Kiddushin 61a — the Talmud in English

B. This law was stated only when the Jubilee is practiced. But when the Jubilee is not practiced, and likewise in the case of a field or anything else that is not fit for sowing, it is not redeemed for these amounts [fifty shekels for a kor], but is redeemed according to its value.

One who consecrates

the

field at the time of the Jubilee [when the Jubilee is practiced], and comes to redeem it,

gives the

redemption-price of a field fit for

sowing a

homer

[kor] of

barley: fifty silver shekels.

If

there were

in this field

pits

[hollows]

ten handbreadths deep, or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it,

that is, they are not included in the law of fifty silver shekels per kor of barley; rather, they are redeemed according to their value. If the pits were

less than this

[less than ten handbreadths deep], or if the rocks were less than ten handbreadths high, then they are

measured with it

and he redeems them according to the calculation of fifty silver shekels per kor of barley.

And we inquire into it

[we examined this Mishna]: If they were ten handbreadths deep,

although they were not consecrated together with the land

[indeed, they are not consecrated together with the land], why were they not

consecrated separately

[by themselves]!?

That is, indeed they are not measured as a single unit together with the land, and we do not calculate the slope of them; but why should we not at least calculate the area of the ground at the bottom of the pits themselves, and the area of the rocks themselves!?

And if you would say

[if you wish to say]:

Since it is not a beit kor, it is not significant,

that is, the law of fifty silver shekels applies only to a field that contains at least a beit kor; but a field smaller than a beit kor is redeemed only according to its value. Therefore we learned: “They are not measured with it.”

And we raise a contradiction

[to this answer]: It is stated [Leviticus 27:16]: “And if a man consecrates from the field of his ancestral property to the Lord, then your valuation shall be according to its seed: a homer of barley seed at fifty silver shekels.” And the verse could have said, “And if he consecrates from his ancestral property”; but since it says, “If he consecrates from the

field

of his ancestral property,”

what does it teach

that is, what does the word “field” come to teach us!? Rather,

since it is stated

at the end of the verse,

“a homer of barley seed at fifty,”

perhaps you might say:

I have

only this law

when he consecrated in this manner,

that is, a complete beit kor [homer] or more;

from where is it derived to include

also when he consecrated a

letekh

[half a kor]

and half a letekh, a seah, a tarkav

[half a seah ]

and half a tarkav, and even a quarter

of a kav —

from where

do we know that they are appraised according to that same calculation?

The verse therefore says: “

field,”

which is a superfluous word and comes to teach that a field

in any case

that is, every field there may be, is redeemed according to this calculation.

We have thus learned that even a small field is redeemed according to the calculation of fifty silver shekels per beit kor of barley. Why, then, are the pits and rocks not measured together with the rest of the field according to this calculation!?

He said

[he answered]:

Mar Ukva bar Hama: The pits mentioned here —

we are dealing

with pits filled with water

and they are not redeemed according to this calculation,

because they are not fit for sowing

[they are not fit to be sown]. This calculation was stated only for a field fit for sowing, for the verse says: “a homer of barley seed.”

It is precise as well

[indeed, one can infer as you say from the Mishna]

for it teaches

that our Mishna says “pits”

similar to “

rocks”

high,

and ordinary rocks are not fit for sowing,

learn from it:

pits too, when they are not fit for sowing, such as when they are filled with water.

And we object:

If so,

that is, if it is as you say, that “they are not measured with it” because they are not fit for sowing,

even less than this

[less than ten handbreadths]

also,

for they are not fit for sowing!?

And we answer:

Those

[less than ten handbreadths], although they are not fit for sowing, are regarded as part of the field, because the pits are

called the basins of the land

[they are called the basins of the land, because the water drains into them].

And likewise the rocks are

called the ribs of the land,

that is, they are not regarded as independent entities; rather, they are called “the ribs of the land” after the land.

We have therefore learned: pits that are fit for sowing, even if they are ten handbreadths deep, are measured together with the land.

But concerning a sale we learned:

“One who says to his fellow”:

“I am selling you a beit kor of earth”

must give him a single field whose area is a beit kor and which is fit for sowing.

And

if he had a field in which

there were pits ten handbreadths deep,

or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it,

and he cannot give it to him; rather, he gives him a complete beit kor of level land.

And if the pits and rocks were

less than this

[less than ten handbreadths],

they are measured

with

it,

and he may give him a beit kor containing these pits and rocks.

And

[he explained]

Mar Ukva bar Hama: These pits are not measured with it

even though they are not filled with water.

even though they are not filled with water.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Rav Pappa said: Because no person

who buys land

wants him to give his money for

a single field

and it appear to him

as a field

like two or three places.

Therefore, the seller cannot give the buyer such land, even if he did not explicitly stipulate with him that he was unwilling to accept such land.

And now we are uncertain:

Here,

in the case of a woman to whom the betrothed man said: “On the condition that I have a beit kor of earth,” and he has a field containing pits ten handbreadths deep that are not filled with water,

what

is the law of the betrothal? Do we

compare it to consecrated property,

and, since they do not contain water, they are measured with it?

Or do we compare it to a sale,

and they are not measured with it, even though they do not contain water?

And we conclude:

It is reasonable

to say:

We compare it to consecrated property,

and if he has a beit kor of earth with pits ten handbreadths deep that are not filled with water, she is betrothed, and she cannot say: “This field appears to me like two or three places.”

Because

he says to her: “What concern is it of yours? The exertion is not imposed upon you, but upon me, and

I will toil and sow

[I will toil and sow]

and harvest

and bring

[and bring] the produce into the house.”

Mishna:

A. It is stated in the Torah [Numbers 32]: “And the children of Reuben and the children of Gad had abundant livestock, exceedingly numerous, and they saw the land of Jazer and the land of Gilead, and behold, the place was a place for livestock. And the children of Gad and the children of Reuben came and said to Moses, and so forth: ‘If we have found favor in your eyes, let this land be given to your servants as a possession, and so forth; and we shall go armed before the children of Israel until we have brought them to their place, and so forth. For we shall not inherit with them beyond the Jordan and beyond, for our inheritance has come to us on the eastern side of the Jordan.’”

“And Moses said to them: ‘If you do this thing, if you go armed before the Lord for the war, and every armed man among you shall cross the Jordan before the Lord, and so forth, and the land shall be conquered before the Lord, and afterward you shall return, and so forth,’”

“‘and this land shall be your possession before the Lord.’”

“And Moses commanded them, Eleazar the koen, Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ tribes of the children of Israel. And Moses said to them: ‘If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben cross the Jordan with you, every man armed for war before the Lord, and the land is conquered before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead as a possession. But if they do not cross armed with you, then they shall take possession among you in the land of Canaan.’”

B. The condition between Moses our teacher and the children of Gad and the children of Reuben was a “double condition,” for Moses said to them: “If they cross … you shall give … and if they do not cross …”

Likewise, the condition preceded the act [“if they cross” preceding “you shall give them the land of Gilead”]; and likewise, the positive side of the condition preceded the negative side [“the ‘yes’ precedes the ‘no’”].

Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that

a person makes and

does not

state it

like the condition of the children of Gad and the children of Reuben

[which was a “double condition,” and the condition preceded the act, and the “yes” preceded the “no”]

is not a condition,

and it is as though the act was performed without a condition. Therefore, even if the condition was not fulfilled, the act remains valid.

For example: one who says to his wife, “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz,” if he returned and doubled the condition, and said, “And if you do not give me, it shall not be a bill of divorce,” it is a complete condition, and if the condition was not fulfilled, she is not divorced.

And if he did not double the condition, Rabbi Meir holds: there is no condition here, and even if she did not give him two hundred zuz, this is a completely valid bill of divorce.

And this law may be learned from the superfluity of the wording of the verse

as it is said: “

And he said to them: If the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben cross over

and you shall give them the land of Gilead as a possession.”

And it is written [

and it is further said ]: “

And if they do not cross over as armed men

with you, and they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan.”

And if there is no need to double the condition, why did Moses our teacher double his condition? Rather, one may learn from here that if he had not doubled the condition, the condition of Moses our teacher would not have bound the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben, and even if they had not gone to war, they would have received all the land of Gilead as they requested.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel

disagrees and

says:

There is no need to double the condition , because “from the affirmative you hear the negative”; that is, from one side of the condition, the opposite may be understood, and there is no need to state it explicitly.

And the fact that the verse doubled the wording of the condition does not come to teach us that the condition must be doubled everywhere, but

it was necessary

for it

to be stated

in this wording.

For had this not been so,

that is, if Moses our teacher had not said: “And if they do not cross over as armed men with you, and they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan,”

it would have been understood [

it would have been possible to understand ]:

that even in the land of Canaan

which they did not desire,

they would not inherit,

and all the more so, in the land of Gilead they would not inherit if they did not fulfill the condition.

And for this reason it was necessary for the matter to be stated: that if they did not fulfill the condition, the sons of Gad and the sons of Reuben would receive a portion of the land of Gilead, like the rest of the tribes of Israel, and likewise they would receive a portion in the Land of Israel.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel says: It was necessary for the matter to be stated, for had this not been so, it would have been understood that even in the land of Canaan they would not inherit.

And we raise an objection:

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel has answered him well [

he responded to him well ]

to Rabbi Meir!?

And from where does Rabbi Meir derive that a condition that is not doubled is not a condition!?

And we answer:

He said [

he will answer ]

to you, Rabbi Meir: If it enters your mind

that this verse

did not come for a doubled condition [

but came to say that they would in any event inherit a portion in Gilead and in the land of Canaan,

let it write [

that the Torah should write ]: “

And if they do not cross over and receive a possession among you,”

that is, they shall share an inheritance with you, and we would learn from here that they would receive their portion in the land of Gilead and in the land of Canaan.