Si on a reçu un terrain de son voisin [en location — tant et tant de korin], et il a été mangé par les sauterelles ou —Si c'était «un fléau de la terre» [c'est-à-dire, si la plupart des champs de cette terre ont été dévastés ou détruits], il déduit de sa location. Si ce n'était pas "un fléau de la terre", il ne déduit pas de sa location, [car il (le propriétaire) lui dit: "C'est votre malchance."] R. Yehudah dit: S'il l'a reçu de lui pour (paiement en) argent, dans les deux cas, [même s'il s'agissait d'un fléau de la terre], il ne déduit pas, [car le "décret" n'est pas allé contre l'argent.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
המקבל שדה – in tenancy for a fixed amount – such-and-such korim.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
If one leased a field from his fellow and the locusts devoured the crop or it was blasted [by strong winds which caused the grain to be prematurely separated from the stalks], if it was a region-wide mishap he may reduce the amount of the rental agreement. If it was not a region-wide mishap, he may not reduce the amount of the rental agreement. Rabbi Judah says: “If he had leased it from him for a fixed amount of money, in neither case may he reduce the amount of the rental agreement.” In the scenario in our mishnah, the sharecropper’s crops are destroyed by either locusts or strong winds. If the sharecropper had promised to give the owner a percentage of the crops, then he may continue to do so, even if it turns out that the owner received nothing. This scenario is not even discussed in our mishnah. If, however, he promised the owner a fixed amount in return, in either crops or money, he will have a problem, since he did not grow enough crops to pay back the owner. This is the scenario discussed in the mishnah. According to the mishnah, if the locusts or the strong winds effected the entire region he may reduce the amount paid back. If, however, the locusts or strong winds effected only his field, he must still pay the owner back the full amount. According to Rabbi Judah, if the amount owed to the owner was fixed in money and not in crops, then the sharecropper must pay his full share in any case, even if the crops were destroyed by a region-wide plague. Since the money is considered to be separate from the field, it is unaffected by what happens to the field.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
מכת מדינה – that a grasshopper ate or that most of the fields of that province or of that valley were emptied of grain.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Bava Metzia
Questions for Further Thought: • Mishnah six: Why is the sharecropper allowed to reduce the payments to the owner only if it was a region wide problem that ruined his crops? What might the mishnah be suspicious of if the locusts or winds ruined only his crops?
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
אינו מנכה – as he said to him: “your luck caused this.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Bava Metzia
בין כך ובין כך – even if it is a disaster affecting the entire province, he does not deduct, for on the money, one does not make a decree.
