Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A GET ON VEGETATION IN A FLOWERPOT

(a) A Get was written on a flowerpot with a hole - it is valid, he gives her the flowerpot.
(b) A Get was written on a leaf of a plant growing in a flowerpot with a hole.

1. (Abaye): The Get is valid.
2. (Rava): It is invalid.
3. Abaye says it is valid - he gives her the entire flowerpot.
4. Rava says it is invalid - this is a decree, lest he break off the leaf and give her the leaf (and this is invalid, for the detaching separates between the writing and the giving).

(c) Reuven owns a flowerpot; Shimon owns what is growing in it. If Reuven sells the pot to Shimon, Shimon may acquire it by pulling it (to his property);

1. If Shimon sells what is growing inside to Reuven, Reuven may only acquire by making Chazakah on the vegetation.

(d) Reuven owns a flowerpot and what is growing in it. If he sells both to Shimon, Shimon may acquire both by making Chazakah on the vegetation.

1. (Mishnah): An act of acquisition on mortgagable property (property that a creditor may collect from, even if the borrower sold it, i.e. land), namely paying money, getting a document, or making a Chazakah, also serves to acquire unmortgagable property (movable objects) being sold (or given) at the same time.
2. If Shimon makes Chazakah on the flowerpot, he does not acquire anything unless he makes Chazakah on the vegetation.

(e) The hole of a flowerpot is in Eretz Yisrael; the foliage is in Chutz La'aretz.

1. (Abaye): We go after the hole (and we view the plant as if it is growing in Eretz Yisrael regarding Ma'aser and other agricultural laws).
2. (Rava): We go after the foliage (and it is viewed as growing in Chutz La'aretz).
3. They only argue if the plant did not take root in the ground (through the hole - if it did, Rava would agree to Abaye).

(f) Question: There is no necessity to say this - Tana'im argue whether we go after where it is rooted or after the folaige!

1. (Mishnah - R. Meir): Reuven owns a garden on a hill, Shimon owns a garden at the bottom. Vegetables are growing on the incline (the side of the hill) - they belong to Reuven;
2. R. Yehudah says, they belong to Shimon (even though they are rooted in Reuven's hill)!

(g) Answer: The Mishnah itself explains their reasons (which are not relevant to going after the roots or the foliage).

1. R. Meir says, if Reuven would remove his dirt, nothing would grow (so the vegetables are due to him);
2. R. Yehudah says, if Shimon would fill his airspace with dirt, nothing would grow.

(h) Question: The following Tana'im go after the foliage!

1. (Beraisa - Rebbi): A tree which is partially in Eretz Yisrael, partially in Chutz La'aretz - part of every fruit is obligated in Ma'aseros, part of every fruit is exempt;
2. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, those fruits that grow in Eretz Yisrael are fully obligated, those that grow in Chutz La'aretz are fully exempt.
3. Suggestion: Some of the foliage is in Eretz Yisrael, the rest in Chutz La'aretz (The roots can be totally in Eretz Yisrael or totally in Chutz La'aretz, it makes no difference.)

(i) Answer: No - also the roots are partially in Eretz Yisrael, partially in Chutz La'aretz. (But if all the roots were in one place, all would go after them.)

1. Question: If we really go after the roots - R. Shimon ben Gamliel should admit that each fruit is partially obligated, partially exempt!
2. Answer: Rocky ground separates the 2 sides; the nourishment derived from the roots in Eretz Yisrael does not pass to the side in Chutz La'aretz (and vice-versa).
3. Question: If so, what is Rebbi's reason?
4. Answer: The sides of the tree both enter the trunk, and there the nourishment from both sides is mixed together.

i. Rebbi holds, the nourishment mixes even above ground; R. Shimon ben Gamliel holds, it does not mix.

(a) (Mishnah): R. Yehudah ben Beseirah says...
(b) (R. Chiya bar Asi): There are 3 hides: Matza, Chifah and Diftara.

1. Matza - this is a hide that has not been salted nor treated with flour or gallnuits.

i. Question: What law is special to Matza?
ii. Answer (Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah): One who transfers (from a private domain) to a public domain (or carries 4 Amos in a public domain) a Matza hide large enough to wrap a small weight is liable for transgressing Shabbos.
iii. Question: What is the size of this weight?
iv. Answer: The smallest weight of Pumbadisa.

2. Cheifah - this is a hide that has been salted but not treated with flour or gallnuts.

i. (Mishnah): One who transfers to (or carries in) a public domain, a Cheifah hide large to write an amulet is liable for transgressing Shabbos.

3. Diftara is a hide that has been salted, and treated only with flour, but not with gallnuts.

i. One who transfers to (or carries in) a public domain, a Diftara hide large to write a Get is liable for transgressing Shabbos

(c) (Mishnah): Chachamim permit (erasable parchments).
(d) Question: Who are these Chachamim?

(e) Answer (R. Elazar): R. Eliezer, who says that a Get is empowered by the witnesses that saw it given (so we do not care if it is forgeable).
(f) (R. Elazar): R. Eliezer only permits this if the witnesses testify immediately about the giving of the Get; but if they come within the next 10 days, it is invalid.

1. We are concerned, perhaps there was a condition written in the Get, and it was later erased and the witnesses forgot it.

(g) (R. Yochanan): Even if witnesses come within the next 10 days, it is valid.

1. If there was a condition, the witnesses would remember it.

(h) (R. Elazar): R. Eliezer only permits Gitin (on forgeable parchment), but not monetary documents.

1. By monetary documents, it says "You will put them in an earthenware vessel, in order that they should last a long time" (they must be unforgeable, so they will be valid for a long time, even after the witnesses forget what was written).

(i) (R. Yochanan): R. Eliezer permits even monetary documents.
(j) Question: But it says, "in order that they should last a long time"!
(k) Answer: That is merely good counsel (to put them in an earthenware vessel).