Somebody rents a field from his friend for a fixed payment, either a monetary payment—for example, $20,000—or a set amount of produce that he is going to give to the owner of the property. The crops are eaten by a swarm of locusts, or very strong winds come and uproot the stalks from the ground. Halacha (Jewish law) is as follows: If it’s a makkat medina, that means the entire state, the entire country was afflicted by this disaster, and strong winds or locusts came and damaged all the fields in the area, then the renter here could deduct from his rent. The fact that all the fields in the area were affected shows that something is happening from shamayim; there is something happening from heaven, a decree against the entire area, and both the owner and the renter have to share in the loss. The amount he would be able to deduct is proportional to the amount of crops that were ruined. For example, if half the crops were ruined, he would only have to pay the owner half of the agreed-upon payment. So he’s not fully off, but he would be able to deduct anything that was destroyed.
But if it was not a disaster in the entire medina, the entire state, and most of the fields in the area were not damaged, then he’s not allowed to deduct from his rent. In this situation, the owner of the field could say, “Oh, you’re the renter; only your crops were damaged. Maybe you had bad mazal (luck); maybe it’s your thing, and I have nothing to do with it.” So therefore, we say the renter in this case has to absorb the entire loss himself.
Rabbi Yehuda says: There’s an exception to what we said above. Says Rabbi Yehuda: Everything we said above makes sense if there’s a set amount of produce being handed over from the renter to the owner of the field. But if he rented the field for money, not for payment in produce, then in either situation, whether it was a makkat medina or not, he would not be allowed to deduct from his rent, according to Rabbi Yehuda. Even if you want to say that there was a heavenly decree from the shamayim that the entire area was going to be damaged, the fact that produce was destroyed shows what? That there was only a decree against produce, and the produce was the renter’s produce. It has nothing to do with the owner. The owner of the field is not paid in produce. He’s paid in money. He’s paid in funds. And therefore, the owner of the field could argue, “I’m not part of this makkat. I’m not part of this heavenly decree. Why should I lose out on any of my rent money that I was owed? I shouldn’t lose out from this disaster.” So, says Rabbi Yehuda, only what we discussed above applies to payment in produce. But if it was money payment, the renter would have to pay no matter what.