מאי זרע אחר מאי חיטי לגבי שעורים כזרע אחר דמי או לא כל העולם כולו בשדפון ושלו בירקון אי נמי כל העולם כולו בירקון ושלו בשדפון מאי תיקו what is the halakha? If the surrounding fields were planted with a different type of seed, what is the halakha? Likewise, is wheat, in relation to barley, considered like a different type of seed or not? Furthermore, if the entire world, i.e., all the surrounding fields, were blighted by windblasts and his was affected by mildew; or alternatively, if the fields of the entire world were struck by mildew, and his were blighted with windblasts, what is the halakha? The Gemara responds: No resolution is found to any of these dilemmas, and the dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
אמר ליה זרעה חיטי ואזל הוא וזרעה שערי ואשתדוף רובא דבאגא ואשתדוף נמי הנך שערי דיליה מאי מי אמרינן דאמר ליה אילו זרעתה חיטי הוה נמי משתדפא או דלמא מצי אמר ליה אילו זרעתה חיטי הוה מקיים בי (איוב כב, כח) ותגזר אומר ויקם לך The Gemara poses another question: If the owner said to the tenant farmer: Plant the field with wheat, and he went and planted it with barley, and most of the valley was wind blasted, and these fields with barley of his were also wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that the tenant farmer can say to him: Even if I had planted it with wheat it would likewise have been wind blasted, as all the surrounding fields suffered the same fate, or perhaps the owner can say to him: Had you planted it with wheat, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: “And you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways” (Job 22:28), since you might have merited greater success by following my wishes.
מסתברא דאמר ליה אי זרעתה חיטי הוה מקיים בי ותגזר אומר ויקם לך ועל דרכיך נגה אור The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to him: Had you planted it with wheat it would have fulfilled for me: “And you shall decree a matter and it will be established for you, and the light shall shine upon your ways.”
נשתדפו כל שדותיו של מחכיר ואשתדוף נמי הא בהדייהו ולא אשתדוף רובא דבאגא מאי מי אמרינן כיון דלא אשתדוף רובא דבאגא לא מנכי ליה או דלמא כיון דאשתדוף כולהו ארעתיה מצי אמר ליה האי משום לתך דידך הוא דהא משתדפו כל שדותיך The Gemara presents another question: If all the fields of the owner of the land were wind blasted and this one was also wind blasted with them, but the majority of the valley was not wind blasted, what is the halakha? Do we say that since the majority of the valley was not wind blasted the tenant farmer does not subtract for the owner the amount owed for his tenancy, as this is not a regional disaster, or perhaps could one claim that since all the lands of the owner were wind blasted the tenant can say to the owner: This happened due to your bad fortune, as all your fields were wind blasted?
מסתברא דאמר ליה אי משום לתאי דידי הוה משתייר לי פורתא כדכתיב (ירמיהו מב, ב) כי נשארנו מעט מהרבה The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to the tenant: If it was due to my bad fortune, a little would have been left for me, as it is written: “For we are left but a few from many” (Jeremiah 42:2), which indicates that even one suffering from misfortune does not lose all he has.
נשתדפו כל שדותיו של חוכר ואשתדוף רובא דבאגא ואשתדוף נמי הא בהדייהו מאי מי אמרינן כיון דאשתדוף רובא דבאגא מנכי ליה או דלמא כיון דאשתדוף כולהו ארעתיה מצי אמר ליה משום לתך דידך הוא דהא משתדפו כל שדותיך מסתברא דאמר ליה משום לתאך הוא The Gemara discusses a similar case: If all the fields of the tenant farmer were wind blasted and most of the valley was wind blasted and this field was also wind blasted with them, what is the halakha? Do we say that since most of the valley was wind blasted the tenant farmer subtracts for the owner the amount owed for his tenancy and does not pay, or perhaps, since all the tenant’s lands were wind blasted, the owner can say to the tenant: The damage is due to your bad fortune, as all your fields were wind blasted. The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the owner can say to him: It occurred due to your bad fortune.
אמאי הכא נמי נימא ליה אי משום לתאי דידי הוא הוה משייר לי פורתא דהוה מקיים בי כי נשארנו מעט מהרבה משום דאמר ליה אי הוה חזית לאישתיורי לך מידי הוה משתייר לך מדנפשך The Gemara asks: Why should this be so? Here too, let us say to the owner: If it was due to my bad fortune, a little would have been left for me, as the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: “For we are left but a few from many.” The Gemara answers: This is not a valid claim because the owner can say to the tenant: Had you been worthy of something being left for you, it would have been left from your own private land, not the field you paid to cultivate.
מיתיבי היתה שנת שדפון וירקון או שביעית או שהיו שנים כשני אליהו אינו עולה לו מן המנין The Gemara raises an objection from a mishna to the ruling that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The halakha is that if one sells his field in Eretz Yisrael in a time when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are in effect, he does not have the right to purchase it from the buyer until two years have passed. The mishna teaches (Arakhin 29b): If it was a year of wind-blasted crops or mildew or it was the Sabbatical Year, or if those years were like the years of Elijah in which no rain fell (see I Kings 17:1, 18:1–2), they do not count as part of his tally of years before he may repurchase his land.
קתני שדפון וירקון דומיא דשנים כשני אליהו מה שני אליהו דלא הוי תבואה כלל אף הכא נמי דלא הוי תבואה כלל אבל דאיכא תבואה סלקא ליה ולא קאמרינן מכת מדינה היא The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This tanna teaches that the cases of windblasts and mildew are similar to the case where the years were like the years of Elijah. Just as the years of Elijah is referring to a time when there was no produce at all, so too, here, windblasts and mildew are referring to cases when there was no produce at all. But by inference, one can learn that if there was some produce, it counts toward his tally of years before he may repurchase his land, and we do not say that it is a regional disaster.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא כה, טו) במספר שני תבואות ימכר לך שנים שיש בהן תבואה בעולם The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: There, the case with regard to the sold field is different, as the verse states with regard to the sale and leasing of fields: “According to the numbers of years of the crops he shall sell to you” (Leviticus 25:15), which is referring to years in which there is produce harvested in the world.
אמר ליה רב אשי לרב כהנא אלא מעתה שביעית תעלה לו מן המנין דהא איכא תבואה בחוצה לארץ אמר ליה שביעית אפקעתא דמלכא היא Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: If that is so, the Sabbatical Year should count for him as part of his tally of years, as at least there is produce outside of Eretz Yisrael. Rav Kahana said to him: The Sabbatical Year is an abrogation of the King, i.e., God. Therefore, it should not be included in the number of the years before land is repurchased.
אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא אלא מעתה שביעית לא תעלה לו מן הגירוע אלמה תנן נותן סלע ופונדיון לשנה אמר ליה שאני התם דחזיא למישטחא בה פירי Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: If that is so, that the Sabbatical Year is entirely disregarded, then in the case of one who consecrates his field and wants to redeem it, the Sabbatical Year should not count for him for the deduction of the price of the field when it is redeemed. Why did we learn in a mishna (Arakhin 25a) that the one who consecrated his field gives a sela and a pundeyon coin, which is worth 16 perutot, to the Temple treasury for each year remaining until the Jubilee Year, including the Sabbatical Year, in accordance with the payment prescribed by the Torah (see Leviticus 27:16–19)? The amount to be paid per year, which is fifty shekels divided by the years remaining until the Jubilee Year, should not take the upcoming Sabbatical Years into account. Ravina said to him: There it is different, as it is suitable for laying out produce on it. Although one may not plant the field during the Sabbatical Year, one may use it for other purposes.
אמר שמואל לא שנו אלא שזרעה וצמחה ואכלה חגב אבל לא זרעה כלל לא דאמר ליה אילו זרעתה הוה מקיים בי (תהלים לז, יט) לא יבשו בעת רעה ובימי רעבון ישבעו Shmuel said: They taught the halakha that if there is a regional disaster the cultivator subtracts from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy only if the tenant planted the field and it sprouted and then grasshoppers consumed it, or if he planted it with a different seed, but if he did not plant it at all, the tenant is not entitled to subtract from the amount he owes even if there was a regional disaster. This is because the owner can say to him: Had you planted it, perhaps my merit would have prevented the field from being affected by the epidemic, and the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: “They will not be shamed in the time of evil, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied” (Psalms 37:19).
מתיב רב ששת רועה שהיה רועה והניח עדרו ובא לעיר ובא זאב וטרף ובא ארי ודרס אין אומרים אילו היה שם היה מציל אלא אומדין אותו אם יכול להציל חייב ואם לאו פטור ואמאי נימא ליה אי הוית התם הוה מקיים בי (שמואל א יז, לו) גם את הארי גם (את) הדוב הכה עבדך Rav Sheshet raises an objection from a baraita: In the case of a shepherd who was herding the animals of others, and he left his flock and came to the town, and in the meantime a wolf came and tore an animal to pieces, or a lion came and trampled one of the flock, we do not say definitively that had he been there he would have rescued them and therefore he is liable due to his absence. Rather, the court estimates with regard to him: If he could have rescued his animal by chasing a beast of this kind away, he is liable, as his departure from the scene was certainly a contributing factor to the damage. If not, he is exempt from liability. According to Shmuel’s opinion, why is the shepherd exempt from liability? Let the owner say to him: Had you been there, the following verse would have been fulfilled for me: “Your servant smote both the lion and the bear” (I Samuel 17:36).
משום דאמר ליה אי הוית חזית לאיתרחושי לך ניסא הוה איתרחיש לך ניסא כר' חנינא בן דוסא דמתיין עיזי דובי בקרנייהו ונימא ליה נהי דלניסא רבה לא הוה חזינא לניסא זוטא The Gemara answers: This is because the shepherd could say to the owner: If you were worthy of a miracle occurring to you, a miracle would have indeed occurred to you as it did to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, when his goats brought bears impaled on their horns without any assistance on the part of a shepherd (see Ta’anit 25a). The Gemara asks: And let the owner say to him: Granted that I was not worthy of a great miracle, but of a small miracle