## Kiddushin Daf 60b

###### Kiddushin 60b:1
[Kiddushin 60b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:1)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ שֶׁנִּתְקָרַע הַגֵּט אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד, לְרַב הוּנָא הָוֵי גֵּט, לְרַב יְהוּדָה לָא הָוֵי גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the difference **between** the explanations of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda? Even Rav Huna agrees that she cannot marry someone else until she gives him the money. Until that point the bill of divorce does not come into effect and she remains married to the first man. The Gemara answers: **The difference between them** is in a case **where the bill of divorce was torn or lost** after she received it but before she gave him the money. **According to** the opinion of **Rav Huna it is** a valid **bill of divorce,** as the divorce takes effect from the moment he gives her the document. **According to** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda it is not a** valid **bill of divorce,** as he maintains that the bill of divorce goes into effect only later, which is impossible as it is either torn or lost.


###### Kiddushin 60b:2
[Kiddushin 60b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:2)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי קִידּוּשִׁין, בְּהָא קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּלְקָרוֹבַהּ קָאָתֵי, אֲבָל גֵּירוּשִׁין, דִּלְרַחוֹקַהּ קָאָתֵי, אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And it is necessary** to state both disputes, the one with regard to betrothal and the one with regard to divorce, as neither *halakha* could be derived from the other. **As had** it **taught us** only that the two Sages disagree **with regard to betrothal,** one might have said that it is **there** that **Rav Huna says** that the betrothal takes effect immediately, despite the fact that he must still give her the money, **because** betrothal **comes to draw her near** to him. Therefore, it is likely that he meant for the betrothal to take immediate effect. **But** with regard to **divorce, when he comes to distance her,** you might **say** that Rav Huna **concedes to Rav Yehuda** that the divorce comes into effect only from the moment she gives him the money.


###### Kiddushin 60b:3
[Kiddushin 60b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:3)

וְאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָךְ: בְּהָךְ קָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיהוּ לָא כְּסִיף לֵיהּ לְמִתְבְּעַהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא, דְּאִיהִי כְּסִיפָא לַהּ לְמִיתְבְּעֵיהּ אֵימָא מוֹדֵי לֵיהּ לְרַב יְהוּדָה, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** conversely, **if** the dispute had been **stated** only **with regard to this** case concerning a bill of divorce, one might have claimed that **Rav Huna says** that the bill of divorce comes into immediate effect only **in this** situation, **because he is not ashamed to demand** the money **from her** whenever he wants, and therefore he divorces her immediately. **But here,** concerning a betrothal, **when she is ashamed to claim** the money **from him,** you might **say that** Rav Huna **concedes to Rav Yehuda** that the woman does not accept the betrothal until she actually receives the money. It is therefore **necessary** for the dispute to be stated in both cases.


###### Kiddushin 60b:4
[Kiddushin 60b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:4)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְקָרַע הַגֵּט אוֹ שֶׁאָבַד – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת, לְאַחֵר לֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא עַד שֶׁתִּתֵּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Yehuda from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Gittin* 5:5): If one says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, even if the bill of divorce was torn or lost she is divorced.** But **she may not marry another** man **until she gives** him the money. This ruling apparently accords with Rav Huna’s opinion that the bill of divorce goes into immediate effect from the moment it is given.


###### Kiddushin 60b:5
[Kiddushin 60b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:5)

וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: אָמַר לָהּ ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטִּיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתְּנִי לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ וָמֵת, נָתְנָה – אֵין זְקוּקָה לַיָּבָם, לֹא נָתְנָה – זְקוּקָה לְיָבָם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֶנֶת לְאָחִיו אוֹ לְאָבִיו אוֹ לְאֶחָד מִן הַקְּרוֹבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is further taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to a man who **said to** his wife: **This is your bill of divorce on the condition that you will give me two hundred dinars, and he died** childless, if **she gave** him the money **she is not bound** by a levirate bond **to the *yavam*,** as she is already divorced. But if **she did not give** him the money **she is bound** by a levirate bond **to the *yavam*. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:** If she did not give it to her husband during his lifetime **she** may **give** the money **to** her late husband’s **brother, or to his father, or to one of the relatives** who inherit from him, and by doing so she fulfills the condition and is retroactively divorced.


###### Kiddushin 60b:6
[Kiddushin 60b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:6)

עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי אֶלָּא דְּמָר סָבַר: ״לִי וְלֹא לְיוֹרְשַׁיי״, וּמָר סָבַר: ״אֲפִילּוּ לְיוֹרְשַׁיי״, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא מִיהָא תְּנָאָה הָוֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes this ruling: The *tanna’im* **disagree only with regard to** the following: One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that by the phrase: On the condition that you will give **me,** he meant: To me specifically **but not to my heirs.** Consequently, if she does not give the money to him she is not divorced, as she cannot fulfill the condition by giving the money to his heirs. **And** one **Sage,** Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, **holds** that the husband meant: **Even to my heirs. In any event, everyone agrees** that **it is a condition** and the divorce takes effect from the moment the bill of divorce is given. This is apparently **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Yehuda.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:7
[Kiddushin 60b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:7)

אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ. וַאֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי כְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Yehuda** could **say to you:** In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** *baraita*? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **as Rav Huna says** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Anyone who states** a condition employing the language: **On the condition,** is **like** one who **states** that the agreement will take effect retroactively **from now,** even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that the phrase: On the condition, indicates that an action should take effect now provided that a certain action is fulfilled later. **And the Rabbis disagree with him,** claiming that this expression does not mean that the action should take immediate effect, but only from when the condition is fulfilled. And Rav Yehuda would conclude by adding: **And I spoke** in accordance **with** the opinion of **the Rabbis.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:8
[Kiddushin 60b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:8)

גּוּפָא, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כִּי הֲוֵינַן בְּבָבֶל הֲוָה אָמְרִינַן: הָא דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַבִּי: כׇּל הָאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes **the** matter **itself. Rav Huna says** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says** that **anyone who states** a condition employing the language: **On the condition,** is **like** one who **states** that the agreement will take effect retroactively **from now,** even though the condition is fulfilled only later on. **Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in Babylonia we would say:** With regard to **that** which **Rav Huna says** that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Anyone who states** a condition employing the language: **On the condition,** is **like** one who **states** that the agreement will take effect retroactively **from now,** that is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s opinion, but **the Rabbis disagree with him.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:9
[Kiddushin 60b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:9)

כִּי סָלְקִי לְהָתָם אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַסִּי דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים בְּאוֹמֵר ״עַל מְנָת״ כְּאוֹמֵר ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו״ דָּמֵי, לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ אֶלָּא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When I ascended to there,** to Eretz Yisrael, **I found Rabbi Asi sitting and saying** the following ruling **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: All concede** that **with regard to one who says** to his wife: **On the condition,** he is **like** one who **states** that the divorce will take effect retroactively **from now. They disagreed only** with regard to one who said to his wife: **From today and after** my **death,** whether he is considered to have added a condition or to have retracted from his initial statement.


###### Kiddushin 60b:10
[Kiddushin 60b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:10)

וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – גֵּט וְאֵינוֹ גֵּט, דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כָּזֶה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it is taught** in a *baraita* that if one says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce **from today and after** my **death,** it is uncertain whether it is a valid **bill of divorce or** whether it is **not** a valid **bill of divorce.** This is **the statement of the Rabbis.** The Rabbis are uncertain whether he has changed his mind from his initial intention of giving the document that day, and now wishes to give a bill of divorce after his death, which is not effective, or whether he was merely adding a condition that the bill of divorce should take effect from today only when he dies. Conversely, **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** A document **like this** is a valid **bill of divorce.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:11
[Kiddushin 60b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:11)

וּלְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר בְּ״עַל מְנָת״ נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בְּ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ – נִיפְלְגֵי בְּ״עַל מְנָת״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda, who said** that the *tanna’im* **also disagree with regard to** one who says to his wife: **On the condition,** instead **of disagreeing with regard to** the case where one says to his wife: **From today and after** my **death, let** them **disagree with regard to** a case where the husband used the expression: **On the condition.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:12
[Kiddushin 60b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:12)

לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחַ דְּרַבִּי, דְּ״מֵהַיּוֹם וּלְאַחַר מִיתָה״ נָמֵי הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. וְנִיפְלְגִי בְּ״עַל מְנָת״, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחַ דְּרַבָּנַן! כֹּחַ דְּהֶיתֵּירָא עֲדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda maintains that they disagree over both cases, and the *baraita* taught the dispute in this manner **to convey to you the far-reaching nature** of the opinion **of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, who maintains that even if the husband says to his wife: **From today and after** my **death, this is also** a valid **bill of divorce.** The Gemara asks: **And let them disagree with regard to** a husband who says to his wife: **On the condition, to convey to you the far-reaching nature** of the opinion **of the Rabbis,** who hold that it is not a valid bill of divorce even in that case. The Gemara answers: It is **preferable** to emphasize **the power of leniency.** It is always better to formulate a dispute in a manner that emphasizes the extent of the lenient opinion.


###### Kiddushin 60b:13
[Kiddushin 60b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:13)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֶתֵּן לְךָ מִכָּאן וְכוּ׳״. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: לָאו תְּנָאָה הוּא, וּלְזָרוֹזֵיהּ קָאָמְרָ[ה], קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I will give you** a particular sum of money **from now** and until thirty days have elapsed, if he gives her the money within the allotted time she is betrothed. The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: It is **obvious** that this is the case. The Gemara explains: This ruling is necessary, **lest you say** that the specified time period **is not a** proper **condition, and he said** so only **to motivate himself** to prove the sincerity of his intentions. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that the time period is an essential part of his condition, and if he fails to give her the money within this period the betrothal is void.


###### Kiddushin 60b:14
[Kiddushin 60b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:14)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי מָאתַיִם זוּז״ וְכוּ׳. וְנֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לוֹ! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna further teaches that if he says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I have two hundred dinars,** if he in fact possesses the specified amount, she is betrothed, but if he does not, she is not betrothed. The Gemara asks: **And let us be concerned** that **perhaps he has** this sum, although he fails to show it to her. How can his betrothal be nullified if there is no conclusive evidence that he does not have the money? **And furthermore, it is taught** in a *baraita* that **we are concerned** that **perhaps he has** the money.


###### Kiddushin 60b:15
[Kiddushin 60b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:15)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult,** as **this** case, in the mishna, is referring **to a definite betrothal,** which is not established in this case, as he has failed to demonstrate that he has the funds. By contrast, **that** case, in the *baraita*, is referring to **an uncertain betrothal.** The betrothal cannot be entirely disregarded, as he might have the money after all.


###### Kiddushin 60b:16
[Kiddushin 60b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:16)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ מָאתַיִם זוּז״ וְכוּ׳. תָּנָא: לֹא נִתְכַּוְּנָה אֶלָּא לִרְאוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם הֶרְאָה לָהּ עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּנָקֵט דְּמֵי בְּעִיסְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches that if a man says to her: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I will show you two hundred dinars,** she is betrothed and he must show her the money. A Sage **taught** (*Tosefta* 3:6): This woman **intended to see only his own** money, not simply to be shown any two hundred dinars. With regard to the subsequent ruling of the mishna: **And if he showed her** the money **on the table she is not betrothed,** the Gemara comments: This is **obvious,** as the woman wants to see his own money. The Gemara explains: **No,** it is **necessary** to teach **that even if he holds** somebody else’s **money as** part of a **joint** business **venture,** nevertheless, as the money does not actually belong to him he has failed to fulfill the condition.


###### Kiddushin 60b:17
[Kiddushin 60b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיֵשׁ לוֹ. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם – מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְאִם לָאו – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר״ – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְיַרְאֶנָּה. וְאִם הֶרְאָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to one who says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I possess** tillable land of **a *beit kor* of earth, she is betrothed,** provided that **he possesses** such land. If he said to her that the betrothal is: **On the condition that I possess** land **in such and such a place, if he possesses** land **in that place she is betrothed, but if not she is not betrothed.** If he said to her: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I will show you a *beit kor* of earth, she is betrothed, and he shall show her. And if he showed** her land **in a valley,** i.e., a field that does not belong to him among other fields, **she is not betrothed.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:18
[Kiddushin 60b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:18)

**גְּמָ׳** וְנֵיחוּשׁ שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לוֹ! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חָיְישִׁינַן שֶׁמָּא יֵשׁ לוֹ! לָא קַשְׁיָא. הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי וַדַּאי, הָא בְּקִידּוּשֵׁי סָפֵק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** With regard to the statement of the mishna that she is betrothed only if he actually possesses a *beit kor* of earth, the Gemara asks: **And let us be concerned** that **perhaps he** in fact **possesses** land of this size. **And furthermore, it is** explicitly **taught** in a *baraita* that **we are concerned** in this situation that **perhaps he possesses** land of this size. The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult,** as **this** case, the one in the mishna, is referring **to a definite betrothal,** which has not yet been established because he has not proven he owns a field of this kind; and **that** case, the one in the *baraita*, is referring **to an uncertain betrothal.**


###### Kiddushin 60b:19
[Kiddushin 60b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:19)

לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא גַּבֵּי אַרְעָא וּלְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵא גַּבֵּי זוּזֵי! צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן גַּבֵּי זוּזֵי, מִשּׁוּם דַּעֲבִידִי אִינָשֵׁי דְּמַצְנְעִי. אֲבָל אַרְעָא, אֵימָא: אִי דְּאִית לֵיהּ אַרְעָא – קָלָא אִית לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need this mishna **to teach** this *halakha* **with regard to land, and why do I** also need the previous mishna **to teach** the same ruling **with regard to money?** There is no clear difference between the two cases. The Gemara answers: It is **necessary** to state the *halakha* in both cases, **as had** one mishna **taught us** this *halakha* only **with regard to money** one might have said that it is only in that case that it is uncertain whether she is betrothed, **because people tend to hide** their money, and therefore his financial status might not be well known. **But** in the case of **land, you** might **say** that **if he had land** this fact **would** generate **publicity,** as one cannot hide land. The mishna therefore **teaches us** that it is also possible for him to own land without people being aware of it.


###### Kiddushin 60b:20
[Kiddushin 60b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:20)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לִי בְּמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי״, אִם יֵשׁ לוֹ וְכוּ׳. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אֲמַר לַהּ: מַאי נָפְקָא לָךְ מִינַּהּ, אֲנָא טָרַחְנָא וּמַיְיתֵינָא! קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I possess** land **in such and such a place, if he possesses** land in that place she is betrothed, but if not, she is not betrothed. The Gemara questions the need for this ruling: It is **obvious** that if he does not possess land in that place she is not betrothed, as that was precisely his condition. The Gemara explains that this ruling is necessary **lest you say** that he can **say to her: What difference does it make to you** whether the field is in that location or elsewhere, as even if it is farther away **I will go to the trouble of bringing** the produce from the field to our house, so what loss have you incurred? The mishna therefore **teaches us** that despite this claim the betrothal is invalid, due to his failure to fulfill the condition.


###### Kiddushin 60b:21
[Kiddushin 60b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:21)

״עַל מְנָת שֶׁאַרְאֵךְ בֵּית כּוֹר עָפָר״. תָּאנָא: לֹא נִתְכַּוְּונָה זוֹ אֶלָּא לִרְאוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. וְאִם הֶרְאָהּ בַּבִּקְעָה – אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא דְּנָקֵיט בְּדִיסְתּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna further teaches: If a one says to a woman: You are hereby betrothed to me **on the condition that I will show you a *beit kor* of earth,** she is betrothed, provided that he possesses such land. A Sage **taught** (*Tosefta* 3:6): The woman **intended to see only his own** land. The mishna further teaches: **And if he showed** her a plot of land **in a valley, she is not betrothed.** The Gemara asks: This is **obvious;** after all, this land does not belong to him. The Gemara answers: **No,** it is **necessary** in a case **where he maintains** the field **as a sharecropper [*distora*],** i.e., he owns a share in it. Nevertheless, as the land does not belong to him she did not have this field in mind, and consequently she is not betrothed.


###### Kiddushin 60b:22
[Kiddushin 60b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/60b:22)

גַּבֵּי הֶקְדֵּשׁ תְּנַן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **With regard to consecrated** property, **we learned** in a mishna (*Arakhin* 25a):