Kiddushin, Daf Kaf Zayin, Part 5
Introduction
In today s section Rava puts an important limitation on the halakhah that one can acquire movables by acquiring land.
אמר רבא לא שנו אלא שנתן דמי כולן אבל לא נתן דמי כולן לא קנה אלא כנגד מעותיו
Rava said: This was taught only if he [the purchaser] paid the money for them all. But if he did not pay the money for them all, he acquires only to the extent of his money.
If the buyer pays the whole price, for both the land and the movables, then he has acquired both the land and the movables. But if he pays only part of the money, he acquires only what he pays for.
תניא כוותיה דרבא יפה כח הכסף מכח השטר וכח השטר מכח הכסף יפה כח הכסף שהכסף פודין בו הקדשות ומעשר שני מה שאין כן בשטר ויפה כח השטר שהשטר מוציא בבת ישראל מה שאין כן בכסף
It was taught in agreement with Rava. The power of money is superior to that of a deed, and the power of a deed is superior to that of money. The power of money is superior in that sacred property and the second tithe are redeemed with it, which is not so in the case of deed. And the power of a deed is superior, for a deed can free an Israelite daughter, which is not so in the case of money.
The Talmud cites a baraita that supports Rava s rule. This first part of the baraita is not relevant though to the rule. It simply compares the things that can be done with money and things that can be done with a deed. Money can be used to redeem holy things, including second tithe. The deed can be used to divorce but money cannot.
ויפה כח שניהם מכח חזקה וכח חזקה מכח שניהם יפה כח שניהם ששניהם קונים בעבד עברי מה שאין כן בחזקה יפה כח חזקה שחזקה מכר לו עשר שדות בעשר מדינות כיון שהחזיק באחת מהם קנאם כולם
And the power of both is superior to that of hazakah (ownership by assumption), and the power of hazakah is superior to that of both. The power of both is superior in that both acquire a Hebrew slave, which is not so in the case of hazakah. And the power of hazakah is superior to that of both: For with hazakah, if A sells B ten fields in ten countries, as soon as B takes possession of one, he acquires all.
The baraita now compares money and deed with hazakah, the idea that one can acquire something by acting as its owner. A Hebrew slave can be acquired through money and deed but not by acting as a slave to someone. But hazakah is stronger because when acquiring multiple pieces of land from one person, a person can take possession of one and thereby acquire them all. When it comes to buying the land with money or deed, the money or deed must cover all of the pieces.
במה דברים אמורים שנתן לו דמי כולן אבל לא נתן לו דמי כולן לא קנה אלא כנגד מעותיו
When is this? If he has paid him for all; but if he has not paid the money for all, he gains a title only to the extent of his money.
Hazakah acquires all ten fields only if he paid for all of them. But if not, it only acquires that which he paid for. This is the line that is similar to Rava s line.
מסייע ליה לשמואל דאמר שמואל מכר לו עשר שדות בעשר מדינות כיון שהחזיק באחת מהן קנה את כולן
This supports Shmuel. For Shmuel said: If A sells B ten fields in ten countries, as soon as B takes possession of one, he acquires them all.
The baraita is word for word the same as Shmuel s statement.
אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא תדע שאילו מסר לו עשר בהמות באפסר אחד ואמר ליה קני מי לא קני
R. Aha son of R. Ika said: Know, that if he delivered him ten cows [tied] by one cord, and said to him, Acquire them would he not acquire them [all]?
According to R. Aha son of R. Ika the proof from the baraita s rule is that one obviously can acquire ten cows tied together by one cord. So too one can acquire ten pieces of land by buying one of them.
א"ל מי דמי התם איגודו בידו הכא אין איגודו בידו
He said to him: Is it the same? There the tie is in his hand, whereas here the tie is not in his hand.
Someone unknown responded to R. Aha telling him his comparison is not justified. In the case of the cows, he has one tie connected to all of them. In the case of the land, there is nothing connecting him to the other pieces of land.
איכא דאמרי אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא תדע דלא קני אילו מסר לו עשר בהמות באפסר אחד ואמר לו זו קני מי קני מי דמי התם גופים מוחלקים הכא סדנא דארעא חד הוא:
There are those who say R. Aha son of R. Ika said: Know that he does not acquire [them all] for if he delivered him ten cows [tied] by one cord and said to him, Acquire this one : would he acquire them all?
Is this the same? There they are separate entities; but here, the earth is one mass.
In this version, R. Aha son of R. Ika critiques the baraita by comparing it with another halakhah. In this version of the cows, he acquires only one cow. Therefore, R. Aha compares, he should acquire only one piece of land.
The Talmud then rejects this as well. Acquiring one cow cannot allow one to acquire another cow because each cow is separate. But the land is all one piece. Acquiring one piece can allow one to acquire other pieces as well.