Kiddushin 26b — the Talmud in English

is obligated in Peah

and in Bikkurim,

and

is fit

to write upon it [

by means of it]

a prozbul,

and to acquire with it movable property that has no security.

And it is explained in the Mishna that even any amount of land acquires movable property with it through kinyan agav.

And

it is possible to prove from here that in kinyan agav it is not necessary for the movable property to be gathered:

For

if you say that gathered property is required,

then there is a difficulty:

what is any amount of land fit for,

what movable property can be gathered on land so small?

Rather, necessarily, even if the movable property is not gathered upon it, it is acquired with it.

And we reject this:

its explanation [

he explained it]

Rab Shmuel bar Bisna before [

before]

Rav Yosef:

It is possible to acquire movable property through any amount of land when it is gathered within it,

for example, when he drove a needle into it.

Rav Yosef said to him: You have wearied me,

you have distressed me with your words!

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

and did the tanna exert himself and lengthen his Mishna in order to teach us the acquisitions of needles?! And necessarily, it is not referring to a needle, but to larger movable property.

And if so, the proof we brought above from the Mishna returns: that it is not necessary for them to be gathered. For if we say that it is necessary for the movable property to be gathered upon it, what is any amount of land fit for?

But Rav Ashi again rejects Rav Yosef’s proof:

Rav Ashi said:

It is forever referring to when he drove a needle into it, and one should not wonder at the tanna having lengthened his Mishna to inform us about the acquisitions of needles, for

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

zuz,

who can say to us that the person did not hang on the needle a pearl worth a thousand zuz, and came to acquire the needle and the pearl upon it through the land? It follows that the tanna came to inform us how a pearl is acquired.

And according to this, it is impossible to prove from the Mishna that it is not necessary for them to be gathered.

Come and hear

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

According to the Sages , “The words of a person on his deathbed are like those that are written and delivered.” That is: A sick person who is inclined to die and distributes his property to others—they acquire the property through his speech, even though he did not transfer it to them through an act of acquisition. And 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 holds that even a sick person cannot transfer his property through speech, but only through an act of acquisition.

And Rabbi Elazar proved his words:

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

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

And

they said to him

the Sages that

there is no remedy for him

to transfer it

until he acquires it upon [

through]

land,

and he had no land.

What did he do? —

He went and acquired a house of rock,

land containing one rock covering all of it, and it was

near Jerusalem. And he said

as follows: “

The northern

part

of

this

rock shall be

for so-and-so,

and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels.

And its southern part shall be for another so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels,”

and he died. And the Sages upheld his words.

Rabbi Elazar held that the man from Madon had been sick when he distributed his property, and they told him that he needed to transfer it through kinyan agav, and that speech alone was insufficient; and from here Rabbi Elazar proved that the words of a person on his deathbed are not like those that are written and delivered.

Thus far are the words of the beraita that pertain to our matter.

And

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

if you say

that

it is required [

it is necessary] that they be

gathered upon it,

then a question arises:

what is a house of rock fit for,

what is fit to place 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 stand them there!

Rather, it is proven from the words of the beraita that it is not necessary for the movable property to be gathered on the land through which it is acquired!

And we reject this:

Do [

is it so]

you hold that

“

a house of rock”

means

an actual rock?!

The explanation is not so, but

what is “rock”?

That it is exceedingly large,

a very large place.

And why did they call it “rock”?

Because

its

land was

hard [

hard]

like a rock,

and it was not fit for sowing, and the man from Madon acquired it cheaply, in order to acquire the movable property with it.

And since that land was very large, it was possible to gather one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels upon it. And it is not possible to prove from there that it is not necessary for the movable property to be gathered.

Come and hear

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

The Gemara brings another incident resembling the incident brought above, involving a person who wished to distribute his movable property, and they told him that he could transfer it only through kinyan agav, as follows:

For Rav Yehuda said: Rav said: There was an incident involving one man

who became ill in Jerusalem [

and he had much movable property and wished to give it as a gift, and they told him that there was no remedy for him until he acquired it upon land].

Before the Gemara brings the entire incident, the Gemara dwells on what we said: “There was an incident involving one man who ‘became ill’ in Jerusalem”:

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

like Rabbi Elazar,

who says 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, and why did they tell him that there was no remedy except to acquire it upon land?

And some say,

but there are those who say that that man

was healthy,

and they said this because they hold

like the Rabbis,

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

And the Gemara returns and brings the continuation of the aforementioned incident:

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

who had much movable property and wished to give it as a gift.

And

they said to him

the Sages that

there is no remedy for him until he acquires it upon land,

and he had no land.

What did he do? —

He went and acquired

land

the area of a quarter-kav,

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

near Jerusalem.

And he said:

A place

one handbreadth by one handbreadth

of this land is acquired

for so-and-so,

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

Thus far is the incident related by Rav.

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

For

if you say that gathered property is required,

then a question arises: an area of

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

What is fit to place upon it? Is it possible to gather one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels there?!

But the Gemara rejects the proof:

It is possible that it is indeed necessary for the movable property to be gathered, and here it is not referring to his saying that he would give one hundred actual sheep and one hundred actual barrels, but

here, with what are we dealing,

what is being discussed here,

with their value.

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

And the Gemara attempts to prove that here it is indeed referring to their value and not to actual sheep and barrels:

This too is reasonable.

It is reasonable that this is indeed what is being discussed.

For

behold,

if it enters your mind

that here it is referring to

one hundred actual sheep and one hundred actual barrels,

then one must ask: Why did the Sages say that there was no remedy for him except to transfer them upon land?

Let him acquire them for him

let him acquire them for him

through

an acquisition

of exchange!

Rather, necessarily, here it is referring to money, and a coin is not acquired through an acquisition of exchange.

But the Gemara rejects this claim:

Rather, what is it,

what did you come to prove from your question? That here it is referring

to their value?

But even if we say as you say, there is still a difficulty:

Let him acquire them for him,

let him acquire them for him

through pulling!

And why did the Sages say that there was no remedy for him except to transfer them upon land?

Rather,

necessarily you must answer

that the recipient of the gift is not present,

that the recipient of the gift is not here and cannot pull the money, and therefore there is no remedy for him through pulling.

And since you necessarily answered that the recipient is not present, then

so too,

even if we say that it is referring to one hundred actual sheep and one hundred actual barrels, it is understandable why there is no remedy for him through an acquisition of exchange.

For

behold

the recipient of the gift is not present,

the recipient of the gift is not here, and he cannot give his utensils to the giver of the gift in order to acquire it for himself through an acquisition of exchange.

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

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

let him say to another person who is present there: “Pull these hundred sheep and these hundred barrels, intending to acquire them for so-and-so, the recipient of the gift”! And why did the Sages say that he has no remedy other than transferring them together with land?

And we answer:

His mind was not settled

of the giver regarding another person pulling the gift for the recipient. For he

thought

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 them through another.

And we challenge: From what we answered it emerges that if the giver had agreed to transfer them through pulling by means of another, he would have been able to do so, but he did not wish to.

Rather,

it is still difficult:

What

shall we explain in the language of the baraita, “They said to him

he has no remedy

until he transfers them”? Surely he had a remedy through pulling by means of another; he simply did not wish to do so

And we answer:

This is what it is saying: Since his mind was not settled,

in view of the fact that his mind was not settled regarding another,

he has no remedy

to transfer them himself

until he transfers them along with land.

The Gemara has finished explaining Rav’s words. And now the Gemara returns and attempts to resolve the question asked above: In the acquisition of movable property along with land, is it necessary that the movable property be piled upon it, or not?

Come and hear

a proof from a Mishna that the movable property must be piled upon it: We learned in the Mishna in tractate Maaser Sheni:

An incident involving Rabban Gamliel and Elders who were coming on a ship,

and Rabban Gamliel remembered that he had produce in his home from which the tithes had not been taken, and he had forgotten and had not authorized others to separate the tithes before his departure from his home, and it is forbidden for a chaver to leave produce from which the tithes have not been taken in his home, 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: