About this episode
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.