We begin with the first of two מִשְׁנַיוֹת on דף ק״ו עמוּד ב:
הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בַּעֲשָׂרָה כּוֹר חִטִּים לְשָׁנָה וְלָקְתָה – נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ. הָיוּ חִטֶּיהָ יָפוֹת, לֹא יֹאמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵינִי לוֹקֵחַ מִן הַשּׁוּק, אֶלָּא נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ
In the case of one who receives a field from another to cultivate in return for the payment of ten kor of wheat per year, and its produce was blighted by a crop disease or the like, the cultivator gives the owner the ten kor of wheat from it but does not have to provide him with high quality wheat. If the wheat stalks produced by the field were particularly good stalks of wheat, the cultivator may not say to the owner: I will buy regular wheat from the market; rather, he gives him from inside the field itself.
Speaking of which the Gemara relates:
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַבֵּיל אַרְעָא לְאַסְפַּסְתָּא בְּכוֹרֵי דִשְׂעָרֵי, עֲבַדָא אַסְפַּסְתָּא, וְחַרְשַׁהּ וְזַרְעַהּ שְׂעָרֵי, וּלְקוֹ הָנֵי שְׂעָרֵי. שַׁלְחַהּ מִסּוּרָא דִפְרָת לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבִינָא, כִּי הַאי גַּוְנָא מַאי: כִּי ״לָקְתָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ״ דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא
There was a certain man who received land to grow hay in exchange for paying the owner several kor of barley. After the field produced hay, the recipient plowed and sowed it with barley, and that barley was blighted. The worker sought to pay the owner from the damaged barley he had cultivated. רַב חֲבִיבָא from סּוּרָא דִפְרָת sent the following question before רָבִינָא: What is the halacha with regard to a case of this kind? Is it considered similar to an instance of: If it was blighted, he gives him from inside the field, or not?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא עֲבַדָא אַרְעָא שְׁלִיחוּתָא דְּמָרַהּ, הָכָא עֲבַדָא אַרְעָא שְׁלִיחוּתָא דְּמָרַהּ
רָבִינָא said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the Mishnah, the land did not perform its owner’s mission, and the cultivator also received blighted produce, whereas here, the land did perform its owner’s mission, as the cultivator took the land for the purpose of growing hay, which it produced. His additional crop of barley was not part of their agreement and therefore he cannot pay his debt with blighted barley.
The Gemara further relates:
הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּקַבֵּל פַּרְדֵּס מֵחַבְרֵיהּ בַּעֲשַׂר דַּנֵּי חַמְרָא, תְּקֵיף הָהוּא חַמְרָא. סְבַר רַב כָּהֲנָא לְמֵימַר: הַיְינוּ מַתְנִיתִין – לָקְתָה נוֹתֵן לוֹ מִתּוֹכָהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב אָשֵׁי: מִי דָּמֵי? הָתָם לָא עֲבַדָא אַרְעָא שְׁלִיחוּתָא, הָכָא עֲבַדָא אַרְעָא שְׁלִיחוּתָא.
There was a certain man who received an orchard from another to cultivate in exchange for paying the owner ten barrels of wine, but that wine produced from the orchard’s grapes turned sour. רַב כָּהֲנָא thought to say that this is an example of the ruling of the mishna that if it was blighted he may give him from inside the field. רַב אָשֵׁי said to him: Is it comparable? There, in the Mishnah, the land did not perform its owner’s mission, as the crop was blighted, whereas here, the land did perform its owner’s mission, as there was nothing wrong with the grapes themselves, and the wine turned sour in the cultivator’s possession.
וּמוֹדֶה רַב אָשֵׁי בְּעִינְּבֵי דִּכְדוּם וּבְשָׂדֶה שֶׁלָּקְתָה בָּעוֹמָרֶיהָ
The Gemara comments: And רַב אָשֵׁי concedes with regard to grapes that shrunk over the course of their growth and with regard to a field whose sheaves were blighted that since the damage occurred to the crop itself, the cultivator can pay his debt from the produce of the field.
Onward to the next Mishnah:
הַמְקַבֵּל שָׂדֶה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ לְזרְעָהּ שְׂעוֹרִים – לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה חִטִּים. חִטִּים יִזְרָעֶנָּה – שְׂעוֹרִים, רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹסֵר. תְּבוּאָה לֹא יִזְרָעֶנָּה – קִטְנִית. קִטְנִית יִזְרָעֶנָּה – תְּבוּאָה, וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹסֵר.
With regard to one who receives a field from another in order to plant it with barley, he may not plant it with wheat, as wheat weakens the field more than barley does. But if he receives it in order to plant wheat, he may plant it with barley if he wishes, but רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל forbids it. Similarly, if he receives it to plant it with grain he may not plant it with legumes, as they weaken the field more than grains do, but if he receives it in order to plant legumes he may plant it with grain, but רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל forbids it.
Let’s zoom ahead in the Gemara to something that caught my eye:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יְהוּדָה לְרָבִין בַּר רַב נַחְמָן: רָבִין אֲחִי, לָא תִּזְבֹּין אַרְעָא דִּסְמִיכָא לְמָתָא, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָסוּר לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁיַּעֲמוֹד עַל שְׂדֵה חֲבֵירוֹ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹמֶדֶת בְּקָמוֹתֶיהָ
רַב יְהוּדָה said to רָבִין בַּר רַב נַחְמָן: My brother, רָבִין, do not buy land that is near a town, as רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ quoted רַב הוּנָא who said in the name of רַב: It is prohibited for a person to stand by another’s field when grain is ready for harvest, as he might harm the produce with the evil eye as Rashi notes: שלא יפסידנה בעין הרע. Similarly, land near a town may be harmed by the people of the town watching it.
And zooming further:
״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בַּשָּׂדֶה״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ נְכָסֶיךָ מְשׁוּלָּשִׁין: שְׁלִישׁ בִּתְבוּאָה, שְׁלִישׁ בְּזֵיתִים, וּשְׁלִישׁ בִּגְפָנִים. ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא יְצִיאָתְךָ מִן הָעוֹלָם כְּבִיאָתְךָ לְעוֹלָם. מָה בִּיאָתְךָ לְעוֹלָם בְּלֹא חֵטְא, אַף יְצִיאָתְךָ מִן הָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא חֵטְא.
The Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s explanation of the פְּסוּקִים that say: “בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בַּשָּׂדֶה” which means that your property should be divided into thirds: One-third should be invested in grain, one-third in olives, and one-third in grapevines. ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ״ means that your exit from the world should be like your entry into the world: Just as your entry into the world was without sin, so too your exit from the world should be without sin.
Rabbi Stern interjected at this point that there’s a Gemara in Eruvin that references an extended disagreement between Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel as to whether it is better to be born, or not to have been born. Let’s take a look at the pertinent passage in Eruvin, דף י״ג עמוּד ב:
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּמֶחֱצָה נֶחְלְקוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי וּבֵית הִלֵּל. הַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, וְהַלָּלוּ אוֹמְרִים: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁנִּבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁלֹּא נִבְרָא. נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ: נוֹחַ לוֹ לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא נִבְרָא יוֹתֵר מִשֶּׁנִּבְרָא, עַכְשָׁיו שֶׁנִּבְרָא — יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו. וְאָמְרִי לַהּ: יְמַשְׁמֵשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו.
The Sages taught the following baraisa: For two and a half years, Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin. As Rashi notes:
ימשמש במעשיו – כגון אם בא מצוה לידו יחשב הפסד מצוה כנגד שכרה ולא יניח לעשותה בשביל ההפסד שהרי שכרה עתיד לבוא ואם באת לידו עבירה יחשב שכרו שמשתכר בה עכשיו כנגד הפסדה העתיד ליפרע ממנו
Rabbi Stern pointed out the מהרש״א at the end of מַכּוֹת which says regarding “נִמְנוּ וְגָמְרוּ” that statistically there’s a greater chance of violating mitzvos than keeping mitzvos. After all, the count for עַשֵׂה is 248, and for לֹא תַעַשֵׂה is 365. So theoretically it would be better not to be born, because the deck is stacked against you. But once you’re born, “יְפַשְׁפֵּשׁ בְּמַעֲשָׂיו”, one needs to make every effort to correct one’s actions. As the חַתַם סוֹפֵר explains, ״בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וּבָרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא יְצִיאָתְךָ מִן הָעוֹלָם כְּבִיאָתְךָ לְעוֹלָם. מָה בִּיאָתְךָ לְעוֹלָם בְּלֹא חֵטְא, אַף יְצִיאָתְךָ מִן הָעוֹלָם בְּלֹא חֵטְא means that if one is able to leave the world without חֵטְא, then the בָרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ negates the concern about בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ.
(And yes, it’s a shame that Pinny missed this wonderful Agadata.)
With regard to the עַיִן הָרַע, here’s an interesting perspective from dinonline.org:
“A human being is a powerful creature, and one of his powers is the power of the eye. This is a spiritual power, and it means that when a person looks at something he is able to influence it positively or negatively. Ayin hara refers to the negative influence that a person can have on something by looking at it in a negative way. The Gemara thus teaches that a person should not look at others’ property (the Gemara discusses produce–Bava Metzia 107a) in a negative way, because this can have an adverse effect on the property.
For avoiding ayin hara, a person should not flault his riches (of whatever type he possesses), so that he won’t be seen by others in an envious or negative way. In addition, being popular and well-liked helps, for people usually look at friends positively, and not negatively.
In general, one should not worry too much about ayin hara (as the Rambam advises). We have to live our lives “normally” and try to do the right thing at the right time, and such metaphysical powers as ayin hara can be left, on the whole, to the Divine supervision that guides and protects us.”
Continuing with the theme of עַיִן הָרַע, let’s zoom ahead a where the Gemara comments:
לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דִּמְהַדַּר לֵיהּ שׁוּרָא וְרִתְקָא, הָא דְּלָא מְהַדַּר לֵיהּ שׁוּרָא וְרִתְקָא
In any case, it is evident that Rav approves of one whose property is located near a city. How does this accord with his statement that there is concern for the evil eye when one’s field is viewed by people? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This statement is referring to a wall and hedges that surround the field and prevent it from being harmed by the evil eye. That statement is referring to a case where a wall and an additional partition do not surround it.
It should be evident that in the old days, the believe was prevalent that the eye could emit rays that would literally do harm, and that the עַיִן הָרַע wasn’t just metaphorical. Belief in the power of the עַיִן הָרַע persists to this day in the idiom of “keneyin hara“. But there is scientific evidence suggesting that perhaps there is some literal truth to the eye emitting rather than just receiving (see here). This lends credence to the statement above regarding שׁוּרָא וְרִתְקָא, that a wall and/or partition could literally spare the field from the עַיִן הָרַע.
The Gemara continues discussing the עַיִן הָרַע:
״וְהֵסִיר ה׳ מִמְּךָ כל חֹלִי״, אָמַר רַב: זוֹ [הָ]עַיִן. רַב לְטַעְמֵיהּ. דְּרַב סָלֵיק לְבֵי קִבְרֵי, עֲבַד מַאי דַּעֲבַד, אֲמַר: תִּשְׁעִין וְתִשְׁעָה בְּעַיִן רָעָה, וְאֶחָד בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶרֶץ.
The Torah states: “And Hashem will take away from you all sickness” (וְהֵסִיר ה׳ מִמְּךָ כל חֹלִי – Devarim 7:15). In interpreting this pasuk, רַב says: This pasuk is speaking about the עַיִן הָרַע. The Gemara comments: רַב conforms to his line of reasoning, as רַב went to a graveyard, and did what he did, i.e., he used an incantation to find out how those buried there died, and he said: Ninety-nine of these died by the evil eye, and only one died by entirely natural means!!! As Rashi notes: יודע היה ללחוש על הקברות ולהבין על כל קבר וקבר באיזו מיתה מת אם מת בזמנו אם בעין רעה.
Pressvision's Blog 