Commentary for Kiddushin 121:18

The topic of this mishnah is one who dedicates his field to the Temple. What counts as his field such that he would have to pay 50 silver shekels for each area?

Elsewhere the Gemara asked a difficulty about this mishnah. While we can understand why the ravines and rocks do not count as part of the field, we should still consider them to have been separately dedicated to the Temple. Why does he not have to redeem them as well?

The baraita cited here teaches that even the smallest sized field must be redeemed. So why doesn’t he have to redeem the ravines and rocks that are higher or lower than ten handbreadths within the larger field he dedicated?

The baraita cited here teaches that even the smallest sized field must be redeemed. So why doesn’t he have to redeem the ravines and rocks that are higher or lower than ten handbreadths within the larger field he dedicated?

Mar Ukba explains that while small fields must be redeemed, one need not redeem places that he could not sow. These ravines are full of water and therefore, he does not need to redeem them.

If the parts of the field that cannot be sown don’t count in measuring the field, then why just ten handbreadths high or low? Even higher ravines or lower rocks can’t be sown.
The answer is that when these features are less than ten handbreadths, they count as part of the field because it is normal for fields to have small rises and inclines. Only if they are ten handbreadths high do they not count.

As with the previous mishnah, ravines and rocks ten handbreadths deep or high are not counted as part of the field.

In this case, the ravines do not count as part of the field even if they are not full of water. This is different from dedicating the value of a field to the Temple where the ravines were considered part of the field if they were not full of water.

In this case, the ravines do not count as part of the field even if they are not full of water. This is different from dedicating the value of a field to the Temple where the ravines were considered part of the field if they were not full of water.

The question is—when it comes to kiddushin, and he said “on condition that I have a field the size of a bet kor,” do we count the ravines not filled with water as we would with hekdesh (consecrated property) or do we not count them, as we do not for sales?
The answer is that we do count them. The husband could say that although it is more trouble, he will plant crops in these fields and so she will benefit from the profit.

The children of Gad and Reuven did not want to inherit on the west side of the Jordan river; they wished to remain on the east side, in a place good for their cattle. Moses responded to them that if they cross to help fight in the conquering of Canaan, then they may inherit on the east side of the Jordan. He also added that if they did not cross and fight with the rest of Israel, then they would only be able to inherit in Canaan. From the fact that Moses “doubled” his stipulation, Rabbi Meir derives that all stipulations must be doubled.
Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel responds that Moses had to state the second half of his statement. Had he not done so, he might have implied that if they didn’t fight for Canaan they wouldn’t even get an inheritance in Canaan. Since the second half is a necessary statement, we cannot learn that stipulations that don’t need a “negative” side do not need to be doubled.
The mishnah ends with Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Meir. Had Rabbi Meir responded he might have said that it is obvious that the children of Gad and Reuven would inherit in the land of Canaan, since all of the tribes inherited there irregardless of their participation in the conquest. Since the second half of his stipulation was unnecessary, we can learn that the only reason Moses added it in was because all stipulations must be thusly doubled.

The children of Gad and Reuven did not want to inherit on the west side of the Jordan river; they wished to remain on the east side, in a place good for their cattle. Moses responded to them that if they cross to help fight in the conquering of Canaan, then they may inherit on the east side of the Jordan. He also added that if they did not cross and fight with the rest of Israel, then they would only be able to inherit in Canaan. From the fact that Moses “doubled” his stipulation, Rabbi Meir derives that all stipulations must be doubled.
Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel responds that Moses had to state the second half of his statement. Had he not done so, he might have implied that if they didn’t fight for Canaan they wouldn’t even get an inheritance in Canaan. Since the second half is a necessary statement, we cannot learn that stipulations that don’t need a “negative” side do not need to be doubled.
The mishnah ends with Rabbi Hanina ben Gamaliel’s response to Rabbi Meir. Had Rabbi Meir responded he might have said that it is obvious that the children of Gad and Reuven would inherit in the land of Canaan, since all of the tribes inherited there irregardless of their participation in the conquest. Since the second half of his stipulation was unnecessary, we can learn that the only reason Moses added it in was because all stipulations must be thusly doubled.

According to R. Meir, had the doubling of the stipulation not come to teach that all stipulations need to be doubled, the verse could have simply stated “they shall have possession among you.” The extra words “in the land of Canaan” come to teach that all stipulations need to be doubled.