Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Kidushin, 61

1) APPRAISING THE VALUE OF PITS AND ROCKS

QUESTION: The Torah (Vayikra 27:16) teaches that one who consecrates his field (during the time that the laws of Yovel are observed) may redeem his field by paying an amount calculated according to the formula of fifty silver Shekalim for every Chomer of barley seed ("Zera Chomer Se'orim...") that can be planted there. The Gemara here quotes the Mishnah in Erchin (25a) which teaches that if the field contains pits deeper than ten Tefachim, or rocks higher than ten Tefachim, those areas are not calculated together with the field in accordance with the prescribed formula. The Gemara asks that although the pits and rocks cannot be calculated together with the field, they should become Hekdesh in their own right.

The Gemara has no question regarding whether or not the field becomes Hekdesh. The only question is whether the pits and rocks are part of the field or whether they are independent pieces of land, as Rashi explains. The Gemara is asking that even if we view the field as being separate from the pits and rocks, we should still appraise the field's value, for the purpose of its redemption, according to the formula of "Zera Chomer Se'orim," rather than its actual market value.

Does it make any difference what formula is used to measure the pits and the rocks, other than the final sum of money that must be paid?

ANSWER: RASHI points out an interesting, practical difference that would exist if we appraise the field based on "Zera Chomer Se'orim" and not based on its actual market value. The difference involves the method of measuring the pit or rock. When measuring the pit or rock, how exactly do we measure them? Do we include the entire slope and walls of the pit, and the slope and sides of the rock, or do we measure only the floor of the pit, and the top of the rock (since the floor of the pit and the top of the rock are the only parts that will be used for planting)?

Rashi (DH Nehi, DH Nikdeshu) explains that this depends on how we view the pit. If we consider it as part of the entire field, then it is viewed as a continuation of the field, and the walls are included in the measurement of the field. In contrast, if we consider the pit to be a separate piece of land, then the walls should not be included, since the only part of the land that is actually being used for planting is the floor, and not the wall. (It would seem that the same is true for a rock, even though Rashi does not state so explicitly.)

QUESTION: The Gemara here quotes the Mishnah in Erchin (25a) which teaches that if a field contains pits deeper than ten Tefachim, or rocks higher than ten Tefachim, those areas are not calculated together with the field in accordance with the prescribed formula of "Zera Chomer Se'orim" (see previous Insight). The Gemara asks that although the pits and rocks cannot be calculated together with the field, they should become Hekdesh in their own right. Mar Ukva bar Chama answers that the Mishnah is referring to a pit filled with water and thus is completely unfit for planting. The Gemara asks that if the pit is filled with water, then even if it is less than ten Tefachim deep, it should also not be included with the field! The Gemara answers that pits that are less than ten Tefachim deep are considered "basins" of the field and are thus part of the field.

The Gemara concludes that the only time we use the formula of "Zera Chomer Se'orim" for appraising the value of a field is when the field is fit for sowing. When it is not fit for sowing, we evaluate the field according to its market value. Why, then, when the pit is less than ten Tefachim, should it be appraised together with the field? Even when it is less than ten Tefachim, since it is filled with water it is not fit for sowing, and therefore it should not be evaluated in the manner of a plantable field!

ANSWER: Ten Tefachim is the size (or height) needed to consider an area to be an independent domain. We find this concept in a number of places. One example is in the laws of Shabbos, where an area is considered an independent Reshus ha'Yachid only if it has a height (or depth) of ten Tefachim (otherwise, one who carries from there into another domain does not transgress the Isur d'Oraisa of Hotza'ah on Shabbos). In our case, if the pit is ten Tefachim deep, then it is an independent Reshus. If there exists a prerequisite that the area be fit for sowing, then we must judge this Reshus on its own (since it is an independent Reshus). Consequently, since it is full of water it is not considered to be fit for sowing. In contrast, when the pit is less than ten Tefachim, it does not receive an independent status and it is still considered to be part of the larger field. Since the rest of the field is fit for sowing, and this pit is a part of that field, we can evaluate the pit according to the manner of evaluating the entire field as a whole. It is enough for the field, in general, to be considered fit for sowing, even though part of it is not fit. (See RASHBA.)

61b

QUESTION: The Mishnah (61a) quotes Rebbi Meir who maintains that every statement of Tenai (condition) must be "like the Tenai of B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven." The Gemara cites proof for Rebbi Meir's opinion from the verses that discuss the Tenai that Avraham Avinu stated when he made Eliezer make an oath that he would travel to Avraham's family to try to find a wife for Yitzchak.

RASHI (DH Besheleima) explains the Gemara's proof. Rebbi Meir maintains that a statement of Tenai must include both the positive and negative elements, explicitly. One cannot be inferred from the other. Avraham said that Eliezer would be subject to the oath (or "curse") "if you do not go to my father's house and to my family, and take a wife for my son" (Bereishis 24:38). This implies that if Eliezer does go, then he will be absolved from the oath. Nevertheless, Avraham repeated, "... you will take a wife for my son from my family and from my father's house, and then you will be absolved from my oath" (24:40-41). This teaches that a Tenai must express both the positive and negative elements, and it cannot rely on an inference of one from the other.

RASHI on the Mishnah (61a, DH k'Tenai) lists three requirements that are necessary when verbally stating a condition, according to Rebbi Meir. First, the condition must be doubled ("Tenai Kaful"), expressing both the positive and negative elements of the Tenai. Second, the positive element must precede the negative element ("Hen Kodem l'Lav"). Third, the actual condition must precede the act that will take effect ("Tenai Kodem l'Ma'aseh").

However, in the case of Avraham and Eliezer, it seems like the "Lav" was stated before the "Hen!" The negative, "If you do not go" (Bereishis 24:38) preceded the positive, "... you will take a wife for my son from my family and from my father's house, and then you will be absolved from my oath" (24:40-41)! How, then, can the Gemara cite these verses as proof for Rebbi Meir's opinion?

ANSWER: The aspects of "Hen" and "Lav" are not judged according to the words "yes" and "no," or "do this" and "do not do this." Rather, the aspects of "Hen" and "Lav" are judged in reference to the act that is being done. "Hen" represents that which will make the act take effect. "Lav" represents that which will make the act *not* take effect. The "positive" and "negative" elements of a condition refer to whether those aspects establish the act ("Hen") or invalidate it ("Lav").

In the case of Avraham Avinu, the act that was being performed by Avraham was the Shevu'ah, with the severity and awe that would accompany it were it to take effect. It was necessary to make a Shevu'ah because of the possibility that Eliezer would *not* go to the family of Avraham to find a wife for Yitzchak. Hence, the establishment of the Shevu'ah depended on Eliezer's *not* going, and his not going is considered the "Hen" (since if he does not go, then the Shevu'ah *does* take effect). If, on the other hand, Eliezer *does* go, but is not successful in finding a wife for Yitzchak, then the Shevu'ah would *not* take effect. Hence, Eliezer's going is considered the "Lav."

A similar explanation is offered by the RASHASH to answer the question of TOSFOS (62a, DH Besheleima). In the case that Tosfos cites, the Kohen states that if the Sotah *did not* commit adultery, then she will be exonerated by the drinking of the water, but if she *did* sin, then she will be punished. Tosfos asks that this condition seems to place the "Lav" before the "Hen."

The Rashash answers with the above explanation. The act that is being achieved through the drinking of the water is the act of vindication, becoming cleared of any sin. Being vindicated by the drinking of the water is accomplished only if the woman did *not* sin, Nevertheless, this contingency -- even though it is a negative one (of *not* sinning) is considered the *positive* aspect of the condition, since it accomplishes the woman's exoneration (which is certainly positive). Hence, anything that causes that act to take effect -- whether through positive action or negative action -- is considered the "Hen" aspect of the condition. (A. Kronengold)

QUESTION: The Mishnah (61a) quotes Rebbi Meir who maintains that every statement of Tenai (condition) must be "like the Tenai of B'nei Gad and B'nei Reuven." The Gemara cites proof for Rebbi Meir's opinion from the verses that discuss the blessings in store for the Jewish people when they follow Hashem's will (Vayikra 26:3-13), and the verses that discuss the curses if they do not follow His will (Vayikra 26:15-43). The fact that the Torah must explicitly state the converse of the blessings, and cannot infer it, is a proof for Rebbi Meir's opinion and a disproof to the opinion of Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel.

When reading the curses and the blessings which precede them, one will notice that the amount of curses far outnumber the number of blessings. How, then, could the Gemara even suggest that we infer one from the other? We cannot infer all of the curses from the list of blessings, because there are many more curses than blessings! What, then, is the proof for Rebbi Meir's opinion from these verses?

ANSWER: The PNEI YEHOSHUA answers that the Gemara indeed does not mean that all the verses of the verses are unnecessary according to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel. Certainly the curses that have no positive parallel in the blessings must be mentioned. The Gemara's question is only from the curses that are the exact converse of the blessings stated, and that therefore could have been derived through "Michlal Hen," through inference.