Explanation: We can say so about the Choker. Even if the Machkir will exempt him from paying his rental, nothing will remain for him, for we discuss when the entire field was blasted. "He deducts for him" is not precise;

Alternatively, if a little remains in the field, the little that is found is not considered a remnant that we should apply "Nish'arnu Me'at me'Harbeh", for no field escaped a big loss.

However, the Machkir, who owns the land itself, and he should receive his rental from it, like it says above (105a) "I want [the rental] from [Peros of] my land", the Machkir can tell the Choker "Nish'arnu Me'at me'Harbeh" - my rental remained for me, i.e. the amount that I stipulated with you.

Question: Why does it say "according to this"? Even without this, we can challenge the Beraisa, why Shevi'is does not count, since it is not like the years of Eliyahu!

Answer: It properly says "according to this." If you would say that Makas Medinah is only like the years of Eliyahu, it would be fine;

We would attribute the reason why [when] this field is not proper for grain, then it is not called "years of grain", because there is no grain in the world, e.g. years of Eliyahu...

However, when there is grain in the world, this field is considered proper for grain, even though the majority of the valley was blasted....

However, Shevi'is, surely even though there is grain in Chutz la'Aretz, this field is not considered proper for grain, since it is in Eretz Yisrael.

However, now that you say that when the majority of the valley was blasted, it is Makas Medinah, and this field is not considered proper for grain, and even so it is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv that since there is grain in the world, the year counts....

If so, the same should apply to Shevi'is!

Answer (cont.): We answer that Shevi'is is an abolition of the King, and there cannot be permitted grain at all. Therefore, it is not called years of grain;

However, a year of blasting, even though it is ma` if the majority of the valley was blasted, it is considered possible to have grain, since there is in Chutz la'Aretz in some place in the world (i.e. even if all in Eretz Yisrael was blasted) ....

When it is possible to have grain, this is called years of grain, and in years like years of Eliyahu, it is considered impossible to have grain, since there is not anywhere.

Question: Why don't we ask from our Mishnah above (93b), which teaches that a lion or bear is Ones?

What is the reason? We should say that had he fought them, "Gam Es ha'Ari" would have been fulfilled!

Answer: There, since he was there, and a spirit of valor did not come to him, [the owner] cannot say that ["Gam Es ha'Ari"] would have been fulfilled through him;

However, here that he was not there, perhaps if he were there, he would have had a spirit of valor and knowledge to fight them, and "Gam Es ha'Ari" would have been fulfilled through him!

Question: What is difficult? We said above that when he said to plant wheat, and he planted barley, and it was blasted, he can say "had you planted wheat, "v'Sigzar Omer v'Yakam Lach" would have been fulfilled for me;

All the more so, when he did not plant at all, there is no proof that it was proper to be blasted!

Answer: Shmuel discusses when he told him "plant whatever you want";

Now, he cannot say that "v'Sigzar Omer v'Yakam Lach" would have been fulfilled for me, for presumably, Hash-m would not have accepted his prayer, that he should succeed in whatever he plants, unless a miracle is done for him;

Above he said '"v'Sigzar Omer" would have been fulfilled for me' only because he prayed for one species, for wheat.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): "Kimah" is the tail of [the constellation] "Teleh" (the lamb), like it says in Brachos (58b).

Rebuttal: This is wrong. Rather, we say there that "Ash" is the tail of "Teleh", but Kimah is close to it and says "give to me my children."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): On the first day of Adar, at the end of the 10th hour, Kimah is in the middle of the sky.

Rebuttal #1: Workers come from the field only at Tzeis ha'Kochavim, like I explained above (83b)!

Rebuttal #2: At the end of 10 hours, much time remains in the day. Stars are not visible. [Rav Papa] connotes that he comes to give a Siman for sharecroppers to know when to come from the field;

It is difficult to say that he means that when it gets dark at night, then we see retroactively that when they were walking, Kimah was above their heads!

Explanation #2: Sharecroppers come from the field at the beginning of the night and Kimah is above their heads. This is at the beginning of Shevat, and then the time of planting ceases.

Implied question: It says in Menachos (85a) that they used to plant 70 days before Pesach. This is five days into Shevat!

Answer #1: There, it is esteemed land that they plant for the need of the Omer. The days of planting extend longer.

Answer #2: At the beginning of Shevat based on the sun, Kimah is above their heads. In most years, the beginning of Shevat based on the sun is not more than 70 days before Pesach.

Implied question: There was no need to say that he planted fodder, for even without this, he could say "had you planted fodder, it would have produced!"

Answer: The case was, he planted fodder.