MISHNA: One who receives a field from another to cultivate for a few years, i.e., fewer than seven, may not plant flax in it, as flax greatly weakens the soil, and if a sycamore tree was growing in the field, he does not have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree. Therefore, he may not cut down its branches for his own use, as it takes many years for new ones to grow. If he received the field from him for seven years, in the first year he may plant flax in it, and he does have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree.

GEMARA: Abaye says: Although he does not have rights to the beams fashioned from the branches of the sycamore tree, he does have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore tree, i.e., the value of its growth that occurred while he was cultivating the field. And Rava says: He does not even have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore tree.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rava’s opinion from a baraita: With regard to one who receives a field from another to cultivate and his time to leave arrives, the court appraises its value for him. What, is it not that the court appraises for him the value of the enhancement of the sycamore or other trees? The Gemara responds: No, the court appraises for him the value of the vegetables and beets left in the field.

The Gemara challenges: If it is referring to vegetables and beets, let him uproot and take them. The Gemara explains: It is referring to a case where the market day has not yet arrived, so that if he uproots them now he will not be able to sell them. He therefore leaves them for the owner of the land and receives money instead.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof from a baraita: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and the Sabbatical Year arrived, the court appraises it for him. The Gemara first expresses puzzlement over the baraita itself: Does the Sabbatical Year release land from the one who contracted to cultivate it? The arrangement is in effect it during this time, so why is there a need for an appraisal? The Gemara responds: Rather, say that the baraita reads as follows: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate and the Jubilee Year arrived, the court appraises it for him.

The Gemara asks: But still, this is difficult; does the Jubilee Year release the term of a contractor? The Merciful One states: “Permanently” (Leviticus 25:23), which indicates that only land that was permanently sold returns to its owner, whereas land that was rented does not revert to the owner at the Jubilee Year. Rather, say that the baraita reads as follows: In the case of one who purchases a field from another and the Jubilee Year arrives, the court appraises it for him.

And if you would say that so too here it means that the court appraises it for him with regard to vegetables and beets, this cannot be, as vegetables and beets in the Jubilee Year are ownerless. This is because the Jubilee is like the Sabbatical Year in that any produce that grows is ownerless and may be taken by anyone. Rather, is the baraita not referring to the enhancement of the value of the sycamore that occurred during the time he had owned the field? It must be referring to this, and therefore presents a difficulty to Rava.

Abaye interpreted the baraita so that it is in accordance with the opinion of his disputant Rava: There it is different, as the verse states: “Then the house that was sold shall go out…in the Jubilee” (Leviticus 25:33), which teaches that the house or field that was sold returns to its owner, but the value of its enhancement does not return, but remains with the buyer. The Gemara asks: If so, let us derive from it a general halakha that the value of enhancement need not be returned. The Gemara answers: The two cases are dissimilar, as there, in the baraita, it is a full-fledged sale, and the Jubilee released it, as it is a release of the King, a Divine decree. Since the buyer had been in full ownership of the field, he keeps the value of the enhancement that occurred while it was his. By contrast, one who receives a field to cultivate is not an owner.

The Gemara relates: Rav Pappa received land as a contractor for growing hay. During the time he was cultivating it, palm trees sprouted in the ground. When he left the land he said to the owners of the field: Give me the value of the enhancement to the field from the palm trees. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so, i.e., if your claim is justified, then in a situation where there was a palm tree and it grew thick, so too would the Master, i.e., Rav Pappa, want to be paid for the value of the tree’s enhancement? Rav Pappa said to him: There, in that theoretical case, the cultivator did not descend to the field with that possibility in mind, as the cultivator considered only the consumption of the date palm’s fruit, not its growth. Here, in my case, I did indeed descend to the field with this in mind, as I anticipated receiving compensation for any growth of the field.

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did he make this statement? Is it not in accordance with the opinion of Abaye, who says that he does have rights to the value of the enhancement of the sycamore? The Gemara refutes this claim: You may even say that he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as there the cultivator suffers no loss when the sycamore grows in the field, so he is not entitled to the value of the enhancement as compensation. By contrast, here there is a loss, as the palm trees that sprouted occupied space designated for hay.

Rav Sheisha said to Rav Pappa: But here too, the owner of the field can say: What loss have I caused you? I have caused you to lose a handful of hay. Take a handful of hay and go. Rav Pappa said to him: I claim that I grew garden saffron there. He claimed that he lost land that he could have used for the cultivation of expensive produce, not only hay. Rav Sheisha said to him: Even so, you admit that you wanted the land for other plantings, not to plant palm trees, and you have thereby revealed your intention that you acted so as to take the produce and leave. Take your garden saffron and leave, as you have rights only to the value of wood alone. Since you did not mean to grow these trees, you are entitled only to the price you could have received for the palm trees had you had uprooted them and sold them as wood during the time you cultivated the field.

The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Beivai bar Abaye received land to cultivate and he surrounded it with a fence made of earth. In the meantime, trees sprouted in it. When he left the field he said to the owners: Give me my value of the enhancement of the trees that sprouted. Rav Pappi said: Is it because you come from unfortunate people that you say unfortunate and unsound words? Abaye’s family came from the family of Eli, whose descendants were sentenced to die at a young age. Rav Pappi explains: Even Rav Pappa said only that he is entitled to the value of the enhancement of the palm trees when he has suffered a loss, as they take up part of the field. Here, by contrast, what loss do you have? As the trees sprouted in a place that would have been left unplanted, you have not lost anything and you are not entitled to compensation.

§ The Gemara relates: Rav Yosef had a certain planter whose job it was to plant trees, similar to a sharecropper. He died and left behind five sons-in-law. Rav Yosef said: Until now I had to deal with only one person; now there are five. Until now they did not rely on each other to plant the trees and did not cause me a loss, as the responsibility was their father-in-law’s, but now that they are five they will rely on each other to plant the trees and cause me a loss. In light of these considerations, he decided to discontinue the agreement with them. Rav Yosef said to them: If you take the value of your enhancement that you brought to the field and remove yourselves, all is well, but if not, I will remove you without giving you the value of the enhancement.

Rav Yosef explains his statement: As Rav Yehuda says, and some say it was Rav Huna, and some say it was Rav Naḥman: With regard to this planter who died, his heirs may be removed without receiving the value of the enhancement. The Gemara comments: But this is not correct, as the halakha is not in accordance with this opinion.

The Gemara relates another incident. There was a certain planter who said to the owner: If I cause a loss to the vineyard by ruining its plants I will leave the field. Ultimately, he indeed caused a loss to the plants, but some enhancement from the time he began did still exist. Rav Yehuda said: He leaves without receiving payment for the enhancement, while Rav Kahana said: He leaves and takes the payment for the enhancement resulting from his work. And Rav Kahana concedes that if he said: If I cause a loss I will leave without receiving payment for the enhancement, he indeed leaves without receiving payment for the enhancement. Conversely, Rava said: A promise of this kind, which he does not expect to have to fulfill, is a transaction with inconclusive intent [asmakhta], and the halakha is that an asmakhta does not effect acquisition and is therefore not legally binding.

The Gemara asks: And according to Rava, in what way is it different from that which we learned in a mishna (104a) that the recipient of the field stipulates: If I let the field lie fallow and do not cultivate it I will pay with the best-quality produce, in which case he is obligated to fulfill his promise? The Gemara answers: There, he pays for the loss he caused, while here, we deduct from him the loss that he caused, and we give him the other portion of the money. He does not forfeit all that was due to him just because some of his plantings were unsuccessful.

The Gemara relates that Runya was the planter of Ravina. He caused a loss, and Ravina removed him from his field. Runya came before Rava and said to him: Let the Master see what Ravina has done to me. Rava said to him: Ravina did well, as you caused him a loss. Runya said to him: But Ravina did not warn me beforehand. How can he force me to leave without prior warning? Rava said to him: In this case it is not necessary to provide a warning. The Gemara comments: Rava conforms to his line of reasoning, as Rava said: With regard to a teacher of children, a planter, a ritual slaughterer, and a bloodletter,