POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
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.
1) THE RETURN OF LAND IN YOVEL
(a) R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish are consistent with their
opinions in another case.
2) OTHER APPLICATIONS OF OWNING THE PRODUCE
(b) (R. Yochanan): A man sold his field at a time when Yovel
applies - the buyer brings Bikurim and recites the
(c) (Reish Lakish): The buyer brings Bikurim but does not
1. R. Yochanan says that he brings and recites - he
holds, owning the produce is as owning the field
(d) It was necessary for them to argue in both of these
2. Reish Lakish says, he brings but does not recite -
he holds, owning the produce is not as owning the
1. Had they only argued in the previous case - one
might have thought, only there Reish Lakish says
that he is not as an owner, for he only intended to
buy the produce; but here, he intended to buy the
(e) (Beraisa): A man bought a tree and its land - he brings
Bikurim and recites. (This supports R. Yochanan!)
2. If they only argued in the case of Yovel - one might
have thought, only here R. Yochanan says that he is
as an owner, for he intended to buy the field
itself; but when he only intended to buy the
produce, he is not as an owner!
(f) Rejection: The Beraisa speaks of a time when Yovel does
(g) (Beraisa): Reuven bought 2 trees in Shimon's land -
Reuven brings Bikurim and does not recite.
1. Had he bought 3 trees, he would recite! (This
supports R. Yochanan!)
(h) Rejection: Also this Beraisa speaks of a time when Yovel
does not apply.
(i) (Rav Chisda): R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish only argued
from the second Yovel onwards, but all agree by the first
Yovel that the buyer brings and recites, since sellers
were not confident of getting back their fields.
1. This suggests an alternate answer to the Beraisos -
they speak of the first Yovel!
(j) Suggestion: R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue as these
1. (Beraisa - R. Yehudah and R. Shimon): Reuven bought
his father's field and made it Hekdesh. If his
father died, it is considered as an inherited field
- "The field he bought, which is not an inheritance
(is not considered an inherited field)" - this
means, a field not fitting to be an inheritance;
(k) Rejection (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): Really, even R.
Yehudah and R. Shimon normally hold that owning the
produce is as owning the field itself; here is an
exception because they expound the verse.
i. It excludes our case, in which Reuven bought a
field fitting to be his inheritance.
2. R. Meir says: Reuven bought his father's field. His
father died, and Reuven made the field Hekdesh - it
is considered as an inherited field - "The field he
bought, which is not an inheritance" - this means, a
field that was not an inheritance;
i. It excludes our case, in which the field was
3. Suggestion: R. Meir holds that owning the produce is
as owning the field itself; when the father died, it
is as if the son did not inherit anything.
Therefore, the verse comes to include this case (the
son made the field Hekdesh after his father died) as
an inherited field;
ii. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon do not need a verse to
teach this case.
i. R. Yehudah and R. Shimon hold that owning the
produce is not as owning the field itself; when
the father died, the son inherits. Therefore,
the verse is not needed for this case; rather,
it comes to include when the son made the field
Hekdesh before the father died.
1. It should have said 'The field he bought that is not
his inheritance'; rather, it says, "that is not from
his inheritance" to teach that it was not even
fitting to be an inheritance.
i. A son that bought his father's field, the field
was fitting to be an inheritance.
(a) (Rav Yosef): Had R. Yochanan not said that owning the
produce is as owning the field itself, he would be unable
to defend another of his teachings.
1. (R. Asi citing R. Yochanan): Brothers that divide an
inheritance are considered as buyers; in Yovel, they
return their portions to each others.
(b) (Rava): A verse and a Beraisa support Reish Lakish.
2. If owning the produce is not as owning the field
itself - the only case of one who can bring Bikurim
and recite ("the land You gave me") would be one
that inherited a field never split among heirs, i.e.
from the time the field was apportioned to a Yisrael
in the days of Yehoshua, the owner never left more
than one son!
***** PEREK HANIZAKIN *****
1. A verse - "The number of years of crops he will sell
to you" (implying, when Yovel applies, only the
produce is sold).
(c) (Abaye): A husband needs a Harsha'ah (power of attorney)
in order to make claims in Beis Din regarding his wife's
property (even though he owns the produce).
2. (Beraisa): A firstborn receives a double portion in
a field that returns to his father in Yovel
(implying, the field itself belonged to the father
even though it was sold).
1. This only applies if the produce is not being
contested; if it is being contested, since he may
claim the produce, he may also make claims regarding
the property itself.
3) COLLECTION OF DEBTS FROM LAND
(a) (Mishnah): All the coming laws are to fix the world. When
a debt is collect from land, the quality of land
collected varies according to the source of the debt:
1. Damages are collected from Idis (the highest quality
(b) A debt is not collected from mortgaged property (i.e.
that was sold to someone else) if the debtor has
unmortgaged property, even if it is Ziburis.
2. A lender collects from Beinonis (middle quality
3. A Kesuvah is collected from Ziburis (lowest quality
i. R. Meir says, a Kesuvah is also collected from
(c) Only Ziburis is collected from orphans.
(d) The following are not collected from mortgaged property.
1. Compensation for produce (if Reuven bought a field
from Shimon which really belonged to Levi, Levi can
reclaim the field laden with produce, and Reuven
collects their value from Shimon);
(e) One who finds a lost item need not swear.
2. Compensation for improved value (in the above case,
Reuven is compensated for improvements he made to
3. The food that a widow and (orphaned) daughters are
entitled to from the deceased's estate.
(f) (Gemara) Question: Is (the first law) only to fix the
world - the Torah says, "From the best of his field and
vineyard he will pay"!
(g) Answer #1 (Abaye): The Mishnah is as R. Yishmael, who
says that mid'Oraisa, he pays land matching the best
quality land of the victim; to fix the world, the damager
pays with his own highest quality land.
1. (Beraisa - R. Yishmael): "From the best of his field
and vineyard he will pay" - this means the best
field and vineyard of the victim;
i. R. Akiva says, the verse teaches that damages
are collected from Idis, all the more so to
2. Question: According to R. Yishmael - will a man have
to pay high quality land, whether his animal ate
produce of high or low quality land?!
3. Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Avin): The case is, the
animal ate a patch among many patches, and we do not
know if it ate a good patch or a bad patch.
4. Objection (Rava): If we would know that it ate a bad
patch, he would pay for a bad patch; now that we are
unsure, must he pay for a good patch?! One who seeks
to collect must prove that he is entitled to
5. Answer #2 (Rav Acha bar Yakov): The case is, the
Idis of the victim was as the Ziburis of the