QUESTION: The Tana Kama in the Mishnah says that only if a field produces enough produce "l'Ha'amid Kri" -- with which "to form a pile" -- is a sharecropper ("Kablan") obligated to work the field. RASHI explains that this applies only to "Kablanus" and not to "Chakirus. With regard to a Chocher, Rashi explains, it makes no difference to the owner of the field whether the worker works the field, because in either case he will receive what the sharecropper owes him.

Why is this obvious to Rashi? A few lines earlier, the Gemara says that a fieldowner can tell a sharecropper, "I want you to work the land because I want to be paid with produce from my own land and not with produce bought in the market." The same should apply to the case of the Mishnah here, in which the field produces a small yield. The owner should be able to insist that the sharecropper reap the produce so that the owner will be paid from the produce of his own field.

Some maintain that according to the Gemara's conclusion, the owner cannot insist that he receive only produce from his own land (see CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH, and TAZ CM 324). However, the NIMUKEI YOSEF here proves from the Mishnah (106b) that if the land does produce crops, the owner can insist on receiving his payment from that yield. Why, then, does Rashi maintain that a Chocher is not obligated to work the land?

ANSWER: The Mishnah must be discussing a fieldowner who does not insist on being paid from the produce of his own land. This is clear from the Mishnah's ruling, for if the fieldowner did insist on payment from his own produce, there would be no reason to link the amount that the field produces to the size of a pile, or to the amount needed to sow the field. Instead, the Mishnah should have said that an amount equivalent to the rental fee must be harvested from the produce of the field, and the rest does not have to be harvested. It is therefore clear that the Mishnah's case is one in which the fieldowner agrees to receive payment from another source of grain, and Rashi therefore concludes that the Mishnah must be discussing a "Kablan" who splits all of the produce with the owner of the field. (M. Kornfeld)

QUESTION: The Tana Kama in the Mishnah says that only if a field produces enough produce "l'Ha'amid Kri" -- with which "to form a pile" -- is a sharecropper ("Kablan") obligated to work the field. In the Gemara, Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina explains that this is enough produce to make a pile which can support a pitchfork in an upright position.

The Gemara then cites a dispute between Levi and d'Vei Rebbi Yanai regarding whether this pile of produce refers to three Se'ah or to two Se'ah of produce. Are Levi and d'Vei Rebbi Yanai arguing with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina?

(a) The RAMBAM cites only the measurement of two Se'ah (the opinion of d'Vei Rebbi Yanai), and he makes no mention of the pitchfork. It is possible that the Rambam understands that the Amora'im indeed argue about the size of the pile of produce and he rules in accordance with d'Vei Rebbi Yanai.

Alternatively, it could be that Levi and d'Vei Rebbi Yanai do not argue with Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina. There are different sizes of pitchforks, and Levi and d'Vei Rebbi Yanai may have a separate dispute about how large the pitchfork -- which the pile must support -- needs to be. D'Vei Rebbi Yanai says that the pile must be able to support only a pitchfork that can hold two Se'ah, and thus a smaller pile suffices.

Support for this approach may be found in the words of the RIF and ROSH who cite the opinions of both Rebbi Yosi b'Rebbi Chanina and d'Vei Rebbi Yanai.

(b) The CHOCHMAS MANO'ACH suggests another approach to reconcile the two opinions. He explains that Levi and d'Vei Rebbi Yanai are answering Rebbi Yehudah's question on the Tana Kama. Rebbi Yehudah asks, how can the Tana Kama give a standard amount that any field must produce? A larger field should have to produce more in order to require the sharecropper to tend to the crops, while a sharecropper should be obligated to work a smaller field even if it produces a smaller amount of crops (as the Gemara says on 21a, with regard to "Kav b'Arba Amos").

The argument of d'Vei Rebbi Yanai and Levi may not be about the size of the pile of grain that a field must produce, but rather about the size of a field for which the measurement of the Tana Kama applies. They agree that different sizes of piles are required for different sizes of fields, and they argue only about what size of field requires a pile of grain in which a pitchfork will stand upright. D'Vei Rebbi Yanai maintains that in a field which ordinarily would produce two Se'ah of grain, a sharecropper is obligated to work it as long as it will produce a pile of grain in which a pitchfork will stand upright, while Levi maintains that this measurement applies to a field large enough to produce three Se'ah of grain.

It is possible that Rebbi Yehudah in the Mishnah understands the Tana Kama in this way as well. His question may be why the Tana Kama describes a Shi'ur that applies to a specific size of field and must be adjusted for other sizes of fields, when he could have stated a standard Shi'ur that applies to every size of field (i.e. "Kedei Nefilah").

QUESTION: The Beraisa says that a person is not allowed to transport on his head a load that crushes his Tefilin. D'Vei Rebbi Yanai explains that this prohibition applies only to a load that weighs at least four Kavim. The Gemara later quotes d'Vei Shila who states that a person is prohibited even to place the cloth (which is used to wrap the Tefilin when they are not being worn) upon his head while he is wearing Tefilin. Abaye explains that this applies even to something as small as the tiny measure used in Pumbedisa.

How can d'Vei Shila's words be reconciled with d'Vei Rebbi Yanai and the Beraisa, who prohibit placing on one's head only a load that is heavy and will crush the Tefilin?

(a) The RAMBAM does not mention that the prohibition applies only to loads heavier than four Kav. RABEINU YONAH in Berachos (14b of the pages of the Rif) writes that d'Vei Shila argues with d'Vei Rebbi Yanai. Since the Halachah follows d'Vei Shila (because Abaye follows that view), the Rambam does not mention the view of d'Vei Rebbi Yanai.

(b) However, the RIF in Berachos there and the ROSH here cite both opinions, that of d'Vei Rebbi Yanai and that of d'Vei Shila. Rabeinu Yonah asks, how can they cite two contradictory opinions?

1. The BEIS YOSEF (OC 41) quotes MAHARI ABUHAV who answers that d'Vei Rebbi Yanai permits a load of up to four Kavim only b'Di'eved, when the person has already placed the load upon his head. L'Chatchilah, though, a person should not put a load of any size upon his head while wearing Tefilin, as d'Vei Shila rules. The Beis Yosef adds that one might be permitted even l'Chatchilah to carry up to four Kavim if there is a good reason to do so (for example, one is being paid to carry it); otherwise, a person is prohibited l'Chatchilah to carry any burden on his head while he is wearing Tefilin.

2. The BEIS YOSEF himself suggests that if one placed a load on his head before he decided to don Tefilin, he is permitted to wear Tefilin together with a load that weighs up to four Kavim.

3. The Beis Yosef infers from the wording of the TUR that a load of up to four Kavim is permitted when it rests beside the Tefilin, as long as it is not on top of the Tefilin. If the load weighs four Kavim, the Rabanan prohibit even wearing it alongside the Tefilin, since it might move and come to rest on top of the Tefilin.

(The MISHNAH BERURAH points out that RASHI (DH v'Im Lav) writes clearly that when the load is not resting on the Tefilin, even a burden of four Kavim may be carried on one's head, unlike the opinion of the Tur as the Beis Yosef understands it.)

4. The Beis Yosef cites RAV YOSEF AL ASKANDRANI who says that a person may carry a load of up to four Kavim if the load is not resting on his head, but is suspended from a rope that is strung over his head and pulls against the Tefilin. Since nothing is on top of the Tefilin, one is permitted to carry a load in such a way as long as the burden is not four Kavim, which would exert too much pressure on the Tefilin.

5. The DARCHEI MOSHE writes that a load of up to four Kavim is permitted if it is the type of load that is normally carried upon one's head (such as a hat). This is the way the REMA rules in the Shulchan Aruch.