Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Commentary for Kiddushin 53:6

איבעיא להו מי בעינן אגב או לא ת"ש דקתני כל הני ולא קתני אגב ולטעמיך קני מי קתני

This proves that they need not be heaped up thereon!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For fuller notes v. B.B. (Sonc. ed.) p. 309.');"><sup>12</sup></span> - A deed is different, as it is the bit of the land.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Like the bit used for leading a horse. I.e., the deed is valueless in itself, but a part of the land transaction, of which it is evidence. But other movables, valuable in themselves, possibly need not be heaped up on the land. cdt');"><sup>13</sup></span> But thereon it was taught: This is [an example of] what we learnt, PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT PROVIDE SECURITY MAY BE ACQUIRED IN CONJUNCTION WITH PROPERTY WHICH PROVIDES SECURITY BY MONEY, BY DEED OR BY HAZAKAH.

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

Does the seller have to say that he is transferring ownership of the movables “by means of” the land? Or can he just say “and with it”?
The Talmud answers by noting that we had a number of cases where someone was transferring movables with land and in none of them did he say “by means of.” He only said “and with it.” Seems like he does not need to say “by means of.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daf Shevui to Kiddushin

The problem with making a deduction from words not found in the baraita is that there are other words absent from it. According to the Talmud the seller must say, “let him acquire it” and nevertheless “let him acquire it” is not found in the baraita. So too “by means of” must be stated even though these words are not found in the baraita.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse