Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Bava Metzia, 105

1) A FIELD OWNER'S RIGHT TO BE PAID FROM PRODUCE OF HIS OWN FIELD

QUESTION: The Tana Kama in the Mishnah says that only if a field produces enough produce "l'Ha'amid Kri" -- with which "to form a pile," then the sharecropper ("Kablan") must work the field. RASHI explains that this does not apply to "Chakirus," but only to "Kablanus." With regard to a Chocher, Rashi explains, it makes no difference to the owner of the field whether or not the worker works the field, because in either case he will receive what the sharecropper owes him.

Why is this so obvious to Rashi? A few lines earlier, the Gemara says that the field owner can tell the sharecropper, "I want you to work the land because I want to be paid with produce from my own land and not with produce bought in the market." The same should apply to the case of our Mishnah, where the field produced a small yield. The owner should be able to insist that the sharecropper reap the produce so that the owner will be paid from the produce of his own field!

Some maintain that according to the Gemara's conclusion, the owner cannot claim that he wants only produce from his own land (see CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH, and TAZ to Choshen Mishpat 324). However, the NIMUKEI YOSEF here proves from the Mishnah (106b) that if the land does produce crops, the owner *can* insist on receiving his payment from that yield.

ANSWER: If the Mishnah was discussing a field owner who insists on being paid from the produce of his own land, there would be no reason to link the amount that the field produces to the size of a pile, or to the amount needed to sow the field. Instead, the Mishnah should have said that an amount equivalent to the rental fee must be harvested from the produce of the field, and the rest does not have to be harvested. Therefore, it must be that the Mishnah is discussing a "Kablan" who splits *all* of the produce with the owner of the field. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Tana Kama in the Mishnah says that only if a field produces enough produce "l'Ha'amid Kri" -- with which "to form a pile," then the sharecropper ("Kablan") must work the field. The Gemara inquires how much is this amount. Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Chanina explains that this is enough produce to make a pile which can support the pitchfork in an upright position.

Later, the Gemara cites a Machlokes between Levi and D'vei Rebbi Yanai regarding whether this pile of produce refers to three Se'ah or to two Se'ah of produce. Are they arguing with Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Chanina?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAM cites only the measurement of two Se'ah (like D'vei Rebbi Yanai), and he makes no mention of the pitchfork. It is possible that the Rambam learns that the Amora'im indeed are arguing about the size of the pile of produce and he is ruling in accordance with D'vei Rebbi Yanai.

Alternatively, it could be that Levi and D'vei Rebbi Yanai are not arguing with Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Chanina. There are different sizes of pitchforks, and D'vei Rebbi Yanai and Levi are arguing with each other about how large the pitchfork -- which the pile must support -- needs to be. D'vei Rebbi Yanai says that the pile must be able to support only a pitchfork that can hold two Se'ah, and thus it suffices to have a smaller pile.

Support for this can be found in the words of the RIF and ROSH who cite the opinions of both Rebbi Yosi bar'Rebbi Chanina and D'vei Rebbi Yanai.

(b) The CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH suggests another approach to reconcile the two opinions. He explains that D'vei Rebbi Yanai and Levi are answering Rebbi Yehudah's question on the Tana Kama. Rebbi Yehudah asks: how can we have a standard production amount for the produce of any field? If the field is a larger field, it should have to produce more in order to require the sharecropper to tend to the crops. If it is a smaller field, then even a smaller amount should obligate the sharecropper (as we find on 21a, with regard to "Kav b'Arba Amos")!

D'vei Rebbi Yanai and Levi explain that the manner of measuring based on standing a pitchfork upright in the pile applies only to a field that produces two or three Se'ah of grain altogether. If the field is larger or smaller, then a different size pile will be required.

It is possible that Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah understood the Tana Kama in this way as well, and his question is only why the Tana Kama describes a Shi'ur that applies to a specific size of field and must be adjusted for other sizes of fields, when he could have stated a standard Shi'ur that applies to every size of field (i.e. "Kedei Nefilah").

105b

QUESTION: The Beraisa says that a person is not allowed to transport a load on his head when the load is crushing his Tefilin. D'vei Rebbi Yanai explains that this prohibition applies only to a load that weighs at least four Kavim. The Gemara later quotes D'vei Shilo who states that it is prohibited even to place the cloth (in which the Tefilin is wrapped) upon one's head while he is wearing Tefilin. Abaye explains that this applies even to something as small as the tiny measure used in Pumpedisa.

How can D'vei Shilo's words be reconciled with D'vei Rebbi Yanai and the Beraisa, who prohibit carrying a load while wearing Tefilin only when the load is heavy and will crush the Tefilin?

ANSWERS:

(a) The RAMBAM does not mention that the prohibition applies only to loads heavier than four Kav. Rabeinu Yonah in Berachos (14b of the pages of the Rif) writes that D'vei Shilo argues with D'vei Rebbi Yanai. Since the Halachah follows D'vei Shilo (because Abaye follows that view), the Rambam does not mention the view of D'vei Rebbi Yanai.

(b) However, the Rif in Berachos there and the ROSH here cite both opinions, that of D'vei Rebbi Yanai and that of D'vei Shilo. Rabeinu Yonah asks, how can they cite contradictory opinions?

1. The BEIS YOSEF (OC 41) quotes MAHARI AVUHAV who answers that D'vei Rebbi Yanai permits a load of up to four Kavim only b'Di'eved, when he has already placed the load upon his head. L'Chatchilah, though, one should not put a load of any size upon his head while wearing Tefilin, as D'vei Shilo rules. He adds that it might also be permitted l'Chatchilah to carry up to four Kavim if there is a good reason to do so (for example, he is being paid to carry it); otherwise, carrying any burden on his head while wearing Tefilin is prohibited l'Chatchilah.

2. The BEIS YOSEF himself suggests that up to four Kavim are permitted if the load was on his head before he decided to don Tefilin.

3. The Beis Yosef infers from the wording of the TUR that a load of up to four Kavim is permitted when it is not resting on top of the Tefilin, but is resting beside it. If the load is four Kavim, the Rabanan prohibited even wearing it alongside the Tefilin, since it might move and rest on top of the Tefilin.

(The MISHNAH BERURAH points out that RASHI (DH v'Im Lav) writes clearly that when the load is not resting on the Tefilin, even a burden of four Kavim may be carried on one's head.)

4. The Beis Yosef cites RAV YOSEF AL ASKANDRANI who says that the four-Kav load is permitted if the load is not resting on his head, but is suspended from a rope that is strung over his head and is pulling against the Tefilin. Since nothing is on top of the Tefilin, it is permitted as long as the burden is not four Kavim, which would exert too much pressure on the Tefilin.

5. The DARCHEI MOSHE writes that a load of up to four Kavim is permitted if it is the type of load that is normally carried upon one's head (such as a hat). This is the way the REMA rules in the Shulchan Aruch.