Kiddushin 26bקידושין כ״ו ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Kiddushin 26b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
26bכ״ו ב

ולכתוב עליה פרוסבול ולקנות עמה נכסים שאין להם אחריות ואי אמרת בעינן צבורים כל שהוא למאי חזי

and if the debtor possesses land of any area the creditor can write a document that prevents the Sabbatical Year from abrogating an outstanding debt [prosbol] for it so that his loans will not be canceled in the seventh year, and he can acquire property that does not serve as a guarantee along with it. And if you say that we require the movable property to be piled on the land, for what is land of any size fit? What can be piled on a tiny spot of land?

תרגומא רב שמואל בר ביסנא קמיה דרב יוסף כגון שנעץ בה מחט א"ל רב יוסף קבסתן איכפל תנא לאשמועי' מחט אמר רב אשי מאן לימא לן דלא תלה בה מרגניתא דשוויא אלפא זוזי

Rav Shmuel bar Bisna interpreted it before Rav Yosef as follows: For example, if one stuck a needle into a tiny patch of land, which he sold by means of the land, the needle is acquired. Rav Yosef said to him: You disgust me [kevastan]. Did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us that a needle can be acquired by means of land? Rav Ashi said: Who shall say to us that he did not hang a pearl worth one thousand dinars on the needle? One can acquire an item of high value through land of this size. In any event, the question of whether or not the movable property must be piled onto the land has not been resolved.

ת"ש אמר ר' אלעזר מעשה במדוני אחד שהיה בירושלים שהיו לו מטלטלין הרבה וביקש ליתנם במתנה אמרו לו אין לו תקנה עד שיקנם על גבי קרקע מה עשה הלך ולקח בית סלע סמוך לירושלים ואמר צפוני זה לפלוני ועמו מאה צאן ומאה חביות ומת וקיימו את דבריו

Come and hear, as Rabbi Elazar said: There was an incident involving a certain Madonite [Madoni] who was in Jerusalem, as he had a great deal of movable property and wished to give it as a gift. He was ill and did not have time for the recipient to acquire the property by pulling. The Sages said to him: One in this situation has no remedy but to transfer them by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired a beit sela, apparently meaning land the size of a sela coin, near Jerusalem and said: This northern portion of the beit sela is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And the Madonite died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement and gave the gifts.

ואי אמרת בעינן צבורים בה בית סלע למאי חזי מי סברת בית סלע סלע ממש מאי סלע דנפיש טובא ואמאי קרו ליה סלע דקשי כסלע

And if you say that to acquire movable property by way of land we require that the property be actually piled upon it, for what is a beit sela fit? It is impossible to pile one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels on top of such a small plot of land. The Gemara rejects this argument: Do you maintain that a beit sela is referring to a place that is actually the size of a sela coin? No; rather what is the meaning of the term sela? It is referring to a place that is very large and that could hold the many gifts. If that is true, why did they call it sela? This name indicates that it was hard as rock [sela].

ת"ש דאמר רב יהודה א"ר מעשה באדם אחד שחלה בירושלים כרבי אליעזר ואמרי לה בריא היה כרבנן

Come and hear a proof from a different source, as Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain person who became sick in Jerusalem, and the assumption that he became sick is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that a person on his deathbed can transfer property only by means of an accepted standard act of acquisition. And some say he was healthy, and that assumption is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that a person on his deathbed can transfer property by means of speech alone, whereas a healthy person requires an accepted act of acquisition.

שהיו לו מטלטלין הרבה וביקש ליתנם במתנה אמרו לו אין לו תקנה עד שיקנם ע"ג קרקע מה עשה הלך ולקח בית רובע סמוך לירושלים ואמר טפח על טפח לפלוני ועמו מאה צאן ומאה חביות ומת וקיימו חכמים את דבריו ואי אמרת בעינן צבורים טפח על טפח למאי חזי

The incident happened as follows: This man had a great deal of movable property and he wished to give it away as a gift. The Sages said to him: In this situation one has no remedy but to transfer movable property by means of land. What did he do? He went and acquired land the size of a beit rova near Jerusalem and said: This square handbreadth is given to so-and-so, and with it one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels. And he died, and the Sages fulfilled his statement. And if you say that we require that the property be piled on the land, for what is a square handbreadth fit? Is it possible to place all of these items in such a limited space?

הכא במאי עסקינן לדמי ה"נ מסתברא דאי ס"ד מאה צאן ומאה חביות ממש ניקנינהו ניהליה בחליפין

The Gemara rejects this: With what are we dealing here? It is with money, i.e., he sought to give the value of the barrels and sheep, and money of this amount can be placed on a small plot of land. The Gemara comments: So too, it is reasonable that this incident involved money. As, if it enters your mind to say that it involved an actual group of one hundred sheep and one hundred barrels, let him transfer them to the recipient through an act of symbolic exchange. If the incident involved money, which cannot be transferred by symbolic exchange, he had no recourse but to acquire the land.

ואלא מאי לדמי ניקנינהו ניהליה במשיכה אלא דליתיה למקבל מתנה ה"נ דליתיה למקבל מתנה

The Gemara raises a difficulty against this argument: Rather, what will you say, that this is referring to money, which cannot be acquired through symbolic exchange? Even so, he still could have acted differently: Let him transfer it to the recipient through pulling. Rather, you are forced to say that the recipient of this gift was not present, and the man wanted to grant him possession of it without the recipient having to perform a physical act of acquisition. So too, it is possible that the recipient of the gift was not present, and he was unable to transfer it to him through symbolic exchange. Consequently, there is no proof that the incident involved money.

וניזכינהו ניהליה אגב אחר לא סמכה דעתיה סבר שמיט ואכיל להו

The Gemara asks: Is there no other way to perform this acquisition? But let him transfer it to him by means of another person, i.e., another can pull the property on behalf of the recipient. The Gemara answers: The giver did not rely on that option, as he feared that the third party might seize it and consume it or use the property in some other manner. The giver wanted to be sure that the acquisition would be completed in full.

ואלא מאי אין לו תקנה ה"ק למאי דלא סמכה דעתיה אין לו תקנה עד שיקנם על גבי קרקע

Rather, what then is the meaning of the statement: He has no remedy? Even if he did not want to use the option of a third party, it was certainly available to him. The Gemara explains that this is what Rav was saying and meant in his description of this incident: In accordance with his decision that he does not rely on another person and does not want to transfer property by means of anyone else, in this situation one has no remedy but to transfer movable property by means of land. In summary, no decisive proof has been cited as to whether or not it is possible to acquire movable property by means of land when the items are not piled upon the land.

תא שמע מעשה ברבן גמליאל וזקנים שהיו באים בספינה אמר להם רבן גמליאל לזקנים עישור שאני עתיד למוד

Come and hear a proof from the following mishna (Ma’aser Sheni 5:9): There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel and other Elders who were traveling on a ship. Rabban Gamliel said to the Elders: One-tenth of produce that I will measure out and separate in the future from the produce of my fields