Bava Metzia 201

חוץ מן ההוצאה:

is exclusive of expenses.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after deducting the cost of gathering and pressing, there remains the value of a quarter log of oil per se'ah of olives. ');">¹</span>

שטף נהר זיתיו: אמר עולא אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא שנעקרו בגושיהן ולאחר שלש

IF THE RIVER SWEPT AWAY A MAN'S OLIVE-TREES. 'Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: This was stated only if they were uprooted together with their clods of earth, and after three years [of having been swept away]; but within the three years, it all belongs to the owner of the olive trees, for he can say to him [the landowner]: 'Had you planted them, could you have eaten of them within three years?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fruit of a tree may not be eaten within the first three years of planting (v. Lev. XIX, 23). Further, if an old tree is swept away together with the clods of earth in which it grew, and deposited elsewhere and takes root; if these clods were sufficient for its subsequent growth, it still ranks as an old tree, and the three-year prohibition does not apply (v. 'Orl. I, 3); otherwise it does, the trees being regarded as newly planted. Hence Resh Lakish observes on the Mishnah: Only when the trees are swept away with their clods, and three years have passed, is the field-owner entitled to half; because had he planted them, when first swept away, with their clods, the three year prohibition would already have ended, and he can consequently claim that the tree-owner benefits from his soil. But within three years he has no claim at all, since it is only in virtue of their own clods that the fruit is permissible, and so no benefit at all is derived from the new soil. ');">²</span>

אבל בתוך שלש הכל של בעל הזיתים דאמר ליה אי את נטעת בתוך שלש מי הוה אכלת

But cannot he answer: 'Had I planted them, I would have enjoyed the whole of their usufruct after three years; whereas now you share it with me?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And in virtue of this, he is entitled to half within three years too. ');">³</span>

ולימא ליה אי אנא נטעי לאחר שלש הוה אכילנא ליה כוליה השתא קאכלת פלגא בהדאי

But, when Rabin came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon. ');">⁴</span>

אלא כי אתא רבין אמר ריש לקיש לא שנו אלא שנעקרו בגושיהן ובתוך שלש אבל לאחר שלש הכל לבעל הקרקע דאמר ליה אי אנא נטעי לאחר שלש מי לא הוה אכילנא ליה כוליה

he said in the name of Resh Lakish: This holds good only if they were uprooted together with their clods, and within three years; but after three years, it all belongs to the field-owner. For he can say to him, 'Had I planted them myself, would I not have enjoyed their entire usufruct after three years?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whilst the cost of buying young olive trees for planting is trifling, and insufficient to justify half of the present usufruct going to the owner of the olive trees (Tosaf.). — The same applies above. ');">⁵</span>

ולימא ליה אי את נטעת בתוך שלש לא הוה אכלת השתא קא אכלת פלגא בהדאי משום דאמר ליה אי אנא נטעי הוה קטיני וזרענא תחותייהו סילקא וירקא

But let him answer: 'Had you planted them, you could not have enjoyed anything at all within three years, whereas as it is, you share half with me!' — Because he can retort, 'Had I planted, they would have been small, and I could have sown beets and vegetables under them.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'But with your olive trees being large, with spreading roots, I lost the entire use of the soil.' ');">⁶</span>

תנא אמר הלה זיתיי אני נוטל אין שומעין לו מאי טעמא אמר רבי יוחנן משום ישוב ארץ ישראל אמר ר' ירמיה כגון דא צריכא רבה

A Tanna taught: If he said, 'I wish to take my olive trees,' he is not heeded. Why? — R. Johanan said: That Palestine may be well cultivated. Said R. Jeremiah: For such an answer a master is necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without R. Johanan one would not have conjectured it. ');">⁷</span>

תנן התם ר' יהודה אומר המקבל שדה אבותיו מן הנכרי מעשר ונותן לו

We learnt elsewhere: R. Judah said: If one leases a field of his father's from a heathen,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On a fixed percentage. ');">⁸</span>

סברוה מאי שדה אבותיו ארץ ישראל ואמאי קרו לה שדה אבותיו שדה אברהם יצחק ויעקב

he must tithe [all the crops] and then give him [the heathen] his share.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Dem. VI, 2. ');">⁹</span>

וקסבר אין קנין לנכרי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר

Now, the scholars understood it thus: What is meant by 'a field of his fathers' is Palestine. And the reason it is called the 'field of his fathers' is because it is a field of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. And he [R. Judah] holds: A heathen cannot acquire a title in Palestine to free [the crops] from tithes; also, one who leases [on a percentage] is as a renter [at a fixed rent]: just as a renter must tithe crops and pay him, whether the field produces or not,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The rent being paid in crops. ');">¹⁰</span>

ומקבל כחוכר דמי מה חוכר בין עבד ובין לא עבד בעי עשורי ומיתן ליה דכי פורע חובתו דמי אף מקבל נמי כי פורע חובתו דמי מעשר ונותן לו

because it is as repaying a debt: so also, he who leases a field is as though he were settling a debt: and therefore must first tithe the crops and then pay him. R. Kahana said to R. Papi — others state, to R. Zebid: But what of [the Baraitha] that was taught: R. Judah said: If one leases a field of his fathers from a heathen oppressor,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [ [H], As a result of the Roman War Vespasian had declared fields in Judea his private property and distributed them among his soldiers from whom the original owners had finally to lease them. V. Buchler, Der gal. 'Amh. p. 35, and Klein, S. NB p. 12ff.] ');">¹¹</span>

א"ל רב כהנא לרב פפי ואמרי לה לרב זביד אלא הא דתניא רבי יהודה אומר המקבל שדה אבותיו ממציק נכרי מעשר ונותן לו מאי איריא מציק אפילו אין מציק נמי

he must tithe [the crops] and pay him [his percentage] — why particularly from an oppressor? Does not the same hold good even if he is not an oppressor? — But in truth, a heathen can acquire a title in Palestine to free [crops] from tithes, whilst a lessee is not as a renter, and 'a field of his fathers' is meant quite literally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it means that the Gentile had stolen it from his ancestral field. ');">¹²</span>

אלא לעולם יש קנין לנכרי בארץ ישראל להפקיע מיד מעשר ומקבל לאו כחוכר דמי

But him [the son] the Rabbis penalised,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he must tithe the whole field, and then give the Gentile his percentage of the whole harvest, as before tithing. ');">¹³</span>

ומאי שדה אבותיו שדה אבותיו ממש ולדידיה הוא דקנסוה רבנן דאיידי דחביבא עליה טפי ואזיל מקבל לה אבל איניש דעלמא לא

because since it is more precious to him [than to others], he will go and lease it [on such disadvantageous terms]; whereas others would not [accept it on such terms].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore, others were not required to tithe the whole. ');">¹⁴</span>

ולדידיה מ"ט קנסוה רבנן אמר ר' יוחנן כדי שתהא ברה בידו

But why did the Rabbis penalise him? — R. Johanan said: In order that it might come absolutely into his possession.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Finding the terms so onerous, he will be induced to buy it back. ');">¹⁵</span>

אמר רבי ירמיה כגון דא צריכא רבה

Said R. Jeremiah: For such an answer a master is needed. It has been stated: If one enters his neighbour's field and plants it without permission, Rab said: An assessment is made, and he is at a disadvantage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He is paid for the cost of planting or for the improvements, whichever is less. ');">¹⁶</span>

איתמר היורד לתוך שדה חבירו ונטעה שלא ברשות אמר רב שמין לו וידו על התחתונה ושמואל אמר אומדין כמה אדם רוצה ליתן בשדה זו לנוטעה

Samuel said: We estimate what one would pay to have such a field planted. Said R. Papa: There is no conflict. The latter [Samuel] refers to a field suitable for planting;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Trees, rather than for sowing. ');">¹⁷</span>

אמר רב פפא ולא פליגי כאן בשדה העשויה ליטע כאן בשדה שאינה עשויה ליטע

the former [Rab] to a field unsuitable for planting.

והא דרב לאו בפירוש איתמר אלא מכללא איתמר דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרב א"ל זיל שום ליה א"ל לא בעינא א"ל זיל שום ליה וידו על התחתונה א"ל לא בעינא

Now, this ruling of Rab was not explicitly stated, but inferred from a general ruling. For a man came before Rab.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In a case similar to the foregoing. ');">¹⁸</span>

לסוף חזייה דגדרה וקא מנטר לה א"ל גלית אדעתיך דניחא לך זיל שום ליה וידו על העליונה

'Go and assess it for him,' said he.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., go and assess the value of the trees he planted. ');">¹⁹</span>

איתמר היורד לתוך חורבתו של חבירו ובנאה שלא ברשותו ואמר לו עציי ואבניי אני נוטל רב נחמן אמר שומעין לו רב ששת אמר אין שומעין לו

He demurred, 'But I do not desire it.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'I wish to grow cereals, not plant trees.' ');">²⁰</span>

מיתיבי רשב"ג אומר בית שמאי אומרים שומעין לו וב"ה אומרים אין שומעין לו לימא רב נחמן דאמר כב"ש

Said he to him, 'Go and assess it for him, and he shall be at a disadvantage.' 'But I do not desire it,' he reiterated. Subsequently he saw that he had fenced and was guarding it, whereupon he said to him, 'You have revealed your mind that you desire it. Go and assess it for him, and he [the planter] shall be at an advantage.'

הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא שומעין לו דברי ר' שמעון בן אלעזר ר' שמעון בן גמליאל אומר בית שמאי אומרים שומעין לו וב"ה אומרים אין שומעין לו

It has been stated: If one enters his neighbour's ruins and rebuilds them without permission, and then says to him, 'I want my timber and stones back' — R. Nahman said: His request is granted. R. Shesheth said: His request is not granted.

מאי הוי עלה א"ר יעקב אמר ר' יוחנן

An objection is raised: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Beth Shammai maintain, His request is granted; Beth Hillel hold, It is not granted. Shall we then say that R. Nahman ruled in accordance with Beth Shammai!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a general principle that in every dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, the halachah is as the latter. ');">²¹</span> — He agrees with the following Tanna. For it has been taught: His request is acceded to: this is the opinion of R. Simeon b. Eleazar. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: Beth Shammai maintain, His request is granted; Beth Hillel, It is not.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But according to R. Simeon b. Eleazar there is no dispute, and R. Nahman agrees with him. ');">²²</span> What is our decision on the matter? — R. Jacob said in R. Johanan's name: