Kiduushin 61: Complex Conditions; Double Formulations

If one wishes to buy one's field during the shemita, the Jubilee year (when all land and servants/slaves are freed from ownership), how is payment determined? Amud (a) focuses on the predetermined amounts that are paid for land. What if the land has deep crevices or large, tall rocks? What if the crevices are filled with water or the rocks are in one line? The rabbis have answers for everything. They create guidelines that ensure that usable land is priced fairly. They account for land that is difficult to use and land that seems to be parcelled in an undesirable layout. This discussion refers us back to their previous conversation regarding the use consecrated property, which is compared to the "use" of a betrothed woman.

A new Mishna is more than a bit confusing. It tells us that conditions should be doubled, based on the Torah example of a condition: the children of Reuven and Gad pass over the Jordan with the others in order to receive Gilead as a possession (Numbers 32:29). If they do not pass over, they will still receive some possession (Numbers 32:30). A note (Steinsaltz) explains that conditions are invalid unless they include:

• doubled
• positive formulation must precede negative formulation
• result must be stated before the required action is stated
• condition must be possible to fulfill

The Mishna continues, and rabbis argue about why that condition exists. Perhaps it is there to ensure that we understand that the children of Reuven and Gad will inherit, regardless of whether or not they fulfill the condition.

The Gemara responds with a conversation about compound conditions. The rabbis consider this example as well as other more generic examples, like a father who offers his inheritance to different sons based on different conditions. Their basic question seems to be whether or not it is necessary to state both sides of a "double formation": Once we say, "If x happens, here is the result", why is it necessary to say, "If x does not happen, there is no special result". Is this accurate or not?  Is this obvious or not?

Of course, our rabbis have a field day with this one. They suggest numerous examples that would suggest that it is necessary to state all parts of a double formulation; they are necessary and we cannot assume a given answer. They also offer a number of contradictory example where that same double formation is redundant, which is a no-no according to Talmudic hermeneutics. Thus there must be a reason for the usage of double formations in Torah text.

I found today's daf to be both exhausting and exciting. Such a daf would be great fun to learn over a good chunk of time. However, the nature of daf yomi creates a less than satisfying experience of this very complex text.