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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 6, 2016 | ื›ืดื– ื‘ืื“ืจ ื‘ืณ ืชืฉืขืดื•

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Kiddushin 26

Land and movable property each have different mechanisms by which they can be acquired. ย The methods and their derivation are discussed.


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

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื–ืžื•ืจื•ืช

Alternatively, the buyer can lift an elephant by using bundles of vines. He leads the elephant to them, and when the elephant stands on the bundles of vines this is considered lifting the elephant.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืขื ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื—ื–ืงื”

MISHNA: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land or other items that are fixed in the earth, can be acquired by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of it. Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling. Property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired along with property that serves as a guarantee by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of them. The movable property is transferred to the buyerโ€™s possession when it is purchased together with the land, by means of an act of acquisition performed on the land.

ื•ื–ื•ืงืงื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ

Generally, one is not obligated to take an oath concerning the denial of a claim with regard to land. The mishna continues: And in a legal dispute involving both land and movable property, if the defendant makes a partial admission of the claim with regard to the movable property, thereby rendering himself obligated to take an oath denying any responsibility for the remaining property, the movable property binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that he is forced to take an oath concerning the land as well, despite the fact that one is generally not obligated to take an oath for a claim involving land.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉื“ื•ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื™ืงื ื• ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื˜ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืกืคืจ ื•ื—ืชื•ื ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืงื ื• ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื›ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืงื ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ื™ ืฉื˜ืจ ืจืื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive that land can be acquired by means of money? แธคizkiyya said that the verse states: โ€œThey shall acquire fields with moneyโ€ (Jeremiah 32:44). The Gemara asks: But if the proof is from that verse, one can say that the acquisition is not valid unless there is a document as well, as it is written in the same verse: โ€œAnd write a document and signโ€ (Jeremiah 32:44). The Gemara answers: If it were written: They shall acquire fields with money, at the end of the verse, it would be as you said, that one must also write a document so that he can acquire the land with money. Now that it is written โ€œthey shall acquireโ€ at the beginning of the verse, this teaches that the money itself effects acquisition of the land, and the document is merely a proof.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื˜ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื˜ืจ ืœื ืงื ื” ื•ืื™ ืคืจื™ืฉ ืคืจื™ืฉ

Rav says: They taught that land can be acquired by means of money alone, i.e., without a document, only in a place where the custom is that they do not write documents; but in a place where the custom is that they write documents one does not acquire land until a document is given to him. And if he specified that he wishes to acquire the land from the time of the money transfer, then he has specified his wishes, and the land is acquired once the money is given.

ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ื›ืกืคื ืื™ืงื ื™ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื ืื™ืงื ื™ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ื›ืกืคื ืื™ืงื ื™ ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืชื• ืœืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœื ืžืฆื™ืชื• ื”ื“ืจื™ืชื• ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื ืื™ืงื ื™ ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืœืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ื”ื“ืจื ื ื‘ื™

The Gemara comments: This is like that which Rav Idi bar Avin would do. When purchasing land, Rav Idi bar Avin would say: If I wish to acquire it by means of money, I will acquire it in that manner, and if I wish to acquire it by means of a document, I will acquire it by that method. He would stipulate at the outset that he reserves the right to choose how the transaction will be finalized. The Gemara elaborates: If I wish to acquire it by means of money, I will acquire it in that way, as, if you wish to retract your participation in the sale you cannot retract it, because the money has already changed hands. And if I wish to acquire the land by means of a document, I will acquire it in that way, as, if I wish to retract my participation in the sale I can retract it provided that I have not received a document of purchase.

ื•ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืกืคืจ ื•ื—ืชื•ื ื•ื”ืขื“ ืขื“ื™ื ื•ื”ืืžืจืช ืฉื˜ืจ ืจืื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ืืงื— ืืช ืกืคืจ ื”ืžืงื ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืžืชื ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžื›ืจ ืœื ืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches that land can be purchased by means of a document. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? If we say that it is because it is written: โ€œAnd write in a document and sign, and witnesses shall testifyโ€ (Jeremiah 32:44), but didnโ€™t you say that the document mentioned in the verse is merely a document of proof? Rather, it is derived from here: โ€œAnd I took the deed of purchaseโ€ (Jeremiah 32:11), an expression that indicates that the document itself effects the acquisition. Shmuel said: The Sages taught that the document itself effects acquisition only in the case of a deed of a gift. But with regard to a sale, it does not effect acquisition until the buyer gives the seller money. The document itself does not effect the acquisition.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ืชื‘ ืœื• ืขืœ ื”ื ื™ื™ืจ ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืฉื“ื™ ืžื›ื•ืจื” ืœืš ืฉื“ื™ ื ืชื•ื ื” ืœืš ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžื›ื•ืจื” ื•ื ืชื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืคืจืง ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืžืคื ื™ ืจืขืชื”

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to this from a baraita: How is acquisition performed by means of a document? If he wrote for him on paper or earthenware, even though the paper or the earthenware is not worth one peruta: My field is sold to you, or: My field is given to you as a gift, it is thereby sold or given. This indicates that a document is sufficient to effect acquisition both in the case of a sale and in the case of a gift. Rav Hamnuna raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita is referring to one who sells his field due to its poor quality. The seller wants to be rid of his field due to its decreasing value and would like to transfer ownership of it as quickly as possible. In this case writing a document is enough to complete the acquisition.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื” ืœื• ื•ืœืžื” ื›ืชื‘ ืœื• ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืžื›ืจ ื›ื“ื™ ืœื™ืคื•ืช ืืช ื›ื•ื—ื•

Rav Ashi says: It can be claimed that the entire baraita is referring to one case, that of a gift one wished to give another. The baraita does not deal with a sale at all. And why does he write for him a deed for a gift containing the language of a sale? He does it in order to enhance his power. If it turns out that there was a lien on this land, the beneficiary can collect the value of the field from the giverโ€™s other property, as though this land had been sold to him. In other words, by writing that it is a sale, the giver grants the beneficiary the acquisition power of a buyer, but since the transaction is actually a gift, the document itself completes the acquisition.

ื•ื‘ื—ื–ืงื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉื‘ื• ื‘ืขืจื™ื›ื ืืฉืจ ืชืคืฉืชื ื‘ืžื” ืชืคืฉืชื ื‘ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื ื•ื™ืจืฉืชื ืืชื” ื•ื™ืฉื‘ืชื ื‘ื” ื‘ืžื” ื™ืจืฉืชื ื‘ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื”

ยง The mishna further teaches that land can be acquired by means of taking possession of it. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? แธคizkiyya said that the verse states: โ€œAnd dwell in your cities that you have takenโ€ (Jeremiah 40:10). In what manner have you taken these cities? They are taken by dwelling, which indicates that taking possession of a plot of land and dwelling there is an act demonstrating ownership, and it is itself a valid act of acquisition. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different proof: โ€œAnd you shall possess it and dwell thereโ€ (Deuteronomy 11:31). How have you possessed it? You have done so by dwelling there. This teaches that land can be acquired through an act that demonstrates ownership.

ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ืชืžื›ืจื• ืžืžื›ืจ ืœืขืžื™ืชืš ืื• ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืขืžื™ืชืš ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืœื™ื“

ยง The mishna teaches that property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired only by pulling. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: โ€œAnd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighborโ€™s handโ€ (Leviticus 25:14). This verse speaks of an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by pulling.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืžืขื•ืช ืงื•ื ื•ืช ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืชื ื ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who says that by Torah law giving money effects acquisition but pulling does not, what can be said? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan maintains that acquisition through pulling is a rabbinic decree, and by Torah law movable property can be acquired only by means of giving money. Why does the mishna not mention this mode of acquisition? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan could answer that the tanna teaches a rabbinic ordinance, which reflects the accepted practice, but he does not find it necessary to mention a mode of acquisition that applies by Torah law.

ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืื‘ื™ื”ื ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืขื ืขืจื™ ืžืฆืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The mishna further states that property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired along with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? แธคizkiyya said that the verse states: โ€œAnd their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judahโ€ (IIย Chronicles 21:3). This indicates that he gave them movable items together with the cities. He did not need to give the items to them directly, as he was able to transfer these gifts by means of the cities he gave them.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืงืจืงืข ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืคืื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ื

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to this matter of acquisition of movable property by way of land: Do we require that this movable property be actually piled on the land that is sold or not? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Peโ€™a 3:6). Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in peโ€™a and in first fruits,

ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ืคืจื•ืกื‘ื•ืœ ื•ืœืงื ื•ืช ืขืžื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™

and if the debtor possesses land of any area 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. And if you say that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, for what is land of any size fit? What can be piled on a tiny spot of land?

ืชืจื’ื•ืžื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ืกื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืขืฅ ื‘ื” ืžื—ื˜ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืงื‘ืกืชืŸ ืื™ื›ืคืœ ืชื ื ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ืชืœื” ื‘ื” ืžืจื’ื ื™ืชื ื“ืฉื•ื•ื™ื ืืœืคื ื–ื•ื–ื™

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna interpreted it before Rav Yosef as follows: For example, if one stuck a needle into a tiny patch of land, which he sold by means of the land, the needle is acquired. Rav Yosef said to him: You disgust me [kevastan]. Did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us that a needle can be acquired by means of land? Rav Ashi said: Who shall say to us that he did not hang a pearl worth one thousand dinars on the needle? One can acquire an item of high value through land of this size. In any event, the question of whether or not the movable property must be piled onto the land has not been resolved.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืžื“ื•ื ื™ ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงื ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงืจืงืข ืžื” ืขืฉื” ื”ืœืš ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื™ืช ืกืœืข ืกืžื•ืš ืœื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ืฆืคื•ื ื™ ื–ื” ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื• ืžืื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืื” ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืช ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื• ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar said: There was an incident involving a certain Madonite [Madoni] who was in Jerusalem, as he had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift. He was ill and did not have time for the recipient to acquire the property by pulling. The Sages said to him: One in this situation has no remedy but to transfer them by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired a beit sela, apparently meaning land the size of a sela coin, near Jerusalem and said: This northern portion of the beit sela is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And the Madonite died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement and gave the gifts.

ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืกืœืข ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื‘ื™ืช ืกืœืข ืกืœืข ืžืžืฉ ืžืื™ ืกืœืข ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื•ืืžืื™ ืงืจื• ืœื™ื” ืกืœืข ื“ืงืฉื™ ื›ืกืœืข

And if you say that to acquire movable property by way of land we require that the property be actually piled upon it, for what is a beit sela fit? It is impossible to pile one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels on top of such a small plot of land. The Gemara rejects this argument: Do you maintain that a beit sela is referring to a place that is actually the size of a sela coin? No; rather what is the meaning of the term sela? It is referring to a place that is very large and that could hold the many gifts. If that is true, why did they call it sela? This name indicates that it was hard as rock [sela].

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื™ื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Come and hear a proof from a different source, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain person who became sick in Jerusalem, and the assumption that he became sick is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a person on his deathbed can transfer property only by means of an accepted standard act of acquisition. And some say he was healthy, and that assumption is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that a person on his deathbed can transfer property by means of speech alone, whereas a healthy person requires an accepted act of acquisition.

ืฉื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงื ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงืจืงืข ืžื” ืขืฉื” ื”ืœืš ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื™ืช ืจื•ื‘ืข ืกืžื•ืš ืœื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ื˜ืคื— ืขืœ ื˜ืคื— ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื• ืžืื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืื” ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืช ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื˜ืคื— ืขืœ ื˜ืคื— ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™

The incident happened as follows: This man had a great deal of movable property and he wished to give it away as a gift. The Sages said to him: In this situation one has no remedy but to transfer movable property by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired land the size of a beit rova near Jerusalem and said: This square handbreadth is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And he died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement. And if you say that we require that the property be piled on the land, for what is a square handbreadth fit? Is it possible to place all of these items in such a limited space?

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื“ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืื” ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืžืžืฉ ื ื™ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? It is with money, i.e., he sought to give the value of the barrels and sheep, and money of this amount can be placed on a small plot of land. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this incident involved money. As, if it enters your mind to say that it involved an actual group of one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels, let him transfer them to the recipient through an act of symbolic exchange. If the incident involved money, which cannot be transferred by symbolic exchange, he had no recourse but to acquire the land.

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœื“ืžื™ ื ื™ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืืœื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืœืžืงื‘ืœ ืžืชื ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืœืžืงื‘ืœ ืžืชื ื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this argument: Rather, what will you say, that this is referring to money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange? Even so, he still could have acted differently: Let him transfer it to the recipient through pulling. Rather, you are forced to say that the recipient of this gift was not present, and the man wanted to grant him possession of it without the recipient having to perform a physical act of acquisition. So too, it is possible that the recipient of the gift was not present, and he was unable to transfer it to him through symbolic exchange. Consequently, there is no proof that the incident involved money.

ื•ื ื™ื–ื›ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืื’ื‘ ืื—ืจ ืœื ืกืžื›ื” ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืฉืžื™ื˜ ื•ืื›ื™ืœ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: Is there no other way to perform this acquisition? But let him transfer it to him by means of another person, i.e., another can pull the property on behalf of the recipient. The Gemara answers: The giver did not rely on that option, as he feared that the third party might seize it and consume it or use the property in some other manner. The giver wanted to be sure that the acquisition would be completed in full.

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืžืื™ ื“ืœื ืกืžื›ื” ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงื ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงืจืงืข

Rather, what then is the meaning of the statement: He has no remedy? Even if he did not want to use the option of a third party, it was certainly available to him. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav was saying and meant in his description of this incident: In accordance with his decision that he does not rely on another person and does not want to transfer property by means of anyone else, in this situation one has no remedy but to transfer movable property by means of land. In summary, no decisive proof has been cited as to whether or not it is possible to acquire movable property by means of land when the items are not piled upon the land.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ื–ืงื ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืื™ื ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœื–ืงื ื™ื ืขื™ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืขืชื™ื“ ืœืžื•ื“

Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Maโ€™aser Sheni 5:9): There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and other Elders who were traveling on a ship. Rabban Gamliel said to the Elders: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out and separate in the future from the produce of my fields

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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!

Kiddushin 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 26

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื‘ื—ื‘ื™ืœื™ ื–ืžื•ืจื•ืช

Alternatively, the buyer can lift an elephant by using bundles of vines. He leads the elephant to them, and when the elephant stands on the bundles of vines this is considered lifting the elephant.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื—ื–ืงื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืขื ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื•ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื•ื‘ื—ื–ืงื”

MISHNA: Property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land or other items that are fixed in the earth, can be acquired by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of it. Property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired only by pulling. Property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired along with property that serves as a guarantee by means of giving money, by means of giving a document, or by means of taking possession of them. The movable property is transferred to the buyerโ€™s possession when it is purchased together with the land, by means of an act of acquisition performed on the land.

ื•ื–ื•ืงืงื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืœื™ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœื™ื”ืŸ

Generally, one is not obligated to take an oath concerning the denial of a claim with regard to land. The mishna continues: And in a legal dispute involving both land and movable property, if the defendant makes a partial admission of the claim with regard to the movable property, thereby rendering himself obligated to take an oath denying any responsibility for the remaining property, the movable property binds the property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., the land, so that he is forced to take an oath concerning the land as well, despite the fact that one is generally not obligated to take an oath for a claim involving land.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืฉื“ื•ืช ื‘ื›ืกืฃ ื™ืงื ื• ื•ืื™ืžื ืขื“ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื˜ืจ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืกืคืจ ื•ื—ืชื•ื ืื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืงื ื• ืœื‘ืกื•ืฃ ื›ื“ืงืืžืจืช ื”ืฉืชื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื™ืงื ื• ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื›ืกืฃ ืงื ื™ ืฉื˜ืจ ืจืื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive that land can be acquired by means of money? แธคizkiyya said that the verse states: โ€œThey shall acquire fields with moneyโ€ (Jeremiah 32:44). The Gemara asks: But if the proof is from that verse, one can say that the acquisition is not valid unless there is a document as well, as it is written in the same verse: โ€œAnd write a document and signโ€ (Jeremiah 32:44). The Gemara answers: If it were written: They shall acquire fields with money, at the end of the verse, it would be as you said, that one must also write a document so that he can acquire the land with money. Now that it is written โ€œthey shall acquireโ€ at the beginning of the verse, this teaches that the money itself effects acquisition of the land, and the document is merely a proof.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื˜ืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื˜ืจ ืœื ืงื ื” ื•ืื™ ืคืจื™ืฉ ืคืจื™ืฉ

Rav says: They taught that land can be acquired by means of money alone, i.e., without a document, only in a place where the custom is that they do not write documents; but in a place where the custom is that they write documents one does not acquire land until a document is given to him. And if he specified that he wishes to acquire the land from the time of the money transfer, then he has specified his wishes, and the land is acquired once the money is given.

ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ ืื™ื“ื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื–ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืจืขื ืืžืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ื›ืกืคื ืื™ืงื ื™ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื ืื™ืงื ื™ ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ื›ืกืคื ืื™ืงื ื™ ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ืชื• ืœืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ืœื ืžืฆื™ืชื• ื”ื“ืจื™ืชื• ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจื ืื™ืงื ื™ ื“ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ืœืžื™ื”ื“ืจ ื”ื“ืจื ื ื‘ื™

The Gemara comments: This is like that which Rav Idi bar Avin would do. When purchasing land, Rav Idi bar Avin would say: If I wish to acquire it by means of money, I will acquire it in that manner, and if I wish to acquire it by means of a document, I will acquire it by that method. He would stipulate at the outset that he reserves the right to choose how the transaction will be finalized. The Gemara elaborates: If I wish to acquire it by means of money, I will acquire it in that way, as, if you wish to retract your participation in the sale you cannot retract it, because the money has already changed hands. And if I wish to acquire the land by means of a document, I will acquire it in that way, as, if I wish to retract my participation in the sale I can retract it provided that I have not received a document of purchase.

ื•ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืžื ืœืŸ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื‘ืกืคืจ ื•ื—ืชื•ื ื•ื”ืขื“ ืขื“ื™ื ื•ื”ืืžืจืช ืฉื˜ืจ ืจืื™ื” ื‘ืขืœืžื ื”ื•ื ืืœื ืžื”ื›ื ื•ืืงื— ืืช ืกืคืจ ื”ืžืงื ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ืžืชื ื” ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžื›ืจ ืœื ืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ืœื• ื“ืžื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches that land can be purchased by means of a document. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? If we say that it is because it is written: โ€œAnd write in a document and sign, and witnesses shall testifyโ€ (Jeremiah 32:44), but didnโ€™t you say that the document mentioned in the verse is merely a document of proof? Rather, it is derived from here: โ€œAnd I took the deed of purchaseโ€ (Jeremiah 32:11), an expression that indicates that the document itself effects the acquisition. Shmuel said: The Sages taught that the document itself effects acquisition only in the case of a deed of a gift. But with regard to a sale, it does not effect acquisition until the buyer gives the seller money. The document itself does not effect the acquisition.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื”ืžื ื•ื ื ื‘ืฉื˜ืจ ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื›ืชื‘ ืœื• ืขืœ ื”ื ื™ื™ืจ ืื• ืขืœ ื”ื—ืจืก ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ื ืฉื•ื” ืคืจื•ื˜ื” ืฉื“ื™ ืžื›ื•ืจื” ืœืš ืฉื“ื™ ื ืชื•ื ื” ืœืš ื”ืจื™ ื–ื• ืžื›ื•ืจื” ื•ื ืชื•ื ื” ื”ื•ื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืœื” ื•ื”ื•ื ืžืคืจืง ืœื” ื‘ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉื“ื”ื• ืžืคื ื™ ืจืขืชื”

Rav Hamnuna raises an objection to this from a baraita: How is acquisition performed by means of a document? If he wrote for him on paper or earthenware, even though the paper or the earthenware is not worth one peruta: My field is sold to you, or: My field is given to you as a gift, it is thereby sold or given. This indicates that a document is sufficient to effect acquisition both in the case of a sale and in the case of a gift. Rav Hamnuna raised the objection and he resolved it: The baraita is referring to one who sells his field due to its poor quality. The seller wants to be rid of his field due to its decreasing value and would like to transfer ownership of it as quickly as possible. In this case writing a document is enough to complete the acquisition.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื‘ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื” ืœื• ื•ืœืžื” ื›ืชื‘ ืœื• ืœืฉื•ืŸ ืžื›ืจ ื›ื“ื™ ืœื™ืคื•ืช ืืช ื›ื•ื—ื•

Rav Ashi says: It can be claimed that the entire baraita is referring to one case, that of a gift one wished to give another. The baraita does not deal with a sale at all. And why does he write for him a deed for a gift containing the language of a sale? He does it in order to enhance his power. If it turns out that there was a lien on this land, the beneficiary can collect the value of the field from the giverโ€™s other property, as though this land had been sold to him. In other words, by writing that it is a sale, the giver grants the beneficiary the acquisition power of a buyer, but since the transaction is actually a gift, the document itself completes the acquisition.

ื•ื‘ื—ื–ืงื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืฉื‘ื• ื‘ืขืจื™ื›ื ืืฉืจ ืชืคืฉืชื ื‘ืžื” ืชืคืฉืชื ื‘ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ืชื ื ื•ื™ืจืฉืชื ืืชื” ื•ื™ืฉื‘ืชื ื‘ื” ื‘ืžื” ื™ืจืฉืชื ื‘ื™ืฉื™ื‘ื”

ยง The mishna further teaches that land can be acquired by means of taking possession of it. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? แธคizkiyya said that the verse states: โ€œAnd dwell in your cities that you have takenโ€ (Jeremiah 40:10). In what manner have you taken these cities? They are taken by dwelling, which indicates that taking possession of a plot of land and dwelling there is an act demonstrating ownership, and it is itself a valid act of acquisition. A Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different proof: โ€œAnd you shall possess it and dwell thereโ€ (Deuteronomy 11:31). How have you possessed it? You have done so by dwelling there. This teaches that land can be acquired through an act that demonstrates ownership.

ื•ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืื™ืŸ ื ืงื ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื›ื™ ืชืžื›ืจื• ืžืžื›ืจ ืœืขืžื™ืชืš ืื• ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืขืžื™ืชืš ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ืงื ื” ืžื™ื“ ืœื™ื“

ยง The mishna teaches that property that does not serve as a guarantee can be acquired only by pulling. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written: โ€œAnd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighborโ€™s handโ€ (Leviticus 25:14). This verse speaks of an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by pulling.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื•ืจื” ืžืขื•ืช ืงื•ื ื•ืช ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืชื ื ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who says that by Torah law giving money effects acquisition but pulling does not, what can be said? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan maintains that acquisition through pulling is a rabbinic decree, and by Torah law movable property can be acquired only by means of giving money. Why does the mishna not mention this mode of acquisition? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan could answer that the tanna teaches a rabbinic ordinance, which reflects the accepted practice, but he does not find it necessary to mention a mode of acquisition that applies by Torah law.

ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื™ืชืŸ ืœื”ื ืื‘ื™ื”ื ืžืชื ื•ืช ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืขื ืขืจื™ ืžืฆืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”

ยง The mishna further states that property that does not serve as a guarantee, i.e., movable property, can be acquired along with property that serves as a guarantee, i.e., land. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? แธคizkiyya said that the verse states: โ€œAnd their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judahโ€ (IIย Chronicles 21:3). This indicates that he gave them movable items together with the cities. He did not need to give the items to them directly, as he was able to transfer these gifts by means of the cities he gave them.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืื• ืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืงืจืงืข ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ืช ื‘ืคืื” ื•ื‘ื‘ื›ื•ืจื™ื

A dilemma was raised before the Sages with regard to this matter of acquisition of movable property by way of land: Do we require that this movable property be actually piled on the land that is sold or not? Rav Yosef said: Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Peโ€™a 3:6). Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in peโ€™a and in first fruits,

ื•ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ ืขืœื™ื” ืคืจื•ืกื‘ื•ืœ ื•ืœืงื ื•ืช ืขืžื” ื ื›ืกื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื”ื ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™

and if the debtor possesses land of any area 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. And if you say that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, for what is land of any size fit? What can be piled on a tiny spot of land?

ืชืจื’ื•ืžื ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื‘ื™ืกื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ืขืฅ ื‘ื” ืžื—ื˜ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืงื‘ืกืชืŸ ืื™ื›ืคืœ ืชื ื ืœืืฉืžื•ืขื™ื ืŸ ืžื—ื˜ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืœื ืชืœื” ื‘ื” ืžืจื’ื ื™ืชื ื“ืฉื•ื•ื™ื ืืœืคื ื–ื•ื–ื™

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna interpreted it before Rav Yosef as follows: For example, if one stuck a needle into a tiny patch of land, which he sold by means of the land, the needle is acquired. Rav Yosef said to him: You disgust me [kevastan]. Did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us that a needle can be acquired by means of land? Rav Ashi said: Who shall say to us that he did not hang a pearl worth one thousand dinars on the needle? One can acquire an item of high value through land of this size. In any event, the question of whether or not the movable property must be piled onto the land has not been resolved.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืžื“ื•ื ื™ ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงื ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงืจืงืข ืžื” ืขืฉื” ื”ืœืš ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื™ืช ืกืœืข ืกืžื•ืš ืœื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ืฆืคื•ื ื™ ื–ื” ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื• ืžืื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืื” ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืช ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื• ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar said: There was an incident involving a certain Madonite [Madoni] who was in Jerusalem, as he had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift. He was ill and did not have time for the recipient to acquire the property by pulling. The Sages said to him: One in this situation has no remedy but to transfer them by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired a beit sela, apparently meaning land the size of a sela coin, near Jerusalem and said: This northern portion of the beit sela is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And the Madonite died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement and gave the gifts.

ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื‘ื” ื‘ื™ืช ืกืœืข ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™ ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื‘ื™ืช ืกืœืข ืกืœืข ืžืžืฉ ืžืื™ ืกืœืข ื“ื ืคื™ืฉ ื˜ื•ื‘ื ื•ืืžืื™ ืงืจื• ืœื™ื” ืกืœืข ื“ืงืฉื™ ื›ืกืœืข

And if you say that to acquire movable property by way of land we require that the property be actually piled upon it, for what is a beit sela fit? It is impossible to pile one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels on top of such a small plot of land. The Gemara rejects this argument: Do you maintain that a beit sela is referring to a place that is actually the size of a sela coin? No; rather what is the meaning of the term sela? It is referring to a place that is very large and that could hold the many gifts. If that is true, why did they call it sela? This name indicates that it was hard as rock [sela].

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื—ืœื” ื‘ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืืžืจื™ ืœื” ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ื™ื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ

Come and hear a proof from a different source, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain person who became sick in Jerusalem, and the assumption that he became sick is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a person on his deathbed can transfer property only by means of an accepted standard act of acquisition. And some say he was healthy, and that assumption is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that a person on his deathbed can transfer property by means of speech alone, whereas a healthy person requires an accepted act of acquisition.

ืฉื”ื™ื• ืœื• ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืงืฉ ืœื™ืชื ื ื‘ืžืชื ื” ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงื ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงืจืงืข ืžื” ืขืฉื” ื”ืœืš ื•ืœืงื— ื‘ื™ืช ืจื•ื‘ืข ืกืžื•ืš ืœื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืืžืจ ื˜ืคื— ืขืœ ื˜ืคื— ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ ื•ืขืžื• ืžืื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืื” ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ื•ืžืช ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ืฆื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื˜ืคื— ืขืœ ื˜ืคื— ืœืžืื™ ื—ื–ื™

The incident happened as follows: This man had a great deal of movable property and he wished to give it away as a gift. The Sages said to him: In this situation one has no remedy but to transfer movable property by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired land the size of a beit rova near Jerusalem and said: This square handbreadth is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And he died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement. And if you say that we require that the property be piled on the land, for what is a square handbreadth fit? Is it possible to place all of these items in such a limited space?

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื“ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžืื” ืฆืืŸ ื•ืžืื” ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืžืžืฉ ื ื™ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ืœื™ืคื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? It is with money, i.e., he sought to give the value of the barrels and sheep, and money of this amount can be placed on a small plot of land. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this incident involved money. As, if it enters your mind to say that it involved an actual group of one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels, let him transfer them to the recipient through an act of symbolic exchange. If the incident involved money, which cannot be transferred by symbolic exchange, he had no recourse but to acquire the land.

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœื“ืžื™ ื ื™ืงื ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ื‘ืžืฉื™ื›ื” ืืœื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืœืžืงื‘ืœ ืžืชื ื” ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืœืžืงื‘ืœ ืžืชื ื”

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this argument: Rather, what will you say, that this is referring to money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange? Even so, he still could have acted differently: Let him transfer it to the recipient through pulling. Rather, you are forced to say that the recipient of this gift was not present, and the man wanted to grant him possession of it without the recipient having to perform a physical act of acquisition. So too, it is possible that the recipient of the gift was not present, and he was unable to transfer it to him through symbolic exchange. Consequently, there is no proof that the incident involved money.

ื•ื ื™ื–ื›ื™ื ื”ื• ื ื™ื”ืœื™ื” ืื’ื‘ ืื—ืจ ืœื ืกืžื›ื” ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืกื‘ืจ ืฉืžื™ื˜ ื•ืื›ื™ืœ ืœื”ื•

The Gemara asks: Is there no other way to perform this acquisition? But let him transfer it to him by means of another person, i.e., another can pull the property on behalf of the recipient. The Gemara answers: The giver did not rely on that option, as he feared that the third party might seize it and consume it or use the property in some other manner. The giver wanted to be sure that the acquisition would be completed in full.

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืœืžืื™ ื“ืœื ืกืžื›ื” ื“ืขืชื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืชืงื ื” ืขื“ ืฉื™ืงื ื ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ืงืจืงืข

Rather, what then is the meaning of the statement: He has no remedy? Even if he did not want to use the option of a third party, it was certainly available to him. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav was saying and meant in his description of this incident: In accordance with his decision that he does not rely on another person and does not want to transfer property by means of anyone else, in this situation one has no remedy but to transfer movable property by means of land. In summary, no decisive proof has been cited as to whether or not it is possible to acquire movable property by means of land when the items are not piled upon the land.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ื–ืงื ื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ื‘ืื™ื ื‘ืกืคื™ื ื” ืืžืจ ืœื”ื ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืœื–ืงื ื™ื ืขื™ืฉื•ืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืขืชื™ื“ ืœืžื•ื“

Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Maโ€™aser Sheni 5:9): There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and other Elders who were traveling on a ship. Rabban Gamliel said to the Elders: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out and separate in the future from the produce of my fields

Scroll To Top