נימא הני תנאי כהני תנאי דתנן ר"מ אומר יש דברים שהן כקרקע ואינן כקרקע ואין חכמים מודים לו כיצד עשר גפנים טעונות מסרתי לך והלה אומר אינן אלא חמש ר' מאיר מחייב וחכ"א כל המחובר לקרקע הרי הוא כקרקע
and [only] one priest. R. Huna, the son of R. Nathan, demurred: Why not say that the ten assessors must consist of five priests and five non-priests?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the rule that 'exclusion following exclusion implies extension' is based on redundancy, where there are a whole series of such exclusions, they are not all redundant. Thus, the first 'priest' teaching the exclusion of an Israelite, the second is redundant, and therefore teaches his inclusion. Hence, when the word has been written twice, we know that one priest and one Israelite are necessary. But for that very reason, the third 'priest' is not redundant, but to intimate that a priest is again required; after which the fourth is redundant, and so on; thus the first, third, fifth, seventh and ninth are needed for the actual law of priests and the others are superfluous, which gives five priests and five Israelites.
');"><sup>18</sup></span>
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Jastrow
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Tosafot on Kiddushin
"If so, then it would be property that has capacity for mortgage [i.e. the wife, that is bought along with property that doesn't, i.e. the maneh, which doesn't work]!" Rashi's explanation: "Because humans are compared to land, as it is written, 'You will inherit them [Canaanite slaves] as an inheritance holding [a phrase normally applied to land]'. Problem: This verse is written about a slave, but a freeman is not compared [to land] except only in [the case of one who vowed to bring to the Temple by saying] "My own value is upon me", since [that person] is evaluated like a slave as we see in the first chapter of Sanhedrin (15b), and a slave [being similar to land] is anyway subject to a dispute in the first chapter of Baba Kama (12a) whether they are similar to land or moveable property! Solution: [Rav Ashi's objection] is not specifically [based on the fact that people] have capacity for mortgage, but even if they don't have capacity for mortgage, there is no case where moveables can be acquired "on the back of" moveables [unlike land, for which you can acquire all the moveables "on its back"], since [the idea of] "on its back" is not relevant for property that doesn't have capacity for mortgage. Alternative solution: This is what he meant to say: You're forced to say, if a wife is acquired "on the back of" moveables, a field could also be acquired "on the back of" moveables, for we derive the acquisition of money for a wife from the field [of Efron] from [the ג״ש of] "purchase" "purchase", and if a field can't be acquired [in this way], from where would you derive it for a wife!?
