Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Aleph, Part 4

 

Introduction

Today s section begins to explain the mishnah.

 

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 למה לי שמע מינה לתנאי כפול הוא דאתא

 

GEMARA. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel responded well to R. Meir?

R. Meir could have answered you: Should you think that it does not come for [teaching] a double stipulation, it [Scripture] should write, but if they will not pass over . . . they shall have possession among you : why state, in the land of Canaan ?

This proves that it comes to necessitate a double stipulation.

 

According to R. Meir, had the doubling of the stipulation not come to teach that all stipulations need to be doubled, the verse could have simply stated they shall have possession among you. The extra words in the land of Canaan come to teach that all stipulations need to be doubled.

 

ור’ חנינא בן גמליאל (אמר) אי לא כתב רחמנא בארץ כנען הוה אמינא (במדבר לב, ל) ונאחזו בתוככם בארץ גלעד אבל ארץ כנען כלל לא

 

And R. Hanina b. Gamaliel? If the Torah had not written, in the land of Canaan, I would have said that they shall have possession among you in the land of Gilad, but not at all in the land of Canaan.

 

To R. Haninan b. Gamaliel the words in the land of Canaan are necessary to teach that if the tribes of Reuben, Gad and half of Menashe don t cross over they will still have possession in the land of Canaan. This is essentialy what R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said in the mishnah.

 

ורבי מאיר בתוככם כל היכא דאית לכו משמע

 

And R. Meir? Among you implies–wherever you have possessions.

 

R. Meir responds that we would not have thought that for the words among you imply anywhere you live. This leaves the words in the land of Canaan extraneous and therefore available for a midrash.

 

תניא אמר רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שהיה מחלק נכסיו לבניו אמר פלוני בני יירש שדה פלונית ופלוני בני יירש שדה פלונית ופלוני בני יתן מאתים זוז ויירש שדה פלונית ואם לא יתן יירש עם אחיו בשאר נכסים מי גרם לו לירש עם אחיו בשאר נכסים כפילו גרם לו

 

It was taught: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: To what may this matter be compared? To a man who divided his estate among his sons, and directed, That son shall inherit that field, that son shall inherit that field, while that son shall pay two hundred zuz and inherit that field. But if he does not give it, he shall inherit the rest of my estate together with his brothers. Now, what causes him to receive an inheritance together with his other brethren in the rest of the estate? His doubling [of the stipulation] effects it for him.

 

R. Hanina b. Gamaliel uses a parable to explain his reasoning. Sometimes the extra stipulation is necessary to let the person know what happens if he does not fulfill the conditions.

 

והא לא דמיא משל למתניתין התם קתני יש במשמע שאפילו בארץ כנען לא ינחלו אלמא כפילה לארץ גלעד נמי מהני והכא קתני מי גרם לו לירש עם אחיו בשאר נכסים כפילו גרם לו אלמא כפילה לשאר נכסים הוא דקמהני

 

But the parable is not similar to our Mishnah. There it teaches, [For otherwise] it implies that they should have no inheritance even in Canaan, which proves that the doubling served a purpose in respect of Gilad too; whereas here he states: What causes him to receive an inheritance together with his other brothers in the rest of the estate? His doubling effects it for him, which proves that the doubling is necessary [only] in respect to the rest of the estate?

 

The Talmud critiques the comparison. In the mishnah, the doubling is necessary to teach that if they don t fulfill the condition, they will not receive any inheritance, neither in Canaan or in Gilad. Here, in the parable, the doubling is effective only in respect of the rest of the estate. He would have received that portion of the field in any case, whether he fulfilled the condition or not. This implies that without the doubling the tribes would have inherited in the Gilad even without the double formulation.

 

לא קשיא הא מקמי דנימא ליה רבי מאיר ונאחזו הא לבתר דנימא ליה ר’ מאיר ונאחזו

 

There is no difficulty: the former was before R. Meir told him [the implication of], then they shall have possession; the latter [the illustration], after R. Meir told him [the implication of], then they shall have possession .

 

The Talmud resolves that the mishnah and baraita are two stages of the dialogue. In the mishnah R. Hanina b. Gamaliel holds that if the double formulation was not used, the two and tribes would not have received any inheritance, even in the land of Gilad. But after the response of R. Meir, R. Hanina b. Gamaliel admits that without the double formulation they would have received a portion in Gilad. The double formulation comes to teach that if they don t fulfill the condition, they would have received a portion in Gilad, as in the parable.