(Mishnah): If Reuven rented a field for a small period of time, he may not plant flax, and he may not cut branches of sycamore trees;

If he rented it for seven years, he may plant flax and cut branches of sycamore trees the first year (since the loss will not be felt in the land and the tree when the land goes back).

(Gemara - Abaye): He may not cut branches of sycamore trees, but he is compensated for their increased value (when he leaves).

(Rava): He is not even compensated for their increased value.

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven rented a field, when it is time for him to leave, we estimate for him.

Suggestion: We estimate the increased value of the sycamore trees!

Answer: No, we estimate the value of the vegetables and beets.

Question: Why estimate them? He may uproot them and take them!

Answer: They will not last until the market day (when one gets the proper price for them).

Question (Beraisa): If Reuven rented a field and Shemitah came, we estimate for him.

Objection: Shemitah does not force him to leave the land!

Correction (Beraisa): Rather, if Yovel came, we estimate for him.

Objection: Yovel does not apply to rental. The Torah only forbids (and reverts) a permanent sale - "li'Tzmisus"

Correction (Beraisa): Rather, if Reuven bought a field and Yovel came, we estimate for him.

Suggestion: Perhaps here also, we estimate the value of the vegetables and beets!

Rejection: In Yovel, vegetables and beets (and all Peros) are Hefker!

Rather, we estimate the increased value of the sycamore trees!

Answer (Abaye on behalf of Rava): Yovel is different, for the Torah said "v'Yotza Mimkar Bayis" - the sale goes back, but the improvements do not go back.

Question: We should learn from Yovel to a renter!

Answer: When one buys land, even though it goes back in Yovel, he is not like a renter . He is a full buyer, just Hash-m uproots his ownership in Yovel (and returns it to the seller).

Rav Papa rented a land to plant fodder; trees sprouted on it. When he left, he asked for the increased value.

Rav Shisha brei d'Rav Idi: If one rents a date tree to eat its fruit, and it got thicker, does he get the improvement?!

Rav Papa: That is different. There, he did not rent it for the wood. I rented the field for whatever will grow.

Suggestion: Rav Papa holds like Abaye.

Rejection: He can hold like Rava. Rava said that he gets no improvements only when he did not lose. Here, Rav Papa lost.

Question: His loss was a small area in which he could have grown fodder . That is all he is entitled to!

Answer: No, he could have grown saffron (which is very dear).

Question: You admit that you did not intend for lasting improvements, therefore you are only entitled to the value of wood (not the value of growing trees).

Rav Bibi bar Abaye rented a field; he raised the borders, and sorb trees sprouted in it. When he left, he asked for the improvements.

Rav Papi: No. Even Rav Papa only demanded improvements because he suffered a loss. You suffered no loss from these!

Rav Yosef had a permanent planter (a sharecropper who did all the work in the field, starting with plating). He died, leaving five sons-in-law. Rav Yosef did not want them to continue for their father-in-law, lest each rely on the others, and the field would not be properly cared for.

Rav Yosef: I offer you the improvements on the field. If you refuse, you will get (letter of the law, i.e.) nothing.

(Rav Yehudah): If a planter dies, the owner may expel his heirs without giving the improvements.

Rejection: This is wrong. (They are entitled to improvements.)

(Rav Yehudah): If a planter said 'if I cause a loss, I will leave' and he caused a loss, he does not get the improvements;

(Rav Kahana): He gets the improvements.

Rav Kahana admits that if he said 'if I cause a loss, I will leave without improvements', he gets no improvements.

(Rava): This is Asmachta (an exaggerated promise). It is not binding. (He gets the improvements.)

Question (Mishnah): If he said 'if I will leave it fallow and not work it, I will pay what it would have produced' (this is binding).

Answer: There, he pays for the loss he caused;

Here also, we deduct the loss he caused, and he gets the balance of the improvements.

Runya was Ravina's planter. He caused a loss, and Ravina fired him. Runya complained to Rava, who defended Ravina.

Runya: He did not warn me (that he would fire me if I cause a loss)!

Rava: He need not warn you!

(Rava): The following may be fired (for negligence) without warning: one who teaches children, a planter, a slaughterer, a bloodletter, and the town scribe (Rashi - to write Sifrei Torah; Tosfos - to write documents);

The general rule is, in any trade in which a mistake cannot be corrected, it is as if the worker was warned.

A planter asked for the improvements (after he planted), because he wanted to go to Eretz Yisrael. Rav Papa bar Shmuel ruled that the owner must give them to him.

Rava: The land also caused the increased value!

Rav Papa bar Shmuel: Indeed, I meant that he shares the improvements.

Rava: The agreement was that the owner gets half. He will now need to hire a sharecropper (to finish the work for a planted field)!

Rav Papa bar Shmuel: Indeed, I meant that he gets a quarter of the improvements.

Rav Ashi: Rav Papa meant a quarter of the owner's share, i.e. a sixth. (The owner will get two thirds, and the sharecropper who will finish gets a third.)

(Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): In a place where a planter gets half the crop and a sharecropper (who works a planted field) gets a third, a planter who leaves after planting gets a share of the improvements (i.e. a sixth), in order that the owner does not lose. (After the owner pays a sixth, he will be left with half, like he normally received.)

If the planter would get a quarter of the Peros, the owner would lose!

Question (Rav Acha brei d'Rav Yosef): Why can't the planter say 'give (a quarter) from your (three quarters) share to hire a sharecropper to finish working your share, and I will do with my share (a quarter) as I want'?

Version #1 (Rashi) Retraction (Rav Ashi): Indeed, he can say so. (Rav Papa meant that he gets a quarter of the Peros.)

Version #2 (R. Chananel) Answer (Rav Ashi): He cannot say this because one cannot find a sharecropper for less than a third. (end of Version #2)

(Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): In a place where a planter gets half the crop and a sharecropper gets a third, a planter who leaves after planting gets a share of the improvements in order that the owner does not lose.

Version #1 - Rashi - (Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): A planter gets half of an old vine (just like he gets half the Peros), for this is normal. If a river flooded the field (and the trees will not produce fruits for a long time), the planter gets half the wood (like the law of a planter who leaves early).

Version #2 - R. Chananel - (Rav Minyomi brei d'Rav Nechumi): If a planter uproots old vines and plants new ones, he gets half the Peros (for this is much work). If a river flooded the field (and uprooted the trees) and he plants new ones, he gets a quarter of the Peros.

A case occurred in which Reuven gave his orchard as collateral for a loan for ten years (they deducted its rental value for each year from the loan). After five years, the trees stopped producing, for they were old.

Abaye: The wood is considered like Peros. The lender gets it;

Rava: The wood is considered like principal. They buy land with it, and the lender eats the Peros (for the remaining five years, after which Reuven keeps it).

Question (Beraisa): (In Mashkanta of Sura, after a certain time, the tree goes back for free.) If the tree dried (and no longer gives fruit) or was cut, neither the lender or borrower may use it;

They should sell it and buy land. The lender eats the Peros.

In Yovel, the land will revert to the one who sold it. The principal is consumed!

Suggestion: The case when it dries is like when it is cut. Just like (presumably) it was cut in the proper time (when it ceased to bear fruit), also it dried in the proper (i.e. expected) time, and it says that they buy land with it and the lender eats the Peros!

This shows that the wood is principal!

Answer: No. The case when it is cut is like when it dries. Just like 'dried' connotes before the proper time (it does not say 'it grew old'), also it was cut before the proper time.