Kiddushin, Daf Samekh, Part 6
Introduction
Today s sugya continues with the next mishnah, one very similar to the previous mishnah.
מתני׳ על מנת שיש לי בית כור עפר הרי זו מקודשת ויש לו
Mishnah: [If he says to her Be betrothed to me] on condition that I own a bet kor of land, she is betrothed, providing he does own it.
A bet kor is the amount of land it takes to grow a kor of produce. In modern terms it is about 17,000 sq. meters, a rather large piece of land. This clause is nearly the same as the end of the previous mishnah.
על מנת שיש לי במקום פלוני אם יש לו באותו מקום מקודשת ואם לאו אינה מקודשת
On condition that I own it in such and such a place , if he owns it there she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed.
Land value differs from place to place. It seems here that the woman wants to know that he owns good land, and not a worthless piece of land.
על מנת שאראך בית כור עפר הרי זו מקודשת ויראנה ואם הראה בבקעה אינה מקודשת
On condition that I show you a bet kor of land, she is betrothed, providing that he does show it to her.
But if he shows it to her in a plain, she is not betrothed.
This is nearly the same as the final section of the previous mishnah. Showing it to her in the plain means that he shows her land that is not his. This is not what she thought he meant by his showing her a bet kor.
גמ׳ וניחוש שמא יש לו
ועוד תניא חיישינן שמא יש לו ל"ק
הא בקידושי ודאי הא בקידושי ספק
GEMARA. But let us fear that he does actually possess it?
Moreover, it was taught: We are concerned that he does possess it.
There is no difficulty: The one refers to certain kiddushin; the other, to doubtful kiddushin.
This is word for word the same comments we read on the previous mishnah concerning money. Here the topic is land.
למה לי למיתנא גבי ארעא ולמה לי למיתנא גבי זוזי
צריכא דאי אשמעינן גבי זוזי משום דעבידי אינשי דמצנעי אבל ארעא אימא אי דאית ליה ארעא קלא אית ליה קמ"ל
Why was it taught with respect to both land and money?
It is necessary: for if we were told this of money, [I would say] that is because people are accustomed to hide money; but as for land I would say: If he possesses land, it is known: hence we are informed [otherwise].
The mishnah and baraita needed to teach the same clause about land and money because if it had taught only the clause about money I would have thought that only in that case would we be uncertain if she is betrothed or not. If he does not show her 200 zuz, she is doubtfully betrothed. But in the case of land, if he has it, we would know and therefore if he does not show it to her, she is not even doubtfully betrothed. Therefore it teaches that even in the case of land, she is still doubtfully betrothed if he does not show her the land.
על מנת שיש לי במקום פלוני אם יש לו וכו’ פשיטא מהו דתימא אמר לה מאי נפקא לך מינה אנא טרחנא ומייתינא קמשמע לן
On condition that I possess it in such and such a place, if he possesses it. etc.
But this is obvious?
I might argue that he can say to her, What does it matter to you? I will take the trouble of bringing [its produce where you want it]. Hence it teaches us [that it is not so].
Were it not for the mishnah, I might have thought that it is not important that he possess land in that specific place. After all, if she wants the produce, he can bring it to her from wherever his land is. Therefore, we need the mishnah to teach us that he does need to possess the land in that specific place. Otherwise she is not betrothed.
על מנת שאראך בית כור עפר תאנא לא נתכוונה זו אלא לראות משלו
On condition that I show you a beth kor of land.
A Tanna taught: Her meaning was to see nothing but his [land].
Again, when he says I will show you he must show her something belonging to him.
ואם הראה בבקעה אינה מקודשת פשיטא לא צריכא דנקיט בדיסתורא
But if he shows it to her in a plain, she is not betrothed.
But that is obvious?
It is necessary [to teach it] only if he holds it as a sharecropper.
If she shows her a field that he is working as a sharecropper she is still not betrothed. He must actually own the field.