Kiddushin 61a (סא.) — the Talmud in English

2. This law was stated only for a time 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 suitable for sowing, it is not redeemed according to this valuation [fifty silver shekels per kor], but is redeemed according to its actual value.

One who consecrates

the

field at the time of the Jubilee

[when the Jubilee is practiced] and comes to redeem it,

gives a

redemption payment for a field suitable for

the sowing of a ḥomer

[a 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 together with it,

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

less than this

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

measured together with it

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

And we analyze it

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

granted that they were not consecrated together with the land

[indeed, they do not become consecrated together with the land], but why were they not

consecrated separately

[by themselves]!?

In other words, although they are not measured as a single unit together with the land, and we do not calculate the slope of their sides, why should we not at least calculate the area of the bottoms of the pits themselves and the area occupied by the rocks themselves!?

And if you would say

[if you wish to say]:

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

meaning that the valuation of fifty silver shekels was stated only for a field containing at least a beit kor. But a field smaller than a beit kor is redeemed only according to its actual value. Therefore, we learned: “They are not measured together with it.”

And we raise a contradiction

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

a field

from his ancestral property,”

what does this teach

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

since it is stated

at the end of the verse,

“a ḥomer of barley seed at fifty,”

you might say:

I have only

in this law

one who consecrated in this manner

meaning, an entire beit kor [a full ḥomer] or more;

from where do we include

one who consecrated

a letakh

[half a kor]

and half a letakh, a se'a, a tarkav

[half a se'a ]

and half a tarkav, and even a quarter

of a kav —

from where

do we know that they too are redeemed according to the same valuation?

The verse teaches:

“a field,”

a superfluous word, which comes to teach that a field

in any case

meaning, any field whatsoever, is redeemed according to this valuation.

We have therefore learned that even a small field is redeemed according to the valuation 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 valuation!?

Said

[he answered]

Mar Ukva bar Hama: The pits discussed here are

pits in which

we are dealing with pits filled with water,

and they are not redeemed according to this valuation

because they are not suitable for sowing

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

It is also precise

[indeed, this can be inferred from the Mishna as you said]:

as it teaches

the Mishna: “Pits

analogous to

rocks” that are

high,

and ordinary rocks are not suitable for sowing.

Conclude from this:

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

And we challenge this:

If so,

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

even less than this

[less than ten handbreadths]

as well,

since they are not suitable for sowing!?

And we answer:

Those

[less than ten handbreadths], although they are not suitable for sowing, are considered part of the field, because the pits are

called the basins of the land

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

And similarly, the rocks are

called the ribs of the land,

meaning that they are not considered independently; rather, they are called “the ribs of the land” on account of the land.

We have thus learned: Pits suitable for sowing are measured together with the land, even if they are ten handbreadths deep.

But with regard to 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 suitable 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 together with it,

and he cannot give it to him. Rather, he gives him a complete beit kor of smooth land.

But if the pits and rocks were

less than this

[less than ten handbreadths], they are

measured

with

with it,

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

And

[he explained,]

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

even though they are

not filled with water.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Rav Pappa said: Because no person

who purchases land

wants to give his money for

the purchase of

one field and see it

as

like two or three places.

Therefore, the seller cannot give the purchaser such land, even if the purchaser did not explicitly stipulate that he was unwilling to accept land of this kind.

And now we are uncertain:

Here,

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

what

is the status of the betrothal? Do

we compare it to consecrated property,

so that, since they do not contain water, they are measured together with it?

Or do we compare it to a sale,

so that they are not measured together with it, even though they do not contain water?

And we conclude:

It is reasonable

to say:

We compare it to consecrated property. If he possesses a beit kor of earth containing pits ten handbreadths deep that are not filled with water, she is betrothed, and she cannot say: “This field appears to me to be like two or three places.”

Because

he says to her:

“Why should you care? The burden is not placed 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:

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

“Moses said to them: ‘If you do this thing, if you arm yourselves before the Lord for the war, and every armed man among you crosses the Jordan before the Lord, and so on, and the land is conquered before the Lord, and afterward you shall return, and so on,’

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

“Moses commanded them concerning Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribes of the Children of Israel. Moses said to them: ‘If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben cross the Jordan with you, every armed man for battle 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 receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan.’”

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

Likewise, the condition was stated before the action [“if they cross” preceded “then you shall give them the land of Gilead”]. And likewise, the positive aspect of the condition was stated before the negative aspect [“the ‘yes’ precedes the ‘no’”].

Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that

a person stipulates,

and does not

state it

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

[which was a “double condition,” with the condition preceding the action, and with the “yes” preceding the “no”]

is not a condition,

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

For example: if one says to his wife, “This is your bill of divorce on condition that you give me two hundred zuz,” and then repeats the condition, saying, “And if you do not give me [the money], it shall not be a bill of divorce,” it is a complete condition, and if the condition is not fulfilled, she is not divorced.

But if he did not repeat the condition, Rabbi Meir maintains: There is no condition here, and even if she did not give him two hundred zuz, it is a completely valid bill of divorce.

This law can be derived from the superfluous wording of the verse

as it is stated: “

And he said to them: If the children of Gad and the children of Reuben cross” and so on, “and you shall give them the land of Gilead as a possession.”

And it is written [and it further states]: “

And if they do not cross as vanguard troops

with you, they shall take possession among you in the land of Canaan.”

And if it is not necessary to repeat the condition, why did Moses our teacher repeat his condition? Rather, one can learn from here that if he had not repeated the condition, Moses our teacher’s condition would not have been binding upon the children of Gad and the children of Reuben. Even if they had not gone to war, they would have received the entire land of Gilead as they requested.

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel

disagrees and

says:

There is no need to repeat the condition, because “from the positive statement you understand the negative”; that is, from one side of the condition, its opposite can be understood, and there is no need to state it explicitly.

And the fact that the verse repeats the wording of the condition does not come to teach us that the condition must be repeated in every case; rather,

it was

necessary

for the matter to be stated

in this wording.

For had this not been so,

that is, had Moses our teacher not said, “And if they do not cross as vanguard troops with you, they shall take 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 they would not inherit the land of Gilead if they did not fulfill the condition.

For this reason, the matter had to be stated: If they did not fulfill the condition, the children of Gad and the children of Reuben would receive a portion of the land of Gilead, like the other 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 they would not inherit even in the land of Canaan.

And we raise an objection:

Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel has answered him well [he responded to him appropriately]

—Rabbi Hanina ben Gamliel to Rabbi Meir!?

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

And we answer:

Rabbi Meir will say [he will answer]

to you: If it would enter your mind

to say that this verse

did not come to teach the requirement of a repeated condition [but came]

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

let the Torah write [let the Torah state]:

“

And if they do not cross, they shall take possession among you,”

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