פירוש על בבא מציעא 9:7

ולקתה – that the wheat was emptied of grain.

Introduction Mishnayoth seven and eight continue to deal with laws concerning sharecroppers. Mishnah seven teaches that the sharecropper is obligated to pay back the owner with the produce grown in the rented field (and not produce grown somewhere else) and that the owner is obligated to accept this produce as payment (and not demand other produce). Mishnah eight teaches that a sharecropper who rents a field in order to sow it with a certain type of produce may usually not sow it with a different kind of seed.

נותן לו – ten kors that he arranged with him from these wheat that were emptied of grain, and he is not able however to say to him,” I require good-quality wheat from you.”

If one leased a field from his fellow in return for ten kors of wheat a year and it produced bad wheat, he may pay him out of this crop. If [it produced] good wheat he may not say, “I will buy other wheat from the market”, rather he must pay him from the crop of that field. Both clauses in this mishnah essentially teach the same law: a person renting a field in return for a fixed amount of wheat must repay the owner with the wheat that comes from the rented field itself and not with produce coming from another field. This law can work to the advantage of either the renter or the owner. If the produce was of a poor quality the owner of the field will lose out for he cannot demand that the renter pay him back with better wheat. If the wheat was better than average wheat the renter loses out for he may not sell that wheat and buy lesser quality wheat to repay the owner. In other words the rental agreement legally binds the owner to accept the wheat from that field and legally binds the renter to pay back with the wheat from that field.

Questions for Further Thought:
• Mishnah seven: Why does the mishnah teach both clauses? What might you have thought had the mishnah taught only the first clause and not the second? What might you have thought had the mishnah taught only the second clause and not the first?