Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so. A story is told of Raba bar Rav Huna who refused to cut his trees down. Although he was justified in his argument, Raba bar Rav Nachman came by without checking into the situation properly and had them cut down. Raba bar Rav Huna cursed him and the curse was fulfilled. Which communal responsibilities are rabbis exempt from and for which are they liable? Those who benefit from a river or a gutter need to share in the expenses to fix it up if it directly affects their field. A neighbor has the right to buy the property adjacent to his house/field and can even force a purchaser to sell it to him/her. This law is derived from the verse in Devarim 6:18, "Do what is right and good in the eyes of God." The Gemara discusses in detail the nuances of this law. In which cases does this law not apply? If the neighbor does not want to purchase the land, who else receives higher priority for purchasing the land?

If a landowner expects the sharecropper to plant a certain crop, can the sharecropper change to a different crop? This question hinges on whether the change benefits or harms the field in the long term. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel disagrees with the rabbis and forbids any change. The Gemara suggests possible explanations of why he forbids it. The first explanation is rejected but the second is accepted. Rav Yehuda teaches Ravin three halakhot/advice regarding fields. One can steal cress that grows between flax plants, as it is detrimental to the growth of the flax. Another teaching addresses trees that grow on the border between two neighbors, explaining who has the right to eat the fruits and on what does it depend. Additionally, he advises that it is best not to have a field close to the city. There are contradictory sources regarding whether or not it is preferable to have fields close to the city. One source says it will bring an ayin hara, implying that proximity to the city might attract jealousy or negative attention. Another source says it is preferable as it is convenient, providing easier access. The reconciliation of these sources depends on whether one has put up a wall around the field, blocking the view of others. Verses from Devarim 28:3 and 6 regarding blessings that come upon a person in the city, in the field, when returning home and when leaving, are extrapolated with advice and recommendations. These verses provide practical guidance for living a blessed and healthy life. Five explanations are brought for the verse in Devarim 7:15 - "God will remove all disease" - to elucidate what is meant by "all disease." Rav says it refers to the ayin hara. Shmuel says it is the wind that gets into the body. Rabbi Chanina says it is the cold. Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina says it is excrement of the nose and ear. Rabbi Eliezer says it is the gall bladder. If one eats bread and water in the morning, it prevents sickness of the gall bladder. They attribute thirteen benefits to eating bread in the morning, highlighting this practice's importance in maintaining health. Rav Yehuda advised Rav Ada who was a measurer. Make sure to be exacting, as any piece of land, even small, can be used to plant something valuable. Four cubits of space should be left bare near the irrigation channel, but since it is only for individual use, one can estimate it, and it can be even less than four cubits. However, on the edge of one's field near the side of the river, one must leave four cubits of space for public use and should estimate generously. Those who own land near the river should cut all trees along the river's edge to allow those who pull in the boats to have space to do so.

Today's daf is sponsored by Jill and Jeff Shames in loving memory of Jill's father, Bill Baker, Zev Velvel ben Reuven v'Chana. "We were blessed to have him in our lives until three years ago. Dad, may you continue to shepp nachat from your children, your children's children and your children's children's children. We miss you." 
A sharecropper (chokher) who cultivates another's land may face scenarios where the agreed-upon payment is adjusted if a plague of locusts or a windblast ruins the crops. Various theological arguments, generally protecting the landowner, influence these adjustments. For instance, if the sharecropper plants a different crop than agreed upon, the landowner can argue that their prayers were for the original crop, suggesting divine intervention might have spared it. A tannaitic source on the laws of repurchasing an ancestral field, raises a difficulty about the definitions of what is considered a natural disaster (according to Rav Yehuda and Ulla) but these are resolved. Shmuel's ruling highlights that a sharecropper is not exempt from paying if the sharecropper did not plant the field, as the landowner can claim it might have been spared due to the landowner's merits. This contrasts with the case of a shepherd abandoning a flock, where liability depends on whether the shepherd could realistically have saved the flock, without expecting miraculous intervention. Regarding the sharecropper's duty to replant, the debate between Rebbi and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel on chazaka (establishment through occurrences) is relevant. Depending on their views, the sharecropper would be exempt from replanting after two or three destructive events. If crops fail to grow at all, the sharecropper must replant repeatedly until the planting season ends. Rabbi Yehuda stated that a sharecropper committed to pay in money, not crops, does not deduct for regional disasters. However, Rava clarified that this view is not upheld. The sharecropper's payment comes from the field's crops, regardless of their quality compared to market standards - for better or for worse.

Rava discusses more issues regarding a heiter iska. If a sharecropper who pays a fixed amount to the owner is not permitted to decide not to weed the field, for various reasons cited in the Mishna and Gemara. If one sharecrops for percentages and there is very little yield, the sharecropper does not assume responsibility. However, there is a minimum amount. What is that amount? The Gemara digresses to measurements in other areas of halakha including ritual impurity, particularly cases in which Rabbi Yannai takes a position. One who works in another's land as a chokher and a plague or windblast ruins the crops - in which scenarios can the chokher pay less than the agreed upon amount?

If a sharecropper agrees to work an irrigated field and the river dries up, can the sharecropper deduct something from the payment to the owner, as the work is more difficult than expected? On what does it depend? If one agrees to sharecrop for a percentage of the yield and decides not to work the land, one still needs the landowner according to the agreed-upon percentage calculated at what the field should have yielded. Rabbi Meir says this is common law that became halakha as it is derived from the commonly used language in sharecropper contracts, as we doresh lashon hedyot. There are various interpretations of what this means and several cases in which this principle is used. If a sharecropper said, "If I don't work the land I will pay you one thousand zuzim," there is a disagreement about whether this is binding, as it seems like it was just an exaggeration, asmachta, which would render it meaningless. Rava explains several details regarding a heiter iska - how it works and how it is meant to protect the investor's rights. A heiter iska allows one to invest money for someone else in a way that they can share the profits while avoiding issues of interest. It is set up in a way that a loss will be split 50/50 but gains 2/3 to the borrower (the one investing the money) and 1/3 to the investor. Therefore, if one splits one investment into two documents, there can be a loss for the investor if one yields profits and the other a loss.  If two investment are combined into one document, it can cause a loss for the borrower.

If the landlord claims that the tenant hasn't paid rent and the tenant claims they already paid, the tenant takes an oath verifying their claim and is exempt from payment. If a rental contract was written for a specific amount of years, but no date was included in the contract, even though the contract is in the hands of the tenant, since the landlord is the one who has original rights to the land, if the landlord and tenant disagree about the end date of the contract, the landlord is believed. Why does this case differ from one where the lender brings a promissory note to the borrower who claims that half was already paid? If one lends a vessel to a friend to be used by the friend while the vessel is "in good shape" forever, the friend can continue to borrow it multiple times, even after returning it, if they performed a kinyan sudar regarding the arrangement. Rava and Rav Papa discuss other cases where one lent items to another to be used in a specific manner - what is included within each phrase? If one rents a house to another, and the house falls, the landlord needs to provide another house. In what ways does it need to be the same as the original house that was rented? The month chapter begins with the laws of sharecroppers - both arisim and chakhirim. The expectations of how they will work in the field depend on the local custom. Which costs are to be covered by the landowner and which by the sharecropper?