Kiddushin 26b (כו:) — the Talmud in English

is obligated in pe'a

and in the first fruits,

and

is fit

to write upon it [

by means of it]

a prozbul,

and to acquire movable property along with it, even property that has no guarantee.

And it is explicit in the Mishna that even any amount of land can be used to acquire movable property along with it through kinyan agav.

And

this proves that with kinyan agav it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the land:

For

if you say that it is necessary for it to be accumulated,

then there is a difficulty:

what is any amount of land fit for,

what movable property could be accumulated on land so small?

Rather, it must be that even when the movable property is not accumulated on the land, it is acquired along with it.

And we reject this proof:

Its explanation

is that

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna explained it before

before

Rav Yosef:

It is possible to acquire movable property along with any amount of land when it is accumulated within it,

for example, when one drives a needle into it.

Rav Yosef said to him: You have distressed me,

you have pained me with your words!

Did the tanna trouble himself to teach us about a needle,

and did the tanna exert himself and elaborate in his Mishna in order to teach us the laws of acquiring needles?! It must be that the case is not one of a needle, but of larger movable property.

If so, the proof we brought earlier from the Mishna returns: that it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the land. For if we say that the movable property must be accumulated on it, what is any amount of land fit for?

But Rav Ashi again rejects Rav Yosef’s proof:

Rav Ashi said:

The case may indeed be one in which a needle was driven into it, and there is no reason to wonder that the tanna elaborated in his Mishna in order to teach us about acquiring needles, for

who can tell us that he did not hang upon it a pearl worth a thousand

zuz,

who can tell us that the person did not hang on the needle a pearl worth a thousand zuz, and intend to acquire the needle and the pearl on it along with the land? It follows that the tanna is teaching us how a pearl is acquired.

Accordingly, it is impossible to prove from the Mishna that it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the land.

Come and hear

another proof, from a baraita, that it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the land through which it is acquired:

According to the Sages , “The words of a person on his deathbed are like written and delivered documents.” That is, when a terminally ill person distributes his property to others, they acquire the property through his statement, even though he did not transfer it to them through an act of acquisition. All this applies to a sick person, but a healthy person cannot distribute his property except through an act of acquisition.

Rabbi Elazar disagrees with the Sages and maintains that even a sick person cannot transfer his property through speech, but only through an act of acquisition.

And Rabbi Elazar proved his statement:

Rabbi Elazar said: There was an incident involving a certain man from Madon

who was in Jerusalem, who had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift.

And

the Sages said to him

that

he had no remedy

for transferring it

until he acquired it along with [

by means of]

land,

and he had no land.

What did he do? —

He went and acquired a “house of a rock,”

a plot of land containing one rock that covered all of it, and it was

near Jerusalem. And he said

as follows: “

The

northern

portion of this

rock

shall be

for so-and-so,

and along with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels.

Its southern portion shall be for another person, and along with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels,”

and he died. And the Sages upheld his statement.

Rabbi Elazar understood that the man from Madon was sick when he distributed his property, and that the Sages told him that he needed to transfer it through kinyan agav and that speech alone was insufficient. From this Rabbi Elazar proved that the words of a person on his deathbed are not like written and delivered documents.

This concludes the part of the baraita relevant to our discussion.

And

the Gemara attempts to prove from here that with kinyan agav it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the field:

if you say

that

it is necessary [

it must] for it to be

accumulated on it,

then a difficulty arises:

what is a “house of a rock” fit for,

what could be placed upon it? Is it possible to place one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels upon it?! It is high and pointed, and it is impossible to set them there!

Rather, it is evident from the words of the baraita that it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the land through which it is acquired!

And we reject this proof:

Do

you really

think

that

“a house of a rock”

means

an actual rock?!

That is not its meaning. Rather,

what is meant by “rock”?

That it was extremely large,

a very large area.

And why did they call it “a rock”?

Because

its

land was

hard [

hard]

like a rock,

and it was unfit for sowing; the man from Madon acquired it cheaply in order to transfer the movable property along with it.

And since that land was very large, it was possible to accumulate one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels upon it. Therefore, it cannot be proved from there that it is unnecessary for the movable property to be accumulated.

Come and hear

another proof that it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated on the land through which it is acquired:

The Gemara brings another incident similar to the one cited above, involving a person who wished to distribute his movable property and was told that he could transfer it only through kinyan agav, as follows.

For Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: There was an incident involving a certain man

who became ill in Jerusalem [

who had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift, and he was told that he had no remedy until he acquired it along with land].

Before the Gemara brings the entire incident, it pauses over what was stated: “There was an incident involving a certain man who ‘became ill’ in Jerusalem”:

And we say: The amora who said that this man became ill holds

like Rabbi Elazar,

who maintains that even a sick person cannot transfer his property through speech alone. For according to the Sages, a sick person can distribute his property even without an act of acquisition, so why were they said to have told him that he had no remedy except to acquire it along with land?

And some say,

but there are those who say that this man

was healthy,

and they said this because they hold

like the Rabbis,

who maintain that a sick person distributing his property before his death can transfer it through speech alone, without an act of acquisition. Since the Sages told this man that he could not transfer it through speech, it necessarily follows that he was not sick.

And the Gemara returns to bring the continuation of the aforementioned incident:

There was an incident involving a certain man who became ill in Jerusalem [according to Rabbi Elazar], and some say that he was healthy [according to the Rabbis],

who had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift.

And

the Sages said to him

that

he had no remedy until he acquired it along with land,

and he had no land.

What did he do? —

He went and acquired

a plot of

a quarter-kav,

a place suitable for sowing a quarter-kav of wheat,

near Jerusalem.

And he said:

A portion

one handbreadth by one handbreadth

of this land is acquired

by so-and-so,

and along with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels! And he died, and the Sages upheld his statement.

This concludes the incident related by Rav.

And the Gemara attempts to prove from here that with kinyan agav it is not necessary for the movable property to be accumulated upon the land:

For

if you say that it is necessary for it to be accumulated,

then a difficulty arises: an area of

one handbreadth by one handbreadth—what is it fit for?

What could be placed upon it? Is it possible to accumulate one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels there?!

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

It may indeed be that the movable property must be accumulated on the land. Here, however, the reference is not to giving one hundred actual sheep and one hundred actual barrels, but rather

what are we dealing with here,

what is the case here?

It is their monetary value.

He had money in his possession and wished to give so-and-so the value of one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. It is possible to accumulate this money and place it upon land measuring one handbreadth by one handbreadth.

And the Gemara attempts to prove that the reference here is indeed to their monetary value, and not to actual sheep and barrels:

This too is reasonable.

It is reasonable that this is indeed the case.

For

after all,

if it enters your mind

that the reference here is to

one hundred actual sheep and one hundred actual barrels,

then the following difficulty arises: Why did the Sages say that he had no remedy except to acquire them along with land?

Let him acquire them for him

let him acquire them for him

through

an act of

exchange!

Rather, it must be that the reference here is to money, and money cannot be acquired through an act of exchange.

But the Gemara rejects this argument:

Rather, what do you mean,

what have you proved through your question? That the reference here is

to their monetary value?

But even if we accept your position, there is still a difficulty:

Let him acquire them for him,

let him acquire them for him

through pulling!

Why, then, did the Sages say that he had no remedy except to acquire them along with land?

Rather,

you must necessarily explain

that the recipient of the gift was not present,

that the recipient of the gift was not here and could not pull the money, and therefore he had no remedy through pulling.

And since you necessarily explained that the recipient was not present, then

likewise,

even if we say that the reference is to one hundred actual sheep and one hundred actual barrels, it is understandable why he had no remedy through an act of exchange.

For

after all,

the recipient of the gift was not present,

the recipient of the gift was not here, and he could not give his vessels to the donor in order to acquire the gift for himself through an act of exchange.

And we raise a difficulty: Although we explained that the giver could not transfer them to the recipient through pulling, because the recipient was not there, there is still a difficulty:

“And let him transfer them to him through another person,”

let him say to another person who is there: “Pull these hundred sheep and hundred barrels, intending to acquire them for so-and-so, the recipient of the gift”! And why did the Sages say that his only recourse is to transfer them along with land?

And we answer:

“His mind was not at ease”

with relying on another person to pull the gift on behalf of the recipient. For

he reasoned

that perhaps that other person

“would snatch them and eat them.”

He would take them for himself and eat them, and would not give them to the recipient of the gift. Therefore, he kept the movable property in his own possession and did not wish to transfer it through another person.

And we raise a difficulty: From what we have answered, it follows that if the giver had agreed to transfer them through pulling by means of another person, he could have done so; he simply did not wish to.

Rather,

there is still a difficulty:

“What,”

should we understand from the wording of the beraita, “They said to him

‘he has no recourse’

until he transfers them”? After all, he did have recourse through pulling by means of another person; he merely did not wish to do so!

And we answer:

“This is what it is saying: Since his mind was not at ease,”

in view of the fact that he did not feel secure relying on another person,

“he has no recourse”

to transferring them himself

“until he transfers them along with land.”

The Gemara has concluded its explanation of Rav’s statement. The Gemara now returns and attempts to resolve the question raised above: In a transfer of movable property along with land, must the movable property be gathered together on the land, or not?

Come and hear

a proof from a Mishna that the movable property must be gathered together on it: We learned in the Mishna in tractate Ma'aser Sheni:

“An incident involving Rabban Gamliel and the Elders, who were traveling on a ship,”

and Rabban Gamliel remembered that he had produce in his house from which the tithes had not been separated, and that he had forgotten and had not authorized others to separate the tithes before leaving his house, and it is prohibited for a chaver to leave untithed produce in his house, lest the members of his household eat from it while it is still tevel. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel hurried to tithe it while he was still on the ship, and this is what he did: