Siman 322

One who leases or rents a field from his fellow and it was consumed by locusts or blasted, if this event occurred to the majority of the fields of that valley—and according to the Rambam, the majority of the fields of that city—he deducts from his lease because it is a "plague of the province" and it was not the luck of the renter that caused it. And how much does he deduct? Everything is according to the loss that occurred to him. And even though his loss is not similar to the loss of the majority of the field owners, nevertheless, since in its generality it is a "plague of the province," he deducts according to his loss [Sma]. And if the plague did not spread to the majority of the fields, it is not a "plague of the province," and the luck of the renter caused it, and he does not deduct anything for him. And regarding a sharecropping arrangement, this distinction is not relevant, for in everything found in the field, whether a little or a lot, they divide according to their condition.

When it is not a widespread regional plague, for which he does not deduct for him because the luck of the lessee caused it, this is even when the lessor had other fields in other valleys and all of them were parched or locusts consumed them, such that we see that the luck of the lessor caused it; nevertheless, he does not deduct for him. And thus our sages, of blessed memory, said regarding the reasoning of the matter: that the lessor may say to him, it is not the way of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to punish a person such that not a remnant remains for him, as it is written, "for we are left but a few of many," and this field that I leased to you, the Holy One, Blessed be He, left for me since the loss is upon you. But conversely, regarding a widespread regional plague where he deducts for him from his lease-payment, if all the fields of the lessee that were in another valley were parched, he does not deduct for him from his lease-payment, for it appears explicitly that this loss depends only on the lessee, since his fields in other places were also parched, and there it was not a widespread regional plague. And the lessee cannot say that "because of my merit a little would have remained for me" as the lessor says, for if it were the will of Hashem to leave him a little, He would have left it for him from his own fields and not from the fields of others that he leased. And furthermore, in any event, not even a little remained for him here, rather he only would not have needed to pay the lessor, and regarding this the concept of a "remnant" does not apply.

Regarding that which we said, that if it is a regional plague he may deduct from his payment, even if the other fields were sown with wheat and he sowed barley, or vice versa, it is also considered a regional plague since ultimately they were parched. However, if there was also some of his species near them and that was not parched near them, this is not a regional plague, for the lessor says to him: Behold, your species was not parched. And even though there is one who is uncertain regarding this, nevertheless, such is the primary ruling. And if most of the valley was not parched, but only the four fields from its four directions, some say that this is also a regional plague, and many disagree with this, and such is the opinion of the Tur.

If he stipulated with the owner of the field that he would sow it with wheat and he sowed it with barley, even if all the wheat was also blasted, nevertheless he may not deduct from it for him, because the lessor can say to him: "Had you sown wheat, perhaps it would have been fulfilled in me, 'You shall decree a matter and it shall be established for you,' for I prayed for wheat and not for barley." And similarly, if he did not sow it at all, even though most of the fields were blasted, nevertheless he must pay him his entire lease payment, because he says to him: "Had you sown, it would have been fulfilled in me, 'They shall not be ashamed in the evil time, and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.'" And similarly, if he sowed it and it did not sprout, even though locusts or blasting came and most of the fields were struck, nevertheless he may not deduct from his lease payment, for he is obligated to attend to it and sow time after time as long as the sowing season has not passed, and perhaps if it had sprouted, a blessing would have prevailed in it. However, when it sprouted and locusts ate it, he is not obligated to sow again even if it is still the sowing season, for we see that it is a decree, that even though the produce would sprout, the locusts would eat it, as occurred to most of the fields. The general rule of the matter: the hand of the lessor is always on top as long as he can find a pretext that had he acted according to his words, it would not have been ruined. Therefore, there are some of our teachers who hold that even when it sprouted, he must sow as long as it is the sowing season [Rashi], but the poskim disagree on this, for since he did what was incumbent upon him until the sprouting of the produce, he need not do more [Sma].

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that this is specifically regarding a kablanut arrangement, but in a chachirut arrangement, he may purchase produce for him from the market and give him his chachirut payment. Thus far his words. And his words require clarification [see Taz]. And it appears to me regarding his intention, for behold, in the Gemara [105a] it is stated that he is obligated to give him from the wheat of this field, and if he desires to purchase from the market, he is not permitted. And even if he did not want to weed the field, the lessor can compel him to weed it. And even if he says, "What does it matter to you? I will take for you fine wheat from the market," he can say to him, "I want wheat from my field." And even if he wants to weed the amount necessary to give him, nevertheless he can compel him to weed all of it, because he can say that his field will grow bad weeds and harm will reach him in future years. And even if he wants to plow it afterward in order to uproot the weeds, he can protest against him, because when bad weeds fall in a field, it is impossible to uproot them via plowing. And nevertheless, the Rishonim wrote that all this is specifically when he already sowed, but when he has no desire to sow at all and to take wheat for him from the market, he cannot compel him to sow because of his desire for the wheat of his field. And this is only in chachirut where the portion is fixed, but in kablanut he can compel him to sow since his portion is not fixed. And even though if he did not sow it, they must assess how much it would have produced and he shall give the field owner his portion, as is written in siman 328, nevertheless he can compel him initially to sow it, and he can say that he does not want to rely on the assessment, for perhaps they will not be accurate in their assessment. And this is the intention of our teacher, the Rema [and the difficulties of the Taz are answered, and so is the explanation of the Nimukei Yosef; and see Sma, and delve into this]. And regarding a kablan, when he sowed and it did not sprout, he is not obligated to sow a second time, and the mazal of both of them caused it [Taz]. And specifically regarding a lessee where the field is his and he gives a fixed thing to the lessor and wants to exempt himself with a claim of a regional plague, in this he can compel him to sow until it sprouts; but in kablanut, for they are like partners, since he did what was incumbent upon him to do, he need not do more, like one who receives a business venture who, when he acted and did not succeed, how can we compel him to do more [ibid., and there is a printing error there at the end]. And there is one who says that even in kablanut, if he desires not to sow, he cannot compel him, just as in chachirut [ibid.]. And it appears to me that the primary view is like our teacher, the Rema, for in chachirut where the reason is only because he desires the wheat of his field, in this certainly he cannot compel him; but in kablanut there is another reason in it, for perhaps they will not be accurate in the assessment.

An incident occurred regarding Reuven who rented a house from Shimon for two years and gave him the rent in advance, and within the time there was a plague in the city until most of them fled from the city and a minority remained, and the renter also fled and left the house empty, and afterwards they all returned. The renter wanted the lessor to return his rent for the time he was outside the city based on his claim that this is a makat medinah and he should deduct for him. The great authorities ruled that it is certainly a makat medinah, and nevertheless there is a doubt in the matter, since for the minority there was no danger, perhaps one of the minority would have rented the house. And since there is a doubt, they shall divide [Responsa of Maharam of Rothenburg, siman 388]. And even though regarding fields we only follow the majority, this is the reason: regarding fields where the blow was upon the fields themselves, we follow the majority and say that this field is also included in the decree of the majority of fields; but in this case, where the decree was upon the majority of the people and not upon the houses, and upon the minority of the people there was no decree, we rightly say that perhaps someone who was of the minority would have rented it [Ketzot HaChoshen]. However, regarding this which they ruled that they shall divide even though he already paid the lessor, this is according to the one who holds that in a legal doubt they divide even though one is the muhzak; but we established that we do not extract from the hand of the muhzak, and therefore one should not extract from the hand of the lessor, and if he did not give yet, he shall not give at all [ibid.].