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

Daf Yomi

July 3, 2023 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ืชืžื•ื– ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine andย Saulย Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 48

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina’s birthday tomorrow! “Mazal tov our to our beloved Rina! You bring tremendous joy to our lives just by your being, and we are tremendously proud of you for all you do. Thank you for starting us on our Daf Yomi journey together!”ย 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Mitzi and David Geffen in loving memory of David’s infant brother Azriel ben Avraham, on his 70th yahrzeit.ย 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Rhona Fink in honor of her fellow San Diego Daf learner Glenda Jaffe on her retirement from Hillel San Diego. “She has enriched the lives of Jewish students and supported their journeys for the past 15 years. Thank you for your dedication to our community.”

When the jubilee year is practiced, the land goes back it its original owner in the jubilee year. Therefore, purchasing land is equivalent to purchasing land for its produce. Therefore, Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish have the same disagreement about bikurim – does the buyer recite the text when bringing the bikurim or not? Two sources are brought to support Rabbi Yochanan but are rejected in two different ways. They also suggest that the debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish is a tannaitic debate. But that suggestion is rejected. Two sources (one verse and one braita) are brought to support Reish Lakish’s position. Different types of payments are to be collected from different qualities of land. One who has to pay damages, pays from the best land (idit), a borrower pays from the average quality land (beinonit), and a woman collects her ketuba from the poorest quality land (ziburit), but according to Rabbi Meir, she collects from average land. Orphans who owe money from their father’s estate always pay from lower-quality land. Certain obligations cannot be collected from liened property. All these laws were instituted on account of tikkun olam. How can the Mishna be saying that one collects damages from high-quality land because of tikkun olam? Isn’t that a verse in the Torah? The Gemara explains that the Mishna must be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael and not Rabbi Akiva.

 

ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ื”ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื


in the time when the Jubilee Year is practiced, and every sale of land is only for its produce, because the land returns to its original owners in the Jubilee Year, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The purchaser brings the first fruits and recites the verses. Reish Lakish says: The purchaser brings the first fruits but he does not recite the verses.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the purchaser brings the first fruits and recites the verses, because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself. Consequently, the one bringing the fruits can truthfully recite: โ€œThe land which You, Lord, have given meโ€ (Deuteronomy 26:10). Reish Lakish says that the purchaser brings the first fruits but he does not recite the verses, because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself.


ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ื›ื™ ืงื ื ื—ื™ืช ืื“ืขืชื ื“ืคื™ืจื ืงื ื ื—ื™ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืงื ื ื—ื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state the dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish in both cases. Because if it was stated only in that case, with regard to one who acquires a field for its produce, one might say that it is only in that case that Reish Lakish says that he does not recite the verses, since already when he descended to the field, i.e., took possession of the land, he descended with the intention of acquiring only the produce, as stipulated at the time of the sale; but in this case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, when he descended to the field with the intention of acquiring the land itself, say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan that he recites the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state explicitly that Reish Lakish holds that he does not recite the verses in this case as well.


ื•ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฆืจื™ื›ื


And if it was stated only in this case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, one might say that it is only in this case that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that it is like the acquisition of the item itself and recites the verses, as he purchased the field to fully own it; but in that case, where the sale was only with regard to the produce, say that he concedes to Reish Lakish that he does not recite the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืงื•ื ื” ืื™ืœืŸ ื•ืงืจืงืขื• ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ื”ื’


The Gemara offers a proof in support of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (Bikkurim 1:11): One who acquires a tree and its surrounding land brings the first fruits of those trees and recites the verses, even though he is required to return the land in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here according to the opinion of Reish Lakish? The mishna is referring to one who acquires a tree and its surrounding land in the time when the Jubilee Year is not practiced, so the acquisition is permanent.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ื”ื ืฉืœืฉื” ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ื”ื’


The Gemara suggests another proof in support of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (Bikkurim 1:16): One who acquires two trees in anotherโ€™s field brings the first fruits of those trees but does not recite the verses, as he acquires only the trees but not the land. But if one acquires three trees, he brings the first fruits of those trees and recites the verses, because he also acquires the land surrounding the trees, despite the fact that the land is returned in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara rejects this: Here too, Reish Lakish would explain that the mishna is referring to one who acquires three trees in the time when the Jubilee Year is not practiced.


ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืฉื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืกืžืš ื“ืขืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืฉื ื™


The Gemara comments: And now that Rav แธคisda said: The dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish is with regard to land sold during the second Jubilee, after the Jewish people already practiced the Jubilee Year once and people could trust that the land would be returned in the Jubilee Year, but with regard to land sold during the first Jubilee, which was practiced by the Jews immediately following their entry into Eretz Yisrael, everyone agrees that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, as they did not yet rely on the fact that the fields would be returned, there is no need to claim that according to Reish Lakish these mishnayot are referring to when the Jubilee Year was not practiced. Instead, one could answer that it is not difficult: This, the mishnayot that state that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, are referring to land sold during the first Jubilee. That, where Reish Lakish rules that he brings the first fruits but does not recite the verses, is referring to land sold during the second Jubilee.


ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. The halakha is that if one consecrated but did not redeem his ancestral field, and the Temple treasury sold it to another Jew, it becomes the property of the priesthood in the Jubilee Year. However, if one purchases a field from another Jew and consecrates it, it reverts back to the original owner in the Jubilee Year. The baraita taught: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father in the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field, and it does not revert to the sonโ€™s ownership in the Jubilee Year?


ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


The baraita continues: The verse states: โ€œAnd if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:22). The addition of the phrase: โ€œWhich is not of the field of his ancestral field,โ€ teaches that the halakha that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. This field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field, although the son had purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื•ืื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื


The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father at the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced and his father died, and afterward he consecrated it, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field, and does not revert to the son in the Jubilee Year? The verse states: โ€œAnd if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral field.โ€ The addition of the phrase: โ€œWhich is not of the field of his ancestral field,โ€ teaches that the halakha that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field, meaning that he did not inherit it. This field, which the son inherited before he consecrated it, is excluded, as it is an ancestral field, while according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required to teach that in a case where his father died, and he consecrated it afterward, it is considered an ancestral field, as this is obvious. The Gemara explains why the other tannaโ€™im do not require a verse to teach the halakha in the case discussed by Rabbi Meir:


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื”ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื™ืจื™ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื”ืœื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืฆืจื™ืš ืงืจื


The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not that they disagree about this, as Rabbi Meir holds: The acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and in this case, when he purchased the field, i.e., the rights to the produce, from his father before his death, it is the case that he inherits nothing when his father dies, as he had already taken ownership of the field when he purchased it from his father, and nothing changed with his fatherโ€™s death; and therefore, if his father died and he consecrated it afterward, then a verse is necessary to teach that it is treated like an ancestral field, as one might have thought that the field is his entirely as a result of the purchase, and not because of an ancestral inheritance.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื”ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื™ืจื™ืช ื•ื”ืœื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš


While Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and in this case, when he had purchased the field from his father before his father died, with the death of his father he now inherits the field as well, since until now he owned only the rights to the produce; and therefore if his father died and he consecrated the field afterward, a verse is not necessary to teach that it is an ancestral field, as it is obvious that he now owns it due to his inheritance. And when a verse was necessary, it is for a case where he consecrated the field and his father died afterward that it was necessary.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื‘ืขืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ื•ื“ืจื•ืฉ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืžืื™ ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”


The Gemara rejects this explanation of the dispute. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Actually, I could say to you that in general Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and they agree that the verse is necessary to teach the halakha concerning a case where he consecrated the field after his fatherโ€™s death. And here, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon found another element of the verse and they expounded it. They maintain that if the verse is teaching the halakha only in the case where he consecrated the field after his fatherโ€™s death, then let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not his ancestral field. What is the meaning of the expression: โ€œOf his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:22)? This emphasizes: A field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. This field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field, although the son had purchased it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฆื ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื—ืœืงื• ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ


Rav Yosef said: If not for the fact that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, he would not find his hands or his feet in the study hall, i.e., there would be a contradiction between Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statements. As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered to be purchasers from one another, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property.


ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืืœื ื—ื“ ื‘ืจ ื—ื“ ืขื“ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืŸ


And if it enters your mind to say that the legal status of the acquisition of an item for its produce is not like that of the acquisition of the item itself, then according to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion you will find that one brings first fruits by Torah law only when he is an only child the son of an only child, and so forth, dating back to the time of Joshua, son of Nun. Only in such a case does the child fully inherit the land. In any other case, the children inherit only the rights to the produce, as they must return the actual land to each other in the Jubilee Year, and would not be able to recite the verses connected with the first fruits, since they could not refer to the land that the Lord has given them. Since Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, anyone who inherits land may recite the verses.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืงืจื ื•ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืžืกื™ื™ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืงืจื


Rava said: A verse and a baraita support the opinion of Reish Lakish. A verse, as it is written:


ื‘ืžืกืคืจ ืฉื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ื™ืžื›ืจ ืœืš


โ€œAccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:15), meaning that it is not the field itself that is sold, but rather, what is sold is the right to consume the produce for a specific number of years.


ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ


A baraita supports the opinion of Reish Lakish, as it is taught: A firstborn son takes a double portion in a field that returns to his father in the Jubilee Year, i.e., a field that his father sold, and he subsequently died, and the field therefore returns to his sons in the Jubilee Year. The halakha is that a firstborn son receives a double portion only of property that the father possessed at the time of his death, but not of property that was due to the father. If the acquisition of the produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, then the field the father sold would not be considered to have been in his possession at the time of his death.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื ืงื˜ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืืฉืชื• ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ืจืฉืื”


Abaye said: We have a tradition that a husband requires authorization with regard to his wifeโ€™s property, meaning that if there is a legal dispute between the husband and another person with regard to the usufruct property the husband received from his wife, he requires authorization from his wife that he may act on her behalf in order to present himself in court as a litigant. If he does not receive such authorization, the other litigant has the right to claim that he is not legally answerable to the husband, and may insist that the wife come before the court herself. This indicates that the acquisition of the produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and therefore the husband is not the owner of the property.


ื•ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ืœื ื ื—ื™ืช ืืคื™ืจื™ ืื‘ืœ ื ื—ื™ืช ืืคื™ืจื™ ืžื™ื’ื• ื“ืžืฉืชืขื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืืคื™ืจื™ ืžืฉืชืขื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืื’ื•ืคื


The Gemara explains: And we said this halakha only when the other litigant did not go down to court with a claim concerning the produce, and the case addresses only the ownership of the land itself. But if he went down to court with a claim concerning the produce, with regard to which the husband is definitely the interested party, then since the husband speaks in front of the court about the law concerning the produce, he also speaks in front of the court about the law concerning the land itself, and therefore he does not require authorization from his wife.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืฉื•ืœื—



ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช


MISHNA: The court appraises land of superior quality [iddit] for payment to injured parties. And a creditor collects his debt from the debtorโ€™s intermediate-quality land. And payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from her husbandโ€™s inferior-quality land. Rabbi Meir says: Payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is also collected from intermediate-quality land.


ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืŸ ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช


Payment of a debt or other obligation is not collected from liened property that has been sold to a third party when the debtor still has unsold property, even when this unsold property is inferior-quality land. The creditor cannot collect his debt from liened property that the debtor has sold to another person as long as the debtor is still in possession of other property, even if the remaining assets are inferior to those to which the creditor would otherwise have been entitled.


ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช


If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the fatherโ€™s debt can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land.


ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืœืฉื‘ื— ืงืจืงืขื•ืช


The court does not appropriate liened property that has been sold to a third party for the consumption of produce or for the enhanced value of land. If one appropriated a field and sold it, and the buyer worked the land, enhanced it, and grew produce on it, and then the initial owner from whom the field had been stolen took back the land and the produce from the buyer, compensating him only for his expenses, then the buyer may go back to the seller, i.e., the robber, and collect his losses. He can collect the purchase price of the field even from property that the robber sold to another person. By contrast, the value of the produce and the enhancement in the value of the field, which resulted from his actions, may be collected only from the robberโ€™s unsold property.


ื•ืœืžื–ื•ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ื•ื”ื‘ื ื•ืช ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื


And similarly, payment for the sustenance of a manโ€™s wife and daughters cannot be collected from his liened property. One of the stipulations included in a marriage contract is that after the husband dies, his widow and daughters are entitled to sustenance from his estate. This sustenance cannot be collected from the husbandโ€™s liened property that has been sold to another person, but only from his unsold property inherited by his heirs. All of these enactments were made for the betterment of the world.


ื•ื”ืžื•ืฆื ืžืฆื™ืื” ืœื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื


And it was further instituted that one who finds a lost item and returns it to its rightful owner is not required to take an oath that he did not keep any part of the lost item for himself. This ordinance was also instituted for the betterment of the world.


ื’ืžืณ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื


GEMARA: When the mishna says: For the betterment of the world, it seems to be referring to all of the cases in the mishna. The Gemara therefore asks: The first clause of the mishna states that compensation for damage is collected from superior-quality land. Is this ordinance also only for the betterment of the world? This is by Torah law, as it is written with regard to one who damages another personโ€™s property: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4).


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื“ืžื–ื™ืง


Abaye said: This statement is necessary only according to Rabbi Yishmael, who said that by Torah law we appraise the property of the injured party, i.e., the injured party can collect payment only from property equal in quality to the best of his own, even if the one who caused the damage owns property of higher quality. Therefore, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that for the betterment of the world we appraise the property of the one who caused the damage.


ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืœื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ


The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yishmael alluded to by Abaye? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay,โ€ teaches that the appraisal is of the best quality of the field of the injured party and of the best quality of the vineyard of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury collects from superior-quality land.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื›ืœ ืฉืžื ื” ืžืฉืœื ืฉืžื ื” ืื›ืœ ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ืžืฉืœื ืฉืžื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืื›ืœื” ืขืจื•ื’ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืขืจื•ื’ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ืื›ืœ ืื™ ืฉืžื ื” ืื›ืœ ื“ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ื” ืžืžื™ื˜ื‘


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, if oneโ€™s animal ate from a rich garden bed, it is understandable that he must pay the injured party the value of a rich garden bed. But if it ate from a poor garden bed, is it reasonable that he pays the value of a rich garden bed? Rav Idi bar Avin said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the animal that caused the damage ate from one garden bed among other garden beds, and we do not know whether it ate from a poor one or it ate from a rich one. In such a case, the animalโ€™s owner pays the injured party the value of the latterโ€™s best quality property.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืœื• ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ืื›ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืฉืžื ื” ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘


Rava raised a question and said: If we would know that the animal ate from a poor garden bed, its owner would have to pay only the value of a poor garden bed. Now that we do not know from which garden bed it ate, is it reasonable that he should have to pay the value of a rich garden bed? There is a principle governing monetary disputes that the burden of proof falls on the claimant. Therefore, so long as the injured party cannot prove that the animal ate from the rich garden bed, he should not be entitled to collect the value of such a garden bed. Rather, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said:


  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine andย Saulย Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 44-50 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue to learn about decrees made for the betterment of society. One may only redeem captives...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 48: Owning an Ancestral Field l

One who purchases a field from his father, but then the Jubilee year complicated the issues of inheritance vs. purchase....

Gittin 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 48

ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ื”ื’ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื


in the time when the Jubilee Year is practiced, and every sale of land is only for its produce, because the land returns to its original owners in the Jubilee Year, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The purchaser brings the first fruits and recites the verses. Reish Lakish says: The purchaser brings the first fruits but he does not recite the verses.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™


The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the purchaser brings the first fruits and recites the verses, because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself. Consequently, the one bringing the fruits can truthfully recite: โ€œThe land which You, Lord, have given meโ€ (Deuteronomy 26:10). Reish Lakish says that the purchaser brings the first fruits but he does not recite the verses, because he holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself.


ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ื‘ื”ื”ื™ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื“ื›ื™ ืงื ื ื—ื™ืช ืื“ืขืชื ื“ืคื™ืจื ืงื ื ื—ื™ืช ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ื“ืื“ืขืชื ื“ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืงื ื ื—ื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ


The Gemara comments: And it is necessary to state the dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish in both cases. Because if it was stated only in that case, with regard to one who acquires a field for its produce, one might say that it is only in that case that Reish Lakish says that he does not recite the verses, since already when he descended to the field, i.e., took possession of the land, he descended with the intention of acquiring only the produce, as stipulated at the time of the sale; but in this case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, when he descended to the field with the intention of acquiring the land itself, say that he concedes to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan that he recites the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state explicitly that Reish Lakish holds that he does not recite the verses in this case as well.


ื•ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื‘ื”ื ื‘ื”ื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื”ืš ืื™ืžื ืžื•ื“ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฆืจื™ื›ื


And if it was stated only in this case, with regard to one who purchases the field when the Jubilee Year is practiced, one might say that it is only in this case that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that it is like the acquisition of the item itself and recites the verses, as he purchased the field to fully own it; but in that case, where the sale was only with regard to the produce, say that he concedes to Reish Lakish that he does not recite the verses. Therefore, it is necessary to state the dispute in both cases.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืงื•ื ื” ืื™ืœืŸ ื•ืงืจืงืขื• ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ื”ื’


The Gemara offers a proof in support of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (Bikkurim 1:11): One who acquires a tree and its surrounding land brings the first fruits of those trees and recites the verses, even though he is required to return the land in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara responds: With what are we dealing here according to the opinion of Reish Lakish? The mishna is referring to one who acquires a tree and its surrounding land in the time when the Jubilee Year is not practiced, so the acquisition is permanent.


ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืงื•ื ื” ืฉื ื™ ืื™ืœื ื•ืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืื™ื ื• ืงื•ืจื ื”ื ืฉืœืฉื” ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ื ื•ื”ื’


The Gemara suggests another proof in support of Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion: Come and hear a proof from the mishna (Bikkurim 1:16): One who acquires two trees in anotherโ€™s field brings the first fruits of those trees but does not recite the verses, as he acquires only the trees but not the land. But if one acquires three trees, he brings the first fruits of those trees and recites the verses, because he also acquires the land surrounding the trees, despite the fact that the land is returned in the Jubilee Year. The Gemara rejects this: Here too, Reish Lakish would explain that the mishna is referring to one who acquires three trees in the time when the Jubilee Year is not practiced.


ื•ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืฉื ื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืžื‘ื™ื ื•ืงื•ืจื ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ืกืžืš ื“ืขืชื™ื™ื”ื• ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ ืฉื ื™


The Gemara comments: And now that Rav แธคisda said: The dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish is with regard to land sold during the second Jubilee, after the Jewish people already practiced the Jubilee Year once and people could trust that the land would be returned in the Jubilee Year, but with regard to land sold during the first Jubilee, which was practiced by the Jews immediately following their entry into Eretz Yisrael, everyone agrees that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, as they did not yet rely on the fact that the fields would be returned, there is no need to claim that according to Reish Lakish these mishnayot are referring to when the Jubilee Year was not practiced. Instead, one could answer that it is not difficult: This, the mishnayot that state that he brings the first fruits and recites the verses, are referring to land sold during the first Jubilee. That, where Reish Lakish rules that he brings the first fruits but does not recite the verses, is referring to land sold during the second Jubilee.


ืœื™ืžื ื›ืชื ืื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”


The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the dispute between Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish is parallel to a dispute between tannaโ€™im. The halakha is that if one consecrated but did not redeem his ancestral field, and the Temple treasury sold it to another Jew, it becomes the property of the priesthood in the Jubilee Year. However, if one purchases a field from another Jew and consecrates it, it reverts back to the original owner in the Jubilee Year. The baraita taught: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father in the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced and consecrated it, and afterward his father died, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field, and it does not revert to the sonโ€™s ownership in the Jubilee Year?


ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


The baraita continues: The verse states: โ€œAnd if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:22). The addition of the phrase: โ€œWhich is not of the field of his ancestral field,โ€ teaches that the halakha that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to a field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. This field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field, although the son had purchased it. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.


ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืœืœื•ืงื— ืฉื“ื” ืžืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืžื ื™ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื”ื ืœืคื ื™ื• ื›ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉื”ื™ื ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื•ืื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื


The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir says: From where is it derived that one who purchases a field from his father at the time when the Jubilee Year was practiced and his father died, and afterward he consecrated it, from where is it derived that it should be considered before him like an ancestral field, and does not revert to the son in the Jubilee Year? The verse states: โ€œAnd if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not of the field of his ancestral field.โ€ The addition of the phrase: โ€œWhich is not of the field of his ancestral field,โ€ teaches that the halakha that the field reverts to the original owner applies specifically to a field that is not an ancestral field, meaning that he did not inherit it. This field, which the son inherited before he consecrated it, is excluded, as it is an ancestral field, while according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, a verse is not required to teach that in a case where his father died, and he consecrated it afterward, it is considered an ancestral field, as this is obvious. The Gemara explains why the other tannaโ€™im do not require a verse to teach the halakha in the case discussed by Rabbi Meir:


ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ื”ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื”ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื ื™ืจื™ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื•ื”ืœื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืฆืจื™ืš ืงืจื


The Gemara clarifies: What, is it not that they disagree about this, as Rabbi Meir holds: The acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and in this case, when he purchased the field, i.e., the rights to the produce, from his father before his death, it is the case that he inherits nothing when his father dies, as he had already taken ownership of the field when he purchased it from his father, and nothing changed with his fatherโ€™s death; and therefore, if his father died and he consecrated it afterward, then a verse is necessary to teach that it is treated like an ancestral field, as one might have thought that the field is his entirely as a result of the purchase, and not because of an ancestral inheritance.


ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื‘ื”ื ื‘ืžื™ืชืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื”ืฉืชื ื”ื•ื ื“ืงื ื™ืจื™ืช ื•ื”ืœื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืงืจื ื•ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืœื”ืงื“ื™ืฉื” ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืžืช ืื‘ื™ื• ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš


While Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the acquisition of an item for its produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and in this case, when he had purchased the field from his father before his father died, with the death of his father he now inherits the field as well, since until now he owned only the rights to the produce; and therefore if his father died and he consecrated the field afterward, a verse is not necessary to teach that it is an ancestral field, as it is obvious that he now owns it due to his inheritance. And when a verse was necessary, it is for a case where he consecrated the field and his father died afterward that it was necessary.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื‘ืขืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ื•ื”ื›ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืงืจื ืืฉื›ื—ื• ื•ื“ืจื•ืฉ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื ืืช ืฉื“ื” ืžืงื ืชื• ืืฉืจ ืœื ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืžืื™ ืžืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ืชื• ืฉื“ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื” ื™ืฆืชื” ื–ื• ืฉืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื”ื™ื•ืช ืฉื“ื” ืื—ื•ื–ื”


The Gemara rejects this explanation of the dispute. Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak said: Actually, I could say to you that in general Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and they agree that the verse is necessary to teach the halakha concerning a case where he consecrated the field after his fatherโ€™s death. And here, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon found another element of the verse and they expounded it. They maintain that if the verse is teaching the halakha only in the case where he consecrated the field after his fatherโ€™s death, then let the Merciful One write in the Torah: And if he sanctify to the Lord a field which he has bought, which is not his ancestral field. What is the meaning of the expression: โ€œOf his ancestral fieldโ€ (Leviticus 27:22)? This emphasizes: A field that is not fit to be an ancestral field, meaning that he would not inherit it in the future. This field, which the son was entitled to inherit after he had consecrated it, is excluded, as it is fit to be an ancestral field, although the son had purchased it.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื ื™ืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฆื ื™ื“ื™ื• ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืžื“ืจืฉ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืื—ื™ืŸ ืฉื—ืœืงื• ืœืงื•ื—ื•ืช ื”ืŸ ื•ืžื—ื–ื™ืจื™ืŸ ื–ื” ืœื–ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ


Rav Yosef said: If not for the fact that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, he would not find his hands or his feet in the study hall, i.e., there would be a contradiction between Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s statements. As Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Brothers who divided property received as an inheritance are considered to be purchasers from one another, and as purchasers of land they must return the portions to each other in the Jubilee Year, at which point they may redistribute the property.


ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืœืื• ื›ืงื ื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉื›ื—ืช ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื‘ื™ื›ื•ืจื™ื ืืœื ื—ื“ ื‘ืจ ื—ื“ ืขื“ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืŸ


And if it enters your mind to say that the legal status of the acquisition of an item for its produce is not like that of the acquisition of the item itself, then according to Rabbi Yoแธฅananโ€™s opinion you will find that one brings first fruits by Torah law only when he is an only child the son of an only child, and so forth, dating back to the time of Joshua, son of Nun. Only in such a case does the child fully inherit the land. In any other case, the children inherit only the rights to the produce, as they must return the actual land to each other in the Jubilee Year, and would not be able to recite the verses connected with the first fruits, since they could not refer to the land that the Lord has given them. Since Rabbi Yoแธฅanan holds that the acquisition of an item for its produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, anyone who inherits land may recite the verses.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืงืจื ื•ืžืชื ื™ืชื ืžืกื™ื™ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืงืจื


Rava said: A verse and a baraita support the opinion of Reish Lakish. A verse, as it is written:


ื‘ืžืกืคืจ ืฉื ื™ ืชื‘ื•ืื•ืช ื™ืžื›ืจ ืœืš


โ€œAccording to the number of years of the crops he shall sell to youโ€ (Leviticus 25:15), meaning that it is not the field itself that is sold, but rather, what is sold is the right to consume the produce for a specific number of years.


ืžืชื ื™ืชื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืคื™ ืฉื ื™ื ื‘ืฉื“ื” ื”ื—ื•ื–ืจืช ืœืื‘ื™ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื‘ืœ


A baraita supports the opinion of Reish Lakish, as it is taught: A firstborn son takes a double portion in a field that returns to his father in the Jubilee Year, i.e., a field that his father sold, and he subsequently died, and the field therefore returns to his sons in the Jubilee Year. The halakha is that a firstborn son receives a double portion only of property that the father possessed at the time of his death, but not of property that was due to the father. If the acquisition of the produce is considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, then the field the father sold would not be considered to have been in his possession at the time of his death.


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื ืงื˜ื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืขืœ ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืืฉืชื• ืฆืจื™ืš ื”ืจืฉืื”


Abaye said: We have a tradition that a husband requires authorization with regard to his wifeโ€™s property, meaning that if there is a legal dispute between the husband and another person with regard to the usufruct property the husband received from his wife, he requires authorization from his wife that he may act on her behalf in order to present himself in court as a litigant. If he does not receive such authorization, the other litigant has the right to claim that he is not legally answerable to the husband, and may insist that the wife come before the court herself. This indicates that the acquisition of the produce is not considered to be like the acquisition of the item itself, and therefore the husband is not the owner of the property.


ื•ืœื ืืžืจืŸ ืืœื ื“ืœื ื ื—ื™ืช ืืคื™ืจื™ ืื‘ืœ ื ื—ื™ืช ืืคื™ืจื™ ืžื™ื’ื• ื“ืžืฉืชืขื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืืคื™ืจื™ ืžืฉืชืขื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืื’ื•ืคื


The Gemara explains: And we said this halakha only when the other litigant did not go down to court with a claim concerning the produce, and the case addresses only the ownership of the land itself. But if he went down to court with a claim concerning the produce, with regard to which the husband is definitely the interested party, then since the husband speaks in front of the court about the law concerning the produce, he also speaks in front of the court about the law concerning the land itself, and therefore he does not require authorization from his wife.


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื”ืฉื•ืœื—



ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืฃ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉื” ื‘ื‘ื™ื ื•ื ื™ืช


MISHNA: The court appraises land of superior quality [iddit] for payment to injured parties. And a creditor collects his debt from the debtorโ€™s intermediate-quality land. And payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is collected from her husbandโ€™s inferior-quality land. Rabbi Meir says: Payment of a womanโ€™s marriage contract is also collected from intermediate-quality land.


ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื ื›ืกื™ื ื‘ื ื™ ื—ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ืŸ ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช


Payment of a debt or other obligation is not collected from liened property that has been sold to a third party when the debtor still has unsold property, even when this unsold property is inferior-quality land. The creditor cannot collect his debt from liened property that the debtor has sold to another person as long as the debtor is still in possession of other property, even if the remaining assets are inferior to those to which the creditor would otherwise have been entitled.


ืื™ืŸ ื ืคืจืขื™ืŸ ืžื ื›ืกื™ ื™ืชื•ืžื™ืŸ ืืœื ืžืŸ ื”ื–ื™ื‘ื•ืจื™ืช


If one who owed money died and his children inherited his property, the fatherโ€™s debt can be collected from the property of the orphans only from inferior-quality land.


ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ืฆื™ืื™ืŸ ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื•ืœืฉื‘ื— ืงืจืงืขื•ืช


The court does not appropriate liened property that has been sold to a third party for the consumption of produce or for the enhanced value of land. If one appropriated a field and sold it, and the buyer worked the land, enhanced it, and grew produce on it, and then the initial owner from whom the field had been stolen took back the land and the produce from the buyer, compensating him only for his expenses, then the buyer may go back to the seller, i.e., the robber, and collect his losses. He can collect the purchase price of the field even from property that the robber sold to another person. By contrast, the value of the produce and the enhancement in the value of the field, which resulted from his actions, may be collected only from the robberโ€™s unsold property.


ื•ืœืžื–ื•ืŸ ื”ืืฉื” ื•ื”ื‘ื ื•ืช ืžื ื›ืกื™ื ืžืฉื•ืขื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื


And similarly, payment for the sustenance of a manโ€™s wife and daughters cannot be collected from his liened property. One of the stipulations included in a marriage contract is that after the husband dies, his widow and daughters are entitled to sustenance from his estate. This sustenance cannot be collected from the husbandโ€™s liened property that has been sold to another person, but only from his unsold property inherited by his heirs. All of these enactments were made for the betterment of the world.


ื•ื”ืžื•ืฆื ืžืฆื™ืื” ืœื ื™ืฉื‘ืข ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื


And it was further instituted that one who finds a lost item and returns it to its rightful owner is not required to take an oath that he did not keep any part of the lost item for himself. This ordinance was also instituted for the betterment of the world.


ื’ืžืณ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื


GEMARA: When the mishna says: For the betterment of the world, it seems to be referring to all of the cases in the mishna. The Gemara therefore asks: The first clause of the mishna states that compensation for damage is collected from superior-quality land. Is this ordinance also only for the betterment of the world? This is by Torah law, as it is written with regard to one who damages another personโ€™s property: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he payโ€ (Exodus 22:4).


ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืืžืจ ืžื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ื‘ื“ื ื™ื–ืง ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืžืคื ื™ ืชื™ืงื•ืŸ ื”ืขื•ืœื ืฉื™ื™ืžื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื“ืžื–ื™ืง


Abaye said: This statement is necessary only according to Rabbi Yishmael, who said that by Torah law we appraise the property of the injured party, i.e., the injured party can collect payment only from property equal in quality to the best of his own, even if the one who caused the damage owns property of higher quality. Therefore, the tanna of the mishna teaches us that for the betterment of the world we appraise the property of the one who caused the damage.


ืžืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ื™ืฉืœื ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื•ืžื™ื˜ื‘ ื›ืจืžื• ืฉืœ ื ื™ื–ืง ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื‘ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืืœื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืช ืœื ื™ื–ืงื™ืŸ ืžืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ื™ืช ื•ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ืœื”ืงื“ืฉ


The Gemara asks: What is this statement of Rabbi Yishmael alluded to by Abaye? It is as it is taught in a baraita: The verse: โ€œOf the best of his own field, and of the best of his own vineyard, shall he pay,โ€ teaches that the appraisal is of the best quality of the field of the injured party and of the best quality of the vineyard of the injured party. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: The verse comes only to allow injured parties to collect compensation from superior-quality land belonging to the one who caused the damage, in the event that he has no money or movable property. And by means of an a fortiori inference one can derive that the Temple treasury collects from superior-quality land.


ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืื›ืœ ืฉืžื ื” ืžืฉืœื ืฉืžื ื” ืื›ืœ ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ืžืฉืœื ืฉืžื ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืื›ืœื” ืขืจื•ื’ื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ืขืจื•ื’ื•ืช ื•ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืื™ ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ืื›ืœ ืื™ ืฉืžื ื” ืื›ืœ ื“ืžืฉืœื ืœื™ื” ืžืžื™ื˜ื‘


The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, if oneโ€™s animal ate from a rich garden bed, it is understandable that he must pay the injured party the value of a rich garden bed. But if it ate from a poor garden bed, is it reasonable that he pays the value of a rich garden bed? Rav Idi bar Avin said: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case where the animal that caused the damage ate from one garden bed among other garden beds, and we do not know whether it ate from a poor one or it ate from a rich one. In such a case, the animalโ€™s owner pays the injured party the value of the latterโ€™s best quality property.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืœื• ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ื“ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ืื›ืœ ืžืฉืœื ื›ื—ื•ืฉื” ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืœื ื™ื“ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžืฉืœื ืฉืžื ื” ื”ืžื•ืฆื™ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื• ืขืœื™ื• ื”ืจืื™ื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื‘ืจ ื™ืขืงื‘


Rava raised a question and said: If we would know that the animal ate from a poor garden bed, its owner would have to pay only the value of a poor garden bed. Now that we do not know from which garden bed it ate, is it reasonable that he should have to pay the value of a rich garden bed? There is a principle governing monetary disputes that the burden of proof falls on the claimant. Therefore, so long as the injured party cannot prove that the animal ate from the rich garden bed, he should not be entitled to collect the value of such a garden bed. Rather, Rav Aแธฅa bar Yaโ€™akov said:


Scroll To Top