Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) THE RETURN OF LAND IN YOVEL

(a) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with their opinions in another case.
(b) (R. Yochanan): A man sold his field at a time when Yovel applies - the buyer brings Bikurim and recites the declaration;
(c) (Reish Lakish): The buyer brings Bikurim but does not recite.

1. R. Yochanan says that he brings and recites - he holds, owning the produce is as owning the field itself;
2. Reish Lakish says, he brings but does not recite - he holds, owning the produce is not as owning the field itself.

(d) It was necessary for them to argue in both of these cases.

1. Had they only argued in the previous case - one might have thought, only there Reish Lakish says that he is not as an owner, for he only intended to buy the produce; but here, he intended to buy the land itself!
2. If they only argued in the case of Yovel - one might have thought, only here R. Yochanan says that he is as an owner, for he intended to buy the field itself; but when he only intended to buy the produce, he is not as an owner!

(e) (Beraisa): A man bought a tree and its land - he brings Bikurim and recites. (This supports R. Yochanan!)
(f) Rejection: The Beraisa speaks of a time when Yovel does not apply.
(g) (Beraisa): Reuven bought 2 trees in Shimon's land - Reuven brings Bikurim and does not recite.

1. Had he bought 3 trees, he would recite! (This supports R. Yochanan!)

(h) Rejection: Also this Beraisa speaks of a time when Yovel does not apply.
(i) (Rav Chisda): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish only argued from the second Yovel onwards, but all agree by the first Yovel that the buyer brings and recites, since sellers were not confident of getting back their fields.

1. This suggests an alternate answer to the Beraisos - they speak of the first Yovel!

(j) Suggestion: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue as these Tana'im.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Shimon): Reuven bought his father's field and made it Hekdesh. If his father died, it is considered as an inherited field - "The field he bought, which is not an inheritance (is not considered an inherited field)" - this means, a field not fitting to be an inheritance;

i. It excludes our case, in which Reuven bought a field fitting to be his inheritance.

2. R. Meir says: Reuven bought his father's field. His father died, and Reuven made the field Hekdesh - it is considered as an inherited field - "The field he bought, which is not an inheritance" - this means, a field that was not an inheritance;

i. It excludes our case, in which the field was Reuven's inheritance.
ii. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon do not need a verse to teach this case.

3. Suggestion: R. Meir holds that owning the produce is as owning the field itself; when the father died, it is as if the son did not inherit anything. Therefore, the verse comes to include this case (the son made the field Hekdesh after his father died) as an inherited field;

i. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon hold that owning the produce is not as owning the field itself; when the father died, the son inherits. Therefore, the verse is not needed for this case; rather, it comes to include when the son made the field Hekdesh before the father died.

(k) Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Really, even R. Yehudah and R. Shimon normally hold that owning the produce is as owning the field itself; here is an exception because they expound the verse.

1. It should have said 'The field he bought that is not his inheritance'; rather, it says, "that is not from his inheritance" to teach that it was not even fitting to be an inheritance.

i. A son that bought his father's field, the field was fitting to be an inheritance.

(a) (Rav Yosef): Had R. Yochanan not said that owning the produce is as owning the field itself, he would be unable to defend another of his teachings.

1. (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): Brothers that divide an inheritance are considered as buyers; in Yovel, they return their portions to each others.
2. If owning the produce is not as owning the field itself - the only case of one who can bring Bikurim and recite ("the land You gave me") would be one that inherited a field never split among heirs, i.e. from the time the field was apportioned to a Yisrael in the days of Yehoshua, the owner never left more than one son!

(b) (Rava): A verse and a Beraisa support Reish Lakish.

1. A verse - "The number of years of crops he will sell to you" (implying, when Yovel applies, only the produce is sold).
2. (Beraisa): A firstborn receives a double portion in a field that returns to his father in Yovel (implying, the field itself belonged to the father even though it was sold).

(c) (Abaye): A husband needs a Harsha'ah (power of attorney) in order to make claims in Beis Din regarding his wife's property (even though he owns the produce).

1. This only applies if the produce is not being contested; if it is being contested, since he may claim the produce, he may also make claims regarding the property itself.

3) COLLECTION OF DEBTS FROM LAND

(a) (Mishnah): All the coming laws are to fix the world. When a debt is collect from land, the quality of land collected varies according to the source of the debt:

1. Damages are collected from Idis (the highest quality land);
2. A lender collects from Beinonis (middle quality land);
3. A Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis (lowest quality land);

i. R. Meir says, a Kesuvah is also collected from Beinonis.

(b) A debt is not collected from mortgaged property (i.e. that was sold to someone else) if the debtor has unmortgaged property, even if it is Ziburis.
(c) Only Ziburis is collected from orphans.
(d) The following are not collected from mortgaged property.

1. Compensation for produce (if Reuven bought a field from Shimon which really belonged to Levi, Levi can reclaim the field laden with produce, and Reuven collects their value from Shimon);
2. Compensation for improved value (in the above case, Reuven is compensated for improvements he made to the field);
3. The food that a widow and (orphaned) daughters are entitled to from the deceased's estate.

(e) One who finds a lost item need not swear.
(f) (Gemara) Question: Is (the first law) only to fix the world - the Torah says, "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay"!
(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah is as R. Yishmael, who says that mid'Oraisa, he pays land matching the best quality land of the victim; to fix the world, the damager pays with his own highest quality land.

1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "From the best of his field and vineyard he will pay" - this means the best field and vineyard of the victim;

i. R. Akiva says, the verse teaches that damages are collected from Idis, all the more so to Hekdesh.

2. Question: According to R. Yishmael - will a man have to pay high quality land, whether his animal ate produce of high or low quality land?!
3. Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Avin): The case is, the animal ate a patch among many patches, and we do not know if it ate a good patch or a bad patch.
4. Objection (Rava): If we would know that it ate a bad patch, he would pay for a bad patch; now that we are unsure, must he pay for a good patch?! One who seeks to collect must prove that he is entitled to collect!
5. Answer #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The case is, the Idis of the victim was as the Ziburis of the damager.