Commentary for Gittin 110:18
אתא אשכחיה דהוה יתיב אמר ליה מכדי ההוא גברא בעל דבבא דההוא גברא הוא מאי בעית הכא קום פוק אמר ליה הואיל ואתאי שבקן ויהיבנא לך דמי מה דאכילנא ושתינא
FROM THE HUSBAND AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE WIFE, THE PURCHASE IS VOID,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we assume that she only consented to the sale to oblige her husband. ');"><sup>16</sup></span> BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE WIFE AND THEN FROM THE HUSBAND IT IS VALID. THIS WAS [THE RULING] OF THE FIRST MISHNAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 163, n. 7. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> THE SUCCEEDING <i>BETH DIN</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Beth din of those who came after them.' ');"><sup>18</sup></span> HOWEVER, LAID DOWN THAT IF A MAN BUYS PROPERTY FROM THE SICARICON HE HAD TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER [OF THE VALUE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being estimated that the sicaricon would take a quarter less than the real value. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> TH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being estimated that the sicaricon would take a quarter less than the real value. ');"><sup>19</sup></span> S,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a purchase from the sicaricon is valid. ');"><sup>20</sup></span> HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE WHEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BUY IT HIMSELF, BUT IF HE IS HE HAS THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION. RABBI ASSEMBLED A <i>BETH DIN</i> AND THEY DECIDED BY VOTE THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE SICARICON TWELVE MONTHS, WHOSOEVER FIRST PURCHASED IT ACQUIRED THE TITLE, BUT HE HAD TO GIVE A QUARTER [OF THE PRICE] TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. If there was no sicaricon for those killed in the war is it possible that there should have been after the termination of the war? — Rab Judah said: It means that the rule of sicaricon was not applied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., the heirs could not come and invalidate the sale to the third party. According to J. and Tosef. this rule was instituted in order to promote the settlement of Jews in Judea [H], otherwise Jews would be afraid to purchase fields from the sicaricon for fear that the heirs would come and claim the return of their property.] ');"><sup>21</sup></span> For R. Assi has stated: They [the Roman Government] issued three successive decrees. The first was that whoever did not kill [a Jew on finding him] should himself be put to death. The second was that whoever killed [a Jew] should pay four <i>zuz</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a fine. ');"><sup>22</sup></span> The last was that whoever killed a Jew should himself be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Halevy Doroth, I.e., attempts on the basis of Josephus Wars VI, 9, 2; VII, 6; VII, 6.6, to place the three decrees shortly after the year 70 C.E.] ');"><sup>23</sup></span> Hence in the first two [periods], [the Jew], being in danger of his life, would determine to transfer his property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the purchase of it from the sicaricon by a third party was valid. [The phrase [H] is here used in a loose sense and is not to be taken literally. It signifies that the owner despairs of the field and will make no attempt to recover it. Similarly in the case of the Mishnah, the heirs to those fields that had been seized of those killed in the war, had given up all hope of recovering the fields. Though legally, since there has been no actual transfer, they could by rights reclaim the fields when the opportunity presented itself it was nevertheless ruled that the sale to the third party is valid for the reason stated in n. 3. This removes the contradiction which Solomon Adreth points out in his Hiddushin between our Talmud and the Tosefta.] ');"><sup>24</sup></span> [to the sicaricon] but in the last [period] he would say to himself, Let him take it today; tomorrow I will sue him for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the original owner had not waived his title, the purchase by a third party was not valid. [And similarly in the case of the heirs of those who are killed after the war, since they do not despair, the law of sicaricon applies. That is, the non-Jew who seized the land is treated as an ordinary robber and his sale of the field to a third party is invalid. The reason of [H] is not applicable in this case since the heir himself will see to it to recover the property. For attempts to solve the problems connected with the subject, v. Elbogen MGWJ. 1925, pp. 349ff. Feist, MGWJ. 71, pp. 138, Gulak, Tarbiz, V, p. 23ff., and Halevy, Doroth, I.e., p. 130e.] ');"><sup>25</sup></span> R. Johanan said: What is illustrative of the verse, Happy is the man that feareth alway, but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXVIII, 14. What follows illustrates the endless misery and mischief caused by hardness of heart. ');"><sup>26</sup></span> The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'locust and son of locust'. The meaning is that a very trivial cause set in motion the train of events which led to the destruction of Jerusalem; and similarly with the slaughter which accompanied and followed the war of Bar Cochba. ');"><sup>27</sup></span> the destruction of Tur Malka<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['The Mountain of the King'. V. Pseudo-Jonathan, Judges IV, 5, where Mt. Ephraim is rendered by Tur Malka. According to Horowitz, Palestine, p. 240, it denotes the whole mountainous region stretching from the Valley of Jezreel to the south of Judah, including the mountains of Samaria, known also by the Hebrew name Har ha-Melek. (V. also Buchler, JQR, XVI, pp. 180ff.) There is still some uncertainty whence this name was derived. Was it perhaps because this region lay within the great conquests of John Hyrcanus that it was given the name? v. p. 77a n. 3a. The destruction of Tur Malka is placed by Buchler, op. cit. p. 186ff. during the war 66-70]. ');"><sup>28</sup></span> came through a cock and a hen; the destruction of Bethar came through the shaft of a leather. The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.