Previous daf

1)

(a) Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and the Rabbanan by a boat that is sailing on the Mediterranean Sea. They will both agree however - that if a boat is sailing on a river in Eretz Yisrael, it is considered to be in Eretz Yisrael, even if it is not scraping the sea-bed.

(b) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa describes the north-western border as 'Turei Amnon' (alias Har ha'Har) - which is considered Eretz Yisrael from its crest southwards, and Chutz la'Aretz, from its crest northwards.

(c) Based on the additional fact that the southernmost tip of the west coast is 'Nachal Mitzrayim', the western border, according to the Chachamim - constitutes an imaginary rope that is drawn from Turei Amnon to Nachal Mitzrayim. All the islands that lie within it are part of Eretz Yisrael.

(d) According to Rebbi Yehudah, the western border lies within two imaginary ropes that are drawn from Turei Amnon and from Nachal Mitzrayim respectively, westwards. All the islands that lie between them are considered Eretz Yisrael.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah learns from the Pasuk "u'Gevul Yam, ve'Hayah Lachem ha'Yam ha'Gadol *u'Gevul*" - that all the islands west of Eretz Yisrael belong to Eretz Yisrael.

(b) The Rabbanan learn from the word "u'Gevul" - to include the islands that lie within the border that stretches between Turei Amnon and Nachal Mitzrayim.

(c) In light of this Beraisa - we will establish the first of the two Beraisos with which we began, which considers a Get that was written on a boat to have been written in Eretz Yisrael - like the Rabbanan or Rebbi Yehudah of this Beraisa, who consider at least part of the Mediterranean Sea to be Eretz Yisrael; whereas the Tana of the second Beraisa, which considers it to be Chutz la'Aretz, considers the sea-shore to be the western border, and not the sea at all.

(a) We penalize someone in Chutz la'Aretz who buys a slave from someone in Eretz Yisrael - by setting the slave free, because by taking him out of Eretz Yisrael, he is freeing him from the performance of some of the Mitzvos.

(b) Syria has the Din of Eretz Yisrael in certain regards - because David captured it.

(c) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba ruled - that if someone sold his slave to Syria, the slave goes free as if he had been sold to Chutz la'Aretz.

(d) He arrived at this conclusion from Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah, who considers Acco like Eretz Yisrael with regard to Gitin - from which we can extrapolate that as regards selling a slave there, it has the Din of Chutz la'Aretz. Consequently, Syria, which is further away from Eretz Yisrael than Acco, is certainly considered Chutz la'Aretz in this regard.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa considers Syria like Eretz Yisrael in three ways - and like Chutz la'Aretz in three ways.

(b) He compares it to ...

1. ... Chutz la'Aretz as regards Tum'as Chutz la'Aretz, selling one's slave there - and as regards a Sheli'ach who brings a Get from there.
2. ... Eretz Yisrael as regards entering there be'Taharah, buying a house there (both of which will be explained shortly) - and as regards Ma'aser and Shevi'is.

5)

(a) Even though David captured Syria, it is not part of Eretz Yisrael in every regard - because the whole of Yisrael did not participate in its capture (as they did in the conquest of Cana'an). Consequently, David did not conquer it on behalf of Yisrael, but for his own royal needs.

(b) This Tana nevertheless considers the crops that grow there subject to Ma'aser and Shevi'is - because he holds 'Kibush Yachid Sh'mei Kibush' ('What an individual king captures has the Din of a conquest'), at least, as regards Ma'aser and Shevi'is.

(c) In spite of having stated in the Reisha 'Afrah Tamei', the Seifa of the Beraisa rules that someone who enters Syria remains Tahor - because he is speaking about entering it in a 'Shidah, Teivah or Migdal (a kind of a box inside which the person is carried), and it is only on the actual ground of Syria that Chazal decreed Tum'ah.

(a) In a Beraisa, Rebbi declares Tamei someone who enters Chutz la'Aretz in some type of wagon - Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah declares him Tahor.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether a moving Ohel is considered an Ohel (Rebbi) or not (Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah).

(c) The author of the Beraisa regarding Syria - is Rebbi, who maintains that, although Chazal decreed Tum'ah on the air of the rest of Chutz la'Aretz Tamei, regarding Syria, they restricted their decree to touching or carrying the earth of Syria, but not to Tum'as Ohel?

(a) We learned above that if someone purchases a house in Syria, it is as if he purchased it in one of the dukedoms of Yerushalayim. Rav Sheishes interprets this to mean - that it is permitted to document the purchase of a house there, even on Shabbos.

(b) Of course Chilul Shabbos d'Oraysa cannot be permitted even for the sake of another Mitzvah as important as Yishuv Eretz Yisrael. However, we talking here (not about writing the document oneself but) about doing it through a Nochri (which only involves an Isur de'Rabbanan).

(c) We are speaking in a case where the seller is in a hurry to leave still today, and if it is not documented there and then, the sale stands to fall through.

(d) Chazal waived the Isur of Sh'vus on Shabbos for the sake of buying a house - because it is a Mitzvah for Jews to inhabit Eretz Yisrael.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if an Eved Cena'ani brings his own Get Shichrur on which it states 'Atzmecha u'Nechasai Kenuyin Lach' - he is believed with regard to his own freedom, but not with regard to the property.

(b) The reason for this distinction is - because whereas a Get Shichrur has the same Din as a Get Ishah (where Chazal believed one witness to say 'be'Fanai Nichtav ... '), a Sh'tar of sale or of a gift can only be substantiated by two Kasher witnesses.

(a) Abaye initially states that if the wording on the Get is 'Kol Nechasai Kenuyin Lach', the Eved is believed regarding the property too - on the basis of a 'Migu' (since he is believed with regard to himself, he is also believed with regard to the property). The advantage of this case over the original one is - that in this case, the owner gave him both gifts in one statement (and consequently, they cannot, in the opinion of Abaye, be split).

(b) When Rava objected to his initial ruling, on the grounds that to believe him on the issue of the property is no different than substantiating a Sh'tar, which requires two witnesses, Abaye changed his stance - and ruled that just as he is not believed with regard to the property, he is not believed with regard to himself either.

(c) Rava objects to that - on the grounds that there is no reason not to believe him with regard to himself, as we explained.

(d) So Rava finally rules- that there is no difference between one statement and two statements In either case, the Eved is believed regarding himself, but not regarding the property.

(a) The Tana of the Mishnah in Pe'ah says that if someone writes all his property to his slave - the slave goes free (because he is Part of that property) and inherits the rest of the property.

(b) The Tana denies the slave his freedom however, in the event that his master retained even a small field for himself - on the grounds that, since he retained one field, perhaps he also retained the slave too (and the document was meant to flatter the slave, but no more).

(c) Rebbi Shimon disagrees, though he will concede that - should the master have written in the Sh'tar that he retains some property (not specifically a field), without specifying which, the slave is not sold (because maybe by that property, he meant the slave), even if he wrote that he only retains one ten thousandths of the property (and the slave is worth much more than that).

(d) We extrapolate from Rebbi Shimon's statement 'Le'olam Hu ben Chorin ... ' - that the slave goes free even if the master wrote 'Chutz mi'Karka P'loni', which does not include the slave, because he is not Karka. Nevertheless, the slave goes free, because Rebbi Shimon holds 'Palginan Diburei' (We accept whichever part of the Sh'tar is acceptable, and reject what is not). And this, Rav Ada bar Masna points out, is the basis of Rava's ruling.