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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 21, 2015 | 讟壮 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讜

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Gittin 8

Comparison of the laws of plantation on a boat to the laws on plantation in a perforated pot raised off the ground – in terms of tithes and shmita. 聽Different opinions relating to the boundaries of Israel in the Mediterranean Sea. 聽Is “Suria” (Northern Syria of today) considered Israel or not? 聽For certain issues it is considered like Israel and for others not. 聽One wanting to purchase land 聽in Israel from a non-Jew is allowed to have a non-Jew do it for him on Shabbat due to the importance of a mitzvah. 聽It is unclear if this related only to writing the contract or also to the actual purchase.

讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讘专讜讞 讗讘诇 注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇讘专讜讞 诇讗

which is made to move, i.e., it is not set in one place. Consequently, one can argue that the soil in the boat is not considered attached to the ground. However, with regard to a flowerpot, which is not made to move, as ordinarily a flowerpot remains in one place, no, one cannot reasonably claim that the fixed soil in it is not part of the ground, even when the pot itself is not touching the ground.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 讚诇讗 诪驻住讬拽 讗讜讬专讗 讚诪讬讗 讻讬 讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 注爪讬抓 讚诪驻住讬拽 讗讜讬专讗 诇讗

Alternatively, one can say the opposite: Perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion, that the soil in the boat is considered to be like the land itself, only there, in the case of a boat, where there is no barrier of airspace between the soil in the boat and the land below, as water is considered to be like solid earth. Therefore, the soil in the boat is viewed as connected to the earth, and has the status of Eretz Yisrael. But in the case of a perforated pot, where there is a barrier of airspace, no, the soil is not connected to the ground.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘谞讛专讜转 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: With regard to the rivers that are in Eretz Yisrael on which a boat is sailing, everyone agrees that a bill of divorce written on that boat is considered to be written in Eretz Yisrael. However, when they disagree it is with regard to the Great Sea, i.e., the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, is a boat located in the Mediterranean Sea considered to be in Eretz Yisrael or not?

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讗专抓 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻诇 砖砖讜驻注 讜讬讜专讚 诪讟讜专讬 讗诪谞讜谉 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讟讜专讬 讗诪谞讜谉 讜诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛谞住讬谉 砖讘讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讞讜讟 诪转讜讞 注诇讬讛诐 诪讟讜专讬 讗诪谞讜谉 注讚 谞讞诇 诪爪专讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

As it is taught in the Tosefta (Terumot 2:12): What is Eretz Yisrael and what is outside of Eretz Yisrael? Any slope that descends at an angle from Turei Amnon in Syria and inward toward Eretz Yisrael is part of Eretz Yisrael. From Turei Amnon and outward, northward, is considered outside of Eretz Yisrael. With regard to the islands [nissin] that are in the sea, one views them as though a string were pulled taut over them from Turei Amnon in the north to the River of Egypt, Wadi el-Arish, in the south. From the string and inward, i.e., east, is Eretz Yisrael; from the string and outward, west, is considered outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讻谞讙讚 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讙讘讜诇 讬诐 讜讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讛讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讙讘讜诇 讝讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讙讘讜诇 讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any place that is directly across from Eretz Yisrael, including the sea itself, is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea for a border, this shall be your west border鈥 (Numbers 34:6). According to this opinion, the entire territory directly across from Eretz Yisrael is considered part of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛谞住讬谉 砖讘爪讚讚讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讞讜讟 诪转讜讞 注诇讬讛谉 诪拽驻诇讜专讬讗 讜注讚 讬诐 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 讜诪谞讞诇 诪爪专讬诐 讜注讚 讬诐 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

And with regard to the islands that are on the sides, which do not exactly line up on the north or the south, one views them as though a string were pulled taut over them in the north from Kefalorya, west of Turei Amnon, to the Atlantic Ocean, and in the south from the River of Egypt westward until the Atlantic Ocean. Those islands that lie from the string and inward are part of Eretz Yisrael, whereas those from the string and outward are outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讙讘讜诇 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇谞住讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞住讬谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this verse: 鈥淎nd for the border鈥? Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that the border of Eretz Yisrael extends into the sea is apparently supported by this verse. The Gemara answers: They require it to teach that the islands themselves are considered to be within Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yehuda would respond that an additional verse is not required to teach the halakha concerning the islands, as it is clear that they are part of Eretz Yisrael.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讻诪讜讻专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: One who sells his slave to a master in Syria, is he considered like one who sells his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael, in which case the seller is penalized by the emancipation of his slave, or not?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 住讜专讬讗 讚诪专讞拽讗 讟讜讘讗

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to them: You learned a resolution for this dilemma from the mishna: Rabbi Meir says that Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from which it may be inferred: With regard to bills of divorce, yes, but with regard to slaves, no, it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael, and all the more so Syria, which is far more distant than Akko from the main areas of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, this owner has sold his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讜转讛 住讜专讬讗 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘砖诇砖讛 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 (住讬诪谉 注讘 讘专 专拽) 注驻专讛 讟诪讗 讻讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讻诪讜讻专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪住讜专讬讗 讻诪讘讬讗 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

Having mentioned the status of Syria, the Gemara cites a related halakha. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Kelim 1:5): In three ways Syria is equal to Eretz Yisrael, and in three ways it is similar to outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara inserts a mnemonic device for the ways in which Syria is different than Eretz Yisrael and is similar to Eretz Yisrael: Ayin beit, beit reish, reish kuf. Syria has the status of land that is outside of Eretz Yisrael in the following respects: First, its soil is ritually impure like that of land outside of Eretz Yisrael. And the second is that one who sells his slave to a master in Syria is like one who sells him to a master outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the second master is obligated to emancipate the slave. And third, one who brings a bill of divorce from Syria is like one who brings it from outside of Eretz Yisrael, in that he must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

讜讘砖诇砖讛 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讻谞住 诇讛 讘讟讛专讛 谞讻谞住 讜讛拽讜谞讛 砖讚讛 讘住讜专讬讗

And in three ways Syria is similar to Eretz Yisrael: Its produce is obligated in tithe and in the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael. And one who wishes to enter it while remaining in a state of ritual purity may so enter, as though it were part of Eretz Yisrael. And one who acquires a field in Syria

讻拽讜谞讛 讘驻专讜讗专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽住讘专 讻讬讘讜砖 讬讞讬讚 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜砖

is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts [parvarei] of Jerusalem. The Gemara clarifies: The tanna who says Syria is obligated in tithe and the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael holds that the conquest of an individual is called a conquest. Once Syria was conquered by King David, who is considered an individual in this regard, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael applied to it and its residents became obligated in the mitzvot of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讻谞住 诇讛 讘讟讛专讛 谞讻谞住 讜讛讗诪专转 注驻专讛 讟诪讗 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇

The baraita teaches: And one who wishes to enter it and remain in a state of ritual purity may so enter. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that its soil is ritually impure? How then is it possible for one to enter it in a state of ritual purity? The Gemara answers: The baraita means that one enters it in a chest, a box, or a cabinet. In this case he remains pure, as he did not come into contact with the ground itself.

讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讚讙讝专讜 注诇 讙讜砖讛 讜注诇 讗讜讬专讛 讗讘诇 住讜专讬讗 注诇 讙讜砖讛 讙讝专讜 注诇 讗讜讬专讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside of Eretz Yisrael, in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him ritually impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure. And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one who did not touch the ground itself impure only in the land of the nations, concerning which they decreed impurity upon both its clumps of soil and upon its air. However, with regard to Syria, everyone agrees that they decreed impurity upon its clumps of soil, but they did not decree impurity upon its air. Therefore, it is possible to enter Syria and remain in a state of ritual purity if one does not touch the ground itself.

讜讛拽讜谞讛 砖讚讛 讘住讜专讬讗 讻拽讜谞讛 讘驻专讜讗专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

The baraita further teaches: And one who purchases a field in Syria is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: With regard to which halakha was this stated? What practical ruling is taught by this statement? Rav Sheshet says: This serves to say that one writes a bill of sale [ono] for this purchase, and one may write a bill of sale even on Shabbat.

讘砖讘转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讙讜讬 讜注讜砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讜诪专 诇讙讜讬 讜注讜砖讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讬专讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讘讜转 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讜讘 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that one may write this bill of sale on Shabbat? Writing on Shabbat is a prohibited labor for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. The Gemara explains: This is as Rava says with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile that he should do it, and he does so. Here too, it is referring to a situation where one tells a gentile that he should write a bill of sale, and he does so. And even though the halakha generally is that telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic decree, since the Sages prohibited instructing a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讜 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 注爪诪讱 讜谞讻住讬讬 拽谞讜讬讬谉 诇讱 注爪诪讜 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛

The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who brought his bill of manumission to a court, and it is written in it: You and my property are transferred to you, he acquires himself via this document, and he is emancipated. However, he does not acquire the property unless the document is confirmed in court through its witnesses, like other documents.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻诇 谞讻住讬讬 拽谞讜讬讬谉 诇讱 诪讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转讜讱 砖拽谞讛 注爪诪讜 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the bill of manumission stated: All of my property is transferred to you, what is the halakha? Abaye said: Since he acquired himself as a freeman, as he is included in the property mentioned in the document, he acquires the rest of the property as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注爪诪讜 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙讟 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗

Rava said to Abaye: Granted, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who is divorced when she brings the document herself. However, he should not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents. If someone brings a typical document that deals with monetary matters that has not been ratified, the court will not rely on that document. So too here, as the bill of manumission, which includes a transfer of property, has not been ratified, he should not acquire the property.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 注爪诪讜 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙讟 讗砖讛

After hearing Rava鈥檚 objection, Abaye then said the opposite: Since he did not acquire the property, he does not acquire himself either. Rava said to him: Granted, he does not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents; however, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who can bring her own bill of divorce and testify about it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 注爪诪讜 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讚讬讘讜专讗

Rather, Rava says: With regard to both this and that, both in the case when the bill of manumission states: You and my property, and when it says: All of my property, he acquires himself but he does not acquire the property. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion do you say this? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that we divide the statement. In other words, even if there is only one document or a single testimony, containing one general statement, it can be divided so that the court accepts it in part and rejects the rest.

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 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): One who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself even any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says:

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

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!

Gittin 8

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 8

讛注砖讜讬讛 诇讘专讜讞 讗讘诇 注爪讬抓 砖讗讬谞讜 注砖讜讬 诇讘专讜讞 诇讗

which is made to move, i.e., it is not set in one place. Consequently, one can argue that the soil in the boat is not considered attached to the ground. However, with regard to a flowerpot, which is not made to move, as ordinarily a flowerpot remains in one place, no, one cannot reasonably claim that the fixed soil in it is not part of the ground, even when the pot itself is not touching the ground.

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讘住驻讬谞讛 讚诇讗 诪驻住讬拽 讗讜讬专讗 讚诪讬讗 讻讬 讗专注讗 住诪讬讻转讗 讚诪讬讗 讗讘诇 注爪讬抓 讚诪驻住讬拽 讗讜讬专讗 诇讗

Alternatively, one can say the opposite: Perhaps the Rabbis state their opinion, that the soil in the boat is considered to be like the land itself, only there, in the case of a boat, where there is no barrier of airspace between the soil in the boat and the land below, as water is considered to be like solid earth. Therefore, the soil in the boat is viewed as connected to the earth, and has the status of Eretz Yisrael. But in the case of a perforated pot, where there is a barrier of airspace, no, the soil is not connected to the ground.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 讘谞讛专讜转 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诇讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: With regard to the rivers that are in Eretz Yisrael on which a boat is sailing, everyone agrees that a bill of divorce written on that boat is considered to be written in Eretz Yisrael. However, when they disagree it is with regard to the Great Sea, i.e., the Mediterranean Sea. In other words, is a boat located in the Mediterranean Sea considered to be in Eretz Yisrael or not?

讚转谞讬讗 讗讬讝讛讜 讗专抓 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讻诇 砖砖讜驻注 讜讬讜专讚 诪讟讜专讬 讗诪谞讜谉 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讟讜专讬 讗诪谞讜谉 讜诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛谞住讬谉 砖讘讬诐 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讞讜讟 诪转讜讞 注诇讬讛诐 诪讟讜专讬 讗诪谞讜谉 注讚 谞讞诇 诪爪专讬诐 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

As it is taught in the Tosefta (Terumot 2:12): What is Eretz Yisrael and what is outside of Eretz Yisrael? Any slope that descends at an angle from Turei Amnon in Syria and inward toward Eretz Yisrael is part of Eretz Yisrael. From Turei Amnon and outward, northward, is considered outside of Eretz Yisrael. With regard to the islands [nissin] that are in the sea, one views them as though a string were pulled taut over them from Turei Amnon in the north to the River of Egypt, Wadi el-Arish, in the south. From the string and inward, i.e., east, is Eretz Yisrael; from the string and outward, west, is considered outside of Eretz Yisrael. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讻谞讙讚 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜讙讘讜诇 讬诐 讜讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讛讬诐 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讙讘讜诇 讝讛 讬讛讬讛 诇讻诐 讙讘讜诇 讬诐

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any place that is directly across from Eretz Yisrael, including the sea itself, is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd for the western border, you shall have the Great Sea for a border, this shall be your west border鈥 (Numbers 34:6). According to this opinion, the entire territory directly across from Eretz Yisrael is considered part of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛谞住讬谉 砖讘爪讚讚讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 讻讗讬诇讜 讞讜讟 诪转讜讞 注诇讬讛谉 诪拽驻诇讜专讬讗 讜注讚 讬诐 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 讜诪谞讞诇 诪爪专讬诐 讜注讚 讬诐 讗讜拽讬讬谞讜住 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛讞讜讟 讜诇讞讜抓 讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

And with regard to the islands that are on the sides, which do not exactly line up on the north or the south, one views them as though a string were pulled taut over them in the north from Kefalorya, west of Turei Amnon, to the Atlantic Ocean, and in the south from the River of Egypt westward until the Atlantic Ocean. Those islands that lie from the string and inward are part of Eretz Yisrael, whereas those from the string and outward are outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讗讬 讜讙讘讜诇 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇谞住讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞住讬谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 拽专讗

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, what do they do with this verse: 鈥淎nd for the border鈥? Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion that the border of Eretz Yisrael extends into the sea is apparently supported by this verse. The Gemara answers: They require it to teach that the islands themselves are considered to be within Eretz Yisrael. And Rabbi Yehuda would respond that an additional verse is not required to teach the halakha concerning the islands, as it is clear that they are part of Eretz Yisrael.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 讘注讜 诪讬谞讬讛 诪专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讻诪讜讻专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. The Sages raised a dilemma before Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba: One who sells his slave to a master in Syria, is he considered like one who sells his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael, in which case the seller is penalized by the emancipation of his slave, or not?

讗诪专 诇讛讜 转谞讬转讜讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讻讜 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讙讬讟讬谉 诇讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬谉 诇注讘讚讬诐 诇讗 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 住讜专讬讗 讚诪专讞拽讗 讟讜讘讗

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said to them: You learned a resolution for this dilemma from the mishna: Rabbi Meir says that Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce, from which it may be inferred: With regard to bills of divorce, yes, but with regard to slaves, no, it is not considered part of Eretz Yisrael, and all the more so Syria, which is far more distant than Akko from the main areas of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, this owner has sold his slave outside of Eretz Yisrael.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘砖诇砖讛 讚专讻讬诐 砖讜讜转讛 住讜专讬讗 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘砖诇砖讛 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 (住讬诪谉 注讘 讘专 专拽) 注驻专讛 讟诪讗 讻讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇住讜专讬讗 讻诪讜讻专 讘讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讜讛诪讘讬讗 讙讟 诪住讜专讬讗 讻诪讘讬讗 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓

Having mentioned the status of Syria, the Gemara cites a related halakha. The Sages taught (Tosefta, Kelim 1:5): In three ways Syria is equal to Eretz Yisrael, and in three ways it is similar to outside of Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara inserts a mnemonic device for the ways in which Syria is different than Eretz Yisrael and is similar to Eretz Yisrael: Ayin beit, beit reish, reish kuf. Syria has the status of land that is outside of Eretz Yisrael in the following respects: First, its soil is ritually impure like that of land outside of Eretz Yisrael. And the second is that one who sells his slave to a master in Syria is like one who sells him to a master outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the second master is obligated to emancipate the slave. And third, one who brings a bill of divorce from Syria is like one who brings it from outside of Eretz Yisrael, in that he must say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.

讜讘砖诇砖讛 诇讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讻谞住 诇讛 讘讟讛专讛 谞讻谞住 讜讛拽讜谞讛 砖讚讛 讘住讜专讬讗

And in three ways Syria is similar to Eretz Yisrael: Its produce is obligated in tithe and in the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael. And one who wishes to enter it while remaining in a state of ritual purity may so enter, as though it were part of Eretz Yisrael. And one who acquires a field in Syria

讻拽讜谞讛 讘驻专讜讗专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讞讬讬讘转 讘诪注砖专 讜讘砖讘讬注讬转 讻讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 拽住讘专 讻讬讘讜砖 讬讞讬讚 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜砖

is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts [parvarei] of Jerusalem. The Gemara clarifies: The tanna who says Syria is obligated in tithe and the mitzvot of the Sabbatical Year like Eretz Yisrael holds that the conquest of an individual is called a conquest. Once Syria was conquered by King David, who is considered an individual in this regard, the sanctity of Eretz Yisrael applied to it and its residents became obligated in the mitzvot of Eretz Yisrael.

讜讛专讜爪讛 诇讬讻谞住 诇讛 讘讟讛专讛 谞讻谞住 讜讛讗诪专转 注驻专讛 讟诪讗 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇

The baraita teaches: And one who wishes to enter it and remain in a state of ritual purity may so enter. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 you say that its soil is ritually impure? How then is it possible for one to enter it in a state of ritual purity? The Gemara answers: The baraita means that one enters it in a chest, a box, or a cabinet. In this case he remains pure, as he did not come into contact with the ground itself.

讚转谞讬讗 讛谞讻谞住 诇讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讘砖讬讚讛 转讬讘讛 讜诪讙讚诇 专讘讬 诪讟诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讟讛专 讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诇讗 拽讗 诪讟诪讗 讗诇讗 讘讗专抓 讛注诪讬诐 讚讙讝专讜 注诇 讙讜砖讛 讜注诇 讗讜讬专讛 讗讘诇 住讜专讬讗 注诇 讙讜砖讛 讙讝专讜 注诇 讗讜讬专讛 诇讗 讙讝专讜

As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who enters the land of the nations, i.e., any territory outside of Eretz Yisrael, in a chest, a box, or a cabinet, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems him ritually impure, and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, deems him pure. And even Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi deems one who did not touch the ground itself impure only in the land of the nations, concerning which they decreed impurity upon both its clumps of soil and upon its air. However, with regard to Syria, everyone agrees that they decreed impurity upon its clumps of soil, but they did not decree impurity upon its air. Therefore, it is possible to enter Syria and remain in a state of ritual purity if one does not touch the ground itself.

讜讛拽讜谞讛 砖讚讛 讘住讜专讬讗 讻拽讜谞讛 讘驻专讜讗专讬 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛讬诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗讜谞讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘砖讘转

The baraita further teaches: And one who purchases a field in Syria is like one who purchases a field in the outskirts of Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: With regard to which halakha was this stated? What practical ruling is taught by this statement? Rav Sheshet says: This serves to say that one writes a bill of sale [ono] for this purchase, and one may write a bill of sale even on Shabbat.

讘砖讘转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讜诪专 诇讙讜讬 讜注讜砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讜诪专 诇讙讜讬 讜注讜砖讛 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗诪讬专讛 诇讙讜讬 砖讘讜转 诪砖讜诐 讬砖讜讘 讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 讙讝讜专 专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: Can it enter your mind that one may write this bill of sale on Shabbat? Writing on Shabbat is a prohibited labor for which one is liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment. The Gemara explains: This is as Rava says with regard to a similar issue, that one tells a gentile that he should do it, and he does so. Here too, it is referring to a situation where one tells a gentile that he should write a bill of sale, and he does so. And even though the halakha generally is that telling a gentile to perform an action that is prohibited for a Jew on Shabbat violates a rabbinic decree, since the Sages prohibited instructing a gentile to perform prohibited labor on behalf of a Jew on Shabbat, here the Sages did not impose this decree, due to the mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 注讘讚 砖讛讘讬讗 讙讬讟讜 讜讻转讜讘 讘讜 注爪诪讱 讜谞讻住讬讬 拽谞讜讬讬谉 诇讱 注爪诪讜 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛

The Sages taught: With regard to a slave who brought his bill of manumission to a court, and it is written in it: You and my property are transferred to you, he acquires himself via this document, and he is emancipated. However, he does not acquire the property unless the document is confirmed in court through its witnesses, like other documents.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讻诇 谞讻住讬讬 拽谞讜讬讬谉 诇讱 诪讛讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转讜讱 砖拽谞讛 注爪诪讜 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If the bill of manumission stated: All of my property is transferred to you, what is the halakha? Abaye said: Since he acquired himself as a freeman, as he is included in the property mentioned in the document, he acquires the rest of the property as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 注爪诪讜 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙讟 讗砖讛 讗诇讗 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗

Rava said to Abaye: Granted, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who is divorced when she brings the document herself. However, he should not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents. If someone brings a typical document that deals with monetary matters that has not been ratified, the court will not rely on that document. So too here, as the bill of manumission, which includes a transfer of property, has not been ratified, he should not acquire the property.

讛讚专 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪转讜讱 砖诇讗 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 注爪诪讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讘砖诇诪讗 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗拽讬讜诐 砖讟专讜转 讚注诇诪讗 讗诇讗 注爪诪讜 诇讬拽谞讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙讟 讗砖讛

After hearing Rava鈥檚 objection, Abaye then said the opposite: Since he did not acquire the property, he does not acquire himself either. Rava said to him: Granted, he does not acquire the property, just as it is in the case of the ratification of typical legal documents; however, he should acquire himself, just as it is in the case of a bill of divorce of a woman, who can bring her own bill of divorce and testify about it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讞讚 讝讛 讜讗讞讚 讝讛 注爪诪讜 拽谞讛 谞讻住讬诐 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 诪转谞讛 诇专讘讗 讻诪讗谉 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讚讬讘讜专讗

Rather, Rava says: With regard to both this and that, both in the case when the bill of manumission states: You and my property, and when it says: All of my property, he acquires himself but he does not acquire the property. Rav Adda bar Mattana said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion do you say this? In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that we divide the statement. In other words, even if there is only one document or a single testimony, containing one general statement, it can be divided so that the court accepts it in part and rejects the rest.

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 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

As we learned in a mishna (Pe鈥檃 3:8): One who writes, i.e., gives via a document, all of his property to his slave, the slave has been emancipated, but if he reserved for himself even any amount of land, then he has not been emancipated, as perhaps he reserved the slave for himself as well. Rabbi Shimon says:

Scroll To Top