Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Zayin, Part 2

 

Introduction

Today s section concludes the long discussion over whether the movables must be heaped onto the land through which they are acquired.

 

ת"ש דאמר רבא בר יצחק אמר רב שני שטרות הן זכו בשדה זו לפלוני וכתבו לו את השטר חוזר בשטר ואינו חוזר בשדה ע"מ שתכתבו לו את השטר חוזר בין בשטר בין בשדה

 

Come and hear: That Rava bar Yitzchak said in the name of Rav: There are two [different kinds of] deeds. [If one declares,] Acquire this field on behalf of So-and-so, and write a deed for him, he can retract from the deed but not from the field.

[But if he stipulates,] On condition that you write a deed for him, he can retract from both the deed and the field.

 

Rav explains that if the person only says and write the deed he can retract from his instruction to write the deed. But he cannot retract from the granting of the field itself. The transfer of the land has already occurred and cannot be taken back. However, if he stipulates on condition then the land is not transferred until the deed is written. Therefore, he can retract from both elements.

 

ורב חייא בר אבין אמר רב הונא שלשה שטרות הן תרי הא דאמרן אידך אם קדם מוכר וכתב לו את השטר כאותה ששנינו כותבים שטר למוכר אע"פ שאין לוקח עמו כיון שהחזיק עמו בקרקע נקנה שטר בכל מקום שהוא שמע מינה לא בעינן צבורים בה

שאני שטר דאפסירא דארעא הוא

 

R. Hiyya b. Abin said in the name of R. Huna: There are three [kinds of] deeds. Two that we just stated. The other one: If the seller before [payment] writes a deed for him [the buyer], in accordance with what we learnt: A deed may be written for the seller even though the buyer is not with him, then as soon as he takes possession of the land, the deed is acquired wherever it is.

This proves that they need not be heaped up on it!

A deed is different, as it is the bit of the land.

 

R. Hiyya b. Abin adds in another type of document one which the seller writes before the sale even occurs. In this case, once he transfers the land, the deed belongs to the buyer no matter where it is. This seems to prove that the movables (in this case the deed) need not be on the land, for the seller has transferred ownership of the field and through it he has transferred the document as well.

The Talmud rejects this as proof the deed is like the land. It is not a different type of movable, like sheep or barrels. The deed is not transferred by being connected to the land it simply is part of the transaction of the land.

 

והא עלה קתני זו היא ששנינו נכסים שאין להם אחריות נקנין עם נכסים שיש להם אחריות בכסף בשטר ובחזקה ש"מ לא בעינן צבורים בה ש"מ:

 

But was it not taught about this: This is [an example of] what we learned, Property which does not have security may be acquired in conjunction with property which does have security by money, deed, or possession. This proves that they need not be heaped up on it! This proves it.

 

The Talmud notes that the mishnah which taught that movables could be acquired with land was itself used as a source to connect to the acquisition of the deed with the land. This implies that this deed is considered like other movables. It is acquired through acquisition of the land.

And that folks ends our discussion of this issue. Movables may be acquired together with land even if the movables are not on that piece of land.

I should note that in the middle ages a technique developed whereby a person could transfer movables based on the idea that every Jew owns four cubits of land in Israel. I would give you (temporarily) my four cubits of land and with that I could also give you my movables, even if the movables were far way. This facilitated the transfer of movables without one actually having to own land, let alone put the movables on the land.