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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 9, 2023 | 讻状讙 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讙

  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Kiddushin 27

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Judi Felber in loving memory of her mother, Jan Abramson, Yocheved Bat Sara and Tzvi, on her 2nd yahrzeit. 鈥淲omen playing a significant role in Judaism was always important to her.鈥

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam鈥檚 mother, Ruth Zemsky z鈥漧 Rayzel bat Yehoshua haLevi and Chaya Kila on her 7th yahrzeit. “Following in the teaching of R鈥 Akiva, her home and Shabbat table were a model of her approach to life; one of being mezake aniyim literally and metaphorically. Her example continues to inspire us daily. Yehi zichra baruch.

A question was asked: can a kinyan agav be effected if the movable items are not found in the land that is being acquired? After several attempts to answer this question, the answer is learned from a source about a document being acquired with land. The conclusion is that it does not need to be physically present on the land. The Gemara raises several other questions regarding kinyan agav. What is the source for gilgul shvua – one who is obligated to take an oath about one thing, can become obligated to take an oath at the same time to swear regarding other things for which they would not otherwise be obligated to take an oath. The source is derived from the oath of a sotah, a woman accused of being unfaithful to her husband who undergoes the sotah process.

谞转讜谉 诇讜 诇讬讛讜砖注 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜 讜注讬砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚 谞转讜谉 诇讜 诇注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 讘讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讟专讞讬谞讛讜


is given as first tithe to Yehoshua ben 岣nanya, who was a Levite, and the place of the tithe is rented to him so that he can acquire the tithe by means of the land. And another tenth that I will measure out in the future as the poor man鈥檚 tithe is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him. One can learn from here that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, as Rabban Gamliel emphasized: Its place. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is different there, as Rabban Gamliel did this so as not to trouble the Sages to whom he was giving the tithes by forcing them to transport the tithes to a different location. For reasons of convenience he transferred to the other Sages ownership of the land where the tithes were already situated.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 讝讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘砖讚讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛


The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a solution for this dilemma, as Rava bar Yitz岣k says that Rav says: There are two types of documents. If one says: Acquire this field for so-and-so and write the document for him as proof of the sale of the field, he can retract his agreement with regard to the document. He can change his mind and tell them not to write the document. But he cannot retract his agreement with regard to the field, as the buyer has already acquired it. By contrast, if he said: Acquire this field for so-and-so on the condition that you write him a document, if the document has not yet been given he can retract his agreement both with regard to the document and with regard to the field, as he transfers the field to him only on the condition that he writes a document.


讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诇砖讛 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 转专讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 拽讚诐 诪讜讻专 讜讻转讘 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻讜转讘讬诐 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 注诪讜 讘拽专拽注 谞拽谞讛 砖讟专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗


And Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: There are actually three types of documents. Two types are those that we said, and the other type is as follows. If the seller first wrote him the document, as a seller can write a bill of sale before the transaction and give it when he receives payment. This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 167b): A scribe may write a deed of sale for the seller of property who requests one, even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request. In a case of this kind, once the buyer takes possession of the land from him, the document is acquired by the buyer wherever it is, i.e., even if it is not in the possession of the buyer.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 砖讗谞讬 砖讟专 讚讗驻住讬专讗 讚讗专注讗 讛讜讗


One can learn from here that we do not require that the property be piled on it, as in this case the document is acquired by means of the land wherever the document is located. The Gemara rejects this proof: A document is different, as it is the bridle of the land. Since the document that refers to the land is the means by which one takes possession of the land, it is considered as though the document is part of the land. Therefore, one can take possession of the document by means of the land without it actually having to be placed there. The same does not necessarily apply to other movable property, which does not refer specifically to the land.


讜讛讗 注诇讛 拽转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 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 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara asks: But it was taught concerning this halakha that a document can effect acquisition wherever it is located: This is what we learned in the mishna: 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. This indicates that there is no difference between a document and other types of movable property. Consequently, one can learn from here that we do not require that the property be piled on the land. The Gemara affirms: One can learn from here that this is the case.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 讗讙讘 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗讙讘 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽谞讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require that one who sells movable property by means of land state explicitly that this is his intention, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as those aforementioned baraitot teach all these halakhot of acquiring movable property through land, and they do not teach the expression: By means of. This indicates that it is not necessary to specify this aspect of the acquisition. The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, is it taught that he must say to him: Acquire it? The baraitot do not state this, and yet everyone agrees that the seller must say to him that he should acquire the land.


讗诇讗 注讚 讚讗诪专 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注讚 讚讗诪专 讗讙讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪讘讜专讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讗讙讘 讜拽谞讬 讘注讬谞谉:


Rather, one must say that the acquisition is not effective unless he says: Acquire it, and yet the tanna did not deem it necessary to mention this requirement. Here too, the acquisition is not effective unless he says: By means of. This requirement is not mentioned because these baraitot do not discuss the type of statements he must issue, but simply are referring to the basic legal issues involved. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not require that the property be piled on the land, but we require that the seller say that he is transferring the movable property by means of the land, and he must say: Acquire it.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讚讛 讘诪讻专 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 注讬砖讜专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚 谞转讜谉 诇讬讛讜砖注 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a seller wishes to give a field in the form of a sale and with it movable property as a gift, what is the halakha? Can he transfer them together by means of a transaction performed with the land? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for this dilemma from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel, as he said: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out in the future is given to Yehoshua, and its place is rented to him. Learn from this that even if the field is rented, which is equivalent to a sale, and the tithe is given as a gift, one can transfer the two together.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讚讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 注讬砖讜专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚 谞转讜谉 诇注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 讘讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜


Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one wishes to give a field to one person and movable property to another, what is the halakha? Can one transfer movable property to one person by means of land that is going to be gifted to another? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Rabban Gamliel stated: One-tenth of that which I will measure out in the future is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him. Although the gift is for the poor and the place is rented to Rabbi Akiva, the acquisition is effective.


诪讗讬 诪讜砖讻专 诪讜砖讻专 诇诪注砖专 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讬讚 注谞讬讬诐 讛讜讛


The Gemara rejects this proof: What is the meaning of: Rented, in this case? It means rented for tithe. This land was not rented to Rabbi Akiva for his own use, but only so that he could receive the tithe. Therefore, the land was also given to the poor. And if you wish, say a different refutation: Rabbi Akiva is different, as he was a charity collector, and therefore he was considered like the hand of the poor. Since a charity collector collects charity on behalf of the poor, he has the status of the poor himself. If so, this cannot be compared to a case in which one transfers a certain item to one person and land to someone else.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转谉 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞转谉 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讜


Rava says: The Sages taught that one can acquire movable property by way of land only when he gives all the money for the land and the movable property. But if he did not give the money for all the property, even if they were transferred to him he acquires only the movable property corresponding to the money that he paid.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讻住祝 诪讻讞 讛砖讟专 讜讻讞 讛砖讟专 诪讻讞 讛讻住祝 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讻住祝 砖讛讻住祝 驻讜讚讬谉 讘讜 讛拽讚砖讜转 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讟专 讜讬驻讛 讻讞 讛砖讟专 砖讛砖讟专 诪讜爪讬讗 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讻住祝


It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 2:3) in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The power of money is greater than the power of a document in one way, and the power of a document is greater than the power of money in a different way. The baraita elaborates: The power of money is greater in that money can be used to redeem consecrated property and second tithe, which is not the case with a document. And the power of a document is greater than the power of money, as a document releases a Jewish woman, i.e., a man can divorce his wife with a bill of divorce, which is not the case with money.


讜讬驻讛 讻讞 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讻讞 讞讝拽讛 讜讻讞 讞讝拽讛 诪讻讞 砖谞讬讛诐 讬驻讛 讻讞 砖谞讬讛诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讞讝拽讛 讬驻讛 讻讞 讞讝拽讛 砖讞讝拽讛 诪讻专 诇讜 注砖专 砖讚讜转 讘注砖专 诪讚讬谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛诐 拽谞讗诐 讻讜诇诐


The baraita continues: And furthermore, the power of each, money and a document, as a means to transfer ownership is greater than the power of acquisition by means of taking possession, and the power of taking possession is greater than the power of acquisition of each of them. How so? The power of each of them is greater than the power of acquisition of taking possession, as each of them effects acquisition in the case of a Hebrew slave, which is not the case for taking possession (see 14b). The power of taking possession is greater than the power of acquisition of each of them, as with regard to taking possession, if one sold another ten fields in ten countries, once the buyer takes possession of one of the fields he acquires all of them.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讜 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讻专 诇讜 注砖专 砖讚讜转 讘注砖专 诪讚讬谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 拽谞讛 讗转 讻讜诇谉


In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case when he gave him money for all of the land. But if he did not give him money for all of it, he acquires only the land corresponding to the money that he paid, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara comments: The baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: If one sold another ten fields in ten countries, once he takes possession of one of them he acquires all of them.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 转讚注 砖讗讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讘讗驻住专 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬讙讜讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 讗讬讙讜讚讜 讘讬讚讜


Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Know that this is true, as, if he handed him ten animals with one bridle [afsar] and said to him: Acquire them, doesn鈥檛 he acquire all of them? In this case, too, they are considered like one field. A Sage said to Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: Is it comparable? There, its bond, i.e., the bridle that joins the animals, is in his hand. Here, in the case of ten fields, its bond is not in his hand.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 转讚注 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讘讗驻住专 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 拽谞讬 诪讬 拽谞讬


There are those who say that Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Know that he does not acquire all of the fields by taking possession of only one field, as, if one passed to him ten animals with one bridle and said to him: Acquire this one, does he acquire all of them? The same applies here when he takes possession of only one field; it is as though he said to him: Acquire this one, and therefore he does not acquire the other fields in this manner.


诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙讜驻讬诐 诪讜讞诇拽讬诐 讛讻讗 住讚谞讗 讚讗专注讗 讞讚 讛讜讗:


The Gemara rejects this argument: Is it comparable? There, the animals are separate entities, and therefore when he says to him: Acquire this one, there is no reason that the other animals should be acquired as well. Here, the mass of the earth is one. Consequently, if he acquires one plot of land, he acquires the other plots along with it.


讜讝讜拽拽讬诐 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讙诇讙讜诇 砖讘讜注讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Ulla says: From where is it derived from the Torah that one can impose the extension of an oath, i.e., if one is required to take an oath for one claim, the other party can obligate him to take an oath with regard to other claims which on their own would not lead to the imposition of an oath?


砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诪专讛 讛讗砖讛 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讜转谞谉 注诇 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 注诇 讛讗诇讛 讗诪谉 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗诪谉 讗诐 诪讗讬砖 讝讛 讗诪谉 讗诐 诪讗讬砖 讗讞专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 住讟讬转讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛


As it is stated with regard to a sota: 鈥淎nd the woman shall say: Amen, amen鈥 (Numbers 5:22), and we learned in a mishna (Sota 18a): Concerning what does she say the double expression of: Amen, amen? She says amen on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and amen on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: Amen if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, amen if I committed adultery with another man. Amen that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married, nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through levirate marriage to the yavam.


讛讗讬 讗专讜住讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜拽讗 诪砖拽讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转讞转 讗讬砖讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讬讻讗


The Gemara analyzes this halakha: What are the circumstances with regard to this betrothed woman? If we say that he warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he gives her the bitter water of a sota to drink when she is betrothed, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): With regard to a betrothed woman who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, and a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her yavam, they neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states as part of her oath: 鈥淏ut if you have gone aside, being under your husband鈥 (Numbers 5:20), and that does not apply here, as these women are not yet under their husband鈥檚 authority.


讗诇讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜谞住转专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜拽讗 诪砖拽讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛


Rather, one must say that he warned her when she was betrothed, i.e., he warned her when she was betrothed not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she secluded herself with that man when she was betrothed, and he gave her the water to drink when she was married.


诪讬 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 诪讬讗 讜谞拽讛 讛讗讬砖 诪注讜谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讬谉 讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讗砖转讜


The Gemara asks: But in this case, does the water she is given to drink examine her and cause her death? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淎nd the man shall be clear from iniquity鈥 (Numbers 5:31)? This verse indicates: When the man is clear from iniquity, the water examines his wife; but if the man is not clear from iniquity with regard to the matter of illicit sexual intercourse, the water does not examine his wife. Since he suspected her of impropriety when she was betrothed and warned her about a particular man, and she secluded herself with that man regardless of his warning, he was not allowed to engage in intercourse with her. If he did so, he is a sinner himself, and therefore the water will not affect his wife. If so, it is impossible for a betrothed woman to be examined as a sota.


讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇


Rather, it is clear that this oath is administered by means of an extension. Although the husband cannot force her to take an oath only with regard to her behavior before they were married, since she must take an oath with regard to her behavior during her marriage, he can extend the oath to include incidents that occurred while she was betrothed.


讗砖讻讞谉 住讜讟讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诪谞诇谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 住讜讟讛


The Gemara comments: We found a source for the extension of an oath in the case of a sota, which is a halakha involving a prohibition. From where do we derive that an oath can be extended with regard to monetary matters as well? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that this can be derived through an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a sota,


  • This month is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross z'l, on his 1st yahrzeit

  • Masechet Kiddushin is sponsored by Julie and Martin Mendelsohn in honor of their two children who were recently married

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Kiddushin: 25 – 31 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn how different objects are acquired according to Jewish Law. There are many forms of proprietary...
talking talmud_square

Kiddushin 27: Agav Continued

Cases of acquiring movable items along with land - from tithes of growing produce along with rent to several different...

Kiddushin 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Kiddushin 27

谞转讜谉 诇讜 诇讬讛讜砖注 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜 讜注讬砖讜专 讗讞专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚 谞转讜谉 诇讜 诇注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 讘讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讗 诇讬讟专讞讬谞讛讜


is given as first tithe to Yehoshua ben 岣nanya, who was a Levite, and the place of the tithe is rented to him so that he can acquire the tithe by means of the land. And another tenth that I will measure out in the future as the poor man鈥檚 tithe is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him. One can learn from here that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, as Rabban Gamliel emphasized: Its place. The Gemara rejects this argument: It is different there, as Rabban Gamliel did this so as not to trouble the Sages to whom he was giving the tithes by forcing them to transport the tithes to a different location. For reasons of convenience he transferred to the other Sages ownership of the land where the tithes were already situated.


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 砖谞讬 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 讝讻讜 讘砖讚讛 讝讜 诇驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘砖讟专 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜讝专 讘砖讚讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讻转讘讜 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讞讜讝专 讘讬谉 讘砖讟专 讘讬谉 讘砖讚讛


The Gemara further suggests: Come and hear a solution for this dilemma, as Rava bar Yitz岣k says that Rav says: There are two types of documents. If one says: Acquire this field for so-and-so and write the document for him as proof of the sale of the field, he can retract his agreement with regard to the document. He can change his mind and tell them not to write the document. But he cannot retract his agreement with regard to the field, as the buyer has already acquired it. By contrast, if he said: Acquire this field for so-and-so on the condition that you write him a document, if the document has not yet been given he can retract his agreement both with regard to the document and with regard to the field, as he transfers the field to him only on the condition that he writes a document.


讜专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 砖诇砖讛 砖讟专讜转 讛谉 转专讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讗讬讚讱 讗诐 拽讚诐 诪讜讻专 讜讻转讘 诇讜 讗转 讛砖讟专 讻讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讻讜转讘讬诐 砖讟专 诇诪讜讻专 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞 注诪讜 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 注诪讜 讘拽专拽注 谞拽谞讛 砖讟专 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讛讜讗


And Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: There are actually three types of documents. Two types are those that we said, and the other type is as follows. If the seller first wrote him the document, as a seller can write a bill of sale before the transaction and give it when he receives payment. This is as we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 167b): A scribe may write a deed of sale for the seller of property who requests one, even if the purchaser is not with him when he presents his request. In a case of this kind, once the buyer takes possession of the land from him, the document is acquired by the buyer wherever it is, i.e., even if it is not in the possession of the buyer.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 砖讗谞讬 砖讟专 讚讗驻住讬专讗 讚讗专注讗 讛讜讗


One can learn from here that we do not require that the property be piled on it, as in this case the document is acquired by means of the land wherever the document is located. The Gemara rejects this proof: A document is different, as it is the bridle of the land. Since the document that refers to the land is the means by which one takes possession of the land, it is considered as though the document is part of the land. Therefore, one can take possession of the document by means of the land without it actually having to be placed there. The same does not necessarily apply to other movable property, which does not refer specifically to the land.


讜讛讗 注诇讛 拽转谞讬 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 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 讘砖讟专 讜讘讞讝拽讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 爪讘讜专讬诐 讘讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛:


The Gemara asks: But it was taught concerning this halakha that a document can effect acquisition wherever it is located: This is what we learned in the mishna: 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. This indicates that there is no difference between a document and other types of movable property. Consequently, one can learn from here that we do not require that the property be piled on the land. The Gemara affirms: One can learn from here that this is the case.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讬 讘注讬谞谉 讗讙讘 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚拽转谞讬 讻诇 讛谞讬 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗讙讘 讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽谞讬 诪讬 拽转谞讬


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Do we require that one who sells movable property by means of land state explicitly that this is his intention, or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as those aforementioned baraitot teach all these halakhot of acquiring movable property through land, and they do not teach the expression: By means of. This indicates that it is not necessary to specify this aspect of the acquisition. The Gemara rejects this proof: And according to your reasoning, is it taught that he must say to him: Acquire it? The baraitot do not state this, and yet everyone agrees that the seller must say to him that he should acquire the land.


讗诇讗 注讚 讚讗诪专 拽谞讬 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 注讚 讚讗诪专 讗讙讘 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪讘讜专讬诐 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讗讙讘 讜拽谞讬 讘注讬谞谉:


Rather, one must say that the acquisition is not effective unless he says: Acquire it, and yet the tanna did not deem it necessary to mention this requirement. Here too, the acquisition is not effective unless he says: By means of. This requirement is not mentioned because these baraitot do not discuss the type of statements he must issue, but simply are referring to the basic legal issues involved. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not require that the property be piled on the land, but we require that the seller say that he is transferring the movable property by means of the land, and he must say: Acquire it.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讚讛 讘诪讻专 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讘诪转谞讛 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 注讬砖讜专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚 谞转讜谉 诇讬讛讜砖注 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a seller wishes to give a field in the form of a sale and with it movable property as a gift, what is the halakha? Can he transfer them together by means of a transaction performed with the land? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof for this dilemma from the incident involving Rabban Gamliel, as he said: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out in the future is given to Yehoshua, and its place is rented to him. Learn from this that even if the field is rented, which is equivalent to a sale, and the tithe is given as a gift, one can transfer the two together.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讚讛 诇讗讞讚 讜诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 注讬砖讜专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇诪讜讚 谞转讜谉 诇注拽讬讘讗 讘谉 讬讜住祝 讻讚讬 砖讬讝讻讛 讘讜 诇注谞讬讬诐 讜诪拽讜诪讜 诪讜砖讻专 诇讜


Another dilemma was raised before the Sages: If one wishes to give a field to one person and movable property to another, what is the halakha? Can one transfer movable property to one person by means of land that is going to be gifted to another? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Rabban Gamliel stated: One-tenth of that which I will measure out in the future is given to Akiva ben Yosef so that he will acquire it on behalf of the poor, and its place is rented to him. Although the gift is for the poor and the place is rented to Rabbi Akiva, the acquisition is effective.


诪讗讬 诪讜砖讻专 诪讜砖讻专 诇诪注砖专 讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 砖讗谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讬讚 注谞讬讬诐 讛讜讛


The Gemara rejects this proof: What is the meaning of: Rented, in this case? It means rented for tithe. This land was not rented to Rabbi Akiva for his own use, but only so that he could receive the tithe. Therefore, the land was also given to the poor. And if you wish, say a different refutation: Rabbi Akiva is different, as he was a charity collector, and therefore he was considered like the hand of the poor. Since a charity collector collects charity on behalf of the poor, he has the status of the poor himself. If so, this cannot be compared to a case in which one transfers a certain item to one person and land to someone else.


讗诪专 专讘讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖谞转谉 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞转谉 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讜


Rava says: The Sages taught that one can acquire movable property by way of land only when he gives all the money for the land and the movable property. But if he did not give the money for all the property, even if they were transferred to him he acquires only the movable property corresponding to the money that he paid.


转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讻住祝 诪讻讞 讛砖讟专 讜讻讞 讛砖讟专 诪讻讞 讛讻住祝 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讻住祝 砖讛讻住祝 驻讜讚讬谉 讘讜 讛拽讚砖讜转 讜诪注砖专 砖谞讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘砖讟专 讜讬驻讛 讻讞 讛砖讟专 砖讛砖讟专 诪讜爪讬讗 讘讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讻住祝


It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Ketubot 2:3) in accordance with the opinion of Rava: The power of money is greater than the power of a document in one way, and the power of a document is greater than the power of money in a different way. The baraita elaborates: The power of money is greater in that money can be used to redeem consecrated property and second tithe, which is not the case with a document. And the power of a document is greater than the power of money, as a document releases a Jewish woman, i.e., a man can divorce his wife with a bill of divorce, which is not the case with money.


讜讬驻讛 讻讞 砖谞讬讛诐 诪讻讞 讞讝拽讛 讜讻讞 讞讝拽讛 诪讻讞 砖谞讬讛诐 讬驻讛 讻讞 砖谞讬讛诐 砖砖谞讬讛诐 拽讜谞讬诐 讘注讘讚 注讘专讬 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讞讝拽讛 讬驻讛 讻讞 讞讝拽讛 砖讞讝拽讛 诪讻专 诇讜 注砖专 砖讚讜转 讘注砖专 诪讚讬谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛诐 拽谞讗诐 讻讜诇诐


The baraita continues: And furthermore, the power of each, money and a document, as a means to transfer ownership is greater than the power of acquisition by means of taking possession, and the power of taking possession is greater than the power of acquisition of each of them. How so? The power of each of them is greater than the power of acquisition of taking possession, as each of them effects acquisition in the case of a Hebrew slave, which is not the case for taking possession (see 14b). The power of taking possession is greater than the power of acquisition of each of them, as with regard to taking possession, if one sold another ten fields in ten countries, once the buyer takes possession of one of the fields he acquires all of them.


讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 谞转谉 诇讜 讚诪讬 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 拽谞讛 讗诇讗 讻谞讙讚 诪注讜转讬讜 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讻专 诇讜 注砖专 砖讚讜转 讘注砖专 诪讚讬谞讜转 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讞讝讬拽 讘讗讞转 诪讛谉 拽谞讛 讗转 讻讜诇谉


In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case when he gave him money for all of the land. But if he did not give him money for all of it, he acquires only the land corresponding to the money that he paid, in accordance with the opinion of Rava. The Gemara comments: The baraita supports the opinion of Shmuel, as Shmuel says: If one sold another ten fields in ten countries, once he takes possession of one of them he acquires all of them.


讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 转讚注 砖讗讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讘讗驻住专 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 拽谞讬 诪讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬讙讜讚讜 讘讬讚讜 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 讗讬讙讜讚讜 讘讬讚讜


Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Know that this is true, as, if he handed him ten animals with one bridle [afsar] and said to him: Acquire them, doesn鈥檛 he acquire all of them? In this case, too, they are considered like one field. A Sage said to Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika: Is it comparable? There, its bond, i.e., the bridle that joins the animals, is in his hand. Here, in the case of ten fields, its bond is not in his hand.


讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬拽讗 转讚注 讚诇讗 拽谞讬 讗讬诇讜 诪住专 诇讜 注砖专 讘讛诪讜转 讘讗驻住专 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 诇讜 讝讜 拽谞讬 诪讬 拽谞讬


There are those who say that Rav A岣, son of Rav Ika, said: Know that he does not acquire all of the fields by taking possession of only one field, as, if one passed to him ten animals with one bridle and said to him: Acquire this one, does he acquire all of them? The same applies here when he takes possession of only one field; it is as though he said to him: Acquire this one, and therefore he does not acquire the other fields in this manner.


诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讙讜驻讬诐 诪讜讞诇拽讬诐 讛讻讗 住讚谞讗 讚讗专注讗 讞讚 讛讜讗:


The Gemara rejects this argument: Is it comparable? There, the animals are separate entities, and therefore when he says to him: Acquire this one, there is no reason that the other animals should be acquired as well. Here, the mass of the earth is one. Consequently, if he acquires one plot of land, he acquires the other plots along with it.


讜讝讜拽拽讬诐 讗转 讛谞讻住讬诐 讜讻讜壮: 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讙诇讙讜诇 砖讘讜注讛 诪谉 讛转讜专讛


搂 The mishna teaches: 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. Ulla says: From where is it derived from the Torah that one can impose the extension of an oath, i.e., if one is required to take an oath for one claim, the other party can obligate him to take an oath with regard to other claims which on their own would not lead to the imposition of an oath?


砖谞讗诪专 讜讗诪专讛 讛讗砖讛 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讜转谞谉 注诇 诪讛 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 讗诪谉 注诇 讛讗诇讛 讗诪谉 注诇 讛砖讘讜注讛 讗诪谉 讗诐 诪讗讬砖 讝讛 讗诪谉 讗诐 诪讗讬砖 讗讞专 讗诪谉 砖诇讗 住讟讬转讬 讗专讜住讛 讜谞砖讜讗讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 讜讻谞讜住讛


As it is stated with regard to a sota: 鈥淎nd the woman shall say: Amen, amen鈥 (Numbers 5:22), and we learned in a mishna (Sota 18a): Concerning what does she say the double expression of: Amen, amen? She says amen on the curse, as she accepts the curse upon herself if she is guilty, and amen on the oath, as she declares that she is not defiled. She states: Amen if I committed adultery with this man about whom I was warned, amen if I committed adultery with another man. Amen that I did not stray when I was betrothed nor after I was married, nor as a widow waiting for my yavam to perform levirate marriage, since a woman at that stage is prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse with any men, nor when married through levirate marriage to the yavam.


讛讗讬 讗专讜住讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜拽讗 诪砖拽讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗专讜住讛 讜砖讜诪专转 讬讘诐 诇讗 砖讜转讜转 讜诇讗 谞讜讟诇讜转 讻转讜讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 转讞转 讗讬砖讱 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜诇讬讻讗


The Gemara analyzes this halakha: What are the circumstances with regard to this betrothed woman? If we say that he warned her not to seclude herself with a particular man when she was betrothed, and he gives her the bitter water of a sota to drink when she is betrothed, but didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Sota 23b): With regard to a betrothed woman who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her betrothed, and a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage who secluded herself with another man after being warned by her yavam, they neither drink the bitter water nor collect payment of their marriage contracts. What is the reason for this? The Merciful One states as part of her oath: 鈥淏ut if you have gone aside, being under your husband鈥 (Numbers 5:20), and that does not apply here, as these women are not yet under their husband鈥檚 authority.


讗诇讗 讚拽谞讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜谞住转专讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 讜拽讗 诪砖拽讬 诇讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞砖讜讗讛


Rather, one must say that he warned her when she was betrothed, i.e., he warned her when she was betrothed not to seclude herself with a particular man, and she secluded herself with that man when she was betrothed, and he gave her the water to drink when she was married.


诪讬 讘讚拽讬 诇讛 诪讬讗 讜谞拽讛 讛讗讬砖 诪注讜谉 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讬谉 讗讬砖 诪谞讜拽讛 诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 讛诪讬诐 讘讜讚拽讬诐 讗转 讗砖转讜


The Gemara asks: But in this case, does the water she is given to drink examine her and cause her death? Doesn鈥檛 the Merciful One state: 鈥淎nd the man shall be clear from iniquity鈥 (Numbers 5:31)? This verse indicates: When the man is clear from iniquity, the water examines his wife; but if the man is not clear from iniquity with regard to the matter of illicit sexual intercourse, the water does not examine his wife. Since he suspected her of impropriety when she was betrothed and warned her about a particular man, and she secluded herself with that man regardless of his warning, he was not allowed to engage in intercourse with her. If he did so, he is a sinner himself, and therefore the water will not affect his wife. If so, it is impossible for a betrothed woman to be examined as a sota.


讗诇讗 注诇 讬讚讬 讙诇讙讜诇


Rather, it is clear that this oath is administered by means of an extension. Although the husband cannot force her to take an oath only with regard to her behavior before they were married, since she must take an oath with regard to her behavior during her marriage, he can extend the oath to include incidents that occurred while she was betrothed.


讗砖讻讞谉 住讜讟讛 讚讗讬住讜专讗 诪诪讜谞讗 诪谞诇谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 住讜讟讛


The Gemara comments: We found a source for the extension of an oath in the case of a sota, which is a halakha involving a prohibition. From where do we derive that an oath can be extended with regard to monetary matters as well? The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that this can be derived through an a fortiori inference: And just as in the case of a sota,


Scroll To Top