Kiddushin 121
המקדיש שדהו בשעת היובל נותן בזרע חומר שעורים חמשים שקל כסף היו נקעים עמוקים עשרה טפחים או סלעים גבוהים עשרה טפחים אין נמדדין עמה פחות מכאן נמדדין עמה
He who sanctifies his field when Jubilee is in force, must pay [for its redemption] fifty silver shekels for [an area requiring] a homer of barley seed.If it contains ravines ten handbreadths deep, or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it;if less than this, they are measured therewith. Now, we pondered thereon: Granted that they are not sanctified together with the [rest of the] field, yet let them be sanctified separately? And should you answer, whatever is less than a beth kor is not counted.But the following contradicts it: [And if a man shall sanctify unto the Lord part of a] field [of his possession, etc.]:why is this stated? Because it is said, the sowing of a homer of barley shall be valued at fifty [shekels of silver]; [hence]know it only if he sanctifies in such a manner;how do I know to include a lethek.half a lethek, a se'ah, tarkabhalf a tarkab, and even a quarter [se'ah]? Because it is stated: 'a field,' whatever its size! - Said Mar 'Ukba b. Hama: The reference here is to ravines filled with water, because they are unfit for sowing. This may be proved too, because it is taught analogous to high rocks.This proves it. If so, [it is the same] even if less than this?- Those are called basins of the field and ridges of the field. <br> <br> With respect to purchase we learnt: If one says to his neighbour, T sell you a beth kor of land,' and it contains ravines ten handbreadths deep or rocks ten handbreadths high, they are not measured with it. And Mar 'Ukba b. Hama said: Even if they are not filled with water. What is the reason? - Said R. Papa: Because a man does not wish to pay his money for one field and it should appear as two or three plots. How is it here: do we compare it with hekdesh or purchase? - It is rational that we compare it to hekdesh. because he can say to her, T will exert myself sow it, and bring [you the crop].' MISHNAH. R. MEIR SAID: EVERY STIPULATION WHICH IS NOT LIKE THAT OF THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN IS NOT A [VALID] STIPULATION, BECAUSE IT IS WRITTEN. AND MOSES SAID UNTO THEM, IF THE CHILDREN OF GAD AND THE CHILDREN OF REUBEN WILL PASS WITH YOU OVER THE JORDAN, [. . . THEN YE SHALL GIVE THEM THE LAND OF GILEAD FOR A POSSESSION]. AND IT IS ALSO WRITTEN. BUT IF THEY WILL NOT PASS OVER WITH YOU ARMED, THEN THEY SHALL HAVE POSSESSIONS AMONG YOU IN THE LAND OF CANAAN. R. HANINA B. GAMALIEL MAINTAINED: THE MATTER HAD TO BE STATED. FOR OTHERWISE IT IMPLIES THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INHERITANCE EVEN IN CANAAN. <br> <br> GEMARA. R. Hanina b. Gamaliel says well to R. Meir? - R. Meir answers you: Should you think that it does not come for [teaching] a double stipulation, it [Scripture] should write, 'but if they will not pass over ... they shall have possession among you': why state, 'in the land of Canaan'?<br>