Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) HEKDESH OF A FIELD

(a) (Mishnah): One who is Makdish his field at a time when Yovel applies - to redeem it, he gives 50 Shekalim for a field large enough to sow a Chomer of barley seed.

1. If there are ditches 10 Tefachim deep, or rocks 10 Tefachim tall, they are not measured with the rest of the field; less than 10 Tefachim, they are measured with it.
2. Question: Granted, the slopes of the ditches are not Hekdesh (to be subject to the fixed redemption rates of fields, rather according to their actual value), but the bottom of the ditches should be Hekdesh as fields!
3. Suggestion: Since the bottoms do not add up to a full Beis Kor, they are not Hekdesh as fields.
4. Contradiction (Beraisa) Question: "A field (on which is sown) a Chomer of barley (is redeemed for) 50" - from where do we know, a smaller field is redeemed proportionally at this rate?
5. Answer: "A field" -any size.

(b) Answer (Mar Ukva bar Chama): The case is, the ditches are full of water, they are unfit for seeding.

1. Support: The Beraisa teaches them together with tall rocks, which are unfit for seeding.

(c) Question: If they are full of water, even less than 10 Tefachim, they should not be considered as part of the field!
(d) Answer: Shallow ditches, even full of water, are as basins of the field.
(e) (Mishnah): Reuven said 'I sell you a Beis Kor or dirt' - if there are ditches 10 Tefachim deep, or rocks 10 Tefachim tall, they are not measured as part of the field; less than 10 Tefachim, they are measured with it.

1. (Mar Ukva bar Chama): This is even if the ditches are not full of water.
2. Question: Why is this?
3. Answer (Rav Papa): A person does not want to pay money for a field he cannot farm as one.

(f) Question: What is the law by Kidushin (would dry ditches count towards having a Beis Kor, if this was a condition of Kidushin)?

1. Do we compare it to Hekdesh, or to a sale?

(g) Answer: Presumably, it is as Hekdesh - he tells her, I am the one that will have to work harder to farm it.

(a) (Mishnah - R. Meir): Any stipulation that is not (doubled) as like the stipulation made with the tribes of Gad and Reuven is invalid - "If they will cross the Yarden...if they will not cross to fight...";
(b) R. Chanina ben Gamliel says, the verse does not teach this - there was a need to stipulate, if they do not cross, they will inherit (as other tribes) in Eretz Yisrael.
(c) (Gemara) Question: R. Chanina ben Gamliel refuted R. Meir!
(d) Answer: R. Meir can counter, it would have sufficed to write 'If they do not cross, they will inherit amidst you';

1. "In Eretz Cana'an" is extra, to teach that stipulations must be doubled.

2. R. Chanina holds, had it not written "In Eretz Cana'an", one might have thought, they will inherit among Benei Yisrael in Gilad, but not in Eretz Cana'an.
3. R. Meir holds, "Amidst you" connotes everywhere that you inherit.

(e) (Beraisa - R. Chanina ben Gamliel): A parable: a man was dividing his property to his children - 'Reuven will receive this field, Shimon that field, Levi will give 200 Zuz and receive that other field; if he will not give he will inherit with his brothers in the other fields.'

1. He only inherits in the other fields (if he does not pay) because of the second side of the stipulation ('if he will not give...')!

(f) Question: The parable is unlike our Mishnah!

1. In the Mishnah, without the second part of the stipulation, they would not have received in either place; in the parable, even without the extra stipulation, Levi would have received a share of everything except the first 2 fields!

(g) Answer: When R. Chanina said in the Mishnah that the extra stipulation is needed even for Eretz Cana'an, that was before he heard that R. Meir learns from the extra words "in Eretz Cana'an".

(a) We understand, according to R. Meir, "If you will improve, you will rise; if you will not improve, sin crouches at the opening" (we could not infer the negative from the positive);

1. Question: According to R. Chanina, why is the second clause needed?
2. Answer: One might have thought, if you will improve, you will be rewarded; if you will not improve, there will be neither reward nor punishment - we hear, this is not so.

(b) We understand, according to R. Meir, "Then you (Eliezer) will be exempt from my oath (to bring a wife for Yitzchak from Avraham's family)";

1. Question: According to R. Chanina, why did this have to be said?
2. Answer: One might have thought, if she wants to come, but her family objects, he should bring her against their will - we hear, this is not so.
3. Question: Why was it needed to say "If she will not want to come"?
4. Answer: One might have thought, if her family wants to give her, but she objects, he should bring her against her will - we hear, this is not so.

(c) We understand, according to R. Meir, "If you will go in My statutes... ", "And if you will despise My statutes...";

1. Question: According to R. Chanina, why did the second side have to be said?
2. Answer: One might have thought, if you will go in My statutes, you will receive a blessing; if you will despise My statutes, there will be neither blessing nor curse - we hear, this is not so.

(d) We understand, according to R. Meir, "If you will desire, and listen ... ", "And if you will refuse, and rebel...";

1. Question: According to R. Chanina, why did the second side have to be said?
2. Answer: One might have thought, if you will desire, it will be good; if you refuse, neither good nor bad will result - we hear, this is not so.
3. Question: What does it mean "You will eat sword"?
4. Answer: Hard salt, hard barley bread, and onions.

i. Unseasoned bread with salt and onions harm the body as swords.