Previous daf

1)

(a) Rava bar Yitzchak Amar Rav describes 'two Sh'taros'. If someone asked two people to make a Kinyan on his field on behalf of a friend and to write him a Sh'tar, it is obvious that once the Kinyan has been made, the seller may no longer retract from the sale. However - he is permitted to retract from writing the Sh'tar.

(b) If he said 'al-M'nas she'Tichtevu Lo es ha'Sh'tar' - then as long as he has not handed the purchaser the Sh'tar, he may retract from the transaction.

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Bava Basra - that the seller is permitted to write a Sh'tar on behalf of the buyer prior to the sale, without first consulting him.

(b) The Sh'tar is not Pasul because it is predated - either because they made a Kinyan that effects the transaction immediately, or like Abaye, who says that the transaction takes place from the date on the Sh'tar (retroactively), assuming that the witnesses signed on that day.

(a) Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna now adds a third case of 'Sh'tar' to the previous two. If the seller wrote such a Sh'tar, following which the purchaser acquired the field with a Kinyan Chazakah - he aquires the Sh'tar too.

(b) He added - 'wherever the 'Sh'tar happens to be', implying that Metaltelin do not require Tziburin.

(c) We try to refute this by differentiating between a Sh'tar - which is like the reigns of the field (an intrinsic part of it) and other Metaltelin - which are not, and which might therefore need to be Tziburin on the field in order to be acquired.

(d) We conclude however, that there is no such distinction, which we know - from a Beraisa learned in this regard, which, after teaching the Din of Rav Chiya bar Avin Amar Rav Huna regarding Sh'tar, adds that this is what our meant when it taught the Din of Metaltelin Agav Karka.

(a) We attempt to resolve the Sh'eilah whether one needs to specify 'Agav or not' from the two cases on the previous Amud of the men who wanted to give gifts - from the fact that in both, the Kinyan was effective, even though the need to specify 'Agav' ('Agaban Me'ah Tzon ... ') is not mentioned in the Sugya.

(b) In fact, there is no proof from there - because the need to specify 'Kni ([or Z'chei] be'Tefach al Tefach li'Peloni ... ') is not mentioned there either, even though it is obvious that it must be said. Clearly then, they took it for granted, in which case, we can say the same abut 'Agav'.

(c) The final ruling is - that Kinyan Agav ...

1. ... does not require Tziburin.
2. ... but does require 'K'ni' ...
3. ... and 'Agav'.

(a) We then ask whether one will acquire Metaltelin that he recieved as a gift together with Karka that he is purchasing by means of a Kinyan Agav. We resolve this She'eilah from the case of Raban Gamliel and Rebbi Yehoshua cited above - where Rebbi Yehoshua received the Ma'aser Rishon as a gift, even though he had hired the Karka.

(b) We cannot however, resolve the She'eilah whether it is possible to acquire the Karka for oneself and the Metalelin for somebody else from the same episode, where Rebbi Akiva rented the land for himself but acquired the Ma'aser Ani on behalf of the poor - either because Raban Gamliel rented Rebbi Akiva the land together with the Ma'aser Ani, all on behalf of the poor; or - because, in his capacity as a Gabai Tzedakah, Rebbi Akiva automatically acquired everything for them.

(c) Rava says that, if the purchaser who made a Kinyan Agav, had only paid for some of the Metaltelin - he only acquires those Metaltelin for which he paid.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa cited in support of Rava, discusses the adantages of the various Kinyanim over one another. The advantage of ...

1. ... Kesef over Sh'tar is - that one can use it to redeem Hekdesh and Ma'aser Sheini.
2. ... Sh'tar have over Kesef - is that it releases a married woman from her husband.

(b) And the advantage of ...

1. ... Kesef and Sh'tar over Chazakah is - that they acquire an Eved Ivri.
2. ... Chazakah over Kesef and Sh'tar is - that, if someone acquires ten fields in ten different lands, a Kinyan on one of them will acquire them all.

(c) The Tana adds to this last case - that the purchaser acquires only as many fields as he paid for, but not more, bearing out Rava's ruling.

(d) The last case also bears out a statement of Shmuel, who said - that if someone sold ten fields in ten different lands, then a Kinyan on one of them will acquire all of them.

7)

(a) We just cited Shmuel, who says that a Kinyan on a field in one country can acquire ten fields in ten different countries. Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika tries to prove this from someone who hands his friend ten animals attached to one rein, who will certainly acquire all ten - provided he said 'K'ni'.

(b) Shmuel himself repudiates this proof - by pointing out that in the case of the fields, he is not holding them on his hand, as he is by the rein.

(c) According to others, Rav Acha B'rei de'Rav Ika tried to refute Shmuel's ruling from the case of the ten animals attached to one rein, where he does not acquire all the animals - because he said 'Acquire this one!'

(d) Shmuel rejects Rav Acha's Kashya, drawing a distinction between the animals - which are independent bodies, and the fields, which are all part of the same block of fields.

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that Metaltelin can oligate a Shevu'ah on Karka. Ula give the source for 'Gilgul Shevu'ah' as - the Pasuk in Naso (in connection with Sotah) "Amen Amen".

(b) We learned in the Mishnah in Sotah 'Amen al ha'Alah, Amen al ha'Shevu'ah'. The ...

1. ... Alah is - the curse (her thighs falling ... [the punishment that will befall her should she be guilty]).
2. ... Shevu'ah is - the oath that the Kohen is making her swear, in support of her claim that she is innocent.

(c) We learn from the same 'Amen me'Ish Zeh Amen me'Ish Acher' (see Tosfos DH 'Amen'). The other "Amen" comes to teach us - Arusah and Shomeres Yavam (as we will now explain).

(d) There is no real difference between a Nesu'ah and a Kenusah - only the former refers to the stage after Eirusin, and the latter, to the stage after Yibum.

(a) 'Arusah' cannot refer to an independent case where the husband warned her ...

1. ... and made her drink when she was still an Arusah - because we learned in a Mishnah in Yevamos that an Arusah and a Shomeres Yavam neither drink nor receive a Kesuvah.
2. ... warned her when she was an Arusah, and she secluded with the man whilst she was an Arusah, but he makes her drink after they are married - because seeing as her husband was guilty of marrying her (and the Torah writes "ve'Nikah ha'Ish me'Avon"), the water will not take effect on her.
3. ... warned her when she was an Arusah, married her without consummating the marriage, when she secluded and he made her drink - because we require the Bi'ah of the husband to precede that of the adulterer (as the Sugya in Yevamos explains).

(b) Ula proves from here - Gilgul Shevu'ah, since that is now the only possible explanation in the Beraisa 'Amen she'Lo Satisi Arusah u'Nesu'ah'.

(c) There is one possible way of explaining 'Arusah' without Gilgul Shevu'ah, but Ula does not agree with it - and that is when he warned her when she was an Arusah, married her without consummating the marriage (only he had made Bi'ah with her when she was an Arusah), and she secluded and he makes her drink after they are married.

(d) Seeing as we cannot learn Mamon from Isur with a Binyan Av, we learn Gilgul Shevu'ah by Mamon (such as Mamon and Karka in our Mishnah) - from a 'Kal va'Chomer'. If Gilgul Shevu'ah works by Isur (where one witness is ineffective), then by Mamon (where one witness obligates a Shevu'ah) Gilgul Shevu'ah should certainly work.