- Machlokes about a renter’s right to שבח שקמה
The next Mishnah states that if one leases a field for only a few years, לא יזרענה פשתן – he may not plant flax in it, because the soil requires seven years to recover from the damage, ואין לו בקורות שקמה – and he has no right to sycamore beams from the field’s trees, which require seven years to regrow. If he leased the field for seven years, he may plant flax in the first year, and is entitled to that year’s sycamore beams. Abaye says that although a renter for fewer than seven years does not receive sycamore beams, בשבח שקמה יש לו – he has a right to the improvement of the sycamore (i.e., its increased growth), which is considered its produce. Rava says he has no right to its increased growth. Rava was challenged from a Baraisa which is explained to mean that if one buys a field and Yovel arrives, שמין לו – we assess it for him, which means we assess the value he owns in the trees’ increased growth!? Abaye answers on Rava’s behalf that the Torah said: "ויצא ממכר בית" – a house sale shall go out, teaching: ממכר חוזר שבח אינו חוזר – the sale itself returns to the original owner, but the improvement does not return. This law is unique to Yovel, which is a real property sale, and the law to return purchases is אפקעתא דמלכא – a removal by the King (Hashem).
- A planter who agrees to leave if he causes a loss
The Gemara relates that a hired planter once told the owners, אי מפסדינא מסלקנא - “If I cause a loss, I will leave.” He did later cause a loss to some of his improvements, and Rav Yehudah said: מסתלק בלא שבחא – he leaves without any payment for the improvements he made, because that is the intent of the “leaving” to which he agreed. Rav Kahana said that he does receive payment for the improvements (and was only agreeing to leave voluntarily). Rav Kahana agrees that if he said explicitly, “If I cause a loss, I will leave without receiving payment for the improvements,” he is bound by this stipulation. Rava holds even this is not binding, because it is an אסמכתא. The Gemara challenges Rava from a Mishnah, which teaches that a worker who commits to compensate the owner if he leaves the field fallow is bound by his commitment, and answers that in that Mishnah, he is bound to compensate for the actual loss he caused, and here, too, מאי דאפסיד מנכינן ליה – we deduct from his payment whatever loss he caused, ואידך יהבינן ליה – and we give him the rest of his payment.
- Are dead vines פירא or קרנא?
A borrower once gave his vineyard to his lender for ten years, during which time the lender could take its produce, and the loan amount would be reduced. After five years, the vineyard aged and the vines died, which was expected. Abaye said: פירא הוי – [the dead vines] are considered produce and belong to the lender. Rava said: קרנא הוי – they are considered principal (part of the land). וילקח בו קרקע – Therefore, land should be purchased through selling [the vines], והוא אוכל פירות - and [the lender] consumes the produce of the purchased land. Abaye is challenged from a Baraisa which says that if a tree (given as a משכון) dried out and died, it is sold as wood to purchase another field from which the lender will take produce. The Gemara answers that the Baraisa’s case is where it died בלא זמנו – before its time, and the wood was not produce which the lender expected to receive. Therefore, it is considered principal.
