המקדיש שדהו בשעת היובל נותן בזרע חומר שעורים חמשים שקל כסף היו נקעים עמוקים עשרה טפחים או סלעים גבוהים עשרה טפחים אין נמדדין עמה פחות מכאן נמדדין עמה
With regard to one who consecrates his field during the time of the Jubilee Year, i.e., in an era when the halakhot of the Jubilee Year are observed, if he wishes to redeem it from the Temple treasury he gives fifty silver shekels for an area that yields a ḥomer, i.e., a kor, of barley seed. If the field had crevices, i.e., deep fissures in its surface, ten handbreadths deep, or boulders ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it, i.e., in the calculation of land that requires redemption. If the crevices or boulders are less than that, they are measured with it.
והוינן בה נהי דבהדי ארעא לא קדשו נקדשו באפי נפשייהו וכי תימא כמה דלא הוי בית כור לא חשיב ורמינהו
And we discussed the following problem: Granted, that these areas are not consecrated together with the field, as they are ten handbreadths higher or lower than the rest of the land; but let the crevices and boulders be consecrated by themselves, so that they should require their own redemption of fifty silver shekels per beit kor. And if you would say that as long as an area does not amount to a beit kor it is not important, the Gemara raises a contradiction against this claim from a baraita.
שדה מה ת"ל לפי שנאמר (ויקרא כז, טז) זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים אין לי אלא שהקדיש בענין הזה מנין לרבות לתך וחצי לתך סאה תרקב וחצי תרקב ואפי' רובע מנין ת"ל שדה מכל מקום
The verse states with regard to one who consecrates his field: “Part of a field of his possession” (Leviticus 27:16). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Since it is stated in the same verse: “The sowing of a ḥomer of barley shall be valued at fifty shekels of silver,” I have derived only that this halakha applies to one who consecrated in this manner, i.e., consecrated an area fit to sow a ḥomer of barley. From where do I derive that this halakha includes a smaller area, e.g., one suitable for sowing a half-kor, and half of a half-kor, and the area for a se’a, and a tarkav, which is half a se’a, and half a tarkav, and even the area of a quarter-kav? The baraita restates its question: From where is it derived that these areas of land can also be consecrated and redeemed based on the fixed values of the Torah? The verse states “a field” in any case.
אמר מר עוקבא בר חמא הכא בנקעים מלאים מים עסקינן משום דלאו בני זריעה נינהו דיקא נמי דקתני דומיא דסלעים גבוהים ש"מ
Therefore, the Gemara’s question remains: Why aren’t the crevices and boulders measured by themselves? Mar Ukva bar Ḥama said: Here we are dealing with crevices filled with water. Due to the fact that they are not fit for sowing, the crevices are not considered a field. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches the case of crevices, similar to the case of high boulders, which are also unsuitable for sowing. The Gemara affirms: Learn from this comparison that this explanation is correct.
אי הכי אפילו פחות מיכן נמי הנהו נאגני דארעא מיקרו שדרא דארעא מקרו
The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the crevices, like the boulders, are unfit for sowing, then even if there is a disparity of less than ten handbreadths as well, the crevices and boulders should likewise not be measured as part of the field. The Gemara answers: If they are separated from the field by less than ten handbreadths, these crevices are called the cracks in the ground. Similarly, boulders less than ten handbreadths high are called the spine of the ground. They are considered regular features of fields, which typically have a few pits and mounds.
גבי מכר תנן האומר לחבירו בית כור עפר אני מוכר לך והיו שם נקעים עמוקים עשרה טפחים או סלעים גבוהים עשרה טפחים אין נמדדים עמה פחות מכאן נמדדים עמה ואמר מר עוקבא בר חמא אע"פ שאין מלאים מים
With regard to a sale of a field, we learned in a mishna (Bava Batra 102b): In the case of one who says to another: I am selling you a beit kor of earth, if there were crevices ten handbreadths deep or boulders ten handbreadths high in the field, they are not measured with it; if the crevices or boulders were less than that, they are measured with it. And Mar Ukva bar Ḥama says: Even if they are not filled with water, nevertheless they are not included.
מ"ט אמר רב פפא לפי שאין אדם רוצה שיתן את מעותיו בשדה אחת ויראה לו כשנים וכשלשה מקומות
The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this difference between the two rulings of Mar Ukva bar Ḥama? Why in the case of a sale are crevices not considered part of the field even if they are not filled with water? Rav Pappa says: Because a person who buys a field does not want to give his money for one field and yet it appears to him like two or three places. When purchasing a parcel of land, it is important to the purchaser that the land be one contiguous unit so as to enable farming it without difficulty. Therefore, these areas of ten handbreadths are not measured as part of the field regardless of whether or not they are filled with water.
הכא מאי להקדש מדמינן לה או למכר מדמינן לה מסתברא להקדש מדמינן לה דאמר לה אנא טרחנא וזרענא ומייתינא
Having discussed the halakhot of a field with regard to consecration and sales, the Gemara asks: What is the halakha here, with regard to measuring a field to see if it fulfills the condition stipulated by one who betroths a woman, if it contains large crevices that are not filled with water? Do we compare it to the halakha of consecrated property and include these places, or do we compare it to the halakha of a sale, which means that they are not included? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that we compare it to the case of consecrated property, as the husband can say to her: I will go to the trouble of sowing and bringing the produce from the lower or higher areas as well. Although the labor requires additional effort, he does possess a beit kor of land.
מתני׳ ר' מאיר אומר כל תנאי שאינו כתנאי בני גד ובני ראובן אינו תנאי שנאמר (במדבר לב, כ) ויאמר אליהם אם יעברו בני גד ובני ראובן וכתיב ואם לא יעברו חלוצים
MISHNA: Rabbi Meir says: Any condition that is not doubled, i.e., which does not specify both the result of fulfilling the condition and the result of the condition remaining unfulfilled, like the condition Moses stipulated with the children of Gad and the children of Reuben who sought to settle on the eastern side of the Jordan, is not a valid condition and is not taken into account at all. As it is stated: “And Moses said to them, if the children of Gad and the children of Reuben pass over the Jordan with you, every man armed for battle before the Lord, and the land shall be subdued before you, then you shall give them the land of Gilead for a possession” (Numbers 32:29). And it is written afterward: “But if they will not pass over armed with you, they shall receive a possession among you in the land of Canaan” (Numbers 32:30).
רבי חנינא בן גמליאל אומר צריך הדבר לאומרו שאלמלא כן יש במשמע שאפי' בארץ כנען לא ינחלו
Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel says: One cannot derive the requirements of conditions in general from that particular case, as with regard to the nullification of the condition of the children of Gad and Reuben it was necessary to state the matter, as otherwise, if the verse had not specified both sides of the condition, it might have been thought it meant that they will not inherit even in the land of Canaan. One might have thought that if the tribes of Gad and Reuben would not fulfill the condition, they would forfeit their right to inherit anywhere. It was therefore necessary to specify that they would not lose their portion in Eretz Yisrael. Consequently, it is possible that with regard to a standard condition, where no such misunderstanding is likely to take place, it is not necessary to mention both sides.
גמ׳ שפיר קאמר ליה ר' חנינא בן גמליאל לר"מ אמר לך רבי מאיר אי סלקא דעתך לאו לתנאי כפול הוא דאתא לכתוב ואם לא יעברו ונאחזו בתוככם בארץ כנען
GEMARA: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel is saying well, i.e., presenting a reasonable objection, to Rabbi Meir. He apparently refuted Rabbi Meir’s opinion entirely. How would Rabbi Meir respond? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir could have said to you: If it enters your mind that the verse does not come to teach the requirement of a compound condition to stipulate both positive and negative outcomes, let it merely write: But if they will not pass over they shall receive a possession among you, which would indicate that they have a portion in the land. The verse actually proceeds to state: “In the land of Canaan.”