דף 109

and a town scribe who drafts documents on behalf on the local residents, all of these are considered forewarned. Therefore, any loss incurred due to them is deducted from their wages, and they are fined without the need for prior warning. The principle of this matter is: With regard to any loss that is not recoverable they are considered forewarned.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain planter who said to the owner of the field: Give me the value of my enhancement because I wish to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The owner came for a ruling before Rav Pappa bar Shmuel, who said to him: Give the planter the value of his enhancement. Rava said to Rav Pappa bar Shmuel: Did he alone enhance the field, while the land did not enhance it? He cannot be credited with all the improvement. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to Rava: I am telling you that he is entitled to half the value of the enhancement. Rava said to him: Until now the owner of the land would take half and the planter would take half, while the planter would work the field. Now the owner also needs to give a portion to the sharecropper, so that the sharecropper will continue working the field. Rav Pappa bar Shmuel said to him: I am telling you to give him one-quarter of the value of the enhancement, half of the sum to which he is entitled.

Rav Ashi thought to say that when he referred to one-quarter he meant one-quarter that is one-sixth, i.e., one-quarter of the sum due to the owner, as the sum due to the owner is two-thirds of the entire yield. This payment would therefore amount to one-sixth of the total. As Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Naḥumi, said: In a location where the planter takes half the fruit and the sharecropper takes one-third, with regard to a planter who wants to leave, we give him his share of the value of the enhancement and remove him in such a manner so that the homeowner should suffer no loss.

Granted, if you say that he meant one-quarter that is one-sixth, this is well and the calculations are in order, but if you say he referred to an actual quarter, the homeowner suffers the loss of half of one-sixth. This is because if the owner had paid the planter initially he would have given him only one-half, whereas now he must give the planter one-quarter and the sharecropper one-third. He thereby pays an extra twelfth.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Yosef, said to Rav Ashi: Let the planter say to the owner: You give your portion to the sharecropper, and I will do what I wish with my portion. I performed my half of the work properly, so why should I suffer a loss because you want to pay the sharecropper? Rav Ashi said to him: When you reach the tractate of: The slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zevaḥim, come and ask this difficulty to me. In other words, your question is a good one, worthy of a difficult tractate full of complex reasoning such as Zevaḥim.

With regard to the matter itself, Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Naḥumi, said: In a location where the planter takes half the fruit and the sharecropper one-third, with regard to a planter who wants to leave, we give him his share of the value of the enhancement and remove him in such a manner so that the homeowner should suffer no loss. Rav Minyumi, son of Rav Naḥumi, further said: With regard to an old vine in a vineyard, the planter receives half. Although he did not plant the vine, since he was placed in charge of the entire vineyard, he receives a portion of that which was there before. If a river flooded the vineyard and the owner and the planter come to divide the trees that fell down, the planter receives one-quarter.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who mortgaged an orchard to another, i.e., the creditor, for ten years in order that the latter should use the profits gained from the orchard as repayment of the debt. But the orchard aged after five years and no longer produced quality fruit. Consequently, the only way to proceed was to cut down its trees and sell them as wood. Abaye said: This wood is considered as produce of the orchard, and therefore the creditor is entitled to cut them down and sell them. Rava said: The wood is classified as principal and is therefore viewed as part of the orchard itself. Consequently, the creditor has no rights to the wood itself, but other land is purchased with the profits from the sale of the wood and the creditor consumes the produce of that land until the debt is repaid.

The Gemara raises an objection against this from a baraita that discusses the halakhot of a mortgage: If the tree dried up or was chopped down, it is forbidden for both the creditor and the debtor to take it for themselves. How should they proceed? It is sold for wood, and land should be purchased with the proceeds, and he, i.e., the creditor, consumes the produce from that land. The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not referring to a dry tree that is similar to one that was chopped down, in that just as the tree was chopped down at its proper time, so too, the tree dried at its proper time? And yet the tanna teaches that land should be purchased with the money and the creditor consumes the produce. Apparently, the wood is considered part of the principal, not the profits. This supports Rava’s opinion and presents a difficulty to Abaye.

The Gemara rejects this argument: No, the chopped-down tree mentioned in the baraita is similar to the dry one: Just as that tree dried up before its time, so too, this one was chopped down before its time. Since this did not occur naturally, the wood is classified as produce; had the orchard dried up at the expected time, its trees would be considered as part of the land.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof to Rava’s opinion from a mishna (Ketubot 79b): If a woman after her marriage had old vines and olive trees that were bequeathed to her by means of inheritance,