(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 48

GITIN 48 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love for Torah and those who study it.


(a) In a second Machlokes, what do Rebbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish respectively, hold regarding the purchaser of a field during the time that the Yovel functioned vis-a-vis reading the Parshah of Bikurim?

(b) Why do they need to repeat the same Machlokes twice? Why could they not just argue ...

  1. ... in the latter case?
  2. ... in the former case?
(c) How will Resh Lakish establish the Beraisa which ...
  1. ... obligates someone who purchases a tree together with the ground in which it is growing to read the Parshah, seeing as the ground returns to the owner in the Yovel?
  2. ... exempts someone who purchases two trees in someone's field from reading the Parshah, implying that, had he purchased three he would have been obligated?
(d) What does Rav Chisda say that causes us to amend all the above Beraisos to Yovel Rishon? What is the difference between Yovel Rishon and Yovel Sheini?
(a) If someone declares a field Hekdesh, and the treasurer of Hekdesh then sold it to someone else, what happens to that field in the Yovel, assuming that it was ...
  1. ... a field of inheritance that was declared Hekdesh by the original owner?
  2. ... a bought field that was declared Hekdesh by the purchaser?
(b) What do Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon say in a Beraisa about a field which a son bought from his father and declared Hekdesh still in their father's lifetime, but failed to redeem?

(c) How do they extrapolate this from the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Im es S'dei Miknaso *Asher Lo mi'S'dei Achuzaso* ... bi'Sh'nas ha'Yovel Yashuv ha'Sadeh" (which is otherwise superfluous)?

(a) What does Rebbi Meir in the same Beraisa derive from the same superfluous Pasuk with regard to a case where the son declared the field Hekdesh after his father's death?

(b) What will Rebbi Meir hold in the case of Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon (when the son declared the field Hekdesh during the father's life-time)?

(c) On what basis do we initially think that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon argue with Rebbi Meir? Why do they not Darshen the Pasuk like he does?

(d) What then, will be the basis of their Machlokes?

4) We refute this explanation however, on the grounds that even Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Shimon agree that 'Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami'. In that case, they need the Pasuk to teach us Rebbi Meir's case (when the son sold the field after his father's death).
How do they extrapolate from "Im mi'S'dei Miknaso Asher Lo S'dei Achuzaso Hu" that the Torah is also coming to preclude a case where the son sold the field in his father's life-time?


(a) What did Rav Asi say in Rebbi Yochanan's name regarding brothers who divided their father's inheritance?

(b) What problem would Rebbi Yochanan now have if he did not hold 'Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf'?

(c) What does Rava prove from ...

  1. ... the Pasuk in Behar "be'Mispar Sh'nei Tevu'os Yimkor Lach"?
  2. ... the Beraisa 'Bechor Notel Pi Shenayim be'Sadeh ha'Chozeres le'Aviv ba'Yovel'? How does he prove this?
(d) To whom is the field actually returned in the Beraisa? How do we know that it is not literally the father?
(a) What does Abaye mean when he says 'Ba'al be'Nechsei Ishto Tzarich Harsha'ah'?

(b) When will that not be necessary?

***** Hadran Alach 'ha'Shole'ach' *****

Answers to questions


***** Perek ha'Nizakin *****


(a) One may claim damages from the damager's Idis (best-quality fields). From which quality fields does one pay ...
  1. ... a creditor?
  2. ... a woman's Kesuvah?
(b) One may only claim from Meshubadim (from the purchaser) as long as there are no B'nei-Chorin still with the debtor.
What happens if the Meshubadim are Idis and the B'nei-Chorin that remain are Ziburis (of inferior-quality)?

(c) From whom may one claim only Ziburis (even damages)?

(a) What do the following have in common as regards claiming: 'Achilas Peiros, Sh'vach Karka'os and Mazon ha'Ishah ve'ha'Banos'?

(b) What is the case of ...

  1. ... 'Achilas Peiros'?
  2. ... 'Sh'vach Karka'os'?
(a) From which quality property does *the Torah* obligate a damager to pay? What is the source for this?

(b) To reconcile this with our Mishnah, which gives the source as 'Tikun ha'Olam', we establish the author as Rebbi Yishmael.
What does Rebbi Yishmael say? How does he interpret "Meitav Sadeihu"?

(c) What is the reason for the Tikun ha'Olam?

(d) Rebbi Akiva disagrees with Rebbi Yishmael.
What does he say?

10) The Tana adds that someone who finds something does not need to make a Shevu'ah, because of Tikun ha'Olam.
Why would he need to make a Shevu'ah anyway?


(a) What problem do we at first have with Rebbi Yishmael, who says that the damager pays from the best of his fields? How do we initially understand this?

(b) Rav Idi bar Avin explains Rebbi Yishmael to mean that if the man's animal ate a row among rows of varying quality crops, and we do not know which quality it ate, we make him pay the best.
On what grounds does Rava refute this explanation?

(c) So how does Rav Acha bar Ya'akov ultimately explain Rebbi Yishmael?

Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,