בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת וּבַקָּנִים, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים.

the branches pruned from the vines and the poles. And the two of them, i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both supply the poles.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנָא: מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִקְצוֹר – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר – אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר, וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

GEMARA: It was taught in a baraita: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot it, and in a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, he is not permitted to cut it. And the two of them, i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom.

לִקְצוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, הַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּתִתַּבַּן לִי אַרְעַאי, וְהַאי אָמַר: לָא מָצֵינָא. לַעֲקוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר, הַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא דְּתִינַּקַּר אַרְעַאי, וְהַאי אָמַר: בָּעֵינָא תִּיבְנָא.

The Gemara explains the baraita: In a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot the produce even if he wants to, because this one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce cut, can say: I want my land to be fertilized with stubble, i.e., the remains of the plants. And if the owner wants him to uproot the produce, that one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can say: I cannot uproot the produce, since that is too labor intensive. Similarly, if the custom is to uproot the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to cut it even if he wants to, because this one, i.e., the owner, who wants the produce uprooted, can say: I want my land to be cleared of stubble. And if the owner wants him to cut the produce, that one, i.e., the one cultivating the field, can say: I want to uproot what remains so that I can use the stubble.

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה, לְמָה לִי? מַה טַּעַם קָאָמַר: מַה טַּעַם לִקְצוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לַעֲקוֹר, לַעֲקוֹר אֵינוֹ רַשַּׁאי לִקְצוֹר – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְעַכְּבִין זֶה עַל זֶה.

The baraita teaches: And the two of them, i.e., the owner and the one cultivating the field, can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom. The Gemara asks: Why do I need this statement and what is its purpose? The Gemara answers that the baraita is saying what the reason is for its ruling: What is the reason that in a location where those cultivating the land were accustomed to cut the produce, the one cultivating this field is not permitted to uproot the produce, and in a location where they were accustomed to uproot the produce, he is not permitted to cut it? It is because the two of them can each prevent the other from deviating from the custom, as each has a justified reason for opposing the deviation desired by the other.

לַחְרוֹשׁ אַחֲרָיו – יַחְרֹשׁ. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא: בְּאַתְרָא דְּלָא מְנַכְּשִׁי – וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְנַכֵּישׁ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דְּנַכֵּישְׁנָא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּלָא כָּרֵיבְנָא לַהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

The mishna teaches: If they were accustomed to plow the land after harvesting the produce, this cultivator must plow as well. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that he cannot deviate from the custom? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for the situation of a place where the custom is not to weed the fields, and the one cultivating this field went and weeded anyway. Lest you say that he could say to the landowner: When I weeded the field, I did so with the intention of not plowing it subsequently. Therefore, he should not be obligated to plow it. To counter this, the mishna teaches us that the renter should have specified this intention explicitly to the landowner beforehand in order to exempt him from the requirement to plow.

הַכֹּל כְּמִנְהַג הַמְּדִינָה. ״הַכֹּל״ לְאֵתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵתוֹיֵי הָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר אִילָנוֹת עַל גַּבֵּי קַרְקַע – מַשְׂכִּירִין, מָקוֹם שֶׁאֵין נָהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר – אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין.

The mishna teaches: All farming of the land shall be conducted in accordance with regional custom. The Gemara asks: What is added by the use of the term all? The Gemara answers: It serves to add that which the Sages taught: In a location where landowners were accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruits despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be rented out. In a location where landowners were not accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are not presumed to be rented out.

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לְהַשְׂכִּיר מַשְׂכִּירִין – פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא יָהֲבִי בְּתִילְתָּא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְיַהֲבֵיהּ בְּרִיבְעָא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּבְצַרִי לָךְ, אַדַּעְתָּא דְּלָא יָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ בָּאִילָנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

The baraita teaches: In a location where landowners were accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land so that the one cultivating the field receives a share of the fruit despite not needing to care for the trees, the trees are presumed to be rented out. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling in order to include the case where everyone in that region gives land to sharecroppers to cultivate in return for one-third of the yield, and he, the landowner, went and gave it for one-quarter. Lest you say that the landowner can say to him: This concession on my part, that I reduced my portion of the yield for you, was done with the intention that I would not give you a share of the fruits of the trees in the field, the baraita teaches us that the landowner should have specified this to him in advance.

מָקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׂכִּיר – אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מְקַבְּלִי בְּרִיבְעָא, וַאֲזַל אִיהוּ וְקַיבְּלַהּ בְּתִילְתָּא. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי דִּטְפַאי לָךְ אַדַּעְתָּא דִּיהַבְתְּ לִי בְּאִילָנוֹת, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְפָרוֹשֵׁי לֵיהּ.

The baraita teaches: In a location where landowners were not accustomed to rent out the trees in a field together with the land, and the one cultivating the field does not receive a share of the fruits, the trees are not presumed to be rented out. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state this ruling in order to include the case where all the cultivators in that region receive land in return for giving one-quarter of the yield to the owner, and this cultivator went and received the land in return for giving one-third of the yield to the owner. Lest you say that the cultivator can say to him: This concession on my part, that I added to your portion, was done with the intention that you would also give me a share of the fruit from the trees, the baraita teaches us that the cultivator should have specified this to him in advance.

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בִּתְבוּאָה – כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בְּתֶבֶן וּבְקַשׁ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בְּבָבֶל נְהִיגוּ דְּלָא יָהֲבִי תִּיבְנָא לַאֲרִיסָא. לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? דְּאִי אִיכָּא אִינִישׁ דְּיָהֵיב – עַיִן יָפָה הוּא וְלָא גָּמְרִינַן מִינֵּיהּ.

§ The mishna teaches: Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the produce, so too the halakha is that they divide the stubble and the straw. Rav Yosef said with regard to this statement: In Babylonia those who enter into such arrangements are accustomed not to give stubble to the sharecropper. The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference resulting from the assertion that this is the practice in Babylonia? The Gemara answers: The difference is that if there is a person in Babylonia who gives the sharecropper the stubble in addition to the produce, it is considered merely as though he has a generous disposition, but we do not learn from his actions that this is the general practice.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: בּוּכְרָא וְטָפְתָא וְאַרְכַּבְתָּא וּקְנֵי דְחִיזְרָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, וְחִזְרָא גּוּפֵיהּ דַּאֲרִיסָא. כְּלָלָא דְמִילְּתָא: כֹּל עִיקַּר בְּלָמָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, נְטִירוּתָא יַתִּירְתָּא – דַּאֲרִיסָא. וְאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מָרָא וּזְבִילָא וְדַוְולָא וְזַרְנוּקָא – דְּבַעַל הַבַּיִת, אֲרִיסָא עָבֵיד בֵּי יְאוֹרֵי.

Rav Yosef says: The first, second, and third elements of the earthen barrier surrounding the field and the poles used to support a thorn fence are the responsibility of the owner of the land, but the fashioning of the thorn fence itself is the responsibility of the sharecropper. The Gemara explains: The principle of the matter is that the main part of the boundary of the field is the responsibility of the owner of the land, while any additional protection required is the responsibility of the sharecropper. Rav Yosef says: The hoe and the shovel and the bucket and the irrigation device must be provided by the owner of the land, while the sharecropper must make the irrigation channels.

כְּשֵׁם שֶׁחוֹלְקִין בַּיַּיִן – כָּךְ חוֹלְקִין בַּזְּמוֹרוֹת וּבַקָּנִים. קָנִים מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיְיהוּ? אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: קָנִים הַמּוּחְלָקִין, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַעֲמִידִין אֶת הַגְּפָנִים.

The mishna teaches: Just as the halakha is that the owner of the field and the one cultivating it divide the wine, so too the halakha is that they divide the branches pruned from the vines and the poles. The Gemara asks: What is the purpose of the poles used for the vines? They said in the school of Rabbi Yannai: This is referring to long poles that were divided in half, with which they support the vines.

וּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים. לְמָה לִי? מָה טַעַם קָאָמַר: מָה טַעַם שְׁנֵיהֶם חוֹלְקִין בַּקָּנִים – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁנֵיהֶם מְסַפְּקִין אֶת הַקָּנִים.

The mishna teaches: And the two of them, i.e., the landowner and the one cultivating the field, both supply the poles. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to state this? The Gemara answers that the mishna is saying what the reason is for its ruling: What is the reason that the two of them divide the poles? It is because the two of them supply the poles.

מַתְנִי׳ הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ וְהִיא בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין, אוֹ בֵּית הָאִילָן, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן – אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ. אִם אָמַר לוֹ: ״חֲכוֹר לִי שָׂדֶה בֵּית הַשְּׁלָחִין זוֹ״ אוֹ ״שְׂדֵה בֵּית הָאִילָן זֶה״, יָבַשׁ הַמַּעְיָן וְנִקְצַץ הָאִילָן – מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מֵחֲכוֹרוֹ.

MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and it is an irrigated field or a field with trees, if the spring that irrigated the field dried up or the trees were cut down, he does not subtract from the produce he owes the owner as part of his tenancy, despite the fact that he presumably considered these factors when agreeing to cultivate the field. But if the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy.

גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דִּיבַשׁ נַהֲרָא רַבָּה, אַמַּאי אֵינוֹ מְנַכֶּה לוֹ מִן חֲכוֹרוֹ? נֵימָא לֵיהּ: מַכַּת מְדִינָה הִיא! אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: דִּיבַשׁ נַהֲרָא זוּטָא, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ:

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the ruling of the mishna? If we say that the large river from which all the channels originate dried up, why does he not subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy? Let the cultivator say that it is the result of a regional disaster. Consequently, he should be able to subtract from the produce he owes. Rav Pappa said: The case in the mishna is where a small river that irrigates this field alone dried up, as the landowner can say to him: