(Mishnah): Land is acquired through money, a document or an act of taking possession.

Movables are only acquired through meshichah (taking to one's domain).

Movables can be acquired together with land through money, a document or taking possession.

Movables can also bring about an oath for land together with them (even though an oath is not usually made for land). (This is known as gilgul shvuah and the Gemara will discuss this concept further on (in daf 27-3))

(Gemara): Originally they would acquire movables through removing a shoe. (This is called a kinyan chalipin - an acquisition through exchange.) This is found in the pasuk that states (Rus 4, 7), "Formerly this was done in Israel for redemption and exchange...a man would slip off his shoe...''.

Question: Who would slip off his shoe?

Answer: In Bavel there is a dispute between Rav and Levi - one said the buyer and one said the seller.

They disagree over the same dispute as the following tanaim -

Beraisa: Boaz (the buyer) gave his shoe to the redeemer (the seller).

R. Yehudah: The redeemer (the seller) gave his shoe to Boaz (the buyer).

They later changed and acquired through ketzatzah.

Question: What is ketzatzah?

Answer: When a person would sell his ancestral land, his relatives would bring barrels and fill them with roasted grains and nuts and break them before the children and the children would collect them. He would then say, "Ploni has been cut from his ancestral field''. And when the land was returned to him, they would say, "Ploni has returned to his ancestral field''.

R. Yosa bei R. Bun: This was also done when a man would marry an inappropriate woman - his relatives would bring barrels and fill them with roasted grains and nuts and break them in front of the children, who would then collect them. They would then say, "Ploni has cut himself from his family''. And when he would divorce her, they would say, "Ploni has returned to his family''.

They later changed and acquired through money, a document or through taking possession.

The Mishnah taught that one can acquire a field with money. The pasuk states (Yirmiyahu 32, 44), "They shall acquire fields with money...'' - this teaches acquisition of a field through giving money. "...and write it in a document and seal it'' - this teaches acquisition of a field using a document. "...and assign witnesses'' - this refers to witnesses to the chazakah.

Question: Perhaps it refers to witnesses to the document?

Answer: The pasuk has already said "and write it in a document and seal it'' - which refers to witnesses to the document. Therefore the phrase "and assign witnesses'' must be referring to witnesses to the chazakah.

R. Yasa citing R. Mana/R.Tanchum/ R. Abahu citing R. Yochanan: A field cannot be acquired for less than the value of a Perutah.

Question: What is his source? The pasuk states (ibid) "They shall acquire fields with money...''

Question: This appears to disagree with the statement of R. Chanina that every time the Torah uses the word 'shekalim' it means 'selaim'; in Neviim it means 'litra' and in Kesuvim it means 'Kintarin'. (Since Yirmiyah is in Neviim, the pasuk seems to be referring to using at least a litra to buy a field.)...?

The exception to this rule is the shekalim of Efron (who sold the Ma'aras HaMachpelah to Avraham for the burial of Sarah), where Kintarin were used, as the pasuk states (Bereishis 23, 9), "for the full price let him give it to me'' - implying the highest coinage.

Answer to (d): The pasuk in Yirmiyahu uses the word kesef, which implies even a Perutah, as even a Perutah is called kesef. However, R. Chanina refers to the word shekalim, which means selaim.

Refutation: In the case of a rapist (who raped an unmarried na'arah), the Torah used the word kesef (without the word shekalim) (see Devarim 22, 29) and he does pay 50 shekalim (selaim)? (We see that the word kesef and the word shekalim are interchangeable.)

We learned earlier that a field is acquired through chazakah (an act of taking possession e.g. he fixed something in the field, locked the gate or built or broke down the fence). This is unlike R. Eliezer who said that if the buyer merely walked in the field, he acquired it...

Beraisa (R. Eliezer): If he walked the length and breadth of the field, he acquires as far as he walked.

Chachamim: He only acquired when he makes a chazakah.

All agree that if he sold a path to his friend, if he merely walked there, he acquires it.

What is the source for this? The pasuk states (Bereishis 13, 17), "Get up and walk in the land (across its length and breadth, as I will give it to you)''.

The Mishnah taught that one can acquire land with a document.

Suggestion (R. Yirmiyah): Acquisition with a document only works to give a gift, but not for a sale where money is also given.

R. Yona and R. Yosa: A document always works.

Support (Beraisa): If he sold him 10 fields together, as soon as he takes possession of one of them, he acquires all of them. But if he only paid him for one or he only wrote for him a document for one of them, he only acquires that particular field.

According to R. Yirmiyah that a document cannot acquire without money, then even if he had written a document for all of the fields, he would not acquire them.

And if he did pay him the money for all of the fields but only wrote a document for one of them, the Beraisa wrote that he only paid for one of them, implying that had he paid for all of them, he would acquire all of them.

Conclusion of proof: Rather, it is clear that he either gave money or a document.

The Mishnah taught that one can acquire a field with money.

Suggestion (R. Ba): Money only acquires in a place where a document is not written, but if a document is written, he only acquires when the document is actually written (since the buyer is only agreeable when he actually receives a document).

R. Yona and R. Yosi disagree.

R. Ba follows the opinion of Shmuel and Rav Huna follows the opinion of R. Yochanan.

R. Ba follows the opinion of Shmuel -

Question #1 (Shmuel to Rav Chuna): If at the time of slaughtering a Korban, the person forgot and thought it was chulin (i.e. not a Korban), what is the law?

Answer (Rav Huna): The pasuk states (Vayikra 22, 19), "To be according to your will'' (i.e. your knowledge) - but without knowledge of slaughtering a Korban it is not valid.

Question #2 (Shmuel): If a gift document was written in the wording of an acquisition, is it valid?

Answer (Rav Huna): He has given him two horses to ride (he has benefitted him in two ways - as we will conclude - and the gift is valid).

R. Ba: Shmuel did not accept this answer (because Shmuel's opinion is like R. Ba).

Question: What was meant by "he has given him two horses to ride''?

The students thought that it meant that it is as if he has brought two wild horses that cannot ride together and he is riding on both of them and being pulled in opposite directions, thereby not getting anywhere. Here also, his gift is not valid until he writes a valid document and his document is worthless since he is not selling anything.

R. Yosi of Malchaya disagrees: Rav Huna meant that he has strengthened the recipient in two ways - in a sale, the seller's other land guarantees the sale, but for a gift it does not; for a sale, the seller did not sell everything, but for a gift, he gave everything (including any pits in the land). (Here, the land is guaranteed and he has given everything.)

And Rav Huna follows the opinion of R. Yochanan -

A person once said before he died, "Give all of my property to ploni''. He then said, "Write a gift document and give...'' R. Elazar and R. Shimon bar Yakim presented the case to R. Yochanan who said, "If he originally intended it as a gift, all agree that he acquires it. (The mention of writing a document afterwards was merely to strengthen the recipient's position.) If he originally intended the gift to be acquired through a document, all agree that he does not acquire it since no document was given before the person died.''

Question: How can we know what he originally intended?

Answer: The witnesses knew.

Question: If there were no witnesses, who receives the property (ploni or the person's inheritors)?

R. Yosi: The field remains in the possession of the owner (i.e. the inheritors) and the burden of proof is on ploni who wishes to extract it from them.

The Mishnah taught: Movables can be acquired together with land through money, a document or taking possession. This is called a kinyan agav. (What is the source for this?)

Answer (R. Yosi citing Chizkiyah/ R. Yona and R. Chananya citing Chizkiyah): The pasuk states (Divrei Hayamim 2, 21, 3), "Their father gave them many gifts of silver, gold and lavish things together with fortified cities in Yehudah''.

Question: This only shows that if there were fields and movables in one place, he can acquire both; but what if the fields and movables were not in the same place?

Proof (R. Bun bar Chiya - Beraisa): They said to R. Eliezer - there was once a Modinian who lived in Yerushalayim who had a large quantity of movables which he wished to give away before he died.

The Rabbis told him: The only way is if you acquired a field (and you can acquire the movables together with it).

What did he do? He went and acquired a small area on the outskirts of Yerushalayim. He then said, "On the northern half, I am giving 100 barrels of wine to ploni. On the southern half, I am giving 100 barrels of oil to ploni.'' The case came before the Chachamim and they ruled to follow his orders.

Rejection (R. Chanina to R. Mana): Wasn't he deathly ill, as usually a person can only give over property with a document and here he did it verbally...?! Similarly, although usually a person can only give movables together with land if they are in the same place, here it was permitted even though they were in different places.

Rebuttal (R. Mana): Isn't this opinion R. Elazar? If so, is there any difference between a deathly ill person and a healthy person? The law of a deathly ill person according to R. Elazar is the same as a healthy person according to the Rabbanan, meaning that he needs to make an acquisition. Therefore, the proof still stands, as just as for a deathly ill person there is no need for the movables to be with the land, so too for a healthy person.

R. Chanina: I agree.

Proof (Mishnah in Maseches Peah - R. Akiva): Any minimum sized field is obligated in Peah (leaving the corners for the poor) and Bikurim (taking the first fruits to Yerushalayim etc.)

Conclusion of proof: What is the benefit of acquiring such a tiny field? Rather, it must be in order to acquire movables with it and since it is so small, this shows that the movables need not be in the field in order to acquire them with the field.

Rejection (R. Matanya): The field was big enough for one stalk with a precious stone buried underneath it (and when he acquires the field, he also acquires the stone).