## Bava Metzia Daf 103b

###### Bava Metzia 103b:1
[Bava Metzia 103b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:1)

בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת וּבַקָּנִים, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**the branches** pruned from the vines **and the poles. And the two of them,** i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both **supply the poles.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:2
[Bava Metzia 103b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנָא: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקְצוֹר – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was taught** in a *baraita*: In **a location where** those cultivating the land **were accustomed to cut** the produce, the one cultivating this field **is not permitted to uproot** it, and in a location where they were accustomed **to uproot** the produce, **he is not permitted to cut** it. **And the two of them,** i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each **prevent the other** from deviating from the custom.


###### Bava Metzia 103b:3
[Bava Metzia 103b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:3)

לִקְצוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, הַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּתִתַּבַּן לִי אַרְעַאי, וְהַאי אָמַר: לָא מָצֵינָא. לַעֲקוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר, הַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּתִינַּקַּר אַרְעַאי, וְהַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא תִּיבְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the *baraita*: In a location where those cultivating the land **were accustomed to cut** the produce, the one cultivating this field **is not permitted to uproot** the produce even if he wants to, because **this** one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce cut, can **say: I want my land to be fertilized with stubble,** i.e., the remains of the plants. **And** if the owner wants him to uproot the produce, **that** one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can **say: I cannot** uproot the produce, since that is too labor intensive. Similarly, if the custom is **to uproot** the produce, the one cultivating this field **is not permitted to cut** it even if he wants to, because **this** one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce uprooted, can **say: I want my land to be cleared** of stubble. **And** if the owner wants him to cut the produce, **that** one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can **say: I want** to uproot what remains so that I can use **the stubble.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:4
[Bava Metzia 103b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:4)

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה, לְמָה לִי? מַה טַּעַם קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם לִקְצוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: **And the two of them,** i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each **prevent the other** from deviating from the custom. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need this statement and what is its purpose? The Gemara answers that the *baraita* **is saying what** the **reason** is for its ruling: **What is the reason** that in a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed **to cut** the produce, the one cultivating this field **is not permitted to uproot** the produce, and in a location where they were accustomed **to uproot** the produce, **he is not permitted to cut** it? It is **because the two of them** can each **prevent the other** from deviating from the custom, as each has a justified reason for opposing the deviation desired by the other.


###### Bava Metzia 103b:5
[Bava Metzia 103b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:5)

לַחְרוֹשׁ אַחֲרָיו – יַחְרֹשׁ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא מְנַכְּשִׁי – וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְנַכֵּישׁ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דְּנַכֵּישְׁנָא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּלָא כָּרֵיבְנָא לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: If they were accustomed **to plow** the land **after** harvesting the produce, this cultivator **must plow** as well. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that he cannot deviate from the custom? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary for** the situation of **a place where** the custom is **not** to **weed** the fields, **and** the one cultivating this field **went and weeded** anyway. **Lest you say** that he could **say to** the landowner: When **I weeded** the field, I did so **with the intention of not plowing it** subsequently. Therefore, he should not be obligated to plow it. To counter this, the mishna **teaches us that** the renter **should have specified** this intention explicitly **to** the landowner beforehand in order to exempt him from the requirement to plow.


###### Bava Metzia 103b:6
[Bava Metzia 103b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:6)

הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. ״הַכֹּל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע – מַשְׂכִּירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נָהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר – אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **All** farming of the land shall be conducted **in accordance with regional custom.** The Gemara asks: **What is added** by the use of the term **all?** The Gemara answers: It serves **to add that which the Sages taught:** In **a location where** landowners **were accustomed to rent out the trees** in a field **together with the land** so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruits despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be **rented out.** In **a location where** landowners **were not accustomed to rent out** the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are **not** presumed to be **rented out.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:7
[Bava Metzia 103b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:7)

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר מַשְׂכִּירִין – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָהֲבִי בְּתִילְתָּא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְיַהֲבֵיהּ בְּרִיבְעָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּבְצַרִי לָךְ, אַדַּעְתָּא דְּלָא יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ בָּאִילָנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: In **a location where** landowners **were accustomed to rent out the trees** in a field **together with the land** so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruit despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be **rented out.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this ruling in order to include the case **where everyone** in that region **gives** land to sharecroppers to cultivate in return **for one-third** of the yield, **and he,** the landowner, **went and gave it for one-quarter. Lest you say that** the landowner can **say to him: This** concession on my part, **that I reduced** my portion of the yield **for you,** was done **with the intention that I would not give you** a share of the fruits **of the trees** in the field, the *baraita* **teaches us that** the landowner **should have specified** this **to him** in advance.


###### Bava Metzia 103b:8
[Bava Metzia 103b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:8)

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר – אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְקַבְּלִי בְּרִיבְעָא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְקַיבְּלַהּ בְּתִילְתָּא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּטְפַאי לָךְ אַדַּעְתָּא דִּיהַבְתְּ לִי בְּאִילָנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* teaches: In **a location where** landowners **were not accustomed to rent out** the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are **not** presumed to be **rented out.** The Gemara asks: Isn’t this **obvious?** The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** to state this ruling in order to include the case **where all** the cultivators in that region **receive** land in return **for** giving **one-quarter** of the yield to the owner, **and** this cultivator **went and received** the land in return **for** giving **one-third** of the yield to the owner. **Lest you say** that the cultivator can **say to him: This** concession on my part, **that I added to your** portion, was done **with the intention that you** would also **give me** a share of the fruit **from the trees,** the *baraita* **teaches us that** the cultivator **should have specified** this **to him** in advance.


###### Bava Metzia 103b:9
[Bava Metzia 103b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:9)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בִּתְבוּאָה – כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בְּתֶבֶן וּבְקַשׁ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּבָבֶל נְהִיגוּ דְּלָא יָהֲבִי תִּיבְנָא לַאֲרִיסָא. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ דְּיָהֵיב – עַיִן יָפָה הוּא וְלָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Just as** the *halakha* is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it **divide the produce, so** too the *halakha* is that **they divide the stubble and the straw. Rav Yosef said** with regard to this statement: **In Babylonia** those who enter into such arrangements **are accustomed not to give stubble to the sharecropper.** The Gemara asks: **What is the** practical **difference** resulting from the assertion that this is the practice in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: The difference is **that if there is a person** in Babylonia **who gives** the sharecropper the stubble in addition to the produce, **it is** considered merely as though he has **a generous disposition, but we do not learn from his** actions that this is the general practice.


###### Bava Metzia 103b:10
[Bava Metzia 103b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:10)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בּוּכְרָא וְטָפְתָא וְאַרְכַּבְתָּא וּקְנֵי דְחִיזְרָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, וְחִזְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ דַּאֲרִיסָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא: כֹּל עִיקַּר בְּלָמָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, נְטִירוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא – דַּאֲרִיסָא. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרָא וּזְבִילָא וְדַוְולָא וְזַרְנוּקָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲרִיסָא עָבֵיד בֵּי יְאוֹרֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef says: The first, second, and third** elements of the earthen barrier surrounding the field **and the poles** used **to** support **a thorn** fence are the responsibility **of the owner** of the land, **but the fashioning of the thorn** fence **itself** is the responsibility **of the sharecropper.** The Gemara explains: **The principle of the matter** is that the **main** part of **the boundary** of the field is the responsibility **of the owner** of the land, while any **additional protection** required is the responsibility **of the sharecropper. Rav Yosef says: The hoe and the shovel and the bucket and the irrigation device** must be provided **by the owner** of the land, while **the sharecropper** must **make the irrigation channels.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:11
[Bava Metzia 103b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:11)

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּיַּיִן – כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת וּבַקָּנִים. קָנִים מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: קָנִים הַמּוּחְלָקִין, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַגְּפָנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **Just as** the *halakha* is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it **divide the wine, so** too the *halakha* is that **they divide the branches** pruned from the vines **and the poles.** The Gemara asks: **What** is the **purpose** of the **poles** used for the vines? **They said** in **the school of Rabbi Yannai:** This is referring to long **poles that were divided** in half, **with which they support the vines.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:12
[Bava Metzia 103b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:12)

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים. לְמָה לִי? מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹלְקִין בַּקָּנִים – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And the two of them,** i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both **supply the poles.** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need the mishna to state this? The Gemara answers that the mishna **is saying what** the **reason** is for its ruling: **What is the reason** that **the two of them divide the poles?** It is **because the two of them supply the poles.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:13
[Bava Metzia 103b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִיא בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן – אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״חֲכוֹר לִי שָׂדֶה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין זוֹ״ אוֹ ״שְׂדֵה בֵּית הָאִילָן זֶה״, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן – מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחֲכוֹרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **one who receives a field from another** to cultivate **and it is an irrigated** field **or a field with trees,** if **the spring** that irrigated the field **dried up or the trees were cut down,** he does **not subtract from** the produce **he** owes the owner as part of **his tenancy,** despite the fact that he presumably considered these factors when agreeing to cultivate the field. But **if** the cultivator **said to** the landowner explicitly: **Lease me this irrigated field, or** he said: Lease me **this field with trees,** and **the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he** may **subtract from** the produce **he** owes as part of **his tenancy.**


###### Bava Metzia 103b:14
[Bava Metzia 103b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/103b:14)

**גְּמָ׳** הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּיבַשׁ נַהֲרָא רַבָּה, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּיבַשׁ נַהֲרָא זוּטָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** of the ruling of the mishna? **If we say that the large river** from which all the channels originate **dried up, why** does he **not subtract from** the produce **he** owes as part of **his tenancy? Let** the cultivator **say** that it **is** the result of **a regional disaster.** Consequently, he should be able to subtract from the produce he owes. **Rav Pappa said:** The case in the mishna is **where a small river** that irrigates this field alone **dried up, as** the landowner can **say to him:**