Question: (If a different crop is not a separation), is wheat considered a different crop than barley?

Question: If everyone else's field was stricken by dryness, and Shimon's field was stricken by withering, or vice-versa, what is the law?

These questions are not resolved.

Question: If Shimon told Reuven to plant wheat; and Reuven planted barley, and the crop withered (along with most of the valley), what is the law?

Can Reuven say 'even had I planted wheat, it would have been stricken'?

Or, can Shimon say 'had you planted wheat, "v'Sigzor Omer v'Yakam Lach" (it would have prospered).'

Answer: Presumably, Shimon can say this.

Question: If all of Shimon's fields were stricken, but the majority of the valley was not, what is the law?

Since the majority of the valley was not stricken, Reuven pays the full amount;

Or, since all of Shimon's fields were stricken, it was due to him?

Answer: Presumably, if it was due to Shimon, a little would have remained - "Ki Nisharnu Me'at me'Harbeh."

Question: If all the fields that Reuven rents were stricken, and also the majority of the valley, what is the law?

Since the majority of the valley was stricken, Reuven deducts;

Or, since all of Reuven's fields were stricken, it was due to him?

Answer: Presumably, it was due to Reuven.

Question: We should say that if it were due to Reuven, a little would have remained - "Ki Nisharnu..."!

Answer: If Hash-m wanted to leave a remnant for Reuven, he would leave it on Reuven's property.

Question (Mishnah): If the crops were stricken that year with withering, dryness, or it was Shemitah, or there was a drought like the years when Eliyahu decreed there would be no rain at all, it does not count towards the two years (that one must wait before redeeming a sold field).

Suggestion: The Mishnah teaches years of withering or dryness together with years of Eliyahu. Just like in the years of Eliyahu nothing grew at all, also years of withering or dryness;

However, if some things grow, this is not a region-wide affliction (regarding redemption and rental)!

Answer (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Redemption is different. "Shnei Sevu'os Yimkar" refers to years when there is grain (somewhere).

Question (Rav Ashi): If so, Shemitah should count, for there are harvests in Chutz la'Aretz!

Answer (Rav Kahana): The Torah forbids working the land. It is not a 'year of grain.'

Question (Mar Zutra brei d'Rav Mari): If so, years of Shemitah should not count towards reducing the redemption of a Hekdesh field, but they do!

(Mishnah): If one redeems an inherited field that he made Hekdesh, he pays a Sela and a 48th of a Sela for each year remaining until Yovel (about a 49th of the redemption for all 49 years. Seven of these years are Shemitah!)

Answer (Ravina): One can use the field in Shemitah for spreading out Peros to dry.

(Shmuel): The renter deducts only if he planted and it was afflicted. If he did not plant, the owner can say 'had you planted, my crops would have been spared - "u'Vimei Re'avon Yisba'u".'

Question (Rav Sheshes - Beraisa): If a shepherd was grazing his flock, and he left it and went to the city, and a wolf or lion came and killed some of the flock, we do not say that had he stayed he (surely) would have saved. Rather, we estimate. If he could have saved, he is liable; if not, he is exempt.

Why can't the owner say 'had you been there, you would have saved them miraculously - "Gam Es ha'Ari... Hikah Avdecha"!'

Answer: The shepherd can say 'if you were worthy of a miracle, it would have happened in my absence.

The goats of R. Chanina ben Dosa killed bears that came to attack.

Question: Why can't the owner say 'had you been there, you would have saved them with a small miracle. I am not worthy of a big miracle (i.e. that they should be saved in your absence)'?

This is left difficult.

(Beraisa #1): The first two times, the renter must plant. The third time, he need not.

Contradiction (Beraisa #2): The first three times, the renter must plant. The fourth time, he need not.

Answer: Beraisa #1 is Rebbi, who says that a Chazakah is established after two occurrences. Beraisa #2 is R. Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that a Chazakah is established after three occurrences.

(Reish Lakish): The renter deducts only if it sprouted and was afflicted, but if it never sprouted, he should have planted again, perhaps he planted too early.

Question: How long must he keep planting?

Answer (Rav Papa): He must plant until the constellation 'Kimah' is directly overhead in late afternoon (i.e. Adar).

Question (Beraisa - R. Shimon ben Gamliel): (Bereishis 8:22 mentions the following six seasons. Each is two months.) The time of "Zera (planting)" is from the middle of Tishrei until the middle of Kislev. The next two months are "Choref", followed by "Kor", "Katzir", "Kayitz", and "Chom";

R. Yehudah says, Zera starts at the beginning of Tishrei;

R. Shimon says, it starts at the beginning of Cheshvan.

Even according to R. Shimon, who has the latest time for planting, it does not extend until Adar!

Answer: The Beraisa discusses times for planting wheat and rye. Rav Papa discusses planting barley and legumes.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If the rent was a fixed amount of money, in either case he pays the full rental.

Reuven rented a land on the bank of a certain river, to plant garlic on it, for a fixed amount of money. The river was dammed up (and therefore, the garlic did not grow well).

Rava: It is unusual to dam up that river. This is a region-wide affliction, so you deduct from the rental.

Question (Rabanan - Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If the rent was a fixed amount of money, in either case he pays the full rental.

Answer (Rava): No one says that the Halachah follows R. Yehudah.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was Chocher a field for ten Kor of wheat per year, and it was stricken, he may give him wheat from the field;

If the wheat of the field was good, he must give it. He may not give wheat that he buys elsewhere.

(Gemara): A case occurred in which Reuven was Chocher a field, to plant fodder, for one Kor of barley per year. He planted and harvested fodder, then (in the same year, instead of planting more fodder), plowed it and planted barley. The barley was stricken.

Question (Rav Chaviva of Sura): Is this like the Mishnah? Since it was stricken, he may give him from the field. Or, is it different?

Answer (Ravina): It is different. There, the field did not produce (barley) like it should have . Here, it produced (fodder) like it was supposed to.

(Gemara): A case occurred in which Levi was Chocher a vineyard for 10 barrels of wine. The wine soured.

(Rav Kahana): This is this like the Mishnah. Since it was stricken, he may give him from the field.

Rejection (Rav Ashi): It is different. There, the field did not produce like it should have . Here, it produced proper grapes (like it was supposed to.

Rav Ashi admits that if it produced wormy grapes, or if the grain was stricken while drying in the field, he deducts from the rental.

(Mishnah): If Reuven was Chocher a field to plant barley, he may not plant wheat. If he was Chocher to plant wheat, he may plant barley;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel forbids this.

If he was Chocher to plant grain, he may not plant legumes. If he was Chocher to plant legumes, he may plant grain;

R. Shimon ben Gamliel forbids this.

(Gemara - Rav Chisda): R. Shimon ben Gamliel learns from "Yisrael... Lo Yedaberu Chazav."

Question (Beraisa): Money collected for the poor for Purim must be used for Purim. We are not concerned (Rashi - that this is too much for Purim, that some should be given for regular Tzedakah; Ritva - to check that the recipient is truly poor);

R. Yakov says, the poor people may not use it to buy a shoe strap without stipulating in front of the people of the city.

R. Shimon ben Gamliel is lenient (the money may be used for other things).