We cite a Mishnah in Erchin which discusses the redemption of a field that one declared Hekdesh. At what rate does one redeem an inherited field (that is fit to seed, and) that one declared Hekdesh in times when the Yovel ...
1.
... does not apply?
2.
... applies?
1)
(a)
We cite a Mishnah in Erchin which discusses the redemption of a field that one declared Hekdesh. One redeems an inherited field (that is fit to seed and) that one declared Hekdesh in times when the Yovel ...
1.
... does not apply - at their market price.
2.
... applies - at the rate of fifty Shekalim for every potential Chomer (Kur) of barley that could be planted there ("Zera Chomer Se'orim").
2)
(a)
What does the Tana say about ditches and rocks? When are they counted as part of the field, and when are they not?
(b)
At what rate are the latter redeemed, according to this Tana?
(c)
We learn the basic Halachah from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Zera Chomer Se'orim ba'Chamishim Shekel Kesef". What do we learn from the word "ha'Sadeh" (in the Pasuk there "ve'Im Ga'ol Yig'al es ha'Sadeh ha'Makdish Oso")?
(d)
What problem do we have with the Tana's ruling regarding ditches that measure ten Tefachim or more?
2)
(a)
The Tana considers ditches and rocks part of the field, provided they are less than ten Tefachim deep or tall, but not when they measure ten Tefachim or more.
(b)
According to this Tana - the latter are redeemed at their market price.
(c)
We learn the basic Halachah from the Pasuk "Zera Chomer Se'orim ba'Chamishim Shekel Kesef". From the word "ha'Sadeh" (in the Pasuk there "ve'Im Ga'ol Yig'al es ha'Sadeh ha'Makdish Oso") we learn that - even plots of land that are smaller than a 'Chomer Se'orim' are redeemed at that special rate ('Lesech [half a Kur], Chatzi Lesech, Sa'ah, Tarkav, Chatzi Tarkav').
(d)
The problem with the Tana's ruling regarding ditches that measure ten Tefachim or more is (notwithstanding the fact that they measure less than a Kur in area) - why they are not redeemed at the same rate as the rest of the field.
3)
(a)
How does Rav Ukva bar Chama establish the case, to resolve the problem?
(b)
How do we prove this from the Mishnah itself?
(c)
What do we learn from the word "Sadeihu" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im achar ha'Yovel Yakdish Sadeihu)?
(d)
Then why are ditches and rocks that are less than ten Tefachim also not precluded?
3)
(a)
Rav Ukva bar Chama resolves the problem - by establishing the case where the ditches are filled with water (and are therefore unfit for sowing), whereas the Pasuk is talking about fields that are fir for sowing.
(b)
We prove this from the Mishnah itself - from the fact that it mentions ditches together with rocks, which are unfit for sowing.
(c)
We learn from the word "Sadeihu" (in the Pasuk in Bechukosai "ve'Im achar ha'Yovel Yakdish Sadeihu) that - plots of land that are unfit for sowing are precluded from the Din of 'Zera Chomer Se'orim' (and are therefore redeemed at their market price).
(d)
Ditches and rocks that are less than ten Tefachim are not precluded however - because they are considered 'cracks of the land' (with no independent identity).
4)
(a)
When our Mishnah precludes ditches and rocks of ten Tefachim from a sale of 'Beis Kur Afar', must they also be full of water (like those of Sadeh Achuzah)?
(b)
Why the difference?
(c)
Then why does the Tana mention them together with rocks, which cannot be sown?
(d)
How can the Tana make a false inference in the Reisha to accommodate the Seifa?
4)
(a)
Our Mishnah precludes ditches and rocks of ten Tefachim from a sale of 'Beis Kur Afar' - even if they are not full of water (like those of a Sadeh Achuzah) ...
(b)
... because - the reason that large ditches and rocks are not part of the sale of the field (as opposed to the reason that they are precluded from the Din of Sadeh Achuzah) is because the purchaser has bought one field and not two (as we explained earlier), whether they contain water or not.
(c)
And the reason that the Tana mentions them together with rocks, which cannot be sown is - because of the Seifa, to teach us that if they are less than ten Tefachim deep, they are included in the sale, even if they are full of water (and are therefore not fit for sowing, like rocks).
(d)
The Tana is not in fact, making a false inference in the Reisha (to accommodate the Seifa) - because the Reisha too, incorporates ditches that cannot be sown, like rocks (only it also speaks about ditches that can be sown, as we explained).
5)
(a)
Rebbi Yitzchak limits 'T'rashin' to a maximum of four Kabin per Kur. What are 'T'rashin'?
(b)
Will the same apply to ...
1.
... ditches?
2.
... more than two Kabin in half a Kur?
(c)
Rav Ukva bar Chama qualifies the Din of four Kabin to a maximum area of five Kabin. What does he mean by that? What will the Din be if they are ...
1.
... spread out over six or seven Kabin?
2.
... four and a half Kabin?
(d)
And what will be the Din if there is one rock that is less than ten Tefachim tall, which measures just under four Kabin?
5)
(a)
Rebbi Yitzchak limits 'T'rashin' - rocks, to a maximum of four Kabin per Kur. More than that, even though they are less than ten Tefachim deep - the purchaser is not Mochel, and they are therefore not Batel to the field.
(b)
The same will apply to ...
1.
... ditches - provided they are full of water and unfit for sowing, and to ...
2.
... more than two Kabin of ditches or rocks in half a Kur.
(c)
Rav Ukva bar Chama qualifies the Din of four Kabin to a maximum area of five Kabin, by which he means that - the purchaser is only Mochel the four Kabin of Rebbi Yitzchak, if they are spread out over five, and certainly ...
1.
... over six or seven Kabin, but not, if they are spread out over ...
2.
... four and a half Kabin.
(d)
If there is one rock that is less than ten Tefachim tall, which measures just under four Kabin - the purchaser will be Mochel, and it is therefore Bateil to the field.
6)
(a)
Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav Ukva bar Chama. According to him, even if the four Kabin of rocks are spread out over five Kabin, they will not be counted in the sale. At which point will they become Bateil to the field, and therefore included in the sale, even according to Rebbi Yochanan?
(b)
Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queries Rebbi Yochanan 'Ruban be'Mi'utah, u'Mi'utan be'Rubah, Mahu', and remains with 'Teiku'. In which case does he have no problem?
(c)
Then what is the case of 'Ruban be'Mi'utah u'Mi'utan be'Rubah'?
(d)
What is then his She'eilah? Assuming that this too, is included in the sale, what is Rebbi Yochanan then coming to preclude from the sale?
6)
(a)
Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan disagrees with Rav Ukva' bar Chama. According to him, even if the four Kabin of water-fill ditches or rocks are spread out, over five Kabin, they will not be counted in the sale. He will concede however that the purchaser is Mochel - if they are spread out over the majority of the field,.
(b)
Rebbi Chiya bar Aba queries Rebbi Yochanan 'Ruban be'Mi'utah, u'Mi'utan be'Rubah, Mahu', and remains with 'Teiku'. He has no problem for example - if the four Kabin are spread out at a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah over sixteen Se'ah (which is the majority of a Kur).
(c)
The case of 'Ruban be'Mi'utah u'Mi'utan be'Rubah' is where, for example - nine quarter Kabin are spread out over seven Sa'in, and the remaining seven quarter Kabin, over nine Sa'in.
(d)
His She'eilah is - whether Rebbi Yochanan requires the majority of the rocks to be spread out over the majority of the field for the purchaser to be Mochel, or whether he is Mochel anyway, provided that the entire four Kabin is not spread out over the minority of the field.
103b----------------------------------------103b
7)
(a)
We ask what the Din will be if the majority of the field in which the four Kabin are situated are circular-shaped like a bracelet. What is the She'eilah? Why might this be worse than if it is shaped like a square?
(b)
We then ask what the Din will be if they are situated in a straight line. Why is it worse than the previous case?
(c)
Following the same pattern, we ask what the Din will be if they are shaped 'ke'Itztadin'. What does 'ke'Itztadin' mean?
(d)
The final She'eilah, before concluding 'Teiku' is 'Derech Akalason Mahu?'. What does this mean?
7)
(a)
We ask what the Din will be if the majority of the field in which the four Kabin are situated are circular-shaped like a bracelet - whether perhaps, since it is more difficult to pass one's plow in both directions ('ke'Shesi ve'Arev') than the regular square-shaped pattern of rocks (where it is much easier to lift one's plow over each rock and continue), they are not counted as part of the field.
(b)
We then ask on the assumption that, in the previous case, they do count as part of the field, what the Din will be if they are situated in a straight line - which is more difficult to maneuver than a circle (since it means carrying the plow across that many times more).
(c)
Following the same pattern, we ask what the Din will be if they are shaped 'ke'Itztadin' - like the shape of a pair of horns that project from the head of an ox (which is more difficult still to maneuver).
(d)
The final She'eilah, before concluding 'Teiku' is 'Derech Akalason Mahu?' which is the shape of a zigzag (the most difficult of all the cases to maneuver).
8)
(a)
What does the Beraisa mean when it says ...
1.
... 'Im Hayah Sela Yechidi, Afilu Kol-Shehu, Ein Nimdad imah'? What is the Tana referring to?
2.
... 'Im Hayah Samuch le'Meitzar, Afilu Kol-Shehu, Ein Nimdad imah'?
(b)
Others connect this Beraisa with Rebbi Yitzchak (who restricts rocks of less than ten Tefachim in our Mishnah to four Kabin). How do they qualify Rav Ukva and Rebbi Yochanan's respective interpretations of Rebbi Yitzchak?
(c)
What is the Beraisa now coming to teach us?
(d)
On what dual basis do we reject this explanation?
8)
(a)
When the Beraisa says ...
1.
... 'Im Hayah Sela Yechidi, Afilu Kol-Shehu, Ein Nimdad imah' - the Tana is referring to our Mishnah 'Pachos mi'Kein, Nimdadin imah', to teach us that if a small rock is situated outside the field, then, irrespective of its small size, it is not counted as part of the field that is being sold (since it is not 'absorbed in the field').
2.
... 'Im Hayah Samuch le'Meitzar, Afilu Kol-Shehu, Ein Nimdad imah' the Tana is adding that - even if it is situated inside the field, but it is near the border of the field, it still cannot be considered to be absorbed inside the field.
(b)
Others connect this Beraisa with Rebbi Yitzchak (who restricts rocks of less than ten Tefachim in our Mishnah to four Kabin). They qualify Rav Ukva and Rebbi Yochanan's respective interpretations of Rebbi Yitzchak - by restricting the need for the small rocks to be spread out in an area of more than five Sa'in or in the majority of the field, respectively, to where the rocks are at least three Tefachim high, but where they are less, they are Bateil to the field anyway.
(c)
And what the Beraisa is now coming to teach us is that - if it is one rock that is the size of four Kabin, then it is not counted as part of the field, even though it is less than three Tefachim in height.
(d)
We reject this explanation however, on the grounds that - a. there is no S'vara to draw a distinction between one rock of less than three Tefachim and a number of rocks, and b. because there is no source for drawing a distinction between rocks of more than three Tefachim and of less.
9)
(a)
What does Rav Papa mean when he asks what the Din will be if there is earth in between?
(b)
And what does Rav Ashi finally ask, assuming that the earth is considered a Hefsek (division)?
(c)
What is the outcome of all these She'eilos?
9)
(a)
When Rav Papa asks what the Din will be if there is earth in between, he means to ask - whether that rock will still be considered part of the field if a strip of ground less than three Tefachim wide divides between it and the border of the field.
(b)
And Rav Ashi finally asks, whether, assuming that the earth is considered a Hefsek (division) - if the same rock reaches the borders of the field on top, but a little below the surface, there is a strip of earth that divides between it and the border, or vice-versa, is considered a Hefsek or not.
(c)
All these She'eilos - remain unresolved ('Teiku').
10)
(a)
We already discussed our Mishnah 'Beis-Kur Afar Ani Mocher lach, Midah be'Chevel' in the first Perek. What will be the Din in this case, if Reuven gives Shimon ...
1.
... more than a Beis-Kur?
2.
... less than a Beis-Kur?
(b)
How do we reconcile this with ...
1.
... Rava, who learned in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' that a sale that involves measuring, weighing or counting, is invalid even as the result of an error that is less than a sixth?
2.
... the principle 'Ein Ona'ah le'Karka'os'?
10)
(a)
We already discussed our Mishnah 'Beis-Kur Afar Ani Mocher Lach, Midah be'Chevel' in the first Perek. If, in this case, Reuven gives Shimon ...
1.
... more than a Beis-Kur - the latter must return the balance (as we will explain shortly).
2.
... less than a Beis-Kur - he must deduct accordingly from the price.
(b)
We reconcile this with ...
1.
... Rava, who learned in 'ha'Mocher es ha'Sefinah' that a sale that involves measuring, weighing or counting, is invalid even as the result of an error that is less than a sixth - by confining Rava to Metaltelin, but not to Karka (where we assume that the purchaser would prefer to go on with the sale notwithstanding the discrepancy).
2.
... the principle 'Ein Ona'ah le'Karka'os' by confining the principle to a price error, but not to where the error was one of measurement.
11)
(a)
What does the Tana rule in a case where Reuven stipulated 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' and he then gives Shimon ...
1.
... a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah less or more than a Beis-Kur?
2.
... in excess of a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah more than a Beis-Kur?
(b)
What is the reason for the latter ruling, bearing in mind that he said 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser'?
(c)
Does this Halachah speak where Reuven also stipulated 'Midah be'Chevel' or not?
11)
(a)
The Tana rules in a case where Reuven stipulated 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser' and he then gives Shimon ...
1.
... a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah less or more than a Beis-Kur that - the sale is valid and final.
2.
... in excess of a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah more than a Beis-Kur that - he makes a reckoning, and then claims the balance, either in land or in cash, whichever he chooses.
(b)
The reason for the latter ruling (despite the fact that he said 'Hein Chaser Hein Yeser') is - because he did after all, stipulate 'Beis-Kur Afar'.
(c)
This Halachah speaks - specifically where Reuven did not also stipulate 'Midah be'Chevel' (because in a case where he did, we will later cite a Machlokes between ben Nanas and the Chachamim).
12)
(a)
On what basis does Reuven have a choice of whether to ask for the difference in cash or in Karka?
(b)
Why would Shimon not have the same choice, if Reuven gave him more a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah less than a Beis-Kur?
(c)
What is the significance of nine Kabin?
12)
(a)
Reuven has a choice of whether to ask for the difference in cash or in Karka - on the grounds that a small piece of ground (less than nine Kabin [which is really what he ought to receive]) is not Chashuv, and there is nothing he can really do with it. So (based on the principle 'Zeh Neheneh ve'Zeh Lo Chaser, Kofin Oso al Midas S'dom'), seeing as Shimon loses nothing Chazal gave him (euven) the right to ask for money instead,.
(b)
Shimon would not have the same choice, if Reuven gave him more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah less than a Beis-Kur - because it is inconceivable that we should force Reuven to give Shimon a piece of another field and not money (and besides, what would it help Shimon to have a small piece of land that is not adjoined to his existing field).
(c)
The significance of nine Kabin is - the fact that they constitute one day's plowing, which explains why less than that is useless to the owner.
13)
(a)
In which case will Shimon be entitled to force Reuven to take back land, in the case of ...
1.
... a field?
2.
... a vegetable garden, according to the Chachamim and Rebbi Akiva, respectively?
(b)
If Reuven gave Shimon more than a Rova ha'Kav per Sa'ah, how much is the latter obligated to return?
(c)
In the case where they appeared in Beis-Din only at the end of the month, why do we not give the benefit of the doubt to the renter, seeing as he is Muchzak in the money that the owner is claiming from him?
13)
(a)
Shimon will however, be entitled to force Reuven to take back land, in the case of ...
1.
... a field - should the discrepancy amount to nine Kabin.
2.
... a vegetable garden - should the discrepancy amount to half a Kav (which is Chashuv) according to the Chachamim, and a quarter of a Kav, according to Rebbi Akiva.
(b)
If Reuven gave Shimon more than a quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah, the latter is obligated to return - the entire balance, even the quarter of a Kav per Sa'ah (which he would initially not have been obligated to return).
(c)
In the case where they appeared in Beis-Din only at the end of the month, we cannot give the benefit of the doubt to the renter, in spite of the fact that he is Muchzak in the money that the owner is claiming from him - because, due to the fact that the owner is Muchzak in his bathhouse, the Safek really began at the beginning of the month, when the question arises whether the Socher has the right to use it during the month that was about to begin or not.
