brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
& Revach l'Neshamah - http://www.revach.net
If a lease holder receives a field for less than seven years he may not plant flax and he may not cut down the branches of a sycamore tree to use for beams. (1)
If a sharecropper receives a field for seven years he may grow flax and cut down the branches of the sycamore trees the first year.
If it is allotted time for the sharecropper to be in the field ended and there are vegetables in the field and it was not yet time to sell them the vegetables shall be evaluated and the sharecropper receives a share in them.
If a person is a sharecropper on a field it is not returned to the owner on Yovel because only fields that would otherwise be sold permanently are returned on Yovel.
Although a lease holder who receives a field for less than seven years may not cut down the branches of a sycamore tree he receives from the owner the value that the sycamore trees appreciated while it was in his possession according to Abaye, while Rava argues.
If someone buys a field when it is returned on Yovel he receives from the owner the value that the sycamore trees appreciated while it was in his possession. (2)
If a sharecropper receives a field to plant crops and the bark of the trees appreciates he doesn't take a share in the appreciation because he didn't receive the field for that purpose of taking a share in the bark of the tree.
If a sharecropper receives a field to plant crops and trees sprout in the field if he claims that he would have planted crops in the place that the trees sprouted he receives the value of the trees for its wood if it would be used for firewood. (3)
If the trees sprout on a rocky area that surround the field he sharecropper doesn't even receive the value that the trees are worth for firewood according to Rava because he could not have planted there and the trees didn't cause him a loss.
If a sharecropper tells the owner if I cause a loss to the produce I will resign R. Yehudah says he must resign without receiving his share in the produce while R. Kahana says he receives his share in the produce.
R. Kahana admits that if he said I will resign without receiving my share in the produce he doesn't receive his share, while Rava holds it is an Asmachta and he receives his share.
A Melamed, a gardener, a butcher, a blood letter and a barber are stand warned and if they do not do their job properly they may be fired without warning because it is an irreversible loss.
If a gardener usually takes half of the appreciation of the vineyard and he quits in the middle and the owner must pay a third for a gardener to finish the job the first gardener only takes a sixth in order to ensure that the owner will not lose out. (4)
If a gardener usually takes half of the appreciation if some of the grapevines are too old to produce grapes and they are uprooted he also takes half of the vines. (5)
If the river floods the field and uproots some of the vines the gardener only receives a quarter of the vines.
If someone gives a vineyard for a Mashkon on condition that the lender will eat the fruit and subtract it from the loan and the vines age after five years and no longer produce grapes Abaye says the vines are considered fruit and they belong to the lender.
Rava says the vines are considered principle and they are sold and land is bought with the proceeds and the land belongs to the borrower while the lender eats the fruit.
Abaye agrees if the vines dry out or are cut down before their time that the vines are considered principle and they are sold and land is bought with the proceeds and the land belongs to the borrower and the lender eats the fruit.
A BIT MORE
1. Flax weakens land tremendously and it take seven years for the land to recover and it also takes seven years for the branches of a sycamore tree to grow back sufficiently so that they can be cut down again to be used for beams.
2. Even according to Rava who holds that a sharecropper doesn't receive the appreciation of a sycamore trees someone who buys a field and returns it on Yovel receives the appreciation.
3. However, if he claims he would have planted trees himself if they hadn't sprouted on their own he receives the value of the appreciation of the trees.
4. The agreement is for the owner to receive half of the appreciation and if he must pay a third for a gardener to finish the job if he gives the first gardener more than a sixth he will receive less than half of the appreciation.
5. Since it is a common that some of the vines age and no longer produce fruit the gardener takes half of the vines just like he takes half of the grapes and vines that are harvested.
A Melamed, a gardener, a butcher, a blood letter and a barber are considered to be warned and if they do not do their job properly they may be fired without warning because it is an irreversible loss. The Ra'avad says even though a butcher who is paid for his work must pay for the damage that he causes however it is still an irreversible loss because he doesn't have to pay for the embarrassment that he caused to his customer that he did not have meat to his guest. The Nimukei Yosef says even though they may be fired without warning they may not be fired until there is a Chazakah that to do their job improperly. Therefore they may not be fired until they work improperly two or three times or until they are warned.
If a sharecropper receives a field from his friend for an allotted period of time and he dies and leaves a son the owner may not tell the son to give back what his father ate and the son may not say to give me what my father did. Instead we estimate what the father did until he died and we give it to him even though they made had an agreement for an allotted time. . (Shulchan Aruch CM 329:1)
The explanation in the first case is that the father received his entire portion but he had not yet completed his work and the owner of the field wants the sons to give back the extra portion that the father receives for the work he had not yet completed. The sons may say we are ready to finish the work ourselves and we do not want to give back the portion our father received. The Din is with the sons since they are Muchzak. In the second case however the father had not yet receive his portion at all and he had don part of the work and the sons want the owner to given them the entire portion and they will complete the work the Din is with the owner since he is the Muchzak and he can say I don t want you to finish the work and I will only give you the portion your father is owned in accordance with the amount of work that you did. (Sma)
Next Daf Index to Revach for Maseches Bava Metzia