Previous Daf

KIDUSHIN 61

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) Based on the Mishnah in Erchin, someone who dedicates an inherited field to Hekdesh ...
1. ... during the era of the Yovel, will has to pay Hekdesh fifty Shekel for each area in which one can sow a Chomer of barley seeds, in order to redeem it.
2. ... in an era when Yovel does not apply will have to pay its market value.
(b) A ditch needs to be ten Tefachim deep and a mound of earth ten Tefachim high for it not to be measured together with the rest of the field in this regard.
(c) It appears from the Mishnah that such ditches or mounds are not even counted independently either. The reason for this cannot be because less than a Beis Kur of barley is not sufficiently significant to be considered a field in this regard because in another Beraisa, the Tana learns from the extra word "mi'Sedei" (in the Pasuk "v'Im mi'Sedei Achuzaso") that the same rates apply to a field of any size, even if it is smaller than a 'Beis Zera Chomer Se'orim'.
(d) The Tana reckons various measurements that are considered a field in this regard, such as ...
1. ... Lesech, which is half a Kur.
2. ... Tarkav, which is three Kabin ('Tar' ['T'rei'], two, 'Kav', one Kav).

click for question
2)
(a) Rocks are precluded from this Halachah altogether because they are not arable. In fact, they are redeemed according to their market price.
(b) The Tana precludes ditches of ten Tefachim altogether because he is speaking when they are full of water.
(c) We know that because he mentions ditches together with rocks, in which case they must be as barren as the rocks are.
(d) Nevertheless, ditches and mounds of earth of less than ten Tefachim are included in the measurement of a Beis Zera Chomer Se'orim because they are Batel to the earth and are called 'basins of the earth' and 'humps of the earth'.

click for question
3)
(a) In contrast to the Din of Hekdesh, Mar Ukva bar Chama interprets the Mishnah in Bava Basra, which precludes ditches ten Tefachim deep or mounds ten Tefachim tall from a Beis Kur of earth that one person sells to another even by ditches which are not full of water.
(b) Rav Papa attributes this to the fact that a person who pays for one field does not expect to receive a field that is broken up into sections.
(c) We prefer to compare the Din in our Mishnah ('Al-Menas she'Yesh li Beis Kur Afar'), to Hekdesh (to include ditches that are not full of water in the Beis Kur) than to a sale (in which case they would be precluded) because the Mekadesh will later take the trouble to bring seeds and sow the ditches too.

click for question
4)
(a) Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah learns from the Pasuk " ... Im Ya'avru Bnei Gad ... v'Im Lo Ya'avru" that we do not say 'mi'Chelal Hein Atah Shome'a Lav' (or vice-versa), and that a condition is only valid if one inverts it and repeats it.
(b) Consequently, if a man divorces his wife 'Al-Menas she'Titni li Masayim Zuz' without doubling the condition the Get will be valid whether she gives him the two hundred Zuz or not ('Tenai Batel u'Ma'aseh Kayam').
(c) The two other principles that Rebbi Meir learns from Moshe's words are that one is also obligated to precede the Tenai to the Ma'aseh and the 'Hein' to the Lav, just as Moshe did with the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven.
(d) Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, who disagrees with Rebbi Meir the previous issue (as we shall soon see) concedes these two latter issues to Rebbi Meir.

click for question
5)
(a) Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel holds 'mi'Chelal Hein Atah Shome'a Lav' (and it is unnecessary to invert the condition and repeat it). He refutes Rebbi Meir's proof that we say 'mi'Chelal Lav I Atah Shome'a Hein' on the grounds that if the Torah would not have written "v'Im Lo Ya'avru, had the Bnei Gad and Reuven had not fulfilled the condition, they would not even have received a portion in Eretz Yisrael either (So the Torah writes it to ensure that they would).
(b) Rebbi Meir counters that if it was only to ensure that they would at least receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael, then the Torah could have written 've'Im Lo Ya'avru v'Nochzu b'Sochechem", without adding the words "b'Eretz Kena'an".
(c) Rebbi Chanina argues that had the Torah written only "v'Nochzu b'Sochechem", this would have implied that they would receive a portion in Eiver ha'Yarden together with Klal Yisrael (instead of inheriting it all themselves), but nothing in Eretz Yisrael (due to the condition).
(d) Rebbi Meir disagrees. In his opinion "b'Sochechem" implies wherever they inherit (in which case, the words "b'Eretz Kena'an" is superfluous to teach us 'mi'Chelal Hein I Atah Shome'a Lav').

click for question
6)
(a) In the parable that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel gives to illustrate his interpretation of a Tenai Kaful, the father who is distributing his property to his sons, designates one field for one son, another, for a second son, and a third, for his third son, provided he pays two hundred Zuz concluding that if he fails to pay the two hundred Zuz, he will inherit the two fields together with his brothers.
(b) This ties up with Moshe's Tenai with the Bnei Gad and the Bnei Reuven inasmuch as there too, the Tenai Kaful ensured that if the Bnei Gad and Reuven would fail to fulfill the condition, they would receive a portion together with the rest of Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael.
(c) Had ...
1. ... the father not repeated the Tenai the third son would have shared the third field with his brothers. Likewise, had ...
2. ... Moshe not repeated the Tenai the Bnei Gad u'Bnei Reuven would have received a portion in Eretz Gil'ad together with the rest of Klal Yisrael.

click for question
7)
(a) Based on the Lashon of Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel ('she'Ilmalei kein Yesh b'Mashma she'Afilu b'Eretz Kena'an Lo Yinchalu'), we query the Mashal because the word 'Afilu' implies that were it not for the Tenai Kaful, they would certainly not receive a portion in Eiver ha'Yarden either.
(b) We resolve this Kashya with 'Ha, Mekamei d'Neima Lei Rebbi Meir 've'Nochzu'; Ha, l'Basar ... ', meaning that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel in our Mishnah speaks before Rebbi Meir divided "v'Nochzu b'Sochechem" and "b'Eretz Kena'an". At that stage, he maintained that if they would fail to fulfill the condition, they would not receive a portion at all (because of 'mi'Chelal Hein Atah Shome'a Lav). Whereas in the Beraisa, he speaks after Rebbi Meir divided them, and we already know from "v'Nochzu b'Sochechem" that they would receive a portion in Eretz Gil'ad. Consequently, "b'Eretz Kena'an" comes to teach us that they would also receive a portion in Eretz Yisrael together with the rest of Yisrael.

click for question
8)
(a) According to Rebbi Meir, the Torah always needs to repeat its conditions. According to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, having written ..
1. ... "Im Teitiv Se'eis" (Hash-m to Kayin), Hash-m nevertheless needed to add "v'Im Lo Seitiv, la'Pesach Chatas Rovetz" because we would otherwise have thought that if he does Teshuvah he will be rewarded, but if not, nothing will happen to him (no reward and no punishment).
2. ... "Im Lo El Beis Avi Seilech" (Avraham to Eliezer), he nevertheless needed to add "Az Tinakeh me'Alasi" to absolve him from taking Rivkah against her parents wishes (should she turn out to be a Gedolah Rabbi Kornfeld Shlita), on the basis of her consent.
3. ... "Az Tinakeh me'Alasi", he nevertheless needed to add "Im Lo Soveh ha'Ishah" to absolve him from taking Rivkah against her wishes, on the basis of her parents' consent (should she be a Ketanah).
4. ... "Im b'Chukosai Teilechu", the Torah needed to add "v'Im b'Chukosai Tim'asu" to teach us that not only is there reward for obeying the Mitzvos, but that disobeying them will result in punishment (as we explained earlier with regard to Kayin).
(b) We give the same answer in reply to the Kashya why the Navi in Yeshayah, having written "Im Tovu u'Shema'tem", found it necessary to add "v'Im Tema'anu u'Merisem". When the Navi concludes there "Cherev Te'uklu" he is referring to thick salt with hard barley bread and onions (which are harmful to the body like a sword. See Ya'avetz).

Next Daf