Kiddushin

This proves that it comes to necessitate a double stipulation. And R. Hanina b. Gamaliel? — If the Divine Law did not write, ‘in the land of Canaan,’ I would think that ‘they shall have possession among you’ in the land of Gilead, but nothing at all of the land of Canaan. And R. Meir? — ‘Among you’ implies, ‘wherever you have possessions’.1 It was taught: R. Hanina b. Gamaliel said: For example, to what may this matter be compared? To a man who divided his estate among his sons, and directed, ‘That son shall inherit that field, that son shall inherit that field, while that son shall pay two hundred zuz and inherit that field.2 But if he does not give it, he shall inherit the rest of my estate together with his brothers.’ Now, what causes him to receive an inheritance together with his other brethren in the rest of the estate? His doubling [of the stipulation] effects it for him.3 But the illustration is not similar to our Mishnah. There he states. [FOR OTHERWISE] IT IMPLIES THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE NO INHERITANCE EVEN IN CANAAN, which proves that the doubling served a purpose in respect of Gilead too;4 whereas here he states: ‘What causes him to receive an inheritance together with his other brethren in the rest of the estate? His doubling [of the stipulation] effects it for him,’ which proves that the doubling is efficacious [only] in respect to the rest of the estate? — There is no difficulty: the former was before R. Meir told him [the implication of], ‘then they shall have possession therein;’5 the latter [the illustration], after R. Meir told him [the implication of], ‘then they shall have possession therein’. 6 As for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written: If thou doest well, shalt thou not be rewarded? and if thou doest not well, sin coucheth at the door.7 But according to R. Hanina, what is its purpose?8 — I might have thought, If thou doest well, there is reward, but if thou doest not well, there is neither reward nor punishment. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. Now, as for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written, then thou shalt be clear from this my oath;9 but according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, what is its purpose?10 — It is necessary: I might think, If she were willing but not they [sc. her family], he was to bring her against their will. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. What is the purpose of, ‘and if the woman be not willing?’9 — It is necessary: I might think, If they [her family] were willing but not she, he should bring her against her will. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. Now, as for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written. If ye walk in my statutes . . . and if ye shall reject my statutes.11 But according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, what is its purpose? — It is necessary. I might think, ‘if ye walk in my statutes’, [ye shall have] a blessing; ‘but if ye shall reject my statutes,’ neither a blessing nor a curse. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. Now, as for R. Meir, it is well: hence it is written: If ye be willing and obedient etc. . . . but if ye refuse and rebel.12 But according to R. Hanina b. Gamaliel, what is its purpose? — It is necessary. I might think, ‘If ye be willing,’ [it will be] well; ‘but if ye refuse,’ [it will be] neither well nor good. So we are informed [that it is not so]. What is the meaning of, even if they did not pass over they would still have a portion of Palestine. This is most unreasonable, and so Tosaf. explains the verses as follows: If they pass over armed at the head of the forces, bearing the brunt of the battle, they will be favoured with the special grant of Gilead. But if they merely take an equal share with their brethren in the conquest, they will receive the same as the rest, viz., a portion of Palestine proper. share only in the third field, but receives nothing from the other two fields assigned to his two brothers. Similarly, in the verses under discussion, but for the second claim, it would be assumed that the Gaddites and Reubenites in the case of their non-fulfilment of the condition would share with the rest of the tribes the district of Gilead, while forfeiting all claim to the land of Canaan.] verses in question are required for the purpose of the doubling of the condition, and he thus said that the doubling was necessary, for without it, it would be assumed that they would have no share at all, even in the land of Canaan.] necessary to indicate that they would, on fulfilment of the condition, receive a share in the land of Canaan, as supra.]