Bava Metzia, Chapter 9, Mishnah 6. Our Mishnah deals with a tenant farmer who committed to paying the field owner a fixed amount of produce, and in the middle of the lease period, a widespread disaster occurred - such as a swarm of locusts striking the area and consuming the crop. The question before us is: May the tenant claim that he is a victim of circumstances beyond his control, and therefore he is entitled to a deduction and should not have to pay the full leasing fee, since it is not his fault that the fields failed to produce a yield?
The text of the Mishnah:
"Hamekabbel sadeh mechavero" - A person who takes a field to work it as a farmer. We are speaking here of a tenant farmer who leases the land for a fixed measure of produce.
"Ve'achlah chagav" - A swarm of locusts consumed the entire crop of the field.
"O nishdefah" - Blight, which is a fierce wind blowing with such force that the kernels of grain are torn from the stalks and the crop is ruined.
The two scenarios in the Mishnah:
"Im makkat medinah hi - menakkeh lo min chakuro" - When it is a widespread disaster, where most of the surrounding fields were also struck by the swarm of locusts or the blight, the tenant farmer may deduct from his leasing fee proportionally. Even though he agreed at the beginning of the period to pay one hundred kor, he deducts from them according to the extent of the damage, since he is a victim of circumstances and the matter is out of his control.
"Im einah makkat medinah - eino menakkeh lo min chakuro" - When this specific field alone was struck by the locusts or fierce winds, while the other fields around it were spared, the tenant farmer may not deduct from his payments. The Mishnah's position is that this clearly indicates the fate of this specific farmer, who must absorb the loss, and it is not the fault of the landowner. Therefore, the landowner can say: The fields of others were not consumed by locusts, which shows that this was directed at you from Hashem, whereas my payment remains as is.
The opinion of Rabbi Yehudah:
Rabbi Yehudah disagrees and says: "Im kibbelah heimenno bemaot - bein kach uvein kach eino menakkeh lo michakuro". According to him, the matter depends on the nature of the agreement: If this is not a lease set at a fixed amount of produce, such as ten kor, but rather a rental for a fixed sum of money, the renter cannot deduct from his payment at all - whether a widespread disaster occurred or it was only a localized strike. The landlord's claim is: My money is not damaged by locusts. Hashem judged you and not me, and my money was not harmed; you must deal with the fact that it was a bad year for agriculture.
The halachah: The halachah does not follow this opinion. It is ruled that wherever a widespread disaster occurred, the farmer is entitled to a deduction from the payment, since it is not his fault - and there is no difference whether he committed to a fixed sum of money or a fixed amount of produce.