Bava Metzia 217:1

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המקבל שדה מחבירו לשנים מועטות לא יזרענה פשתן ואין לו בקורות שקמה קיבלה הימנו לז' שנים שנה ראשונה יזרענה פשתן ויש לו בקורות שקמה:

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN LEASES A FIELD FOR BUT A FEW YEARS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Less than seven years. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר אביי בקורות שקמה אין לו בשבח שקמה יש לו ורבא אמר אפילו בשבח שקמה נמי אין לו

HE MUST NOT SOW IT WITH FLAX,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it greatly impoverishes the soil, which does not regain its fertility until after seven years. This can apply only to a lease on a fixed rental, for if on a percentage basis, the lessor himself profits thereby (Rashi); v. p. 597. ');">²</span>

מיתיבי המקבל שדה מחבירו והגיע זמנו לצאת שמין לו מאי לאו שמין לו בשבח שקמה לא שמין לו ירקא וסילקא

NOR HAS HE A RIGHT TO THE SYCAMORE BEAMS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The branches of sycamore trees were lopped off and fashioned into beams for building purposes. But as they required seven years to grow again, a lessee for a short term has no right to them. ');">³</span>

ירקא וסילקא נעקור ונשקול בדלא מטא יומא דשוקא

BUT IF HE LEASED IT FOR SEVEN YEARS, HE MAY IN THE FIRST YEAR SOW IT WITH FLAX, AND HAS A RIGHT TO THE SYCAMORE BEAMS.

ת"ש המקבל שדה מחבירו והגיע שביעית שמין לו שביעית מי קא מפקעא ארעא אלא אימא המקבל שדה מחבירו והגיע יובל שמין לו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Abaye said: He has no rights to the sycamore beams, but is entitled to the improvement in the sycamores themselves,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the sycamores improved during his lease, the improvement is assessed, and the lessee is entitled thereto. ');">⁴</span>

ואכתי יובל מי מפקעא קבלנות לצמיתות אמר רחמנא אלא אימא הלוקח שדה מחבירו והגיע יובל שמין לו

Raba said: He is not even entitled to the improvement.

וכי תימא ה"נ שמין לו בירקא וסילקא סילקא וירקא ביובל הפקירא הוא אלא לאו שבח שקמה

An objection is raised: If one leases a field, when his lease expires<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'his time came to quit.' ');">⁵</span>

תרגמא אביי אליבא דרבא שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כה, לג) ויצא ממכר בית ממכר חוזר שבח אינו חוזר ונגמר מיניה התם זביני מעליא הוא ויובל אפקעתא דמלכא היא

an assessment is made for him. Surely that means that the improvement in the sycamores are assessed for him! — No. The vegetables and beets are assessed for him. The vegetables and beets! Let him uproot and take them away! — It was before market day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if they are stored, their value depreciates. Hence they are assessed, but left in the field. ');">⁶</span>

רב פפא קביל ארעא לאספסתא קדחו בה תאלי כי קא מסתלק אמר להו הבו לי שבחא א"ל רב שישא בריה דרב אידי לרב פפא אלא מעתה דיקלא ואלים ה"נ דבעי מר שבחיה א"ל התם לאו אדעתא דהכי נחית אנא הכא אדעתא דהכי נחיתנא

Come and hear: If one leases a field, and the seventh year [i.e., the year of release] intervenes, an assessment is made for him. Does then the seventh year withdraw the land [from the lessee]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is an interjection. ');">⁷</span>

כמאן כאביי דאמר בשבח שקמה יש לו אפילו תימא כרבא התם לית ליה פסידא הכא איכא פסידא

— But read thus: If one leases a field, and the Jubilee arrives, an assessment is made for him. Yet even so, does then the Jubilee cancel a leasehold: Scripture [merely] forbade a sale in perpetuity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 33. ');">⁸</span>

א"ל מאי פסדתיך ידא דאספסתא שקול ידא דאספסתא וזיל אמר ליה אנא כורכמא רישקא רבאי א"ל גלית אדעתך דלמשקל ואסתלוקי עבדת שקל כורכמא רישקא וזיל אין לך אלא דמי עצים בלבד

— But read thus: If one buys a field from his neighbour, and the Jubilee arrives, an assessment is made for him! And should you answer: Here too, the vegetables and beets are assessed for him, [I would reply] these are free to all in the Jubilee! Hence It must surely refer to the improvement of the sycamores!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This contradicts Raba. ');">⁹</span>

רב ביבי בר אביי קביל ארעא ואהדר ליה משוניתא קדחו ביה זרדתא כי קא מיסתלק אמר להו הבו לי שבחאי אמר רב פפי משום דאתיתו ממולאי אמריתו מילי מולייתא אפילו רב פפא לא אמר אלא דאית ליה פסידא הכא מאי פסידא אית לך:

— Abaye explained the cited Baraitha on the basis of Raba's views: There it is different, because the Writ saith, Then the house that was sold shall go out [in the year of Jubilee]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. XXV, 33. ');">⁸</span>

רב יוסף הוה ליה ההוא שתלא שכיב ושבק חמשה חתנוותא אמר עד האידנא חד השתא חמשה עד האידנא לא הוו סמכו אהדדי ולא מפסדו לי השתא חמשה סמכו אהדדי ומפסדו לי אמר להו אי שקליתו שבחייכו ומסתלקיתו מוטב ואי לא מסליקנא לכו בלא שבחא

[only] that which was sold is returnable [to the first owner], but not the improvements. Then let us learn from it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In reference to a lease: Just as there, the vendee is entitled to improvements, so here too. ');">¹⁰</span>

דאמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא ר"נ האי שתלא דשכיב יורשים דיליה מסתלקין להו בלא שבחא ולאו מילתא היא

— There it is a true sale, and Jubilee is a royal revocation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of the sale. Hence, only what Scripture distinctly states is to return, sc. the purchase, is returnable, but not the improvements. But in the case of a lease the return is pursuant to a human agreement; hence, in Raba's view, it goes back just as it is, including the improvements. ');">¹¹</span>

ההוא שתלא דאמר להו אי מפסדינא מסלקנא אפסיד אמר רב יהודה מסתלק בלא שבחא רב כהנא אמר מסתלק ושקיל שבחא ומודה רב כהנא דאי אמר אי פסידנא מסתלקנא בלא שבחא מסתלק בלא שבחא רבא אמר אסמכתא היא ואסמכתא לא קניא

R. Papa leased a field for growing fodder. Now, some young trees sprouted up therein. When he [R. Papa] was about to quit, he said to them [the original owners]: Give me the improvement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The value of the trees. ');">¹²</span>

ולרבא מאי שנא מהא דתנן אם אוביר ולא אעביד אשלם במיטבא התם מאי דאפסיד משלם הכא מאי דאפסיד מנכינן ליה ואידך יהבינן ליה

Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi to R. Papa: If so, [had you leased] palm-trees, and these grew thicker [during the period of lease], would you then, Master, also demand the improvement? — He replied: There, I should not have taken possession for that purpose; but here I leased it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'descended therein.' ');">¹³</span>

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>