Previous daf

1)

(a) We ask what the Din will be if the owner instructed the Mekabel to plant wheat, and he planted barley, and most of the fields (wheat and barley) in that valley were stricken too. The ...

1. ... Mekabel might argue that this is a Makas Medinah, even though he changed from the owner's instructions - because had he planted wheat, the same thing would have happened (seeing as the surrounding wheat-fields were also stricken).
2. ... Mekabel might nevertheless be obligated to pay the owner in full - because the owner can counter that, having stipulated that the Mekabel was to plant wheat, he had beseeched Hashem to bless his wheat crop (and Hashem would have accepted his entreaties, had the Mekabel kept to his instructions). And to back his claim, he could quote the Pasuk in Iyov "ve'Sigzar Omer ve'Yakem Lach, ve'Al Derachecha Nagah Or", which teaches us that Hashem responds favorably to people's individual entreaties.

(b) We accept the second side of the She'eilah.

(a) We then ask what the Din will be in a case where ...

1. ... the field in question suffered draught, the other fields in the neighborhood did not, but all the other fields belonging to the owner were stricken too. The Mekabel can argue that it must be the owner's Mazel (seeing as all his fields suffered), but the owner, based on the Pasuk "Ki Nish'arnu Me'at me'Harbeh" can counter - that, Hashem does not usually strip a person of all his assets, but generally leaves him a remnant of what he formerly owned. Consequently, now that his last field was stricken, it must be due to the Mazel of the Mekabel.
2. ... the field in question suffered draught alongside the other fields in the area, but so did all the Mekabel's other fields, wherever they were. In spite of the fact that most of the fields in the area were stricken too, this might not be considered a Makas Medinah, because the owner can counter - that the fact that all the Mekabel's fields were stricken too, proves that the draught struck his (the owner's) field due to his (the Mekabel's) Mazel and not because of Makas Medinah.

(b) In this last case, the Mekabel cannot counter "Ki Nish'arnu Me'at me'Harbeh" (like the owner did in the previous case) - because the owner can argue that, had this Pasuk indeed applied to him, then one of his fields would have been spared.

(c) We conclude - that it is indeed the Mekabel's Mazel that caused the owner's field to be stricken.

(a) If someone sells a field in the time when the Yovel is practiced, the seller is permitted to redeem it from the purchaser - only after he has reaped two years produce from it.

(b) The Beraisa rules that if someone sold a field during a time of draught, during the Sh'mitah-year - or during the days of Eliyahu (when there was no rain for three years), they are not counted in the two years.

(c) We know that the Tana is speaking about when there is no produce at all in the entire land - because that is what happened in the time of Eliyahu, and we learn the other cases from that one.

(d) We extrapolate from here - that if produce grew anywhere in the country, it is not considered a Makas Medinah (even though the surrounding fields did not yield anything), because if it was, we currently presume, it would not be counted in the two years produce (a Kashya on our previous interpretation of Makas Medinah).

(a) To answer the Kashya, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak quotes the Pasuk "*be'Mispar* Sh'nei Tevu'os Yimkor Lach" (and not just "Sh'nei Tevu'os"), from which we learn - that as long as there are two years' produce, the owner may redeem his field (irrespective of the fact that all the local fields did not produce during those two years either, and it was a Makas Medinah [negating our initial presumption]).

(b) Nevertheless, Rav Kahana explained to Rav Ashi, the Shemitah- year is not counted, even though there is produce in Chutz la'Aretz, because the Torah forbids planting in Eretz Yisrael, and it cannot therefore be counted as a year of produce.

(a) Somebody who declares his field Hekdesh and then comes to redeem it, pays a Sela and a Pundeyon per Beis Sa'ah, for each year until the Yovel. We arrive at this figure - by dividing the fifty Sela'im that the Torah requires him to pay for the full term by forty-nine (the number of years in the full cycle until the Yovel, and there are forty-nine Pundeyonim in a Sela).

(b) In spite of the fact that a field in the Shemitah is considered non-existent in this regard, it is nevertheless deducted from the price when somebody declares his field Hekdesh and then comes to redeem it - because although the field cannot be sown in the Sh'mitah, it does have other uses, such as spreading out fruit in it to dry.

(c) We know that it is deducted from the price - because otherwise we would have to divide the fifty Shekalim into forty-two years (rather than forty-nine), and each year's produce would then be worth almost a Sela and a Dinar (and the Mishnah gives the price as a Sela and a Pundeyon!)

(a) Shmuel qualifies the Din of Makas Medinah, confining it to where the Choker sowed the field, the crops grew and the locusts ate them - but if he did not even sow the crops, then he will obligate the Choker to give the owner his due even when there is a Makah Medinah ...

(b) ... because, based on the Pasuk "Lo Yevoshu be'Eis Ra'ah u'vi'Yemei Re'avon Yisba'u" - the owner can claim that, had the Choker sowed the crops, Hashem would have caused them to grow in spite of the Makas Medinah.

(a) The Beraisa rules that a shepherd who forsook his flock to go to town, and whilst he was away, a wolf or a lion killed one of the sheep - is not automatically liable, but we assess whether, had he been there, he would have been able to save the sheep or not.

(b) In spite of what we just said, the owner cannot hold him liable on the grounds that, had he been there, he might have saved the flock in a miraculous way (like David Hamelech did when he was a shepherd) - because the Choker can counter - that if Hashem wanted to perform miracles, he could have saved the sheep anyway, like the miracle that He performed with Rebbi Chanina ben Dosa ...

(c) ... when, following his request - the goats came back carrying in their horns the bears that they had killed.

(d) This answer is not satisfactory however, because the owner could have countered - that although he was not worthy of such an open miracle, he would have been worthy of a hidden miracle such as the Mekabel miraculously saving his sheep, had he been there.

8)

(a) One Beraisa obligates the Mekabel to sow the field again the following year, after the locusts ate the crops, but not a third year. A second Beraisa - obligates him even the third year, but not the fourth.

(b) We reconcile the two Beraisos by establishing them like Rebbi and Raban Shimon ben Gamliel respectively - who argue over a woman who lost two husbands. According to Rebbi, she is an established Katlanis (an inadvertent murderer), and men are forbidden to marry her, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it only after her third husband has died.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is whether something that occurs twice makes a Chazakah (Rebbi) or three times (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel).

(d) Resh Lakish states that if the Mekabel sowed a field and the crops did not grow, even at a time when the other fields in the area were ravaged by locusts - he is obligated to sow.

(a) According to Rav Papa, this applies up to the time that the Arisim come in the from the fields and Kiymah is in the middle of the sky. 'Kiymah' is - the tail of Mazel T'leh (Lamb).

(b) This applies to - the month of Adar.

(c) It take two hours from the time the Mazel first appears on the horizon until it is completely in the sky.

(d) The Mazel that appears at dawn-break during the month of ...

1. ... Nisan - is T'leh.
2. ... Adar - is Dagim.

(e) We arrive at the conclusion that Kiymah is completely in the middle of the sky at the end of the tenth hour in the month of Adar - because in Adar, T'leh, which follows Dagim, begins to rise in the third hour. And since it takes six hours to reach the middle of the sky, and two hours to pass any given spot, T'leh finally passes the middle of the sky at the end of the tenth hour, and that is when Kiymah, its tail, takes its place there.

(a) The Tana'im divide the year into six seasons, of which the first, third and fifth are Zera, Kor and Kayitz. The season that follows ...

1. ... Zera is - Choref (winter).
2. ... Kor is - Katzir (harvest).
3. ... Kayitz is - Chom (the hot season). Midsummer is called Kayitz because that is when they would cut dried dates and figs, which are called 'Kayitz'.

(b) If Choref and Kayitz are at opposite ends of the spectrum (mid-winter and mid-summer respectively), at the opposite end of ...

1. ... Zera is - Katzir.
2. ... Kor is - Chom.

(c) According to Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Shimon ben Menasyah, the first season (Zera [as told to No'ach]) begins in the middle of Tishri, according to Rebbi Yehudah, the Zera season begins two weeks earlier, at the beginning of Tishri, and according to Rebbi Shimon - it begins two weeks later, at the beginning of Marcheshvan.

(d) We reconcile Rav Papa, who just gave the time for Zera as Adar, with this Beraisa - by establishing the latter by 'Charfi' (the early crops, such as wheat and rye), and the latter by 'Afli' (the late crops, such as barley and legumes).

(a) In the case of a Choker who undertook to plant garlic on the banks of the River Malka Saba, the waters of that river were diverted, so the river banks where he had planted the garlic became dry.

(b) This affected his Chakranus - inasmuch as garlic require moist earth in order to flourish.

(c) Rava therefore ruled - that, due to the fact that the diversion of the river was unforseeable, it fell into the category of Makas Medinah, and the Choker was permitted to deduct from the amount that he gave the owner.

(d) When the Rabbanan queried him from Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who precludes a Choker who pays money from the Din of Makas Medinah, he replied - that nobody takes the least heed of Rebbi Yehudah's opinion.

(a) Our Mishnah rules that if the crops were stricken in any way, the Mekabel is entitled to pay the owner from the inferior crops themselves. The Tana must be speaking about Chakirus - because by Kablanus, it is obvious that the owner receives whatever grows.

(b) Should the field yield superior-quality crops - he is not entitled to pay the owner with regular crops that he purchased from the market (as we learned earlier in the Sugya).

(a) The advantage of planting Aspasta (which is used as animal fodder) is - that it only takes thirty days to grow, and one can therefore obtain a number of yields each year.

(b) That Mekabel who undertook to plant Aspasta but to pay the owner barley - tried planting barley after the Aspasta. Unfortunately, the barley crop was stricken.

(c) When Rav Chaviva mi'Sura thought that this might be compared to our Mishnah, which permits the Choker to pay with the stricken crops, Ravina told him - that it was not, since in this case, the field produced Aspasta successfully, and had he planted Aspasta as planned, the crop would not have been stricken.

(d) In another case, where a Choker undertook to pay the owner ten barrels of wine from the vineyard that he had been Choker, and the wine turned sour. When Rav Kahana comparing this case to our Mishnah, wanted to permit the Choker to pay the owner with the stricken wine, Rav Ashi pointed out - that here too, the grape harvest was successful, and it was only later that the wine turned sour, in which case, the Choker would have to purchase good wine from the market with which to pay the owner.

(e) Rav Ashi would concede to Rav Kahana however - if the grapes became wormy (before he made wine from them), or if the wheat became stricken in its sheaves (whilst they still needed the ground [though that is clearly not the criterion for all cases]).

(a) The Tana Kama of our Mishnah permits a Mekabel who undertook to plant barley to plant wheat, but not vice-versa - because wheat weakens the earth more than barley.

(b) The Tana is speaking about Chakirus - because a Kablan would be permitted to change to wheat, since it produces more, and the owner prefers to gain now, even though his land is weakened in the process, as we learned earlier (see also Hagahos ha'G'ra and Rashash).

(c) He also forbids changing from produce to legumes, but permits the opposite - because legumes too, weakens the field more than produce.

(d) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - forbids changing from either one to the other in both cases.

(a) Rav Chisda applies the Pasuk in Tzefanyah "She'eiris Yisrael Lo Ya'asu Avlah ve'Lo Yedabru Chazav ... " - to explain Raban Shimon ben Gamliel, who forbids the Choker to change, even from wheat to barley ... .

(b) We already discussed the Beraisa 'Mageves Purim le'Purim, ve'Ein Medakdekin be'Davar' in 'ha'Socher es ha'Umnin'. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - permits changing from one Tzedakah to another, because it makes no difference to the owner (so we assume that he doesn't mind).

(c) Abaye resolves the apparent contradiction in the two statements of Raban Shimon ben Gamliel by citing Mar (alias Rabah), who says - that sowing one year wheat and the next year, barley, or one year from east to west, and the next, from north to south - is a sure way of draining one's land of its productive capabilities (see Tosfos DH 'Hai Ma'an').

(d) And the reason that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel in our Mishnah forbids changing is - because we suspect that the owner planted wheat or legumes the previous year, and he stipulated that the Choker plant wheat or legumes, so as not to spoil his land.

(e) Even Raban Shimon ben Gamliel will permit a change from wheat to barley or from legumes to produce however - provided the Choker is willing to plow the field twice, once after the harvest and again before sowing.