Reference for Bava Metzia 217:17

רוניא שתלא דרבינא הוה אפסיד סלקיה אתא לקמיה דרבא א"ל חזי מר מאי קא עביד לי א"ל שפיר עביד א"ל הא לא התרה בי א"ל לא צריכא להתרות רבא לטעמיה דאמר רבא מקרי דרדקי שתלא טבחא ואומנא

for that.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When leasing palm-trees, the lessee thinks only of the fruit, but when leasing a field for fodder, his mind is set upon anything that may grow there. ');">¹⁴</span> With whom does this agree? With Abaye, who maintained that he is entitled to the improvement In the sycamores? — It may agree even with Raba. There he [the lessee] suffers no loss [through the improvement of the sycamores]; here there is a loss. But he [the lessor] said to him, 'Wherein did I cause you to suffer loss? Through the [diminished] area for fodder. Then take the value of the fodder [that would have grown] in their place, and go.' He replied, 'I would have sown it with garden saffron,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is much more valuable. ');">¹⁵</span> Said he to hini, 'You have [thus] shown that your intention was to remove [what you did sow] and depart:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By answering, 'I would have sown it with saffron,' you have shewn that you would have planted something which could be entirely removed when grown, and not that which, whilst the stock remained, would show you a profit on its improvement, e.g., young palm-trees. ');">¹⁶</span> then take your saffron and go. You are entitled only to the value of the wood.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., you must regard these trees as though they were saffron and you had to remove them entirely, and thus you have no other claim but for the value of the timber. ');">¹⁷</span> R. Bibi b. Abaye leased a field and surrounded it with a ridge, from which there sprung forth sorb bushes. When he left the field [on the expiration of the lease], he said to them, 'Give me the improvements I effected.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of these bushes. ');">¹⁸</span> Said R. Papi: 'Because you come from Mamla, you speak words of no substance.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Aruch holds Mamla to be a place name, whose inhabitants were short-lived. Because you come from such a place, you speak words that are short-lived i.e., use untenable arguments. Rashi: Because you are descendants of Eli (who were likewise short-lived, v I Sam. II, 31ff.) you speak etc. [For another interpretation v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 582, n. 6.] ');">¹⁹</span> Even R. Papa claimed [improvements] only because he suffered loss; but here, what loss have you sustained?' R. Joseph had a gardener.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who worked for half profit. ');">²⁰</span> Now, he died and left five sons-in-law. Said R. Joseph: Hitherto there was one, and now there are five; hitherto they did not rely on each other [to do the work] and so caused me no loss, whilst now they will, and cause me loss. [Therefore] he said to them: If you accept the improvements due to you and quit, it is well; if not, I will evict you without [giving you] the improvements. For Rab Judah — others state, R. Huna — others state, R. Nahman — said: If a gardener dies, his heirs may be evicted without [receiving] the improvements. — But [nevertheless] that is incorrect. A certain gardener said to his employers, 'Should I cause loss, I will quit.' He did [then] cause loss, Said Rab Judah: He must quit without [receiving] the improvements. R. Kahana said: He must quit, but receives the improvements [he effected]. Yet R. Kahana admits that if he said, 'I will quit without the improvements,' he is evicted without [receiving] improvements. Raba said: [Even then,] It is an <i>asmakta</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">²¹</span> which is not binding. But according to Raba, wherein does it differ from what we learnt: 'Should I neglect and not till it, I will pay with the best [crops]?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 104a. It is there stated that their condition is binding. ');">²²</span> — There he merely pays for the loss he caused;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he neglects the whole field, he involves its owner in considerable loss, and there are no profits to offset it, ');">²³</span> here [it is sufficient that] we make a deduction on account of what he spoiled — whilst the rest must be given him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But he must not be deprived of all his share in the improvements, which exceeds the loss. ');">²⁴</span> Ronia was Rabina's gardener. Having spoiled it, he was dismissed. Thereupon he went before Raba, complaining — 'See, Sir, how he has treated me.' 'He has acted within his rights,' he informed him. 'But he gave me no warning,' protested he. 'No warning was necessary,' he retorted. This is in accordance with Raba's views. For Raba said: Elementary teachers, a gardeners butcher, a cupper<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So translated by Rashi supra 97a. Here he translates: a circumciser. ');">²⁵</span>

Jastrow