Sechirut - Chapter 8

I.e., the renter agrees to pay this amount regardless of the amount of produce he harvests from the field that year.

Literally, a recipient - i.e., a sharecropper.

This is the Rambam’s opinion. The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 320:3) quote opinions that state that the owner of the field has no responsibilities toward a chocher.

E. g., a fence and the trench that surrounds the fence. (See Hilchot Mechirah 21:22.)

For when a person rents out a field, it is expected that the field be secure and protected. For without this, it is of no value (Bava Metzia 103b).

These extra measures save the renter the difficulty of laboring to protect his property. Therefore, they are his responsibility (ibid.).

The intent is that the owner is responsible to provide any tools that are absolutely necessary for working the land. See Tur (Choshen Mishpat 320).

For they are merely a convenience, so that the renter will not have to carry water from the well to the crops.

I.e., less than seven. As evident from his statements in Halachah 1, according to the Rambam, these laws also apply with regard to a chocher.
Rashi (Bava Metzia 109a) states that this ruling applies only to a chocher, but not to a sharecropper. For in the case of a sharecropper, the owner will receive a larger profit from the flax and therefore he is willing to tolerate the depletion of his land. Although this view is mentioned by the Tur, it is not mentioned by the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 325:1) or the Ramah.

As the Rambam states in his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 9:9), the roots of the flax plant remain in the land for a long time and deplete it of its nutrients.
The Maggid Mishneh states that this ruling applies only when the renter does not state which crops he will be sowing in the field. If, however, he tells the owner that he will be sowing flax, he may do so despite the fact that this depletes the land.

For the nutrients of the land will be replenished by the time the contract is concluded.

I.e., in Eretz Yisrael, for only there is the seventh year observed.

Thus, he actually receives the land for eight years. The rationale is that his intent in saying seven years is that he has seven years to harvest crops. Therefore, the Sabbatical year is not counted, because it is forbidden to work the land that year.

Because the wording implies that span of time and not the amount of years the owner will actually work the land.

From which every person in the area draws water for their fields.

He must pay the same sum of money or crops, or the same percentage as originally agreed. It is true that the stroke of adversity made the renter’s task much more difficult. Nevertheless, since this difficulty did not affect all the fields in the area, we attribute the hardship to the renter’s lack of good fortune and require him to bear the consequences.
One might think that the renter agreed to pay the price stated because he expected to irrigate his field from the spring. Nevertheless, since he did not explicitly state this condition, he is required to pay the full amount. If, however, the renter made it clear that he was relying on the spring for his water supply, he may reduce his payments if it dries up.

And the sharecropper. One might think that in the case of the sharecropper, there is no need to reduce his payments, for the owner receives a percentage of the crops - and if the entire yield is small, the owner’s share will also be reduced. The Rambam, however, has granted more inclusive consideration to the sharecropper. Since the sharecropper made a large investment of both money and work, it is not appropriate that he should receive the same share of a small crop as a large crop. For then, he will certainly suffer a loss or at the very least, gain a small amount of profit. In order to recompense him for his labor justly, in these specific instances he is granted a larger share than originally agreed upon. (See Merchevet HaMishneh.)
There are, however, authorities (the Ramban and the Rashba) who differ and maintain that this law applies only to a chocher who pays a fixed amount of produce. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 321:1) quotes the Rambam’s ruling, while the Ramah mentions the other opinions.

For in such an instance, the loss cannot be attributed to the individual misfortune of the renter. Even if the field had remained in the hands of the owner, a similar loss would have been suffered.

The Tur and the Ramah (loc. cit.:2) quote opinions that state that this law does not apply if the stream does not dry up entirely (although its flow is drastically reduced) or if the majority of the trees in an orchard were cut down, but enough remained so that the grove could be called an orchard.

For otherwise, it would not have been necessary for him to say “this field.” Since he was standing in the field, it is clear which field he was referring to.

From the Rambam’s wording, it would appear that the same rulings apply regardless of whether the statement is made by the owner or the renter. The Tur and the Ramah differ, however, and maintain that this ruling applies only if the statement was made by the owner. If the statement was made by the renter, the field must remain in its present condition; otherwise, he may reduce the rental.

As explained above, since the blight is widespread, it is obviously not dependent on the renter’s misfortune alone.

For this is obviously the renter’s individual misfortune.

I.e., even those that were not rented out.

And thus, one could say that it was the bad fortune of the land owner and not the renter that brought the blight. Bava Metzia 106a explains that if the matter involved merely the misfortune of the owner of the fields, it is likely that he would not have suffered a total loss, for even when God executes retribution, He does so with a measure of mercy.

Since all of the renter’s fields were ravaged, we assume that it is his personal misfortune. And we see that since nothing of his remained, he was not worthy of God’s mercies.

Since the renter deviated from the stipulation, he is required to bear the loss. Although the majority of the fields were affected, it is possible that if he had done his part, his crops would have succeeded.

Everything depends on the local conditions. There are no universal rules.

With a scythe, leaving the roots in the ground.

Pulling the roots out of the ground entirely.

If the custom is to cut down the crops, the owner can prevent the renter from uprooting them, arguing that he desires that the roots be left in the ground to serve as fertilizer for his field. If the owner desires that the crops be uprooted, the renter can protest, explaining that cutting them down involves far less work than uprooting them.
If the custom is to uproot the crops, the owner can prevent the renter from cutting them down, arguing that he is not concerned with fertilizing his field and desires that it be left clean entirely. If the owner desires that the crops be cut down, the renter can protest, explaining that he desires the roots to use as food for his livestock (Bava Metzia 103b).

To clean the field of any weeds. Even if the renter weeded the field while the crops were growing, he must plow it to destroy any roots of the weeds that might be left (ibid.)..

And the renter may benefit from their fruit, although caring for the trees requires a minimal amount of effort (Maggid Mishneh).

We do not accept the owner’s claim that he took a lower price because he retained the right to the trees [Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 320:5)]. For him to retain such a right, he would have to state so explicitly.

We do not accept the renter’s claim that he paid a higher price to include the trees.

As mentioned on several occasions, this is a fundamental principle in Jewish business law. An explicit stipulation is necessary to deviate from these norms.

This applies to both a chocher, a person who rents a field for a specific amount of produce and a mekabel, a sharecropper. The chocher would have to purchase crops from the market place if the field did not produce the sum agreed upon. Nevertheless, as long as the field does produce grain, the owner is obligated to accept it (Maggid Mishneh).

I.e., the grain produce was of lower quality than usual.

Although by doing so, the owner will be suffering a loss, for the wheat he receives will be of a lower quality than expected.

Even though doing so will bring the owner a greater profit.
This is the positive and the negative side of sharecropping. The owner of the field is paid with the produce of the field itself.

Even though they became sour. As long as the produce comes from the field, the owner must accept it even though it is of lower quality. He cannot claim that it is the chocher’s fault that the quality was reduced.

For the grapes were removed from the field to make wine. Therefore, the responsibility for the entire loss is the renter's. For we say that it occurred because of his bad fortune (Sefer Me'irat Einayim 323:3).

The Aramaic term used by the Rambam is aspasta. According to the Maggid Mishneh, the translation would be cattle fodder. Others translate it as “clover,” but that does not appear to be the intent here.

Cattle fodder grows faster than grain, requiring only one month.

Which is of lower quality. The renter is required to purchase other fodder, because the owner did not expect him to sow the field with another crop first.

When a field is not weeded, it produces fewer crops, because the soil’s nutrients are sapped by the weeds. Nevertheless, the renter argues that he - and not the owner - will bear the loss. For he is required to pay the owner a fixed amount, regardless of how much grain the field produces.

When the renter finally leaves the field, the owner will suffer a loss, because the value of his field will have deteriorated.
As the Maggid Mishneh states, this ruling applies in a place where it is customary for a renter to weed the field. If that is not the local custom, the renter is not obligated to undertake that effort.

I.e., at the termination of my contract.

And thus remove the weeds.

For the weeds will already have produced seeds that will grow the following year even if the plants and their roots are destroyed.

Rashi (Bava Metzia 106b) states that this ruling applies only to a chocher, but not to a sharecropper. The Maggid Mishneh maintains that the Rambam would not accept this ruling. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 324:1) quotes both views without stating which the halachah follows. See also the notes on Halachah 3.

This follows the version of Bava Metzia 9:8 cited by Rabbi Yitzchak Alfasi. The standard printed text of the Talmud reverses the subjects of these two clauses. The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat, loc. cit.) follows the Rambam’s ruling, while the Ramah cites the standard text of the Talmud.
In his Commentary on the Mishnah, the Rambam sums up the general principle: “If the renter agreed to plow the land and sow a particular crop, he may sow another crop that damages the field less, but not one that damages it more. [To determine this,] we go to the experts who know the nature of the land of that particular place.”

I.e., less than seven, as obvious from the second clause.

The Ramban and others maintain that this ruling applies only to a sharecropper and not to a chocher. Rashi, however, does not accept this conception; see the notes to Halachah 3.

I.e., he does not receive any share at all. Even in places where he is entitled to reap the produce of the trees (see Halachah 6), he is not granted a share of the wood.

Our translation is based on the Rambam’ s Commentary on the Mishnah (Demai 1:1). The figs grown on such trees are usually not of high quality.
It takes seven years for the boughs of these trees to become thick enough to be used for lumber. Thus, if the renter cut down some of the boughs during his rental period, he would not be returning the trees in the same condition as he rented them.

I.e., without being planted or cultivated.

When renting the field, the renter had one objective - to sow crops in the field and reap the profits. Therefore, he is not granted a share in these profits that come about without his efforts.

And the amount of rent he is required to pay is reduced accordingly.
The Tur and the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 325:1) quote the opinion of Tosafot, who maintain that the Rambam’ s ruling applies only in a place where the sharecropper would have preferred to have planted his crops. If, however, he would have willingly planted trees there, he is given a share of the trees.

E. g., a rocky or a sandy area.

For the growth of the trees did not cause him any loss.

For during the period of his rental, boughs large enough to be cut down have grown.

I.e., they need to ripen in the ground for a little longer.

I.e., he is given the same share of their worth as he would be given if they were sold.

According to the same percentages.

For that is useful for animal fodder and other purposes.

They are used to lift up the vines, so that the clusters of grapes will not lie on the ground and be spoiled.

In his Commentary on the Mishnah (Bava Metzia 9:1), the Rambam states that the cost of these rods should be evenly divided between the sharecropper and the owner.

This represents the version of Bava Batra 95a possessed by the Rambam and his teacher, the Ri Migash. The standard printed text of that passage reads “ten from me’ah (one hundred)” and not “ten from a se’ah.” The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 330:1) quotes the Rambam’s text, while the Tur and the Ramah quote the standard version.

I.e., an area 50 cubits by 50 cubits. It is logical to assume that such a percentage of the crop will not be viable.

Since a larger than ordinary percentage of the crop was not viable, we assume that the loss came about because of the sharecropper’s negligence. Therefore, we make a further assumption and postulate that, had he not been negligent, the entire crop would have been good (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 330:2).

This law does not apply with regard to a chocher. Since he is required to pay the owner a fixed amount regardless of the yield of the field, the prerogative is his. He may choose to work or not.

Against his will. Even if he personally desires to save himself the effort and refrain from tending to the crop and harvesting it, he is required to do so.

In his gloss on the following halachah, the Maggid Mishneh states that even if the statement the Rambam refers to is not explicitly stated in the contract, it is considered as if it were, for this is the standard sharecropping agreement. The Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 328:1) quotes that comment in his gloss on this law.

Less than two se’ah is not sufficient to make a grain heap. Hence, he is not bound by the original agreement (Maggid Mishneh).

Through a kinyan that establishes a binding commitment that he cannot retract.

As mentioned, the Maggid Mishneh states that even if this statement is not explicitly stated in the contract, it is considered as if it were, for this is the standard sharecropping agreement.

I.e., seemingly his commitment is an asmachta, a stipulation that the sharecropper made without expecting to fulfill. As the Rambam writes in Hilchot Mechirah 11:6:
All the conditions that people establish between themselves, even when confirmed by witnesses and a legal document- [e.g.,] “If such and such will take place...” or “If you do such and such, I will give you a maneh,” or “... I will transfer ownership of this house to you, but if this does not take place...” or “if you do not do [such and such], I will not transfer ownership,” or “... I will not give you,” [are considered to be asmachta’ot].
Even though [the potential recipient] performs the [desired] action, or the event takes place, he does not acquire [the promised article]. For his opinion is [undefined, being] dependent on whether or not the stipulation will be met.

For he did not have in mind to make such a payment.

For this is a fair agreement, recompensing the owner for the loss that he might suffer.

I.e., an amount far above the loss that the owner might suffer.

For he is not seriously committing himself to making such a payment.

For as mentioned above, whether or not this condition is stated, it is an unspoken rule of sharecropping agreements (Sefer Me’irat Einayim 328:3).

Which is less valuable than sesame seeds.

I.e., he may have desired the sesame seeds, and therefore, he will have complaints against the renter for changing his mind. Nevertheless, since he received the same monetary value as he would have received, the renter is not under any financial obligation.