I was worthy. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is difficult.

§ It is taught in one baraita: With regard to one who cultivates a field, the first and second time he plants the field again if the crops were destroyed by some mishap, but the third time he is not required to plant it again. And it is taught in another baraita that on the third occasion, he must plant it the field again, but after the fourth time the crops are destroyed, he is not required to plant it again. These two baraitot appear to contradict one another. The Gemara explains: That is not difficult, as this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

The Gemara clarifies: This baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who says that presumptive status is established by two occasions, while that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who says that presumptive status is established by three occasions.

Reish Lakish said: They taught that a cultivator plants a limited number of times only if he planted the field and it sprouted and locusts consumed the crops, but if he planted it and the crops did not sprout at all, the landowner can say to him: You should continue planting it on all the days that are fit for planting. The Gemara asks: And until when does the period of planting last? The Gemara answers: Rav Pappa said: Until such time that the sharecroppers come in from the field and the stars of Pleiades are stationed over their heads, which occurs roughly during the month of Shevat.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita that discusses the verse: “While the earth remains, planting and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:22). The baraita interprets this verse as referring to six seasons of the year: Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Meir, and similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya would say in accordance with his statement: The second half of Tishrei, all of Marḥeshvan, and the first half of Kislev are the days of planting.

The second half of Kislev, all of Tevet, and the first half of Shevat are the winter days. The second half of Shevat, all of Adar, and the first half of Nisan are the period of cold; the second half of Nisan, all of Iyar, and the first half of Sivan are the harvest period. The second half of Sivan, all of Tammuz, and half of Av are the summer season, while the second half of Av, all of Elul, and the first half of Tishrei are the season of heat.

The baraita adds: Rabbi Yehuda also would divide the year into these six seasons, but he counts from the beginning of Tishrei rather than from the middle. Rabbi Shimon counts from Marḥeshvan, so that Marḥeshvan and Kislev constitute the season of planting, and so on.

The Gemara states its objection: Who is the most lenient of all of them in that the period of planting occurs at the latest time of the year? It is Rabbi Shimon, and even he did not say that the planting season extends that far to the time when Pleiades is above their heads. The Gemara responds: That is not difficult, as this is referring to a cultivator who accepted from the owner the planting of early crops, while that case involves a cultivator who accepted from the owner the planting of late crops, performed at a much later date.

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received land to plant garlic on it on the bank of the river Malka Sava in exchange for a specified sum of money. The bank of the river Malka Sava became dammed up. The case came before Rava, who said to the cultivator: The river Malka Sava does not usually dam up. Therefore, it is classified as a regional disaster; go subtract this loss from the payment you owe to the owner.

The Gemara continues the story: The Rabbis said to Rava: Didn’t we learn in the mishna here: If the cultivator received it from the owner for a fixed sum of money, whether this way or whether that way, i.e., whether a regional disaster occurred or not, he does not subtract the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. Rava said to them: There is no one who is concerned for the ruling of Rabbi Yehuda since it is a minority opinion that is rejected.

MISHNA: In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate in return for the payment of ten kor of wheat per year, and its produce was blighted by a crop disease or the like, the cultivator gives the owner the ten kor of wheat from it but does not have to provide him with high quality wheat. If the wheat stalks produced by the field were particularly good stalks of wheat, the cultivator may not say to the owner: I will buy regular wheat from the market; rather, he gives him from inside the field itself.

GEMARA: The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received land to grow hay in exchange for paying the owner several kor of barley. After the field produced hay, the recipient plowed and sowed it with barley, and that barley was blighted. The worker sought to pay the owner from the damaged barley he had cultivated. Rav Ḥaviva from Sura in the Euphrates sent the following question before Ravina: What is the halakha with regard to a case of this kind? Is it considered similar to an instance of: If it was blighted, he gives him from inside the field, or not?

Ravina said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the mishna, the land did not perform its owner’s mission, and the cultivator also received blighted produce, whereas here, the land did perform its owner’s mission, as the cultivator took the land for the purpose of growing hay, which it produced. His additional crop of barley was not part of their agreement and therefore he cannot pay his debt with blighted barley.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who received an orchard from another to cultivate in exchange for paying the owner ten barrels of wine, but that wine produced from the orchard’s grapes turned sour. Rav Kahana thought to say that this is an example of the ruling of the mishna that if it was blighted he may give him from inside the field. Rav Ashi said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the mishna, the land did not perform its owner’s mission, as the crop was blighted, whereas here, the land did perform its owner’s mission, as there was nothing wrong with the grapes themselves, and the wine turned sour in the cultivator’s possession.

The Gemara comments: And Rav Ashi concedes with regard to grapes that shrunk over the course of their growth and with regard to a field whose sheaves were blighted that since the damage occurred to the crop itself, the cultivator can pay his debt from the produce of the field.

MISHNA: With regard to one who receives a field from another in order to plant it with barley, he may not plant it with wheat, as wheat weakens the field more than barley does. But if he receives it in order to plant wheat, he may plant it with barley if he wishes, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it. Similarly, if he receives it to plant it with grain he may not plant it with legumes, as they weaken the field more than grains do, but if he receives it in order to plant legumes he may plant it with grain, but Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel forbids it.

GEMARA: Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason of the ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The landowner has apparently suffered no loss from the cultivator’s actions. His reasoning is as it is written: “The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity, nor speak lies, neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their mouth” (Zephaniah 3:13). In other words, one may not retract from an obligation accepted upon oneself, even if no one suffers as a result.

The Gemara raises an objection to this from a baraita: The Purim collection is only for the Purim feast, but one does not scrutinize the matter by limiting the allocation for the poor to the exact costs of the meal and no more. And it is not permitted for a poor person to purchase even a strap for his sandal from it unless he stipulated in the presence of the people of the city that he may do as he wishes with the money he receives. This is the statement of Rabbi Ya’akov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel