Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Vav, Part 6

 

Introduction

Today s section continues to discuss whether movables must be on the land when they are acquired together with it.

 

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

 

Come and hear: For Rav Judah said in the name of Rav: It once happened that a certain man who fell ill in Jerusalem (that is in accordance with the view of R. Eliezer) and others state, he was in good health, (in accordance with the view of the rabbis) and he had a large quantity of movables which he desired to give as a gift. They said to him that he had no other option but to transfer it along with land. What did he do? He went and purchased [a field] a quarter [a kav] near Jerusalem and declared: Let a square handbreadth belong to So-and-so, and with it go a hundred sheep and a hundred barrels. On his death, the Sages confirmed his testimony.

Now, if you say that they [the movables] must be heaped on the land, for what is a square handbreadth fit?

 

This story seems to prove that one can transfer movables by transferring land without the movables being on the land. Certainly, a hundred sheep and barrels cannot fit on a piece of land that is only one handbreadth square.

There are two versions of the story, and these are dependent on whether a dying person can transfer property by a declaration alone. According to the sages, he may and therefore this person who transferred his property by a more formal act, must have been healthy. Had he been sick they would not have told him he needed to transfer property by use of land. According to R. Eliezer, even a person who is dying cannot transfer ownership without a formal acquisition, therefore this person could have even been a sick person. Sick or healthy, they would have told him he needed to use land to transfer the movables.

 

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

 

What are we dealing with here? With money. This is also reasonable, for should you think that a hundred sheep and a hundred barrels are meant literally, he should have transferred them by exchange!

 

The Talmud rejects the idea that the sheep and barrels were literally being transferred. Rather, it was the monetary equivalent of 100 sheep and barrels. Evidence for this is the fact that had he wanted to give away real objects, he could have done so by symbolic exchange.

 

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

 

What then was it, money? Then he could have transferred it to him by meshikah?

But [it must mean] that the recipient is absent; then here too, it means that the recipient is absent.

 

The problem with it being money is that the recipient could have just taken the money and acquired it through meshikhah. And if we say that the recipient is absent, then how could symbolic exchange have been done. This is why his only option was through land.

 

וניזכינהו ניהליה אגב אחר לא סמכה דעתיה סבר שמיט ואכיל להו ואלא מאי אין לו תקנה ה"ק למאי דלא סמכה דעתיה אין לו תקנה עד שיקנם על גבי קרקע

 

Then he should have transferred it to him by another? He was not reliant on another, fearing that the other would steal and consume it.

Then what does it mean he had no other option ?

This is what it means: in view [of the fact] that he was not reliant on the stranger, there is no other course but to transfer through land.

 

Theoretically, he could have transferred his money to another by use of a third party. But this would entail the risk that a third party would steal the money. Due to this risk, his only option was to transfer the money through land.

In the end, we still have no proof that the property being transferred with the land does not need to be on the land. This discussion will continue next week.