Siman 320

There are three names for one who rents a field from his fellow: a renter, a lessee, and a contractor. A "renter" is so called because he rents the field and pays the owner of the field such and such money per year, like one who rents a house. A "lessee" is so called because he does not pay him money, but rather grain from that which he sows; he pays him such and such measures per year, whether the field produces much, or whether it produces little, or does not produce at all. A "contractor" is so called because he gives the owner of the field a portion of the grain that grows there, a third or a fourth, all according to their agreement. The general rule of the matter is that a renter and a lessee have one law, because their rent is known, and a contractor has another law, as will be explained before us. A contractor is similar to a sharecropper, except that the contractor provides all the expenses and the sowing and he gives the portion to the owner of the field, whereas with a sharecropper, the owner of the field provides the expenses and the sowing and he gives the portion to the sharecropper.

Whether regarding a tenant farmer or a sharecropper, even though they have already agreed between themselves to take the field, they do not write a deed for this except with the consent of both of them. As long as they have not written it, both of them may retract; once they have written it, they cannot retract. And if they stipulated that he shall pay him anything, once they have written it, they have acquired it and it is like a debt in a deed [Tur]. The sharecropper pays the fee for the writing of the deed, and even if he left it fallow this year in the manner of field owners and will not derive benefit this year from the field, nevertheless he must pay the fee for the writing [ibid.]. With this deed, one may also collect from encumbered properties; however, this is specifically when he specified in the deed a known fixed amount to give him. But if he wrote to give him a third or a fourth in the manner of sharecroppers, one does not collect from encumbered properties since it is not a fixed amount [Sma]. And some say that even when he fixed an amount, its law is not like a debt in a deed and he does not collect from encumbered properties, and he can claim "I have paid," and the deed is only so that he cannot retract [Ktzot HaChoshen].

If they did not write a document until he had already begun the work, they may retract, but once he has begun the work, the owner of the field cannot retract. However, the contractor may retract like a laborer [Tosafot Bava Metzia 105a]. But the renter and the sharecropper cannot retract in such a case, as the status of a laborer does not apply to them, but rather the status of a renter [it appears to me]. And from what has been explained, there is proof that with a document, even a laborer cannot retract, and in siman 333 this will be explained with the help of Heaven.

It has already been explained that the meqabel must provide all the expenses, and the same applies to a khokher and a shokher. Nevertheless, anything without which the field cannot be guarded, such as the fence and the trench surrounding the field, is the responsibility of the owner of the field, just as with one who rents a house, where he must provide him a house repaired with all professional repairs, as was written in siman 312. And anything that is for the purpose of providing superior guarding is their responsibility [Tur]. Therefore, the mattock with which they dig the earth, and the vessels in which they carry the soil, and the bucket and the jug and their like, the owner of the land is obligated to provide them. However, the digging of the places where they collect the water is the responsibility of the khokher and the meqabel. And some say that all this applies to a meqabel, but regarding a khokher and a shokher, the owner of the field bears no responsibility at all, for since he must give him the amount of his khakirah even if the field produces no fruit, the owner of the field has no involvement with the field at all during the duration of his khakirah, and all the more so regarding a shokher. And this is more reasonable [ibid.], and our teacher, the Rema, ruled accordingly. And it is not similar to a house, for there the term "field" applies to the land alone.

Whether a lessee and a renter or a sharecropper, in a place where it is the custom to reap the grain, he is not permitted to uproot with the root, and in a place where it is the custom to uproot, he is not permitted to reap. Whichever of them comes to change, his fellow may prevent him unless they stipulated beforehand. The reason is that when they uproot the grain, the field remains clean, and conversely, there is an advantage in reaping in that the roots remain to fertilize for the coming year. Therefore, for the owner of the field, sometimes it is preferable for him to reap and sometimes to uproot. Similarly, for the sharecropper, sometimes it is preferable for him to reap because in uprooting there is much labor, and sometimes it is preferable for him to uproot in order to give the lower straw to his animals. Therefore, each one may prevent his fellow from changing from the custom if they did not specify. And it appears to me that regarding a lessee and a renter, if they rented it also for the coming year, the owner of the field cannot prevent him when this one wishes to uproot, for since his prevention is because of the fertilizer, it makes no difference to him since also in the coming year he will take his fixed amount in any event [and with this one may answer the difficulty of the Nimukei Yosef at the beginning of HaMekabel as to why he required the reason, see there].

In a place where it is the custom to plow after the harvest in order to overturn the roots of the noxious weeds so that they do not grow, one must plow. And even if it was not the custom there to weed the noxious weeds and he weeded them, nevertheless he does not exempt himself from plowing afterward by saying that weeding is sufficient, because the owner of the field can say, "Perhaps you did not weed as much as was necessary," or that after this, noxious weeds arose. And if he specified at the time of the weeding that he is doing this so that he will not need to plow and the owner of the field remained silent, he has revealed his mind that it is pleasing to him. And even though according to the law any condition that is not made at the time of the hiring is not established without a kinyan, and certainly not by silence alone, nevertheless in an act such as this that the contractor performed in a matter that was not necessary at all, and his performing it was in order that he would not need to perform another act, his statement is sufficient even not at the time of the hiring and with the silence of the owner of the field; and if he did not consent to this, he should have protested [see Sma]. And so too the reverse: if they were accustomed to weed and the contractor does not want to, even if his desire is to plow after the harvest and I would say that it is better than weeding, nevertheless we do not listen to him, because he can say that until the plowing the noxious weeds will fall and grow, and the plowing afterward will not be effective.

If it is the custom in that place that one who leases a field without specification also takes his portion of the trees, even though he has no labor regarding the trees as they grow on their own, every sharecropper and lessee has a portion in this. And even if the owner of the field added for him more than other lessees and contractors, he cannot say, "Therefore I added for you so that you would not take from the trees." And so too the reverse: if they practiced not to take a portion in the trees, then they belong to the owner of the field, even if the lessee added to the owner's portion more than other field owners. And the reason is because one who comes to deviate from the custom must specify at the time of the hiring, for the surplus can be attributed to another matter, and this is like "matters of the heart." And it is not similar to the weeding that was explained, for there he spoke that he acts on that condition.