Commentary for Bava Metzia 212:18

מיתיבי מגבת פורים לפורים ואין מדקדקין בדבר ואין העני רשאי ליקח מהן רצועה לסנדלו אא"כ התנה במעמד אנשי העיר דברי רבי יעקב שאמר משום ר"מ רשב"ג

sent to Rabina: How is it in such a case? Is it analogous to the law, IF IT WAS SMITTEN, HE CAN PAY HIM THEREOF, or not? — He replied: How compare? In that case the soil had not performed the owner's behest; but here it had.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the Mishnah it had been leased for barley, and the barley had been smitten. Therefore the lessor must accept his rent out of the crop. Here, however, the fodder, for which it had been rented, had not been affected, and it had never been leased for barley; consequently, he must supply him with sound barley, as the original understanding had been. ');">¹⁶</span> A certain man leased a vineyard from his fellow for ten barrels of wine: but that wine<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., which was manufactured from the grapes of that vineyard. ');">¹⁷</span> turned sour. Now, R. Nahman thought to rule, This is the same as our Mishnah: IF IT WAS SMITTEN, HE CAN PAY HIM THEREOF. But R. Ashi said to him: What analogy is there? There the soil had not performed its duty, whilst here it had.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The grapes were sound; therefore he must buy him good wine. ');">¹⁸</span> Yet R. Ashi admits in the case of grapes that had become wormy, or a field whose sheaves were smitten.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the lessor must accept payment out of the crop. Though the sheaves were already detached from the soil, yet since they had to be spread out on the field for drying, they still needed the soil, and therefore it is as though they were smitten whilst growing. ');">¹⁹</span> <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF ONE LEASES A FIELD FROM HIS NEIGHBOUR TO SOW BARLEY, HE MUST NOT SOW WHEAT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because wheat exhausts the soil more than barley. This can refer only to a fixed rental; for in the case of a percentage rental, since a wheat crop is of greater value than a barley crop, he may sow wheat, as stated supra 104a: Let the field be impoverished, rather than its owner. ');">²⁰</span> [TO SOW] WHEAT, HE MAY SOW BARLEY. BUT R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL FORBIDS IT. [IF RENTED FOR] CEREALS, HE MAY NOT SOW PULSE; BUT IF [FOR] PULSE HE MAY SOW CEREALS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning is the same as in the case of barley and wheat. [MS.M. reverses the position of cereals and pulse, a reading adopted by Maim. and Alfasi, cf. n. 5 below.] ');">²¹</span> R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL FORBIDS IT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. R. Hisda said: What is R. Simeon b. Gamaliel's reason? — Because it is written, The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Zeph. III, 13. ');">²²</span> An objection is raised: The Purim collections must be utilized for Purim only, and no scrutiny is made in the matter. The poor may not even buy shoestraps therewith, unless this was stipulated in the presence of members of the community: this is the ruling of R. Jacob, who stated it in the name of R. Meir; but R. Simeon b. Gamaliel

Explore commentary for Bava Metzia 212:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.