considered a Makas Medinah.

(b) The outcome of these She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.