## Bava Metzia Daf 104a

###### Bava Metzia 104a:1
[Bava Metzia 104a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:1)

אִיבְּעִי לָךְ לְאֵתוֹיֵי בְּדַוְולָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**You should have brought** water **in a bucket.**


###### Bava Metzia 104a:2
[Bava Metzia 104a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:2)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי מַתְנְיָתָא קַמָּיָיתָא – מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בֵּין בְּחַכְרָנוּתָא בֵּין בְּקַבְּלָנוּתָא. מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ: דְּאִיתַהּ בְּקַבְּלָנוּתָא – לֵיתַהּ בְּחַכְרָנוּתָא, וּדְאִיתַהּ בְּחַכְרָנוּתָא – לֵיתַהּ בְּקַבְּלָנוּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** With regard to **these first two *mishnayot*, you find** that they are correct, **concerning both tenancy,** where the tenant farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, **as well as** the case of **a contractor,** who gives a set proportion, e.g., one-quarter or one-third, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. **From this** point **forward,** i.e., from the third mishna of the chapter until its end, that **which is** relevant to the case **of a contractor is not** applicable **to tenancy, and** that **which is** relevant **to tenancy is not** applicable **to** the case of **a contractor.**


###### Bava Metzia 104a:3
[Bava Metzia 104a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:3)

אִם אָמַר לוֹ חֲכוֹר לִי שְׂדֵה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין זֶה [וְכוּ׳]. וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא לֵיהּ: שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא אֲמַרִי לָךְ, מִי לָא תַּנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ אֶלָּא לֶתֶךְ – הִגִּיעוֹ שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא, וְהוּא דְּמִתְקְרֵי ״בֵּית כּוֹר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **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. The Gemara asks: **But why** is this so? **Let** the owner **say to him: I told you only the name,** i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. **Isn’t it taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **one who says to another: I am selling you a *beit kor*** field **of dirt, although** the field **contains only a half-*kor*,** once the buyer purchases the dirt **it has come to him,** i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, **as** the seller **sold him** the dirt **only** by **the name,** and he did not mean that its size was precisely a *beit kor*. The *baraita* adds: **And** this **is** the *halakha* only **where** that field **is called** by people **a *beit kor*.**


###### Bava Metzia 104a:4
[Bava Metzia 104a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:4)

״כַּרְמָא אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ גְּפָנִים – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא, וְהוּא דְּמִתְקְרֵי ״כַּרְמָא״. ״פַּרְדֵּס אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רִמּוֹנִים – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא, וְהוּא דְּמִתְקְרֵי ״פַּרְדֵּסָא״. אַלְמָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא אֲמַרִי לָךְ. הָכִי נָמֵי נֵימָא לֵיהּ: שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא אֲמַרִי לָךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Similarly, if he said: **I am selling you a vineyard,** then **although it does not have vines,** once he purchases the land **it has come to him, as** the seller **sold him** the field **only** by **the name; and** this **is** the *halakha* only **where it is called a vineyard.** Likewise, if he said: **I am selling you an orchard,** then **even though it does not have pomegranates,** once he purchases the land **it has come to him, as he sold him only** by **the name; and** again this **is** the case only **where it is called an orchard. Apparently,** the seller can **say to him: I told you only the name. So too** here, **let** the seller **say to him: I told you only the name.**


###### Bava Metzia 104a:5
[Bava Metzia 104a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:5)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ מַחְכִּיר לְחוֹכֵר, הָא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ חוֹכֵר לְמַחְכִּיר. אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַחְכִּיר לְחוֹכֵר – שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חוֹכֵר לְמַחְכִּיר – קְפֵידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said:** It is **not difficult; this** *baraita* is comparable to a case **where the owner of the land said to the tenant farmer** what he was leasing him, while in **that** mishna **the tenant farmer said to the owner of the land** what he was leasing from him. The reason for the difference is that if **the owner of the land said** the terms **to the tenant farmer,** then he can claim that **he told him only the name,** and the tenant farmer cannot object. But if **the tenant farmer said** the terms **to the owner of the land,** then he was clearly **particular** to receive a field that would be irrigated when he cultivated it.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:6
[Bava Metzia 104a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:6)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: אִידֵּי וְאִידִי, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ מַחְכִּיר לְחוֹכֵר. מִדְּקָאָמַר ״זֶה״, מִכְּלַל דְּקָאֵי בְּגַוַּהּ עָסְקִינַן. בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין לְמָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? דְּקָאָמַר לֵיהּ: בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין כִּדְקָיְימָא הַשְׁתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** Both **this** *baraita* **and that** mishna are referring to a case **where the owner of the land told the tenant farmer** what he was leasing him, as implied by the mishna, but **since** the owner **said: This** irrigated field, **by inference we are dealing with** one **who is standing inside it. Why,** then, **does** the owner **need to state** the fact that it is **an irrigated field?** It is obvious simply from looking at it that it is irrigated. Rather, the owner must have **said to him** by way of emphasis that he is providing **an irrigated** field **as it currently stands.**


###### Bava Metzia 104a:7
[Bava Metzia 104a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהוֹבִירָהּ – שָׁמִין אוֹתָהּ כַּמָּה רְאוּיָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, וְנוֹתֵן לוֹ. שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לוֹ: ״אִם אוֹבִיר וְלָא אֶעֱבֵיד אֲשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטְבָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **one who receives a field from another** as a contractor **and** then **lets it lie fallow** and does not work the land at all, the court **appraises it** by evaluating **how much it was able to produce** if cultivated, **and he gives** his share of this amount **to** the owner. The reason is **that this** is what a cultivator **writes to** the owner in a standard contract: **If I let** the field **lie fallow and do not cultivate** it, **I will pay with best**-quality produce.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:8
[Bava Metzia 104a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:8)

**גְּמָ׳** רַבִּי מֵאִיר הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ לְשׁוֹן הֶדְיוֹט. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: ״אִם אוֹבִיר וְלָא אֶעֱבֵיד אֲשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטְבָא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Meir would expound common language** used in legal documents written by ordinary Jews to deduce halakhic conclusions. Although these formulations were not prescribed by the Sages, one can nevertheless infer *halakhot* from them if they are used in legal documents. **As it is taught** in a *baraita* that presents a similar case to the mishna: **Rabbi Meir says** he is liable to pay, as the document states: **If I let** the field **lie fallow and do not cultivate** it, **I will pay with best**-quality produce.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:9
[Bava Metzia 104a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ לְשׁוֹן הֶדְיוֹט. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָדָם מֵבִיא קׇרְבַּן עָשִׁיר עַל אִשְׁתּוֹ, וְכֵן כׇּל קׇרְבָּן וְקׇרְבָּן שֶׁהִיא חַיֶּיבֶת, שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לָהּ אַחְרָיוּת: דְּאִית לִיךְ עֲלַי מִן קַדְמַת דְּנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Likewise, **Rabbi Yehuda would** also **expound common language, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehuda says:** In a case where a woman who has given birth is commanded to bring the offering of a childbearing woman and her husband is sufficiently wealthy, **a person brings the offering of the rich on behalf of his wife.** This is so even if his wife does not possess money of her own and perhaps should have been considered poor. **Similarly,** he may bring **every offering that she is obligated** to bring, such as a sin offering or guilt offering. He pays for all these offerings **because this** is what **he writes to her** in her marriage contract: I accept **upon myself** to repay you for all **obligations that you have,** even those **from beforehand.** Consequently, he must fund all of her offerings.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:10
[Bava Metzia 104a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:10)

הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ לְשׁוֹן הֶדְיוֹט, דְּתַנְיָא: אַנְשֵׁי אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא הָיוּ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם, וּבִשְׁעַת כְּנִיסָתָן לַחוּפָּה בָּאִין אֲחֵרִים וְחוֹטְפִים אוֹתָם מֵהֶן, וּבִקְּשׁוּ חֲכָמִים לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּנֵיהֶם מַמְזֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, **Hillel the Elder would expound common language** as well, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **The inhabitants of Alexandria would betroth their wives** a significant amount of time before the wedding, as was customary in those days, **and at the time of their entry to the wedding canopy, others** would **come and snatch** the women **from their** husbands. **The Sages** consequently **sought to establish the children** of these women as ***mamzerim*.** This is because with regard to sexual intercourse with other men, a betrothed woman has the status of a married woman. Consequently, if she is taken by another man, her children fathered by that man are *mamzerim*, just like children of a married woman who were fathered by a man other than her husband.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:11
[Bava Metzia 104a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:11)

אָמַר לָהֶן הִלֵּל הַזָּקֵן: הָבִיאוּ לִי כְּתוּבַּת אִמְּכֶם. הֵבִיאוּ לוֹ כְּתוּבַּת אִמָּן, וּמָצָא שֶׁכָּתוּב בָּהֶן: לִכְשֶׁתִּכָּנְסִי לַחוּפָּה הֱוַי לִי לְאִינְתּוּ. וְלֹא עָשׂוּ בְּנֵיהֶם מַמְזֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Hillel the Elder said to** the children who came before him for a ruling on their status: **Bring me your mother’s marriage contract** for examination. **They brought him their mother’s marriage contract, and he found that** the following formulation **was written in it: When you will enter the wedding canopy, be for me a wife.** This shows that the marriage would not take effect at the time of her betrothal, but only after she would enter the wedding canopy. Consequently, the marriage did not occur at all, as she never entered the wedding canopy, **and** therefore these women **did not cause their children** to be ***mamzerim*** by engaging in intercourse with the other man.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:12
[Bava Metzia 104a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:12)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה הָיָה דּוֹרֵשׁ לְשׁוֹן הֶדְיוֹט. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: הַמַּלְוֶה אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ לֹא יְמַשְׁכְּנֶנּוּ יוֹתֵר מֵחוֹבוֹ, שֶׁכָּךְ כּוֹתֵב לוֹ תַּשְׁלוּמְתָּא דְּאִית לְךָ עָלַי כֹּל קֳבֵל דֵּיכִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara adds: **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa would** also **expound common language. As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:** One **who lends** money to **another may not take more collateral from him than** the value of **his debt, as this** is what the debtor **writes to** the creditor if the creditor temporarily returns a deposit for the debtor’s use: **The payment** to **which you have** a right, which it is **upon me** to pay, **corresponds to the entire** value of **this** item, indicating that the item cannot be greater in value than the debt itself.


###### Bava Metzia 104a:13
[Bava Metzia 104a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/104a:13)

טַעְמָא דִּכְתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי, הָא אִי לָא כְּתַב לֵיהּ הָכִי – לָא קַנְיֵהּ. וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשְׁכְּנוֹ וְהֵשִׁיב לוֹ הַמַּשְׁכּוֹן, וָמֵת – שׁוֹמְטוֹ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי בָּנָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: **The reason** the creditor acquires the collateral is **that he wrote this to him. But if** the creditor **did not write this to** the debtor, would the creditor **not acquire** the collateral? **But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** If a creditor **took collateral** from the debtor **and returned the collateral to him and** then the debtor **died,** the creditor **removes** the collateral **from** the debtor’s **children.** The reason for this is that although movable property of orphans is not acquired by their father’s creditor, the collateral is considered to belong to the creditor, and he can collect the debt from it.