Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran Michelle Cohen Farber

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?

This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in loving memory of Miriam Quint David on her 8th yahrzeit. "Proud mother and grandmother; passionate Jewish educator; pastry, ice cream and needlework enthusiast."
Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva Pava in loving memory of her father's family who arrived at Auschwitz only a few days before Shavuot. "His mother, Batsheva, and son, Moshe Meshel and daughter, Adle, were taken to the crematoria only hours after arrival. My grandmother was a big baalat tzedaka. My father used to say that if he did not hide his pants at night she would give them away to a poor person. Hashem yinkom damam."
Today's daf is dedicated to Noa Argamani, Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov and Shlomi Ziv who were rescued from captivity, and in memory of Arnon Zemira who was killed in the rescue mission. We are thrilled at the return of the hostages, but, at the same time, we mourn the loss of Arnon and pray for the safe return of the remaining 120 hostages.


The responsibility for putting up a mezuza is on the renter, and the renter cannot remove the mezuza when leaving, unless the house belongs to a gentile. Items that come into the courtyard of the landlord, such as dung of animals who come into the courtyard, belong to the landlord, even if someone is renting the house, as the standard house rental does not include the courtyard. This explanation of the Mishna can be used to support Rabbi Yossi son of Rabbi Chanina's statement that an item that enters one's courtyard is acquired by the owner, even without their knowledge. Three tannaitic sources are quoted to raise a difficulty with Rabbi Yossi's opinion.  If one rents for a year and the year becomes a leap year, is the rental of the extra month included in the original price or does the renter need to pay extra? According to the Mishna, this depends on whether the agreement was for months or a year. If the agreement mentions both months and years, the Mishna rules that the money of the leap year month is divided. Rav disagrees with this opinion and Shmuel and Rav Nachman offer opinions as well. 

If a river uprooted a tree and placed it in someone else's field, can the owner take it back? What if someone planted a tree on someone's property without the owner's knowledge? Does the one who planted receive payment for their work and how much? Would the law be the same for a house one built in someone else's ruin without the property owner's knowledge? How much advance notice is required for a landlord to a renter before kicking out the renter from the landlord's property? The answer depends on the time of year (affected by supply and demand), whether it was in a city or village, whether it was a store or a residence, and what type of store it was. What cases are exceptions to the rule in which no notice is required?