Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

June 21, 2017 | 讻状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 150

A question is brought against Rav Yosef who claimed that “kol shehu” means a tiny bit. 聽The question is brought from a source regarding the first shearings聽where “kol shehu” means a particular amount. 聽When one gives another moveable property, what is included? 聽It depends on the wording – “moveable property,” “all moveable property,” “anything that moves.” 聽Are slaves considered property聽(karka) moveable items (metaltalin)? 聽Five cases are brought where the halacha will only be applicable if ALL of one’s property is included. 聽And in all of them, except one(ketuba), property could mean moveable and non-movable items. 聽The gemara聽derives from various sources all different types of things that would be included in the word “nechasim” – property.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 注讘讚 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 讻转讜讘讛

And Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages deemed movable property to be considered a significant reserving of property for oneself with regard to the emancipation of a slave, so that a slave is not emancipated when his owner gives him all of his other property. But they did not deem movable property that one withheld from his sons and earmarked for his wife to be considered a significant reserving of property with regard to her marriage contract. If one granted all of his property to his sons but reserved any amount of land for his wife, she forfeits her marriage contract. By not protesting the gift, she has conceded that she will collect her marriage contract only from the land he reserved for her. Nevertheless, if he reserved only movable property for his wife, she does not forfeit her marriage contract. Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling with regard to a slave indicates that the expression: Reserves any amount of land, does not necessarily exclude movable property.

讛转诐 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 拽专拽注 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘驻讗讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 讜诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛诐 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讜诇拽谞讜转 注诪讛诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽专拽注

Rav Yosef replies: There, with regard to the slave, by right the mishna should not have taught the halakha with regard to land, but it should have taught the halakha with regard to all property. But since the former clause of the mishna teaches a halakha with regard to land, the mishna mentions land in the subsequent clause as well. The Gemara cites the former clause (Pe鈥檃 3:6): Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in pe鈥檃 and in first fruits; and if the debtor possesses any amount of land the creditor can write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for it so that his loans will not be canceled in the seventh year; and he can acquire property that does not serve as a guarantee along with it by means of money, by a deed, or by taking possession of it. Rav Yosef concludes: Due to this reason, the mishna teaches the halakha with regard to land.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜驻专住 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 讻诇 砖讛谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 讜驻专住 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 诪讞讜诪砖讜转

Abaye raises an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement that the term any amount should be understood literally: And anywhere that the term: Any amount, is taught, does the amount not have a measure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣llin 135a): Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep, with the wool weighing one hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars, i.e., one hundred and fifty dinars, renders the owner obligated in the mitzva to give the first sheared wool to the priests. And the Rabbis say: Five sheep, each of whose sheared wool yields wool weighing any amount. And we say: And how much is signified by the term: Any amount? Rav says: A total weight of one hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars, provided that the one hundred and fifty dinars are divided equally between the five sheep. This indicates that the term any amount can denote a certain minimal amount.

讛转诐 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 砖讬注讜专讗 讝讜讟专讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

Rav Yosef replies: There, with regard to the first sheared wool, by right the mishna should not have taught the halakha with regard to any amount. But since the first tanna, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, states a large measure, the Rabbis also state that they require a small measure, and therefore they call this measure any amount. But with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, the term any amount should be understood literally.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讻诇 诪讗谞讬 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讘专 诪讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讻诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞讬诐 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 拽谞讛 诇讘专 诪专讬讞讬诐 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻诇 讚诪讟诇讟诇 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞讬诐 讛转讞转讜谞讛 拽谞讬

搂 It is obvious that if one said: I give my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires all of his utensils, excluding his wheat and barley. If one said: I give all my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires even the wheat and barley, and he acquires even the upper millstone, since it is occasionally removed from its place. He acquires all the property that is not land or houses, except for the lower millstone, which is never moved. If he said: I give everything that can be moved to so-and-so, that person acquires even the lower millstone, as it is possible to move it.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讗 讗讜 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘转讬诐 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讜诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜讘讬转 讛讘讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讜 讘讛 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讘专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诪拽专拽注讗 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the legal status of a Canaanite slave like that of land, or is his status like that of movable property? Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (68a): A landowner who sells the city has sold with it the houses, and the ditches and caves, and the bathhouses, and the olive presses and the irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is in it, then even if there were animals or Canaanite slaves in the city, they are all sold. Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, explains the proof: Granted, if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property, due to that reason he is not sold in the first case. But if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, why is he not sold with the city?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 [讗诇讗] 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚谞讬讬讚 诪诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻诪拽专拽注讗 讚诪讬 砖讗谞讬 诪拽专拽注讗 讚谞讬讬讚 诪诪拽专拽注讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚

Rav Ashi replied: Rather, what do you say? Do you maintain that his legal status is like that of movable property? If there is no difference in legal status between Canaanite slaves and movable property, what is the reason that the mishna emphasizes in the second case that even the Canaanite slaves are sold? Rather, what have you to say to explain this? One must explain that movable property that moves by itself is different from movable property that does not move by itself, and therefore one might have thought that although the sale includes movable property, Canaanite slaves are not included in the sale. In the same manner, even if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, land that moves is different from land that does not move. Therefore, the legal status of Canaanite slaves cannot be proved from this mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讻讜转讘 诇注讘讚讜 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讬 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪专讘讜讗 砖讘讛谉

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 注讘讚 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讗 诪讟诇讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讟诇讟诇讗 诇诪讟诇讟诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪拽专拽注讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讟诇讟诇讗 诇诪拽专拽注讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专

And Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages deemed movable property to be considered a significant reserving of property for oneself with regard to a slave, so that the slave is not emancipated when the owner gives him all of his other property. But they did not deem movable property that one withheld from his sons and earmarked for his wife to be considered a significant reserving of property with regard to her marriage contract. And Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason for this? Rav Na岣an explained: A Canaanite slave is considered movable property, and reserving movable property is considered a significant reserving with regard to movable property. But a woman鈥檚 marriage contract is a document concerning land, since the payment of the marriage contract is collected from land, and reserving movable property is not considered a significant reserving with regard to land. Rav Na岣an states that a Canaanite slave is considered movable property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讻专讜转 讙讬讟讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: The reason the slave is not emancipated if the master reserved part of the property for himself is not that the slave is included in the property that the owner reserved for himself. Rather, we teach this halakha as being due to the fact that the document is not a bill of manumission that completely severs the bond between the slave and the master.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞诪砖讛 注讚 砖讬讻转讘讜 讻诇 谞讻住讬讛诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 注讘讚讜 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪讘专讞转

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: There are five types of gifts to which specific halakhot apply, but the halakhot do not apply until the owners write a deed granting all of their property to another without reserving anything for themselves, and they are as follows: The gift of a person on his deathbed, a gift to one鈥檚 Canaanite slave, a gift to one鈥檚 wife, a gift to one鈥檚 sons, and the gift of a woman who shelters her property from her prospective husband by transferring her property to another before her marriage. In this latter case the Sages instituted that if her husband dies or divorces her she can reclaim the property.

砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚转谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 诇讗 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转

The Gemara explains each of these cases: In the case of a gift of a person on his deathbed, this is as we learned in the mishna (146b): With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since evidently he did not intend to leave himself without means of support if he survived.

注讘讚讜 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

In the case of a gift to one鈥檚 slave, this is as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes a deed granting all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well.

讗砖转讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讟专讜驻讗

In the case of a gift to one鈥檚 wife, this is as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who writes a deed granting all of his property to his wife renders her only a steward of his property, i.e., he intends only to place her in charge of the property and she does not acquire it. According to Rav Na岣an, this applies only if he did not reserve any part of the property for himself.

讘谞讬讜 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讜讻转讘 诇讗砖转讜 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛

In the case of a gift to one鈥檚 sons, this is as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:7): With regard to one who writes a deed granting all of his property to his sons, and he writes in the deed that he grants any amount of land to his wife, she forfeits payment of her marriage contract. If he reserves any amount of land for himself, his wife does not forfeit payment of her marriage contract.

诪讘专讞转 讚讗诪专 诪专 诪讘专讞转 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讻转讜讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讛

In the case of a gift of a woman who shelters her property from her intended husband, this is as the Master says: In the case of a woman who wishes to shelter her property from her prospective husband, she must write a deed granting all of her property to another. If she reserves for herself any amount of property, she cannot reclaim the property if she is widowed or divorced.

讜讘讻讜诇讛讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 诇讘专 诪讻转讜讘讛 讚讗诪拽专拽注讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉

The Gemara concludes: With regard to all of these cases, reserving movable property is considered a significant reserving of property, except with regard to a woman鈥檚 marriage contract. If one grants all of his property to his sons except for any amount of land, which he gives to his wife, and he reserves for himself only movable property, his wife forfeits payment of her marriage contract, as nothing remains in the husband鈥檚 possession from which she is entitled to collect payment. This is because the Sages instituted that the lien on the marriage contract is placed on land, and the Sages did not institute that the marriage contract can be collected from movable property.

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚讻转讬讘讬 讘讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专

Ameimar said: With regard to movable property that is explicitly written in the marriage contract as property from which the debt may be collected and is still extant, if the husband reserves this property for himself, this is considered a significant reserving of property, and his wife does not forfeit payment of her marriage contract.

讗诪专 谞讻住讬 诇驻诇谞讬讗 注讘讚讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗专注讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讙诇讬诪讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛

搂 If one said: My property shall go to so-and-so, anything that is referred to as property is included in the gift. A Canaanite slave is called property, as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated. Land is called property, as we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, can be acquired by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. A cloak, as well as other garments and movable property, is called property, as we learned in that same mishna: And property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling.

讝讜讝讬 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 讗讙讘 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 谞驻拽 诇讗驻讬讛 注讚 转讜讜讱

Money [zuzei] is called property, as we learned in that same mishna: And property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. Money is among the types of property that can be acquired by means of the acquisition of land, as is evident from this incident involving Rav Pappa, who had twelve thousand dinars loaned to the people of Bei 岣zai. Rav Pappa transferred ownership of the money to Rav Shmuel bar A岣, who was traveling to Bei 岣zai, by means of transferring ownership of the threshold of his house, so that Rav Shmuel bar A岣 could collect the money. When Rav Shmuel bar A岣 came back with the money, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tavakh to meet him.

砖讟专讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 讗诪专 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘砖讚讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛

A deed is called property, as Rabba bar Yitz岣k says: There are two types of deeds with regard to the acquisition of land. If one said to the witnesses: Acquire this field on behalf of so-and-so and write the deed for him as proof of the sale, the giver can retract the deed but he cannot retract the transfer of ownership of the field once the other party has taken possession of it. If one said: Acquire this field on behalf of so-and-so on the condition that you write the deed for him, the giver can retract both the deed and the transfer of the field, as he stipulated that the acquisition of the field is dependent on the writing of the deed.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诇砖讛 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 转专讬 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 拽讚诐 诪讜讻专 讜讻转讘 讗转 讛砖讟专 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜

And Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: There are three types of deeds. Two are those that we stated above, and the other is as follows: If the seller wrote the deed in advance and kept it until the buyer would come and pay him. The Gemara adds parenthetically: This is like that halakha that we learned in a mishna (167b):

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 150

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 150

讜讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 注讘讚 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 讻转讜讘讛

And Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages deemed movable property to be considered a significant reserving of property for oneself with regard to the emancipation of a slave, so that a slave is not emancipated when his owner gives him all of his other property. But they did not deem movable property that one withheld from his sons and earmarked for his wife to be considered a significant reserving of property with regard to her marriage contract. If one granted all of his property to his sons but reserved any amount of land for his wife, she forfeits her marriage contract. By not protesting the gift, she has conceded that she will collect her marriage contract only from the land he reserved for her. Nevertheless, if he reserved only movable property for his wife, she does not forfeit her marriage contract. Rabbi Elazar鈥檚 ruling with regard to a slave indicates that the expression: Reserves any amount of land, does not necessarily exclude movable property.

讛转诐 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 拽专拽注 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘驻讗讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐 讜诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛诐 驻专讜讝讘讜诇 讜诇拽谞讜转 注诪讛诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 拽专拽注

Rav Yosef replies: There, with regard to the slave, by right the mishna should not have taught the halakha with regard to land, but it should have taught the halakha with regard to all property. But since the former clause of the mishna teaches a halakha with regard to land, the mishna mentions land in the subsequent clause as well. The Gemara cites the former clause (Pe鈥檃 3:6): Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in pe鈥檃 and in first fruits; and if the debtor possesses any amount of land the creditor can write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for it so that his loans will not be canceled in the seventh year; and he can acquire property that does not serve as a guarantee along with it by means of money, by a deed, or by taking possession of it. Rav Yosef concludes: Due to this reason, the mishna teaches the halakha with regard to land.

讜讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚转谞讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 砖讬注讜专讗 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讘谉 讛专讻讬谞住 讗讜诪专 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 诪谞讛 诪谞讛 讜驻专住 讞讬讬讘讜转 讘专讗砖讬转 讛讙讝 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞诪砖 专讞诇讜转 讙讜讝讝讜转 讻诇 砖讛谉 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讻诪讛 讻诇 砖讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 诪谞讛 讜驻专住 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讜 诪讞讜诪砖讜转

Abaye raises an objection to Rav Yosef鈥檚 statement that the term any amount should be understood literally: And anywhere that the term: Any amount, is taught, does the amount not have a measure? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (岣llin 135a): Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: When shearing five sheep, the sheared wool of each sheep, with the wool weighing one hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars, i.e., one hundred and fifty dinars, renders the owner obligated in the mitzva to give the first sheared wool to the priests. And the Rabbis say: Five sheep, each of whose sheared wool yields wool weighing any amount. And we say: And how much is signified by the term: Any amount? Rav says: A total weight of one hundred dinars and half of one hundred dinars, provided that the one hundred and fifty dinars are divided equally between the five sheep. This indicates that the term any amount can denote a certain minimal amount.

讛转诐 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转谞讬 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗诪专 转谞讗 拽诪讗 砖讬注讜专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 砖讬注讜专讗 讝讜讟专讗 拽专讬 诇讛 讻诇 砖讛讜讗

Rav Yosef replies: There, with regard to the first sheared wool, by right the mishna should not have taught the halakha with regard to any amount. But since the first tanna, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas, states a large measure, the Rabbis also state that they require a small measure, and therefore they call this measure any amount. But with regard to the gift of a person on his deathbed, the term any amount should be understood literally.

驻砖讬讟讗 讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讻诇 诪讗谞讬 转砖诪讬砖转讬讛 拽谞讬 诇讘专 诪讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讻诇 诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇驻诇谞讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讬 讜砖注专讬 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞讬诐 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 拽谞讛 诇讘专 诪专讬讞讬诐 讛转讞转讜谞讛 讻诇 讚诪讟诇讟诇 讗驻讬诇讜 专讬讞讬诐 讛转讞转讜谞讛 拽谞讬

搂 It is obvious that if one said: I give my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires all of his utensils, excluding his wheat and barley. If one said: I give all my movable property to so-and-so, then that person acquires even the wheat and barley, and he acquires even the upper millstone, since it is occasionally removed from its place. He acquires all the property that is not land or houses, except for the lower millstone, which is never moved. If he said: I give everything that can be moved to so-and-so, that person acquires even the lower millstone, as it is possible to move it.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 注讘讚讗 讻诪拽专拽注讗 讗讜 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讜讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讜讻专 讗转 讛注讬专 诪讻专 讘转讬诐 砖讬讞讬谉 讜诪注专讜转 讜诪专讞爪讗讜转 讜讘讬转 讛讘讚讬谉 讜讘讬转 讛砖诇讞讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗转 讛诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讗诪专 讛讬讗 讜讻诇 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讜 讘讛 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 注讘讚讬诐 讛专讬 讻讜诇谉 诪讻讜专讬谉 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉 讘专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诪拽专拽注讗 讚诪讬 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 诪讬讝讚讘谉

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is the legal status of a Canaanite slave like that of land, or is his status like that of movable property? Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (68a): A landowner who sells the city has sold with it the houses, and the ditches and caves, and the bathhouses, and the olive presses and the irrigated fields, but not the movable property. But when the seller said to the buyer: I am selling it and everything that is in it, then even if there were animals or Canaanite slaves in the city, they are all sold. Rav A岣, son of Rav Avya, explains the proof: Granted, if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of movable property, due to that reason he is not sold in the first case. But if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, why is he not sold with the city?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讻诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诪讬 诪讗讬 讗驻讬诇讜 [讗诇讗] 诪讗讬 讗讬转 诇讱 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗谞讬 诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚谞讬讬讚 诪诪讟诇讟诇讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讻诪拽专拽注讗 讚诪讬 砖讗谞讬 诪拽专拽注讗 讚谞讬讬讚 诪诪拽专拽注讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讬讚

Rav Ashi replied: Rather, what do you say? Do you maintain that his legal status is like that of movable property? If there is no difference in legal status between Canaanite slaves and movable property, what is the reason that the mishna emphasizes in the second case that even the Canaanite slaves are sold? Rather, what have you to say to explain this? One must explain that movable property that moves by itself is different from movable property that does not move by itself, and therefore one might have thought that although the sale includes movable property, Canaanite slaves are not included in the sale. In the same manner, even if you say that the legal status of a Canaanite slave is like that of land, land that moves is different from land that does not move. Therefore, the legal status of Canaanite slaves cannot be proved from this mishna.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 讛讻讜转讘 诇注讘讚讜 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讛讜讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讻住讬 谞转讜谞讬谉 诇驻诇讜谞讬 注讘讚讬 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪专讘讜讗 砖讘讛谉

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says: He always becomes a freeman regardless of the wording of the document, even if the owner reserved land for himself, unless it says in the document: All of my property is given to so-and-so my slave, except for one ten-thousandth of it.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 注讘讚 讜诇讗 注砖讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 砖讬讜专 讗爪诇 讻转讜讘讛 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 注讘讚讗 诪讟诇讟诇讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讟诇讟诇讗 诇诪讟诇讟诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 讜讻转讜讘转 讗砖讛 诪拽专拽注讗 讛讜讗 讜诪讟诇讟诇讗 诇诪拽专拽注讗 诇讗 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专

And Rav Dimi bar Yosef says that Rabbi Elazar says: The Sages deemed movable property to be considered a significant reserving of property for oneself with regard to a slave, so that the slave is not emancipated when the owner gives him all of his other property. But they did not deem movable property that one withheld from his sons and earmarked for his wife to be considered a significant reserving of property with regard to her marriage contract. And Rava said to Rav Na岣an: What is the reason for this? Rav Na岣an explained: A Canaanite slave is considered movable property, and reserving movable property is considered a significant reserving with regard to movable property. But a woman鈥檚 marriage contract is a document concerning land, since the payment of the marriage contract is collected from land, and reserving movable property is not considered a significant reserving with regard to land. Rav Na岣an states that a Canaanite slave is considered movable property.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗讜 讻专讜转 讙讬讟讗 诪转谞讬谞谉 诇讛

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: The reason the slave is not emancipated if the master reserved part of the property for himself is not that the slave is included in the property that the owner reserved for himself. Rather, we teach this halakha as being due to the fact that the document is not a bill of manumission that completely severs the bond between the slave and the master.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讞诪砖讛 注讚 砖讬讻转讘讜 讻诇 谞讻住讬讛诐 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 注讘讚讜 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 诪讘专讞转

Rava says that Rav Na岣an says: There are five types of gifts to which specific halakhot apply, but the halakhot do not apply until the owners write a deed granting all of their property to another without reserving anything for themselves, and they are as follows: The gift of a person on his deathbed, a gift to one鈥檚 Canaanite slave, a gift to one鈥檚 wife, a gift to one鈥檚 sons, and the gift of a woman who shelters her property from her prospective husband by transferring her property to another before her marriage. In this latter case the Sages instituted that if her husband dies or divorces her she can reclaim the property.

砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讚转谞谉 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 砖讻转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讜砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转 诇讗 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 拽讬讬诪转

The Gemara explains each of these cases: In the case of a gift of a person on his deathbed, this is as we learned in the mishna (146b): With regard to a person on his deathbed who wrote a deed granting all of his property to others, and he reserved for himself any amount of land, his gift stands even if he subsequently recovers. If he did not reserve for himself any amount of land, and he recovered, his gift does not stand, as the gift was conditional upon his death, since evidently he did not intend to leave himself without means of support if he survived.

注讘讚讜 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 砖讬讬专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇讗 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉

In the case of a gift to one鈥檚 slave, this is as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes a deed granting all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well.

讗砖转讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗砖转讜 诇讗 注砖讗讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讟专讜驻讗

In the case of a gift to one鈥檚 wife, this is as Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who writes a deed granting all of his property to his wife renders her only a steward of his property, i.e., he intends only to place her in charge of the property and she does not acquire it. According to Rav Na岣an, this applies only if he did not reserve any part of the property for himself.

讘谞讬讜 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讘谞讬讜 讜讻转讘 诇讗砖转讜 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讗讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛

In the case of a gift to one鈥檚 sons, this is as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:7): With regard to one who writes a deed granting all of his property to his sons, and he writes in the deed that he grants any amount of land to his wife, she forfeits payment of her marriage contract. If he reserves any amount of land for himself, his wife does not forfeit payment of her marriage contract.

诪讘专讞转 讚讗诪专 诪专 诪讘专讞转 爪专讬讻讛 砖转讻转讜讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讛

In the case of a gift of a woman who shelters her property from her intended husband, this is as the Master says: In the case of a woman who wishes to shelter her property from her prospective husband, she must write a deed granting all of her property to another. If she reserves for herself any amount of property, she cannot reclaim the property if she is widowed or divorced.

讜讘讻讜诇讛讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专 诇讘专 诪讻转讜讘讛 讚讗诪拽专拽注讬 转拽讬谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪诪讟诇讟诇讬 诇讗 转拽讜谉 专讘谞谉

The Gemara concludes: With regard to all of these cases, reserving movable property is considered a significant reserving of property, except with regard to a woman鈥檚 marriage contract. If one grants all of his property to his sons except for any amount of land, which he gives to his wife, and he reserves for himself only movable property, his wife forfeits payment of her marriage contract, as nothing remains in the husband鈥檚 possession from which she is entitled to collect payment. This is because the Sages instituted that the lien on the marriage contract is placed on land, and the Sages did not institute that the marriage contract can be collected from movable property.

讗诪讬诪专 讗诪专 诪讟诇讟诇讬 讚讻转讬讘讬 讘讻转讜讘讛 讜讗讬转谞讛讜 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜 讛讜讬 砖讬讜专

Ameimar said: With regard to movable property that is explicitly written in the marriage contract as property from which the debt may be collected and is still extant, if the husband reserves this property for himself, this is considered a significant reserving of property, and his wife does not forfeit payment of her marriage contract.

讗诪专 谞讻住讬 诇驻诇谞讬讗 注讘讚讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讛讻讜转讘 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇注讘讚讜 讬爪讗 讘谉 讞讜专讬谉 讗专注讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讙诇讬诪讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛

搂 If one said: My property shall go to so-and-so, anything that is referred to as property is included in the gift. A Canaanite slave is called property, as we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): With regard to one who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his Canaanite slave, the slave has been emancipated. Land is called property, as we learned in a mishna (Kiddushin 26a): Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land, can be acquired by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. A cloak, as well as other garments and movable property, is called property, as we learned in that same mishna: And property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling.

讝讜讝讬 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚转谞谉 讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讛讜讜 诇讬讛 转专讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讝讜讝讬 讘讬 讞讜讝讗讬 讗拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 诇专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讗讞讗 讗讙讘 讗住讬驻讗 讚讘讬转讬讛 讻讬 讗转讗 谞驻拽 诇讗驻讬讛 注讚 转讜讜讱

Money [zuzei] is called property, as we learned in that same mishna: And property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired together with property that serves as a guarantee by means of money, by means of a deed, or by taking possession of it. Money is among the types of property that can be acquired by means of the acquisition of land, as is evident from this incident involving Rav Pappa, who had twelve thousand dinars loaned to the people of Bei 岣zai. Rav Pappa transferred ownership of the money to Rav Shmuel bar A岣, who was traveling to Bei 岣zai, by means of transferring ownership of the threshold of his house, so that Rav Shmuel bar A岣 could collect the money. When Rav Shmuel bar A岣 came back with the money, Rav Pappa was so pleased that he went out as far as Tavakh to meet him.

砖讟专讗 讗讬拽专讬 谞讻住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讬爪讞拽 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 讗诪专 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘砖讚讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛

A deed is called property, as Rabba bar Yitz岣k says: There are two types of deeds with regard to the acquisition of land. If one said to the witnesses: Acquire this field on behalf of so-and-so and write the deed for him as proof of the sale, the giver can retract the deed but he cannot retract the transfer of ownership of the field once the other party has taken possession of it. If one said: Acquire this field on behalf of so-and-so on the condition that you write the deed for him, the giver can retract both the deed and the transfer of the field, as he stipulated that the acquisition of the field is dependent on the writing of the deed.

讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诇砖讛 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 转专讬 讛谞讬 讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 拽讚诐 诪讜讻专 讜讻转讘 讗转 讛砖讟专 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜

And Rav 岣yya bar Avin says that Rav Huna says: There are three types of deeds. Two are those that we stated above, and the other is as follows: If the seller wrote the deed in advance and kept it until the buyer would come and pay him. The Gemara adds parenthetically: This is like that halakha that we learned in a mishna (167b):

Scroll To Top