## Bava Metzia Daf 109a

###### Bava Metzia 109a:1
[Bava Metzia 109a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:1)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְשָׁנִים מוּעָטוֹת – לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה פִּשְׁתָּן, וְאֵין לוֹ בְּקוֹרוֹת שִׁקְמָה. קִיבְּלָהּ הֵימֶנּוּ לְשֶׁבַע שָׁנִים – שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה יִזְרָעֶנָּה פִּשְׁתָּן, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ בְּקוֹרוֹת שִׁקְמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** One **who receives a field from another** to cultivate **for a few years,** i.e., fewer than seven, **may not plant flax in it,** as flax greatly weakens the soil, **and** if a sycamore tree was growing in the field, **he does not have** rights **to** the **beams** fashioned from the branches of the **sycamore** tree. Therefore, he may not cut down its branches for his own use, as it takes many years for new ones to grow. If **he received** the field **from him for seven years,** in **the first year he** may **plant flax in it, and he does have** rights **to** the **beams** fashioned from the branches of the **sycamore** tree.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:2
[Bava Metzia 109a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּקוֹרוֹת שִׁקְמָה – אֵין לוֹ, בִּשְׁבַח שִׁקְמָה – יֵשׁ לוֹ. וְרָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּשְׁבַח שִׁקְמָה נָמֵי אֵין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Abaye says:** Although **he does not have** rights **to** the **beams** fashioned from the branches of the **sycamore** tree, **he does have** rights **to** the value of **the enhancement of the sycamore** tree, i.e., the value of its growth that occurred while he was cultivating the field. **And Rava says: He does not even have** rights **to** the value of **the enhancement of the sycamore** tree.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:3
[Bava Metzia 109a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת – שָׁמִין לוֹ. מַאי לָאו: שָׁמִין לוֹ בִּשְׁבַח שִׁקְמָה? לָא, שָׁמִין לוֹ יַרְקָא וְסִילְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to Rava’s opinion from a *baraita*: With regard to **one who receives a field from another** to cultivate **and his time to leave arrives,** the court **appraises** its value **for him. What, is it not** that the court **appraises for him** the value of **the enhancement of the sycamore** or other trees? The Gemara responds: **No,** the court **appraises for him** the value of **the vegetables and beets** left in the field.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:4
[Bava Metzia 109a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:4)

יַרְקָא וְסִילְקָא – נַעֲקוֹר וְנִשְׁקוֹל! בִּדְלָא מְטָא יוֹמָא דְשׁוּקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: If it is referring to **vegetables and beets, let him uproot and take** them. The Gemara explains: It is referring to a case **where the market day has not** yet **arrived,** so that if he uproots them now he will not be able to sell them. He therefore leaves them for the owner of the land and receives money instead.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:5
[Bava Metzia 109a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ שְׁבִיעִית, שָׁמִין לוֹ. שְׁבִיעִית מִי קָא מַפְקְעָא אַרְעָא? אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל, שָׁמִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** another proof from a *baraita*: In the case of one **who receives a field from another** to cultivate **and the Sabbatical** Year **arrived,** the court **appraises** it **for him.** The Gemara first expresses puzzlement over the *baraita* itself: **Does** the **Sabbatical** Year **release land** from the one who contracted to cultivate it? The arrangement is in effect it during this time, so why is there a need for an appraisal? The Gemara responds: **Rather, say** that the *baraita* reads as follows: In the case of one **who receives a field from another** to cultivate **and the Jubilee** Year **arrived,** the court **appraises** it **for him.**


###### Bava Metzia 109a:6
[Bava Metzia 109a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:6)

וְאַכַּתִּי, יוֹבֵל מִי מַפְקְעָא קַבְּלָנוּת? ״לִצְמִיתֻת״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַלּוֹקֵחַ שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִגִּיעַ יוֹבֵל – שָׁמִין לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still,** this is difficult; **does** the **Jubilee** Year **release** the term of **a contractor? The Merciful One states: “Permanently”** (Leviticus 25:23), which indicates that only land that was permanently sold returns to its owner, whereas land that was rented does not revert to the owner at the Jubilee Year. **Rather, say** that the *baraita* reads as follows: In the case of **one who purchases a field from another and the Jubilee** Year **arrives,** the court **appraises** it **for him.**


###### Bava Metzia 109a:7
[Bava Metzia 109a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:7)

וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי, שָׁמִין לוֹ בְּיַרְקָא וְסִילְקָא? סִילְקָא וְיַרְקָא בְּיוֹבֵל הֶפְקֵירָא הוּא! אֶלָּא לָאו, שְׁבַח שִׁקְמָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **so too** here it means that the court **appraises** it **for him with regard to vegetables and beets,** this cannot be, as **vegetables and beets in the Jubilee** Year **are ownerless.** This is because the Jubilee is like the Sabbatical Year in that any produce that grows is ownerless and may be taken by anyone. **Rather,** is the *baraita* **not** referring to **the enhancement of** the value of **the sycamore that occurred** during the time he had owned the field? It must be referring to this, and therefore presents a difficulty to Rava.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:8
[Bava Metzia 109a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:8)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַבָּיֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרָבָא: שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיָצָא מִמְכַּר בַּיִת״. מִמְכָּר – חוֹזֵר, שֶׁבַח – אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר. וְנִגְמַר מִינֵּיהּ? הָתָם זְבִינֵי מְעַלְּיָא הוּא, וְיוֹבֵל אַפְקַעְתָּא דְּמַלְכָּא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye interpreted** the *baraita* so that it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of** his disputant **Rava: There it is different, as the verse states: “Then the house that was sold shall go out**…in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:33), which teaches that the house or field that was **sold returns** to its owner, but the value of its **enhancement** does **not return,** but remains with the buyer. The Gemara asks: If so, **let us derive from it** a general *halakha* that the value of enhancement need not be returned. The Gemara answers: The two cases are dissimilar, as **there,** in the *baraita*, it is **a full-fledged sale, and the Jubilee** released it, as it **is a release of the King,** a Divine decree. Since the buyer had been in full ownership of the field, he keeps the value of the enhancement that occurred while it was his. By contrast, one who receives a field to cultivate is not an owner.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:9
[Bava Metzia 109a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:9)

רַב פָּפָּא קַבֵּיל אַרְעָא לְאַסְפַּסְתָּא. קְדַחוּ בַּהּ תָּאלֵי. כִּי קָא מִסְתַּלַּק, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַבוּ לִי שְׁבָחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי לְרַב פָּפָּא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, דִּיקְלָא וַאֲלֵים, הָכִי נָמֵי דְּבָעֵי מָר שְׁבָחֵיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָתָם לָאו אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי נָחֵית, אֲנָא הָכָא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי נְחֵיתְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates: **Rav Pappa received land** as a contractor **for** growing **hay.** During the time he was cultivating it, **palm trees sprouted in** the ground. **When he left** the land **he said to** the owners of the field: **Give me** the value of **the enhancement** to the field from the palm trees. **Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so,** i.e., if your claim is justified, then in a situation where there was **a palm tree and it grew thick, so too would the Master,** i.e., Rav Pappa, **want** to be paid for the value of the tree’s **enhancement?** Rav Pappa **said to him: There,** in that theoretical case, the cultivator **did not descend** to the field **with that** possibility **in mind,** as the cultivator considered only the consumption of the date palm’s fruit, not its growth. **Here,** in my case, **I did** indeed **descend** to the field **with this in mind,** as I anticipated receiving compensation for any growth of the field.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:10
[Bava Metzia 109a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:10)

כְּמַאן? כְּאַבַּיֵּי, דְּאָמַר: בִּשְׁבַח שִׁקְמָה יֵשׁ לוֹ. אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא כְּרָבָא, הָתָם לֵית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא. הָכָא אִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion did he make this statement? Is it not **in accordance with** the opinion of **Abaye, who says** that **he does have** rights **to** the value of **the enhancement of the sycamore?** The Gemara refutes this claim: **You** may **even say** that he holds **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rava,** as **there** the cultivator suffers **no loss** when the sycamore grows in the field, so he is not entitled to the value of the enhancement as compensation. By contrast, **here there is a loss,** as the palm trees that sprouted occupied space designated for hay.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:11
[Bava Metzia 109a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:11)

אָמַר לֵיהּ: מַאי פְּסֵדָיךְ יְדָא דְּאַסְפַּסְתָּא, שְׁקוֹל יְדָא דְאַסְפַּסְתָּא וְזִיל! אָמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא כּוּרְכְּמָא רִישְׁקָא רַבַּאי. אָמַר לֵיהּ: גַּלֵּית אַדַּעְתָּךְ דִּלְמִשְׁקַל וְאִסְתַּלּוֹקֵי עֲבַדְתְּ – שְׁקֹל כּוּרְכְּמָא רִישְׁקָא וְזִיל, אֵין לְךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי עֵצִים בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Sheisha **said to Rav Pappa:** But here too, the owner of the field can say: **What loss have I caused you?** I have caused you to lose **a handful of hay. Take a handful of hay and go.** Rav Pappa **said to him:** I claim that **I grew garden saffron** there. He claimed that he lost land that he could have used for the cultivation of expensive produce, not only hay. Rav Sheisha **said to him:** Even so, you admit that you wanted the land for other plantings, not to plant palm trees, and **you** have thereby **revealed your intention that you acted** so as **to take** the produce **and leave. Take** your **garden saffron and leave,** as **you have** rights **only** to **the value of wood alone.** Since you did not mean to grow these trees, you are entitled only to the price you could have received for the palm trees had you had uprooted them and sold them as wood during the time you cultivated the field.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:12
[Bava Metzia 109a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:12)

רַב בִּיבִי בַּר אַבָּיֵי קַבֵּיל אַרְעָא וְאַהְדַּר לֵיהּ מְשׁוּנִּיתָא, קְדַחוּ בֵּיהּ זַרְדָּתָא. כִּי קָא מִיסְתַּלַּק אֲמַר לְהוּ: הַבוּ לִי שְׁבָחַאי. אָמַר רַב פַּפֵּי: מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵיתוּ מִמּוּלָאֵי אָמְרִיתוּ מִילֵּי מוּלְיָיתָא?! אֲפִילּוּ רַב פָּפָּא לָא אֲמַר אֶלָּא דְּאִית לֵיהּ פְּסֵידָא, הָכָא מַאי פְּסֵידָא אִית לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another incident: **Rav Beivai bar Abaye received land** to cultivate **and** he **surrounded it** with **a fence** made **of earth.** In the meantime, **trees sprouted in it. When he left** the field **he said to** the owners: **Give me my** value of the **enhancement** of the trees that sprouted. **Rav Pappi said:** Is it **because you come from unfortunate people** that **you say unfortunate** and unsound **words?** Abaye’s family came from the family of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age. Rav Pappi explains: **Even Rav Pappa said only** that he is entitled to the value of the enhancement of the palm trees **when** he **has** suffered **a loss,** as they take up part of the field. **Here,** by contrast, **what loss do you have?** As the trees sprouted in a place that would have been left unplanted, you have not lost anything and you are not entitled to compensation.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:13
[Bava Metzia 109a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:13)

רַב יוֹסֵף הֲוָה לֵיהּ הָהוּא שַׁתָּלָא, שְׁכֵיב וּשְׁבַק חַמְשָׁה חַתְנָווֹתָא. אֲמַר עַד הָאִידָּנָא חַד, הַשְׁתָּא חַמְשָׁה. עַד הָאִידָּנָא לָא הֲווֹ סָמְכוּ אַהֲדָדֵי וְלָא מַפְסְדוּ לִי, הַשְׁתָּא חַמְשָׁה סָמְכוּ אַהֲדָדֵי וּמַפְסְדוּ לִי. אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי שָׁקְלִיתוּ שְׁבָחַיְיכוּ וּמִסְתַּלְּקִיתוּ – מוּטָב, וְאִי לָא – מְסַלֵּיקְנָא לְכוּ בְּלָא שְׁבָחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates: **Rav Yosef had a certain planter** whose job it was to plant trees, similar to a sharecropper. **He died and left** behind **five sons-in-law.** Rav Yosef **said: Until now** I had to deal with only **one** person; **now** there are **five. Until now they did not rely on each other** to plant the trees **and did not cause me a loss,** as the responsibility was their father-in-law’s, but **now** that they are **five they will rely on each other** to plant the trees **and cause me a loss.** In light of these considerations, he decided to discontinue the agreement with them. Rav Yosef **said to them: If you take** the value of **your enhancement** that you brought to the field **and remove** yourselves, all is **well, but if not, I will remove you without** giving you the value of **the enhancement.**


###### Bava Metzia 109a:14
[Bava Metzia 109a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:14)

דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב הוּנָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב נַחְמָן: הַאי שַׁתָּלָא דִּשְׁכֵיב – יוֹרְשִׁין דִּילֵיהּ (מִסְתַּלְּקִין) [מְסַלְּקִינַן] לְהוּ בְּלָא שְׁבָחָא. וְלָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef explains his statement: **As Rav Yehuda says, and some say** it was **Rav Huna, and some say** it was **Rav Naḥman:** With regard to **this planter who died, his heirs may be removed without** receiving the value of the **enhancement.** The Gemara comments: **But this is not correct,** as the *halakha* is not in accordance with this opinion.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:15
[Bava Metzia 109a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:15)

הָהוּא שַׁתָּלָא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ: אִי מַפְסֵדְינָא מִסְתַּלַּקְנָא. אַפְסֵיד. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: מִסְתַּלַּק בְּלָא שְׁבָחָא. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: מִסְתַּלַּק וְשָׁקֵיל שְׁבָחָא. וּמוֹדֶה רַב כָּהֲנָא דְּאִי אָמַר אִי [מַ]פְסֵידְנָא מִסְתַּלַּקְנָא בְּלָא שְׁבָחָא, מִסְתַּלַּק בְּלָא שְׁבָחָא. רָבָא אָמַר: אַסְמַכְתָּא הִיא, וְאַסְמַכְתָּא לָא קָנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates another incident. There was **a certain planter who said to** the owner: **If I cause a loss** to the vineyard by ruining its plants **I will leave** the field. Ultimately, he indeed **caused a loss** to the plants, but some enhancement from the time he began did still exist. **Rav Yehuda said: He leaves without** receiving payment for **the enhancement,** while **Rav Kahana said: He leaves and takes the** payment for the **enhancement** resulting from his work. **And Rav Kahana concedes that if he said: If I cause a loss I will leave without** receiving payment for **the enhancement, he** indeed **leaves without** receiving payment for **the enhancement.** Conversely, **Rava said:** A promise of this kind, which he does not expect to have to fulfill, **is a transaction with inconclusive intent [*asmakhta*], and** the *halakha* is that **an *asmakhta* does not effect acquisition** and is therefore not legally binding.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:16
[Bava Metzia 109a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:16)

וּלְרָבָא מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: אִם אוֹבִיר וְלָא אַעֲבֵיד אֲשַׁלֵּם בְּמֵיטְבָא! הָתָם מַאי דְּאַפְסֵיד – מְשַׁלֵּם, הָכָא מַאי דְּאַפְסֵיד – מְנַכֵּינַן לֵיהּ וְאִידַּךְ יָהֲבִינַן לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rava,** in **what** way **is** it **different from that which we learned** in a mishna (104a) that the recipient of the field stipulates: **If I let** the field **lie fallow and do not cultivate** it **I will pay with the best**-quality produce, in which case he is obligated to fulfill his promise? The Gemara answers: **There, he pays** for **the loss he caused,** while **here, we deduct from him the loss that he caused, and we give him the other** portion of the money. He does not forfeit all that was due to him just because some of his plantings were unsuccessful.


###### Bava Metzia 109a:17
[Bava Metzia 109a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Metzia/r/109a:17)

רוּנְיָא שַׁתָּלָא דְרָבִינָא הֲוָה אַפְסֵיד. סַלְּקֵיהּ אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ חֲזִי מָר מַאי קָא עָבֵיד לִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שַׁפִּיר עֲבַיד. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָא לֹא הִתְרָה בִּי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא (צְרִיכָא לְהַתְרוֹת) [צְרִיכַתְּ לְאַתְרוֹיֵי]. רָבָא לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מַקְרֵי דַרְדְּקֵי שַׁתָּלָא טַבָּחָא וְאוּמָּנָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara relates that **Runya was the planter of Ravina.** He **caused a loss,** and Ravina **removed him** from his field. Runya **came before Rava** and **said to him:** Let **the Master see what** Ravina **has done to me.** Rava **said to him:** Ravina **did well,** as you caused him a loss. Runya **said to him: But** Ravina **did not warn me** beforehand. How can he force me to leave without prior warning? Rava **said to him:** In this case it **is not necessary to provide a warning.** The Gemara comments: **Rava** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning, as Rava said:** With regard to **a teacher of children, a planter, a ritual slaughterer, and a bloodletter,**