Commentary for Gittin 95:16

אמר רבא קרא ומתניתא מסייעי ליה לר"ל קרא

Because Scripture says, And if he sanctifies&nbsp;… a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession [he shall give thine estimation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXVII, 22, 23. ');">¹⁴</span> [This signifies] a field which is not capable of becoming a "field of possession,"15 [and we therefore] except [from this rule] such a one as this which is capable of becoming a "field of his possession".<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By inheritance. ');">¹⁶</span> This is the opinion of R. Judah and R. Simeon. R. Meir says: From where do we know that if a man buys a field from his father and his father dies and he then subsequently sanctifies the field, it is reckoned as a field of his possession? Because it says, If he sanctifies a field which he hath bought which is not of the field of his possession. [This signifies] a field which is not a "field of possession", and we therefore except from this rule such a one as this which is [now] a field of his possession.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not one which is only capable of becoming such subsequently. ');">¹⁷</span> Now R. Judah and R. Simeon, [while agreeing that in the case] where his father died and then he sanctified the field<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The case put by R. Meir. ');">¹⁸</span> [it is reckoned a 'field of possession'], do not require a text to indicate this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' While R. Meir does. ');">¹⁹</span> Is not then the point at issue between them this: R. Meir held that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, and in this case therefore on the death of his father he does not inherit anything, and therefore if his father died and he sanctified it subsequently a text is necessary to indicate [that it is 'a field of his possession'],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not a field of purchase, in spite of the fact that he originally purchased it from his father. ');">²⁰</span> whereas R. Judah and R. Simeon held that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, and in this case on the death of his father he does inherit the field, and therefore if he sanctifies it after the death of his father no text is necessary [to indicate that it is 'a field of his possession'], and where a text is required is to indicate [that it is 'a field of his possession' even] when he sanctified it before the death of his father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the fact that he purchased it from his father. ');">²¹</span> — R. Nahman b. Isaac said: All the same I may still maintain that in general R. Judah and R. Simeon held that the possession of the increment is equivalent to the possession of the parent body, but in this case R. Judah and R. Simeon found a text which they interpreted [to the contrary effect]: The Divine Law [they said,] might have written, 'If he sanctifies a field which he has bought, which is not his possession.' What is the force of the words, 'Which is not of the field of his possession'? [It signifies], one which is not capable of becoming the field of his possession, [and we] except from the rule one that is capable of becoming the field of his possesslon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fuller notes on the whole of this passage, v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) pp. 285ff. ');">²²</span> R. Joseph said: Had R. Johanan not maintained that the possession of the increment is not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, he would not have had a leg to stand on<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he would not have found his hands and feet.' ');">²³</span> in the <i>Beth Hamidrash</i>. For R. Assi said in the name of R. Jonathan that if brothers divide an inheritance they stand to one another in the relation of purchasers and have to restore their shares to one another at the Jubilee.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 69b and supra 25a. ');">²⁴</span> Now [this being so], should you assume [that the possession of the increment is] not equivalent to the possession of the [parent] body, then you would not find anyone qualified to bring firstfruits save an only son who had inherited from an only son up to the days of Joshua son of Nun.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that the property had never been divided, for as soon as it was divided it was in effect sold, and had no owner capable of bringing firstfruits. ');">²⁵</span> Raba said: Both Scripture and a Baraitha support Resh Lakish. Scripture,

Explore commentary for Gittin 95:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.