Bava Metzia - Daf 106
- A landowner’s arguments based on pesukim
The Gemara discusses a landowner who told his tenant to plant wheat, but he planted barley, and his crop was destroyed by wind along with most of the valley. Although the tenant can argue that the מכת מדינה would have destroyed any wheat he may have planted, the Gemara concludes that the owner can respond, “If you would have planted wheat, הוה מקיים בי – [the following berachah] would have been fulfilled for me: "ותגזר אמר ויקם לך" – You will make a plan and it will succeed for you (i.e., my prayers for a successful wheat crop would have been answered).” The Gemara asks: if all of the landowner’s fields were destroyed, including the leased field, and the rest of this valley was not destroyed, can the tenant deduct from his rent, because the loss was apparently due to the landowner’s ill fortune? The Gemara concludes that the owner can respond that had that been the case, הוה משתייר לי פורתא – a small amount would have been spared for me, as the passuk says: "כי נשארנו מעט מהרבה" – for we are left but a few out of many.
- Arguing that if the tenant had planted, it may have miraculously succeeded despite the מכת מדינה
Shmuel said that a tenant may only deduct from his rent in the case of a מכת מדינה if he actually planted and it was destroyed, אבל לא זרעה כלל לא – but if he did not plant it at all, he may not, because the owner can argue that had he planted, the following berachah would have been fulfilled: לא יבשו בעת רעה ובימי רעבון ישבעו – they will not be ashamed in time of calamity; in days of famine they will be satisfied (i.e., it may have succeeded despite the מכת מדינה). Rav Sheishess challenged this from a Baraisa, which teaches that if a shepherd left his flock and it was attacked by a wolf or lion, we assess if he would have been able to save the animal if he had remained. But the owner of the sheep can similarly argue that if the shepherd had remained at his post, he may have miraculously saved the sheep, like Dovid Hamelech did!? The Gemara answers that if the owner was deserving of a miracle, it could have occurred without the shepherd present, like Rebbe Chanina ben Dosa’s goats, who carried wolves on their horns! The Gemara objects that the owner can claim he is deserving of a small miracle, but not such a great one.
- נותן לו מתוכה, except when עבדא ארעא שליחותא
The next Mishnah states that if one leased land for a rent of ten kors of wheat, and the wheat crop was damaged, he may pay with this wheat. If the crop was of especially high quality, the tenant may not purchase average wheat to pay his rent; אלא נותן לו מתוכה – rather, he must give [the landowner] from [that wheat]. A man leased a field to plant aspasta, which can be planted and harvested monthly, for a rental fee of barley. After the first successful aspasta crop, he planted barley, which grew poorly. Ravina was asked if this similar to our Mishnah, where the tenant may pay with the low-quality produce of the rented field. He said it was not, because in the Mishnah, the land failed to produce the intended crop of wheat, but הכא עבדא ארעא שליחותא – here, the land performed its role; had he planted aspasta, it may have succeeded. In another incident, someone rented a vineyard for ten barrels of wine, and the wine produced from the vineyard soured. Rav Kahana thought he could pay from this wine, like in the Mishnah, but Rav Ashi told him the land “performed its role” in producing grapes, and the wine soured only afterwards. Rav Ashi agrees if the grapes became infested with worms while left out to dry, that he may pay with those grapes.
