He is paying a fixed amount: ten measures of wheat each year. What happens if the field does not produce a good-quality crop and instead produces inferior wheat? He may pay from the field itself; he does not have to purchase ten measures from the marketplace. On the other hand, if the wheat produced by the field is of excellent quality, he cannot say, “I will give you the lower-grade wheat that I bought in the marketplace.” He must pay from the field itself.
Why? Rashi explains that the case involves a fixed payment, unlike a sharecropper’s arrangement, in which the worker receives a certain percentage of the produce. Here, since the payment is fixed, the tenant cannot simply go to the marketplace and pay from there. Whether the crop turns out badly or well, he must pay from the field itself.
There was a person who rented a field in order to plant aspasta, animal fodder. The agreed payment was barley. He planted the aspasta, harvested it, and planted it again. Afterward, he planted barley, and the barley that grew was of inferior quality. He asked what the law was: should he pay from the field, since the field had produced inferior barley, or should he pay with good barley purchased from the marketplace?
What are the two sides of the question? Rashi explains that aspasta grows very quickly. It takes only thirty days to grow, after which it is cut and replanted. The question is whether this case can be compared to the case in the Mishnah. There, the field did not fulfill the owner’s instruction: the owner had said to plant wheat, the tenant planted wheat, and the wheat turned out badly. Since the field did not produce what had been requested in good condition, the tenant may pay from the field itself.
Here, however, the field did produce exactly what the owner had requested. The owner told him to plant aspasta, and he planted aspasta. The aspasta grew properly. Therefore, perhaps he must pay from the marketplace. As Rashi explains, had he continued planting aspasta, the field would have remained suitable. Who told him to begin planting barley? Since he changed the crop, he departed from the agreement. Had he continued planting aspasta, the field would have been productive. In the case of the Mishnah, the owner told him to plant wheat, he planted wheat, and the wheat turned out badly. Here, the field fulfilled its mission by producing aspasta; the tenant then chose to plant barley, and he cannot claim that the inferior barley permits him to pay from the field.
There is a similar question regarding a person who rented a vineyard for a fixed payment of wine. The wine became sour. May he pay the tenant with the sour wine from the field? This is not analogous to the case in the Mishnah. There, the field did not fulfill its mission: it was supposed to produce wheat, and the wheat turned out badly. Here, the grapes grew properly and became sour only afterward. That is the tenant’s responsibility, so he must pay with good wine.
Rashi says that the wine became vinegar after the grapes had already been placed in barrels. The grapes themselves had not been damaged. Therefore, the person who made the wine caused it to become sour. The Gemara concludes that if the grapes became damaged while they were still grapes in the field, he may pay from the field itself. Likewise, if wheat became ruined while it was still lying in the field to dry, it is still considered attached to the field. The tenant had not yet done anything to it, so he may pay from that crop.
Only after he has removed the grapes from the field and placed them in barrels does he become responsible for them; at that point, he must pay with better-quality wine. But if the grapes are still in the field, or if the wheat is still lying there to dry, the field is still needed for the crop, and the tenant may pay from the field itself.
The next Mishnah discusses a person who receives a field in order to plant barley. He may not plant wheat. First, he has been instructed to plant barley, and he may not change the arrangement. In addition, wheat depletes the soil more than barley and therefore weakens the owner’s field. The reverse, however, is permitted: if he was instructed to plant wheat and instead planted barley, that is acceptable, because barley is less damaging to the soil.
The same applies to wheat and legumes. If he was instructed to plant wheat, he should not plant legumes, because legumes deplete the soil more than grain. The reverse is permitted, because legumes weaken the field less than grain.
Rashi explains that the case of a person who changes the crop is referring specifically to a fixed rental arrangement. In a sharecropping arrangement, the worker may prefer to produce more, even if the land becomes weaker, while the owner may prefer to preserve the land rather than receive a crop that leaves his family without food. Therefore, in a sharecropping arrangement, if the worker was instructed to plant wheat and planted barley, that is certainly acceptable.
The novelty here is that even in a different rental arrangement, planting barley instead of wheat is permitted. But what is the law when he was instructed to plant barley and planted wheat? The owner may prefer the higher-quality food and may not care that the field has been weakened. Since the owner receives a fixed payment rather than a share of the crop, he is concerned primarily with the condition of the field. That is why the two cases are necessary.
Rashi further explains that legumes weaken the soil more than grain. The Gemara asks why changing the crop is prohibited. It answers that a person should not have deceitful words in his mouth. If he tells the owner that he will plant one crop and then plants another, that is improper. He cannot rent a field for wheat and secretly plant barley instead.
The Gemara challenges this explanation. Money collected for the poor on Purim must be given to the poor, but the collectors do not have to investigate whether each recipient is genuinely poor. They may distribute the money without questioning the recipient’s needs. The poor person, however, may not necessarily use the money for any personal purpose, such as buying a shoelace or a leather strap. Unless the people of the city stipulated otherwise, the money is understood to be intended for food on Purim.
If the reason for prohibiting a change of crop is deceit, the Gemara asks, why may the poor person use the money for something other than the purpose for which it was collected? The money was collected for one purpose, and the poor person is using it for another. Why is that not also considered deceitful?
The Gemara answers that deceit is not the reason for the prohibition in the Mishnah. The concern is that the tenant may ruin the field. If a person wants to ruin a field, this is the method: one year he plants wheat, the next year barley, and then he alternates between them. The field may also be damaged because the tenant planted barley this year when wheat had been planted the previous year. Since we do not know what was planted the year before, the change may harm the field.
Another possibility is that the tenant plants the field in one direction one year and in the opposite direction the next year, thereby damaging it. Rabba bar Nachmani, whom Abaye used to call “my master” because Abaye was an orphan raised in Rabba’s home, explains the matter in this way. If a person wants his field to lie fallow, he should plant wheat. In this case, perhaps the tenant planted wheat the previous year, and the owner is now telling him to plant wheat again. If he plants barley instead, he may ruin the field.
Rabba says that changing from one crop to another damages the field only when the field has not been plowed properly. The farmers would plow after the harvest and then plow again before planting the next crop. If the field has been plowed twice, changing the crop does not cause damage. The concern applies when the necessary plowing has not been done.
The Rabbis do not accept Rabba’s explanation. According to them, alternating crops does not ruin the field. On the contrary, it is the proper way to maintain the field. Tosafot offers an entirely different understanding of the phrase “you will ruin your field.” It does not mean that the field will be destroyed; it means that if a person wants the field to regain its original strength, he should let it lie fallow. Alternating crops is the way to preserve the field.
According to Tosafot, why does the Mishnah prohibit the change? Perhaps the tenant planted the same crop the previous year, and now he wants to plant the same crop again. That may weaken the field. The reasoning is therefore the reverse of Rabba’s explanation.
According to both explanations, one must also explain why the anonymous first opinion in the Mishnah does not share this concern. The answer is that if the owner were truly concerned about the possibility of a change damaging the field, he would not rent it out under these conditions. The owner knows that there is a possibility the tenant may change the crop. Since he did not explicitly stipulate, “Do not plant barley,” it may be that the change is permitted.
The Gemara brings another teaching that appears to reverse our Mishnah. It says that if a person receives a field for grain, he may plant legumes, while if he receives it for legumes, he may not plant grain. Why does that teaching permit changing from wheat to legumes when our Mishnah prohibits it because legumes weaken the soil?
The Gemara answers that our Mishnah is discussing the Land of Israel, where the soil is dry and legumes weaken it. The other teaching is discussing a place with marshy soil and abundant water. There, even if a person changes from wheat to legumes, the water strengthens the land and prevents the damage. The law therefore depends on the location: in the Land of Israel, one should not change from wheat to legumes, while in a place with abundant water, the change is permitted.
The Gemara then discusses cress that grows among flax. If a person pulls out the cress, it is not considered theft, because the damage the cress causes to the flax is greater than the value of the cress itself. By removing it, he benefits the owner of the field by improving the flax. Therefore, he may take it without asking permission.
If the cress is standing separately, such as along the borders of the field, he may not take it, because removing it causes the owner a loss. In that case, it is theft.
If the cress has fully matured and hardened, even when it is mixed among the flax, he may not remove it. Rashi explains that once the cress has fully grown, the damage to the flax has already been done. Removing it will no longer benefit the owner. Therefore, taking it at that point is simply theft.
The Gemara asks what difference it makes if the damage has already occurred. Once the loss has happened, removing the cress will not restore anything. The answer is that the cress may be removed only when doing so benefits the owner by preventing further damage. Once it has fully grown, that benefit no longer exists.
The Gemara then cites the statement, “My produce is your produce, and your produce is my produce.” Rashi explains that the trees of these two people were planted beside one another, near the boundary. Their roots extended into one another’s fields and drew nourishment from the neighboring soil. Therefore, each person considered the fruit of the other’s trees to belong to him as well.
There was apparently a custom regarding trees standing on a boundary: the roots that extended in one direction belonged to that side, and the roots extending in the other direction belonged to the other side. Whoever’s side contained the roots would receive the fruit. That was the basis for the statement that “mine is yours and yours is mine.”
The Gemara discusses a tree standing directly on the boundary. Rav says that the fruit belongs according to where the roots extend. Shmuel says that the fruit is divided equally down the middle.
A baraita appears to support Shmuel: when a tree stands on the boundary, the fruit is divided. This seems to be a challenge to Rav, who said that ownership follows the roots. Shmuel, however, does not use the baraita to attack his colleague. He explains that the baraita can also be understood according to Rav. It is speaking about a case in which the roots extend in both directions. Some of the roots are on one side and some are on the other, so the fruit is divided.
The Gemara says that it is unnecessary to mention the case in which the roots extend in both directions; that would be obvious. The novelty is a case in which the fruit hangs more heavily over one side. One might have thought that the person on whose side the fruit hangs should receive more of it. The Gemara teaches that this is not the rule. Even if the fruit hangs toward one side, the tree is divided equally. The division is not made lengthwise according to the location of the fruit; it is made across the middle, so that each person receives an equal share from both sides.
Rav Yehuda said to Ravin, “My brother, do not buy a field next to the city.” People may look at your field with an evil eye and damage it. For this reason, a person may not stand over another person’s field while the owner is harvesting, because he may see how much produce the field is yielding and cast an evil eye upon it. Therefore, Rav Yehuda advised Ravin to purchase a field far from the city, where people would not be watching it.
There appears to be a contradiction. Rabbi Abba once found the students of Rav and asked them how Rav explained the verses, “Blessed are you in the city” and “Blessed are you in the field.” Rav explained, “Blessed are you in the city” to mean that one’s house should be close to the synagogue. “Blessed are you in the field” means that one’s property should be close to the city. This seems to contradict the statement that a field should be located far from the city to avoid the evil eye.
The verse continues, “Blessed are you when you come in, and blessed are you when you go out.” This means that a person should be blessed when he enters his home. When he returns from the road, his wife should not be in a state of uncertain ritual status. The Gemara says that if she is certainly prohibited, the situation is at least clear. If her status is uncertain, a person may rationalize that perhaps she is permitted and come to sin. Even if he refrains, the uncertainty may cause him greater distress because he may think that he is being unnecessarily stringent.
The verse also means that one’s children should resemble him and follow his ways—that what comes from him should be like him.
Rabbi Hanan did not explain the verse in that manner. He understood “Blessed are you in the city” to mean that one’s bathroom should be near one’s table. A person should not have to go far into the fields to relieve himself. He should check himself before eating, and he should also be able to relieve himself after the meal.
If a person eats while needing to relieve himself, it is like firing an oven while it is still full of ashes. The ashes must first be removed before the oven can be used properly. Similarly, after a meal, the food pushes out what is already in the body, and a person needs to relieve himself. If the bathroom is far away, he may hold himself in. The Gemara says that when a person holds himself in, the waste can return into the body and cause illness, including dropsy. Therefore, it is very important for the bathroom to be near the table.
According to Rabbi Hanan, it is better for the bathroom to be near the table than for the synagogue to be near the house. The Gemara responds that the synagogue should actually be farther away, because a person receives reward for every step he takes to attend. The farther it is, the greater the reward.
Rashi tells of a widow who walked a considerable distance each day to attend the synagogue. There was a synagogue in her own neighborhood, but she did not pray there. When people asked her why she went to the distant synagogue, she explained that she wanted to receive reward for the additional steps. Thus, there is value in having the synagogue farther away.
“Blessed are you in the field” means that one should divide one’s assets into three parts: one-third grain, one-third olives, and one-third grapes. A person should diversify because one year the grain may fail, while the olives and grapes succeed; another year the reverse may occur. All three will not ordinarily fail at the same time, so the successful crops support the ones that were damaged.
“Blessed are you when you come in, and blessed are you when you go out” also means that a person should leave this world as he entered it: without sin.
We still have a contradiction in Rav. In one place Rav says that it is better for a field to be far from people’s eyes, while in another place he explains “Blessed are you in the field” to mean that one’s field should be close to the city. Should the field be near the city or far from it?
The Gemara answers that there is no contradiction. If the field has a fence, it may be located near the city, because people cannot easily look over the fence and cast an evil eye. If the field is open and unfenced, it should be far from the city. When there is no evil-eye concern, it is of course more convenient to have the field near the city, so that the produce can be brought home easily.
The verse says, “He will remove all sickness from you.” Rav explains that this refers to sickness caused by the evil eye. Rav followed this approach when he once went to a cemetery. He used a form of incantation to determine why the people buried there had died. He found that ninety-nine out of every hundred had died because of the evil eye, while only one had died in the ordinary manner. This demonstrates how many illnesses are attributed to the evil eye.
Rashi explains that Rav knew how to whisper over the graves and determine whether each person had died naturally or from the evil eye. The phrase “all sickness” refers to something upon which all illness depends—the evil eye.
Shmuel explained the verse differently. He said that illness comes from the wind. The Gemara challenges this by asking about people executed by the king. Did the wind kill them? Shmuel answers that even if a person is stabbed, the wound itself may not be fatal. The harmful wind enters the wound and ultimately causes death.
Another opinion says that illness comes specifically from cold air. A person who goes outside in cold weather without protecting himself cannot say that the illness was beyond his control. He should have guarded himself. Cold air can cause damage, whereas ordinary wind is not necessarily the concern in this explanation.
The verse also refers to excess discharge from the nose and ears. A great deal of such discharge is unhealthy, while a small amount is beneficial. “All sickness” therefore means that God should remove the excess.
Rabbi Abba explained that “all sickness” refers to an excess of bile. When the bile in the gallbladder becomes excessive, it spreads through the limbs and bones and affects the entire body. A baraita supports this explanation: the sickness mentioned in the verse refers to bile in the gallbladder. It is called sickness because it causes illness throughout the body.
Another teaching says that there are eighty-three illnesses dependent on bile. The numerical value of the word for illness is eighty-three, which is why bile is called by that term: eighty-three illnesses depend on it.
How can a person protect himself? The Gemara gives the advice to eat bread with salt in the morning and drink water. From here we learn the importance of eating breakfast, even if it consists only of bread with salt and water.
The Gemara then praises the benefits of eating bread in the morning. It protects a person from overheating, fever, cold, and harmful winds. It gives him strength, and demons attack only a weak person. It gives him clarity of mind and makes a foolish person intelligent. It enables him to prevail in judgment against another person because, having eaten properly, he can present his arguments more clearly and logically. A person who has not eaten may speak in a confused manner.
Eating in the morning also helps a person learn Torah and teach Torah. People listen to him because his words come out more clearly. It improves his memory, helps prevent unpleasant body odor, and gives him the strength to be with his wife before going to the marketplace in the morning.
Even if a person normally has improper thoughts about other women, eating in the morning can help remove them. Since he has strength and is able to be with his wife, his desire is directed appropriately and he is less troubled by thoughts about others.
Morning bread also kills intestinal worms and parasites. It removes jealousy and brings love, apparently because a person who has eaten is in a better mood and is more capable of harmony with others.
What is the proof for this? The common saying is that sixty people may run after a person who ate bread in the morning and still be unable to catch him. The person who eats breakfast has unusual strength.
The Rabbis also said that a person should rise early in the summer and eat so that the heat will not harm him, and rise early in the winter so that the cold will not harm him. The proof is that those who eat will not be hungry or thirsty and will not be affected by the heat of the sun. Since they are not hungry, the sun does not harm them. This proof also shows that one must drink water, because the verse mentions that they will not be thirsty.
Another proof comes from the verse, “You will serve God, and He will bless your bread and your water.” A person serves God by praying first, and afterward God blesses his bread and water. The verse concludes, “I will remove sickness from your midst,” showing that bread and water in the morning benefit the body.
There was a person who surveyed and measured fields. He was told not to belittle his profession. Every small parcel of land can provide great benefit, including the planting of saffron, which is a valuable crop, especially garden saffron. If he does not measure carefully, he may deprive the owner of a small piece of land, even though every part of the field can be useful. Therefore, he should measure accurately and obtain every square inch that can be planted.
There is a certain strip of land that farmers leave unplanted near an irrigation canal. They do not plant directly beside the canal because the canal may collapse or become damaged. In that case, the space is generally four cubits wide. Near the canal, it is not necessary to be exact: even if the space is slightly less than four cubits, it may still be sufficient.
Near a river, however, one must be more careful. The space should not merely be measured as exactly four cubits. It should be visibly wider. One should not measure it with excessive precision; it should be clear to the eye that enough distance has been left, because planting too close to the river causes greater damage.
Rabbi Yehuda holds that the four cubits beside the canal are harmful only to the people who use that canal. The damage is limited to the individuals whose fields are adjacent to it; it does not affect the entire world. Therefore, one may be more lenient when measuring that space. Even if it is somewhat less or more than four cubits, the concern is limited.
By contrast, planting directly beside a river can damage the entire area. Therefore, one must be more careful there and leave more than the minimum distance. The practical distinction is that beside the canal, where the damage is limited to particular individuals, one may be more lenient. Beside the river, where the damage is more extensive, one should not be so exact or restrictive; one should leave additional space.