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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 6, 2016 | 讻状讝 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Kiddushin 26

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


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

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

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 buyer鈥檚 possession when it is purchased together with the land, by means of an act of acquisition performed on the land.

讜讝讜拽拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讬砖讘注 注诇讬讛谉

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.

讙诪壮 讘讻住祝 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讚讜转 讘讻住祝 讬拽谞讜 讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讟专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讜讞转讜诐 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讬拽谞讜 诇讘住讜祝 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬拽谞讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讻住祝 拽谞讬 砖讟专 专讗讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive that land can be acquired by means of money? 岣zkiyya said that the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall acquire fields with money鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd write a document and sign鈥 (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 鈥渢hey shall acquire鈥 at the beginning of the verse, this teaches that the money itself effects acquisition of the land, and the document is merely a proof.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讗讬 驻专讬砖 驻专讬砖

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.

讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讻讬 讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 讗诪专 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘讻住驻讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘砖讟专讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘讻住驻讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬转讜 诇诪讬讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬转讜 讛讚专讬转讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘砖讟专讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬讛讚专 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬

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.

讜讘砖讟专 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讜讞转讜诐 讜讛注讚 注讚讬诐 讜讛讗诪专转 砖讟专 专讗讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讗拽讞 讗转 住驻专 讛诪拽谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd write in a document and sign, and witnesses shall testify鈥 (Jeremiah 32:44), but didn鈥檛 you say that the document mentioned in the verse is merely a document of proof? Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淎nd I took the deed of purchase鈥 (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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 砖讚讬 谞转讜谞讛 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讻讜专讛 讜谞转讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 专注转讛

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘诪转谞讛 讘讬拽砖 诇讬转谞讛 诇讜 讜诇诪讛 讻转讘 诇讜 诇砖讜谉 诪讻专 讻讚讬 诇讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讜讞讜

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 giver鈥檚 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.

讜讘讞讝拽讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讘讜 讘注专讬讻诐 讗砖专 转驻砖转诐 讘诪讛 转驻砖转诐 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讜讬专砖转诐 讗转讛 讜讬砖讘转诐 讘讛 讘诪讛 讬专砖转诐 讘讬砖讬讘讛

搂 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? 岣zkiyya said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd dwell in your cities that you have taken鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall possess it and dwell there鈥 (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.

讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚

搂 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: 鈥淎nd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor鈥檚 hand鈥 (Leviticus 25:14). This verse speaks of an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by pulling.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that by Torah law giving money effects acquisition but pulling does not, what can be said? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬转谉 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 诪转谞讜转 讜讙讜壮 注诐 注专讬 诪爪专讜转 讘讬讛讜讚讛

搂 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? 岣zkiyya said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judah鈥 (II聽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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘驻讗讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐

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 (Pe鈥檃 3:6). Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in pe鈥檃 and in first fruits,

讜诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜诇拽谞讜转 注诪讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬

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?

转专讙讜诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 砖谞注抓 讘讛 诪讞讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽讘住转谉 讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诪讞讟 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 转诇讛 讘讛 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讚砖讜讜讬讗 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪注砖讛 讘诪讚讜谞讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讬转谞诐 讘诪转谞讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬拽谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪讛 注砖讛 讛诇讱 讜诇拽讞 讘讬转 住诇注 住诪讜讱 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 爪驻讜谞讬 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜注诪讜 诪讗讛 爪讗谉 讜诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讜诪转 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讗转 讚讘专讬讜

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 讘讬转 住诇注 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 诪讬 住讘专转 讘讬转 住诇注 住诇注 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 住诇注 讚谞驻讬砖 讟讜讘讗 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 住诇注 讚拽砖讬 讻住诇注

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].

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讞诇讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘专讬讗 讛讬讛 讻专讘谞谉

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.

砖讛讬讜 诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讬转谞诐 讘诪转谞讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬拽谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪讛 注砖讛 讛诇讱 讜诇拽讞 讘讬转 专讜讘注 住诪讜讱 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜注诪讜 诪讗讛 爪讗谉 讜诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讜诪转 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讚讘专讬讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬

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?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讚诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗讛 爪讗谉 讜诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 诪诪砖 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉

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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讚诪讬 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 诪转谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 诪转谞讛

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.

讜谞讬讝讻讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗讙讘 讗讞专 诇讗 住诪讻讛 讚注转讬讛 住讘专 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜

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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讻讛 讚注转讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬拽谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讝拽谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬诐 讘住驻讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讝拽谞讬诐 注讬砖讜专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚

Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Ma鈥檃ser 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 dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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

讗讬 谞诪讬 讘讞讘讬诇讬 讝诪讜专讜转

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.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 谞拽谞讬谉 注诐 谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讘讻住祝 讜讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛

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 buyer鈥檚 possession when it is purchased together with the land, by means of an act of acquisition performed on the land.

讜讝讜拽拽讬谉 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 诇讬砖讘注 注诇讬讛谉

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.

讙诪壮 讘讻住祝 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 砖讚讜转 讘讻住祝 讬拽谞讜 讜讗讬诪讗 注讚 讚讗讬讻讗 砖讟专 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讜讞转讜诐 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讬拽谞讜 诇讘住讜祝 讻讚拽讗诪专转 讛砖转讗 讚讻转讬讘 讬拽谞讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讻住祝 拽谞讬 砖讟专 专讗讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The Gemara inquires: From where do we derive that land can be acquired by means of money? 岣zkiyya said that the verse states: 鈥淭hey shall acquire fields with money鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd write a document and sign鈥 (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 鈥渢hey shall acquire鈥 at the beginning of the verse, this teaches that the money itself effects acquisition of the land, and the document is merely a proof.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 讗讘诇 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讻讜转讘讬谉 讗转 讛砖讟专 诇讗 拽谞讛 讜讗讬 驻专讬砖 驻专讬砖

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.

讻讬 讛讗 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讻讬 讝讘讬谉 讗专注讗 讗诪专 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘讻住驻讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘砖讟专讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘讻住驻讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬转讜 诇诪讬讛讚专 诇讗 诪爪讬转讜 讛讚专讬转讜 讜讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 讘砖讟专讗 讗讬拽谞讬 讚讗讬 讘注讬谞讗 诇诪讬讛讚专 讛讚专谞讗 讘讬

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.

讜讘砖讟专 诪谞诇谉 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻转讜讘 讘住驻专 讜讞转讜诐 讜讛注讚 注讚讬诐 讜讛讗诪专转 砖讟专 专讗讬讛 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 诪讛讻讗 讜讗拽讞 讗转 住驻专 讛诪拽谞讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讟专 诪转谞讛 讗讘诇 讘诪讻专 诇讗 拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬诐

搂 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: 鈥淎nd write in a document and sign, and witnesses shall testify鈥 (Jeremiah 32:44), but didn鈥檛 you say that the document mentioned in the verse is merely a document of proof? Rather, it is derived from here: 鈥淎nd I took the deed of purchase鈥 (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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘砖讟专 讻讬爪讚 讻转讘 诇讜 注诇 讛谞讬讬专 讗讜 注诇 讛讞专住 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 讘讛诐 砖讜讛 驻专讜讟讛 砖讚讬 诪讻讜专讛 诇讱 砖讚讬 谞转讜谞讛 诇讱 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讻讜专讛 讜谞转讜谞讛 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 讘诪讜讻专 砖讚讛讜 诪驻谞讬 专注转讛

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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘诪转谞讛 讘讬拽砖 诇讬转谞讛 诇讜 讜诇诪讛 讻转讘 诇讜 诇砖讜谉 诪讻专 讻讚讬 诇讬驻讜转 讗转 讻讜讞讜

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 giver鈥檚 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.

讜讘讞讝拽讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜砖讘讜 讘注专讬讻诐 讗砖专 转驻砖转诐 讘诪讛 转驻砖转诐 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讜讬专砖转诐 讗转讛 讜讬砖讘转诐 讘讛 讘诪讛 讬专砖转诐 讘讬砖讬讘讛

搂 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? 岣zkiyya said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd dwell in your cities that you have taken鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall possess it and dwell there鈥 (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.

讜砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬谉 谞拽谞讬谉 讗诇讗 讘诪砖讬讻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻讬 转诪讻专讜 诪诪讻专 诇注诪讬转讱 讗讜 拽谞讛 诪讬讚 注诪讬转讱 讚讘专 讛谞拽谞讛 诪讬讚 诇讬讚

搂 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: 鈥淎nd if you sell any item to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor鈥檚 hand鈥 (Leviticus 25:14). This verse speaks of an item that is acquired from hand to hand, i.e., by pulling.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 诪注讜转 拽讜谞讜转 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转谞讗 转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 拽转谞讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, who says that by Torah law giving money effects acquisition but pulling does not, what can be said? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 讞讝拽讬讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬转谉 诇讛诐 讗讘讬讛诐 诪转谞讜转 讜讙讜壮 注诐 注专讬 诪爪专讜转 讘讬讛讜讚讛

搂 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? 岣zkiyya said that the verse states: 鈥淎nd their father gave them great gifts, of silver, and of gold, and of precious things, with fortified cities in Judah鈥 (II聽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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讗讜 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 拽专拽注 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘转 讘驻讗讛 讜讘讘讻讜专讬诐

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 (Pe鈥檃 3:6). Rabbi Akiva says: The owner of any amount of land is obligated in pe鈥檃 and in first fruits,

讜诇讻转讜讘 注诇讬讛 驻专讜住讘讜诇 讜诇拽谞讜转 注诪讛 谞讻住讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诇讛诐 讗讞专讬讜转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬

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?

转专讙讜诪讗 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讘讬住谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讻讙讜谉 砖谞注抓 讘讛 诪讞讟 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 拽讘住转谉 讗讬讻驻诇 转谞讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 诪讞讟 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚诇讗 转诇讛 讘讛 诪专讙谞讬转讗 讚砖讜讜讬讗 讗诇驻讗 讝讜讝讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪注砖讛 讘诪讚讜谞讬 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 砖讛讬讜 诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讬转谞诐 讘诪转谞讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬拽谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪讛 注砖讛 讛诇讱 讜诇拽讞 讘讬转 住诇注 住诪讜讱 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 爪驻讜谞讬 讝讛 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜注诪讜 诪讗讛 爪讗谉 讜诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讜诪转 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讗转 讚讘专讬讜

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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 讘讬转 住诇注 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬 诪讬 住讘专转 讘讬转 住诇注 住诇注 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 住诇注 讚谞驻讬砖 讟讜讘讗 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讬讛 住诇注 讚拽砖讬 讻住诇注

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].

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讞诇讛 讘讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讘专讬讗 讛讬讛 讻专讘谞谉

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.

砖讛讬讜 诇讜 诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛专讘讛 讜讘讬拽砖 诇讬转谞诐 讘诪转谞讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬拽谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注 诪讛 注砖讛 讛诇讱 讜诇拽讞 讘讬转 专讜讘注 住诪讜讱 诇讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗诪专 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜注诪讜 诪讗讛 爪讗谉 讜诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 讜诪转 讜拽讬讬诪讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讗转 讚讘专讬讜 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讟驻讞 注诇 讟驻讞 诇诪讗讬 讞讝讬

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?

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 诇讚诪讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讗讛 爪讗谉 讜诪讗讛 讞讘讬讜转 诪诪砖 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘讞诇讬驻讬谉

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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讚诪讬 谞讬拽谞讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讘诪砖讬讻讛 讗诇讗 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 诪转谞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讬转讬讛 诇诪拽讘诇 诪转谞讛

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.

讜谞讬讝讻讬谞讛讜 谞讬讛诇讬讛 讗讙讘 讗讞专 诇讗 住诪讻讛 讚注转讬讛 住讘专 砖诪讬讟 讜讗讻讬诇 诇讛讜

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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇诪讗讬 讚诇讗 住诪讻讛 讚注转讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讜 转拽谞讛 注讚 砖讬拽谞诐 注诇 讙讘讬 拽专拽注

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪注砖讛 讘专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜讝拽谞讬诐 砖讛讬讜 讘讗讬诐 讘住驻讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讝拽谞讬诐 注讬砖讜专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚

Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Ma鈥檃ser 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