Kiddushin 61

המקדיש שדהו בשעת היובל נותן בזרע חומר שעורים חמשים שקל כסף היו נקעים עמוקים עשרה טפחים או סלעים גבוהים עשרה טפחים אין נמדדין עמה פחות מכאן נמדדין עמה

With regard to one who consecrates his field during the time of the Jubilee Year, i.e., in an era when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are observed, if he wishes to redeem it from the Temple treasury he gives fifty silver shekels for an area that yields a ḥomer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed. If the field had crevices, i.e., deep fissures in its surface, ten handbreadths deep, or boulders ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it, i.e., in the calculation of land that requires redemption. If the crevices or boulders are less than that, they are measured with it.

והוינן בה נהי דבהדי ארעא לא קדשו נקדשו באפי נפשייהו וכי תימא כמה דלא הוי בית כור לא חשיב ורמינהו

And we discussed the following problem: Granted, that these areas are not consecrated together with the field, as they are ten handbreadths higher or lower than the rest of the land; but let the crevices and boulders be consecrated by themselves, so that they should require their own redemption of fifty silver shekels per beit kor. And if you would say that as long as an area does not amount to a beit kor it is not important, the Gemara raises a contradiction against this claim from a baraita.

שדה מה תלמוד לומר לפי שנאמר זרע חמר שערים בחמשים אין לי אלא שהקדיש בענין הזה מנין לרבות לתך וחצי לתך סאה תרקב וחצי תרקב ואפילו רובע מנין תלמוד לומר שדה מכל מקום

The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: “Part of a field of his possession” (Leviticus 27:16). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since it is stated in the same verse: “The sowing of a ḥomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,” I have derived only that this halakha applies to one who consecrated in this manner, i.e., consecrated an area fit to sow a ḥomer of barley. From where do I derive that this halakha includes a smaller area, e.g., one suitable for sowing a half-kor, and half of a half-kor, and the area for a se’a, and a tarkav, which is half a se’a, and half a tarkav, and even the area of a quarter–kav? The baraita restates its question: From where is it derived that these areas of land can also be consecrated and redeemed based on the fixed values of the Torah? The verse states “a field” in any case.

אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא הכא בנקעים מלאים מים עסקינן משום דלאו בני זריעה נינהו דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דסלעים גבוהים שמע מינה

Therefore, the Gemara’s question remains: Why aren’t the crevices and boulders measured by themselves? Mar Ukva bar Ḥama said: Here we are dealing with crevices filled with water. Due to the fact that they are not fit for sowing, the crevices are not considered a field. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the case of crevices, similar to the case of high boulders, which are also unsuitable for sowing. The Gemara affirms: Learn from this comparison that this explanation is correct.

אי הכי אפילו פחות מיכן נמי הנהו נאגני דארעא מיקרו שדרא דארעא מקרו

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the crevices, like the boulders, are unfit for sowing, then even if there is a disparity of less than ten handbreadths as well, the crevices and boulders should likewise not be measured as part of the field. The Gemara answers: If they are separated from the field by less than ten handbreadths, these crevices are called the cracks in the ground. Similarly, boulders less than ten handbreadths high are called the spine of the ground. They are considered regular features of fields, which typically have a few pits and mounds.

גבי מכר תנן האומר לחבירו בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך והיו שם נקעים עמוקים עשרה טפחים או סלעים גבוהים עשרה טפחים אין נמדדים עמה פחות מכאן נמדדים עמה ואמר מר עוקבא בר חמא אף על פי שאין מלאים מים

With regard to a sale of a field, we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 102b): In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor of earth, if there were crevices ten handbreadths deep or boulders ten handbreadths high in the field, they are not measured with it; if the crevices or boulders were less than that, they are measured with it. And Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says: Even if they are not filled with water, nevertheless they are not included.

מאי טעמא אמר רב פפא לפי שאין אדם רוצה שיתן את מעותיו בשדה אחת ויראה לו כשנים וכשלשה מקומות

The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between the two rulings of Mar Ukva bar Ḥama? Why in the case of a sale are crevices not considered part of the field even if they are not filled with water? Rav Pappa says: Because a person who buys a field does not want to give his money for one field and yet it appears to him like two or three places. When purchasing a parcel of land, it is important to the purchaser that the land be one contiguous unit so as to enable farming it without difficulty. Therefore, these areas of ten handbreadths are not measured as part of the field regardless of whether or not they are filled with water.

הכא מאי להקדש מדמינן לה או למכר מדמינן לה מסתברא להקדש מדמינן לה דאמר לה אנא טרחנא וזרענא ומייתינא

Having discussed the halakhot of a field with regard to consecration and sales, the Gemara asks: What is the halakha here, with regard to measuring a field to see if it fulfills the condition stipulated by one who betroths a woman, if it contains large crevices that are not filled with water? Do we compare it to the halakha of consecrated property and include these places, or do we compare it to the halakha of a sale, which means that they are not included? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that we compare it to the case of consecrated property, as the husband can say to her: I will go to the trouble of sowing and bringing the produce from the lower or higher areas as well. Although the labor requires additional effort, he does possess a beit kor of land.

מתני׳ רבי מאיר אומר כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן אינו תנאי שנאמר ויאמר אלהם אם יעברו בני גד ובני ראובן וכתיב ואם לא יעברו חלוצים

MISHNA: Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not doubled, i.e., which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled, like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben who sought to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, is not a valid condition and is not taken into account at all. As it is stated: “And Moses said to them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you, every man armed for battle before the Lord, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession” (Numbers 32:29). And it is written afterward: “But if they will not pass over armed with you, they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 32:30).

רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר צריך הדבר לאומרו שאלמלא כן יש במשמע שאפילו בארץ כנען לא ינחלו

Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: One cannot derive the requirements of conditions in general from that particular case, as with regard to the nullification of the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, if the verse had not specified both sides of the condition, it might have been thought it meant that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan. One might have thought that if the tribes of Gad and Reuben would not fulfill the condition, they would forfeit their right to inherit anywhere. It was therefore necessary to specify that they would not lose their portion in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it is possible that with regard to a standard condition, where no such misunderstanding is likely to take place, it is not necessary to mention both sides.

גמ׳ שפיר קאמר ליה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל לרבי מאיר אמר לך רבי מאיר אי סלקא דעתך לאו לתנאי כפול הוא דאתא לכתוב ואם לא יעברו ונאחזו בתככם בארץ כנען

GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel is saying well, i.e., presenting a reasonable objection, to Rabbi Meir. He apparently refuted Rabbi Meir’s opinion entirely. How would Rabbi Meir respond? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the verse does not come to teach the requirement of a compound condition to stipulate both positive and negative outcomes, let it merely write: But if they will not pass over they shall receive a possession among you, which would indicate that they have a portion in the land. The verse actually proceeds to state: “In the land of Canaan.”

למה לי שמע מינה לתנאי כפול הוא דאתא

Why do I need this extra phrase? Conclude from it that it comes to teach the requirement of a compound condition.

ורבי חנינא בן גמליאל אמר אי לא כתב רחמנא בארץ כנען הוה אמינא ונאחזו בתככם בארץ גלעד אבל ארץ כנען כלל לא ורבי מאיר בתככם כל היכא דאית לכו משמע

And Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: If the Merciful One had not written: “In the land of Canaan,” I would say that the requirement: “They shall receive a possession among you” (Numbers 32:30) is referring to the land of Gilead, i.e., this land must be shared with the other tribes. But they would not inherit in the land of Canaan at all. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Meir respond to this claim? He maintains that the expression: “Among you,” means anywhere that you have taken possession, including the land of Canaan. Therefore, the subsequent phrase “the land of Canaan” is superfluous and serves to teach that the condition must be doubled.

תניא אמר רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שהיה מחלק נכסיו לבניו אמר פלוני בני יירש שדה פלונית ופלוני בני יירש שדה פלונית ופלוני בני יתן מאתים זוז ויירש שדה פלונית ואם לא יתן יירש עם אחיו בשאר נכסים

It is taught in a baraita with regard to this issue that Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel said: Hear a parable: To what is this matter, i.e., the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben, comparable? It is comparable to a person who was dividing up his property among his sons, and said: My son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall inherit such and such a field; and my son so-and-so shall give two hundred dinars and inherit such and such a field, and if he does not give the money he will inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers.

מי גרם לו לירש עם אחיו בשאר נכסים כפילו גרם לו

What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The father’s double formulation of the condition causes him to inherit in this manner. It was therefore necessary for the father to state both sides and explain what will happen if the third brother fails to give the money. Had the father not repeated the condition, upon failing to give the two hundred dinars the son would not have received any portion of the property.

והא לא דמיא משל למתניתין התם קתני יש במשמע שאפילו בארץ כנען לא ינחלו אלמא כפילה לארץ גלעד נמי מהני

The Gemara asks: But the parable is not similar to the mishna, as there the mishna teaches: It might have been thought it meant that if they do not fulfill the condition they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan, and certainly not in the land of Gilead. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is also effective for them to inherit the land of Gilead with the other tribes. Otherwise, the children of Gad and Reuben would not receive any part of the Gilead either.

והכא קתני מי גרם לו לירש עם אחיו בשאר נכסים כפילו גרם לו אלמא כפילה לשאר נכסים הוא דקמהני

And yet here the baraita teaches: What causes the last brother to inherit a part of the remainder of the property with his brothers? The father’s double formulation causes him. This apparently indicates that the double formulation is effective for the rest of the property, whereas he would have received that portion of the field linked to the condition in any case. According to this reasoning, the children of Gad and Reuben would have been granted a portion in the land of Gilead even without the double formulation.

לא קשיא הא מקמי דנימא ליה רבי מאיר ונאחזו

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as this case, referring to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel’s ruling in the mishna, was stated before Rabbi Meir said to him that the verse could simply have stated: “They shall receive a possession among you.” At that stage, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel maintained that if the two tribes did not fulfill the condition they would not inherit even in the land of Gilead, as indicated by his use of the term: Even, in the mishna.

הא לבתר דנימא ליה רבי מאיר ונאחזו

Whereas that case, referring to the parable in the baraita, was taught after Rabbi Meir said to Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel that when the phrase: “They shall receive a possession,” appears by itself it is referring to the land of Canaan. As stated previously, Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel responded by explaining that had the verse not stated: “In the land of Canaan,” one would have said that the requirement: “They shall receive a possession among you” (Numbers 32:30), is referring to the land of Gilead, and they would not inherit in the land of Canaan. In other words, even without the compound condition they would have received a portion in Gilead, which is similar to the parable.

בשלמא לרבי מאיר היינו דכתיב אם תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ אלא לרבי חנינא למה לי סלקא דעתך אמינא אם תיטיב אגרא אם לא תיטיב לא אגרא ולא דינא קא משמע לן

§ The Gemara proceeds to analyze these two opinions: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who requires a compound condition, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to God’s rebuke of Cain: “If you do well, shall it not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door” (Genesis 4:7). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both sides of this stipulation to be specified? The Gemara answers: Were it not for the double formulation it might enter your mind to say that the verse means: If you do well shall you not receive a reward? And if you do not do well you will receive neither reward nor punishment. The double formulation of the verse teaches us that if Cain fails to do well he will be actively punished.

בשלמא לרבי מאיר היינו דכתיב אז תנקה מאלתי אלא לרבי חנינא בן גמליאל למה לי

The Gemara asks another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written, with regard to Abraham’s instruction to Eliezer to bring a wife for Isaac: “Then you shall be clear from my oath…if they will not give her to you” (Genesis 24:41). However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need this addition? The positive formulation of the oath already indicates the negative.

אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא היכא דניחא לה לדידה ולא ניחא ליה לדידהו מייתי בעל כרחייהו קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for this to be stated; if Abraham had stated only: “And take a wife for my son” (Genesis 24:38), it might enter your mind to say: In a case where the arrangement is satisfactory for her, but not satisfactory for her family, he should bring her against their wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that Eliezer is not obligated to bring her against her family’s wishes.

אם לא תאבה האשה למה לי אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא היכא דניחא להו לדידהו ולא ניחא לה לדידה נייתי בעל כרחה קא משמע לן

The Gemara inquires about another verse in that chapter: “If the woman is not willing to follow you” (Genesis 24:8). Why do I need this clause? The Gemara answers: It was necessary, since it might enter your mind to say: If it is satisfactory for them but not satisfactory for her, he should bring her against her wishes. The verse therefore teaches us that he should not bring her against her wishes.

בשלמא לרבי מאיר היינו דכתיב אם בחקתי תלכו ואם בחקתי תמאסו אלא לרבי חנינא בן גמליאל למה לי אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא אם בחקתי תלכו ברכה אם בחקתי תמאסו לא ברכה ולא קללה קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks a related question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: “If you walk in My statutes” (Leviticus 26:3), you will receive blessings; conversely: “And if you shall reject My statutes” (Leviticus 26:15), you will receive curses. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need both of these clauses? The Gemara answers: They are both necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: If you follow My statutes you will receive a blessing, whereas if you reject My statutes you will receive neither a blessing nor a curse. The verse therefore teaches us that the rejection of God’s statutes warrants a curse.

בשלמא לרבי מאיר היינו דכתיב אם תאבו ושמעתם וגו׳ ואם תמאנו ומריתם וגו׳ אלא לרבי חנינא בן גמליאל למה לי אצטריך סלקא דעתך אמינא אם תאבו טובה ואם תמאנו לא טובה ולא רעה קא משמע לן

The Gemara again inquires: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, this is the reason that it is written: “If you are willing and obedient you shall eat the good of the land” (Isaiah 1:19), whereas: “But if you refuse and rebel you shall be devoured by the sword” (Isaiah 1:20). But according to the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel, why do I need the double formulation? The Gemara answers in a similar fashion: It is necessary, as it might enter your mind to say: “If you are willing” you will receive good, i.e., reward, “but if you refuse” you will receive neither good nor bad. The verse therefore teaches us that this is not the case, and one who rebels will receive punishment.

מאי

In connection with the verse from Isaiah, the Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: