Bava Metzia 104A

איבעי לך לאתויי בדוולא.

You should have brought water in a bucket.

אמר רב פפא: הני תרתי מתניתא קמייתא ⁠– משכחת לה בין בחכרנותא בין בקבלנותא. מכאן ואילך: דאיתה בקבלנותא ⁠– ליתה בחכרנותא, ודאיתה בחכרנותא ⁠– ליתה בקבלנותא.

Rav Pappa said: With regard to these first two mishnayot, you find that they are correct, concerning both tenancy, where the tenant farmer gives a certain amount of produce to the owner and keeps the rest, as well as the case of a contractor, who gives a set proportion, e.g., 1/4th or 1/3rd, of the yield to the owner, and keeps the rest. From this point forward, i.e., from the third Mishnah of the chapter until its end, that which is relevant to the case of a contractor is not applicable to tenancy, and that which is relevant to tenancy is not applicable to the case of a contractor.

אם אמר לו חכור לי שדה בית השלחין זה [וכו׳]. ואמאי? לימא ליה: שמא בעלמא אמרי לך, מי לא תניא: האומר לחבירו ״בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך״, אף על פי שאין בו אלא לתך ⁠– הגיעו שלא מכר לו אלא שמא, והוא דמתקרי ״בית כור״.

§ The Mishnah teaches: If the cultivator said to the landowner explicitly: Lease me this irrigated field, or he said: Lease me this field with trees, and the spring dried up or the trees were cut down, he may subtract from the produce he owes as part of his tenancy. The Talmud asks: But why is this so? Let the owner say to him: I told you only the name, i.e., the type, of the field, but this does not mean it would actually be irrigated during the time you are cultivating it. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor field of dirt, although the field contains only a half-kor, once the buyer purchases the dirt it has come to him, i.e., he may not retract from the transaction, as the seller sold him the dirt only by the name, and he did not mean that its size was precisely a beit kor. The baraita adds: And this is the halakha only where that field is called by people a beit kor.