Commentary for Kiddushin 52:10
ואלא מאי אין לו תקנה ה"ק למאי דלא סמכה דעתיה אין לו תקנה עד שיקנם על גבי קרקע
For should you think that a hundred sheep and a hundred barrels are meant literally, he should have transferred them by barter!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Halifin v. Glos. Coin cannot be so acquired (B.M. 46a) .');"><sup>13</sup></span> What then: money? Then he could have transferred it to him by meshikah?
Daf Shevui to Kiddushin
Theoretically, he could have transferred his money to another by use of a third party. But this would entail the risk that a third party would steal the money. Due to this risk, his only option was to transfer the money through land.
In the end, we still have no proof that the property being transferred with the land does not need to be on the land. This discussion will continue next week.
In the end, we still have no proof that the property being transferred with the land does not need to be on the land. This discussion will continue next week.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy