Clarification: Meaning at the time that the Yovel applies.

Refuted Text: And we do not have the text 'bi'Shenas ha'Yovel' , which would mean in the actual year of the Yovel ...

Refutation: Since Rav and Shmuel argue over this in maeches Erchin (Daf 24a) - One says that it is not Kadosh at all; the other, that it is Kadosh and goes out.

Clarification: Rashi explains - To be redeemed according to the Din of 'a Chomer of barley', though they are Kadosh to be redeemed in accordance with their value.

Refuted explanation: Because one canot say that they are not Kadosh at all, since it cannot be worse than a pit, a winepress and a dove-cot ...

Source: And the Mishnah rules at the end of 'ha'Mocher es ha'Bayis' (Bava Basra, Daf 71a) 'ha'Makdish Sadeihu, Hikdish es Kulo' - even a pit, a winepress and a dove-cot; how much more so rocks and ditches.

Explanation #1: To be measured according to their value, Rashi explains, and that the slope is not included in the reckoning, only the floor of the ditches.

Explanation #2: Whereas the Rashbam, at the beginning of 'Beis Kur' (Bava Basra, Daf 103a) explains the Gemara's question as 'Granted, they are not sanctified together with the land ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Inasmuch as he does not have to reckon it together with the land, if he does not want to

Reason: Seeing as it is a field in its own right, and he is permitted to redeem them both independently, as if he has been Makdish two fields, in which case he may redeem one without the other ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): 'Nikd'shu be'Anpei Nafshaihu' - in any event, should he so wish, he can redeem the ditches on their own according to the Cheshbon of a Chomer of barley for fifty silver Shekalim.

Refutation: This is not correct however - since it implies that someone who is Makdish one field which does not contain ditches, is not permitted toredeem it in halves, which is not the case ...

Source: As we learned above in the first Perek (Daf 20b) 'Sombody who is Makdish a Sadeh Achuzah, may borrow redeem, and redeem it in halves'.

Conclusion: Therefore Rashi's explanation is the correct one (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: What is the 'I Amrat bi'Shelama' here - seeing as even if it is speaking where they are not full of water one can still ask from rocks?

Answer: The Ri answers that the fact that less is measured together with it would be no problem, if we would not be particular about being fit for planting ...

Answer (cont.): But now that being fit for planting is required, why can even less be measured together with it?

Clarification: Rashi explains that even if the condition is not fulfilled, the undertaking still stands, seeing as the condition is not 'doubled' ...

Example: Such as where he says 'Here is your Get if you give me two hundred Zuz', and he did not 'double' his statement, to say 'If you do not give ... , it will not be a Get.' ...

Example (cont.): The condition of two hundred Zuz is not effective at all, and the Get is valid, even in the event that she fails to give it to him.

Source: Like we find with Moshe, who saw fit to 'double' his statement - 'And if they don't cross armed, then they will inherit among you in Eretz Cana'an

Source (cont.): So we see that had he not 'doubled', his gift would have stood, and they would have inherited the land of Gil'ad, even without crossing the Yarden.

Implied Question: And even though he stipulated "If they cross, you shall give them the land of Gil'ad", implying but not if they don't! ...

Answer: We do not hold that 'One can deduce a no from a yes'.

Clarification (cont.): And by the same token, one requires the condition to precede the undertaking, since Moshe did not say "Give them ... if they will pass" - implying that had he said that, the condition would not invalidate the undertaking of the gift that preceded it.

Clarification (concl.): And we also learn that one requires the 'yes' before the 'no' - since he did not first say 'If they don't cross, don't give them, only give them if they do'.

Conclusion: From here we learn that Rebbi Meir requires 'double', the 'yes' before the 'no' and the condition before the undertaking.

Explanation #1: 'Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel says that it ("If you don't cross armed ... ") needs to be said - because otherwise, it would imply that they will not even inherit in Eretz Cana'an'.

Explanation #1: 'According to Rashi, he only rgues on 'T'nai Kaful', but he agrees with 'T'nai Kodem le'Ma'aseh'.

Question: But the Gemara says at the end of ha'Socher es ha'Po'alim (Bava Metzi'a (Daf 94a) that 'The one who holds of 'T'nai Kodem le'Ma'aseh' is Rebbi Meir' ...

Question (cont.): Implying that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel argues on all of them?

Explanation #2: Tosfos therefore learns that he does indeed argue on all of them.

Explanation #1: Which they rejected (Rashi).

Refutation: Rabeinu Tam disagrees however ...

Explanation #2: He explains that - Even in Eretz Cana'an they would not inherit ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): It goes without saying that they would not inherit in Eretz Gil'ad, because, since they had a mandate in the land of Gil'ad should they cross - seeing as it was on that condition that it was being given to them, it follows that if they would not cross, they would lose that mandate ...

Explanation #2 (conc.): But even in Eretz Cana'an, where they had no special mandate in the event that they crossed, they would nevertheless lose their rights, in the event that they did not - were it not for the repetition 'If they do not cross, they will inherit among you in Eretz Cana'an".

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that if they fail to cross, they will take thed portion that is coming to them in the land of Gil'ad which they already taken possession of, but nothing in the land of Cana'an, since they did not help conquer it.

Explanation #1 (cont.): Therefore it teaches us that nevertheless, they will receive (a portion there).

Question #1: On what logic will they sit at home and inherit with their brethren who go out to fight?

Question #2: [Moreover, it is not compatible with the Mashal that the Gemara cites? Tosfos Yeshanim].

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains the simple explanation of the Pasuk as follows - "If they will cross armed" ... with the heads of the army to be among the first to go into war; as a reward for this favor that they will perform with their brothers, the land of Gal'ad will be given to them ....

Explanation #2 (cont.): But if they don't make the effort to do more than their brothers, then "They will inherit ... " ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): And here we will explain that had the Torah not written "in the land of Cana'an", we would have thought that unless they cross armed at the head of the troops, and help to conquer the land only like the other tribes, they will not inherit at all in Eretz Cana'an ...

Explanation #2 (concl.): Therefore it teaches us that in any case they will receive (a portion).

Question: how can one even suggest that they should not receive any thing in Eretz Cana'an, seeing as they helped conquer it just like the other tribes?

Answer: We would have thought that Eretz Cana'an was designated exclusively for the other tribes - because from the moment the B'nei Gad and the B'nei Reuven requested the land of Gil'ad, they withdrew themselves from any portion in Eretz Cana'an. Consequently, unless they would adhere to the condition, they would not be entitled to a portion in it ...

Answer (cont.): Therefore the Torah writes "in the land of Cana'an", to teach us that they they would receive their portion like the other tribes - on both sides of the Yarden.

Question: Let the Torah write "be'Eretz Cana'an" only, and not "ve'Nochzu be'Soch'chem"? ...

Question (cont.): And we will automatically know that if they will take their portion in the land that is designated for the other tribes - how much more so in the land of Gil'ad, which is not designated for the other other tribes?

Answer: On the contrary, we would then have said that it would be correct for them to receive a portion in Eretz Cana'an, where they did not have a mandate, but in Eretz Gil'ad, where they did, they would be penalized and receive nothing.

Conclusion: Hence both Pesukim need to be written.

Question #1: What has this to do with the Machlokes? This was not a condition but a specific order to make him swear that he would take a wife for his son from his family ...

Question #1 (cont.): And had the Torah not written "You will be free from my oath if they will not give her to you", we would have said that he would transgress the oath whether they gave her to him or not, as long as he did not bring back a wife?

Question #2: And what Rashi explains is difficult to understand ...

Refuted Explanation: Because what he writes implies that if Eliezer had gone to Avraham's family and they would not have agreed to give him a wife, he would be permitted to take one from the daughters of Cana'an ...

Refutation: But this is not the case [Because if it was, we would have thought that Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel is speaking about a different case than Rebbi Meir]?

Explanation #2: The Ri therefore explains 'It is in order according to Rebbi Meir' - who does not hold "mi'Chelal Hein Atah Shome'a La'av" ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Even though logically, when a person stipulates 'If you do this I will give you that', that if you don't, I won't' ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): Likewise here it is logical to say that he only made him swear on condition that they would give ...

Explanation #2 (cont.): That the Torah need to explain "If they don't give, you will be absolved ... "

Explanation #2 (concl.): But according to Rebbi Chanina ben Gamliel, who concurs with the logic of those who stipulate, why does the Torah need to add "And if they don't give you ... "? Why is it not obvious that in the event that they would not agree to give, he would be absolved?

Conclusion: It appears that he (Avraham) made him take two oaths - one that he would take a wife for his son from his family; the other, that if they declined to give him a wife, he would not take one from the daughters of Cana'an.

Source: And one can deduce this from the fact that the Torah writes "And you will be absolved from this" oath, implying that there was another one.