Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 27, 2016 | 讬状讝 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Gittin 45

If you live in Israel and sell a slave to someone outside of Israel, he is set free? 聽Which owner sets him free? 聽If the slave went on his own to follow his master to live outside of Israel, then he does not get set free if he gets sold after that. 聽But it depends on if they moved abroad temporarily or permanently. 聽Redeeming captives, sifrei Torah, mezuzot, and tefillin for high prices is forbidden. 聽Details of those laws are discussed.

Study Guide Gittin 45


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜专讘 注谞谉 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara says: And as for Rav Anan, who could not determine in which case the money of the sale is returned, the baraita was not known to him, so he was not able to use it in order to resolve his dilemma.

讜讗讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪拽讚砖 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛

And if Rav Anan would attempt to resolve his dilemma from the statement of Shmuel, who said that the sale does not take effect at all, this should mean that the money used in the sale is returned, it is possible to say: From where can you assume that it is not sold, and therefore the money is returned? Perhaps it is not sold and the money is considered to be a gift, just as it is according to the opinion of Shmuel in the case of one who betroths his sister. As it was stated with regard to one who betroths his sister, Rav said: The money he gave for the betrothal is returned, since the betrothal does not take effect; and Shmuel said: This money is a gift, meaning that he wished to give a gift to his sister and he did so in this manner. Therefore, Rav Anan remained uncertain as to when Shmuel required the money to be returned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇诇讜拽讞 谞拽谞住讬讛 诇诪讜讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讙谞讘 讗诇讗 讞讜专讗 讙谞讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讞讜专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

With regard to the halakha that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael it is the purchaser who loses his money, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to cause you to say that we apply the penalty to the purchaser, in that he is required to emancipate the slave and loses his money; we should apply the penalty to the seller, and he should be required to return the money. Rav Yosef answered Abaye with a parable and said to him: It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole that steals. In other words, a mouse cannot steal anything unless he has a hole for hiding the stolen items. Here too, the slave would not have been sold without the help of the purchaser. The Gemara questions this logic: But if not for the mouse, from where would the hole have the stolen item; since they both contribute to the prohibited act, each of them is deserving of being penalized.

诪住转讘专讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讛转诐 拽谞住讬谞谉

Rav Yosef responded to him: It stands to reason that anywhere that the forbidden item, i.e., the slave, is, in this case, with the purchaser, there we should penalize.

讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚注专拽 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讗讝诇 诪专讬讛 讗讘转专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讻转讜讘 诇讱 砖讟专讗 讗讚诪讬讛 讜讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚讞讬专讜转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 诪讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who fled from his master from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. His master followed him to Eretz Yisrael and came before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to the master: We will write a promissory note for his value for you, and you should write a bill of manumission for him. And if you do not do this, I will remove him from you entirely, since he does not have to return to outside of Eretz Yisrael, based on the statement of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讘讜 讘讗专爪讱 驻谉 讬讞讟讬讗讜 讗讜转讱 诇讬 讬讻讜诇 讘讙讜讬 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖诇讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬谞爪诇 讗诇讬讱 诪注诐 讗讚讜谞讬讜 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讜 注诪讱 讬砖讘 讘拽专讘讱 讜讙讜壮

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the residents of the Land of Canaan: 鈥淭hey shall not dwell in your land lest they make you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods; for they will be a snare to you鈥 (Exodus 23:33). One might have thought that the verse is also speaking of a gentile who accepted upon himself not to engage in idol worship, and is teaching that such a gentile may not dwell in Eretz Yisrael as well; therefore the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave who escaped to you from his master鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:16). The baraita understands that the verse is speaking in metaphoric terms about a gentile who has come to Eretz Yisrael, escaping his idolatrous past. The baraita continues: What is this gentile鈥檚 remedy? 鈥淗e shall dwell with you in your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:17). This teaches that as long as he accepts upon himself not to engage in idol worship, he may remain in Eretz Yisrael.

讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗讬 诪注诐 讗讚讜谞讬讜 诪注诐 讗讘讬讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

And the explanation of the verse in the baraita is difficult for Rabbi Yoshiya: This expression employed in the verse: 鈥淔rom his master,鈥 is imprecise if it is speaking about a gentile who abandons idol worship, as it should have stated: From his father, as a father is a more apt metaphor for the religion in which one was raised. Rather, Rabbi Yoshiya explains differently and says: The verse is speaking of one who sells his slave to a Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the continuation of the verse: 鈥淗e shall dwell with you,鈥 means that he does not go to his new master outside of Eretz Yisrael, but is emancipated and remains in Eretz Yisrael.

讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗讬 讗砖专 讬谞爪诇 讗诇讬讱 讗砖专 讬谞爪诇 诪注诪讱 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

And the explanation of Rabbi Yoshiya is difficult for Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya: If it is referring to a slave who is sold to one outside of Eretz Yisrael, then this expression: 鈥淲ho escaped to you,鈥 is not accurate, as he is leaving from Eretz Yisrael, not escaping to Eretz Yisrael. According to Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 explanation, it should have stated: Who escaped from you. Rather, Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, said: The verse is speaking of a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, which indicates that in such a case he may dwell there and is not returned to his master. Based on this statement of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Ami told the master that the slave will in any case be emancipated.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讞专专讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讻砖讗拽讞讱 讛专讬 注爪诪讱 拽谞讜讬 诇讱 诪注讻砖讬讜

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:16); Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who acquires a slave in order to emancipate him. The court may not deliver him to this master, because he is not his slave and he may not treat him as such. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: For example, when he wrote to the slave like this: When I will purchase you, you are hereby acquired to yourself from now. The new master does not take possession of the slave, as he is emancipated immediately upon being purchased.

专讘 讞住讚讗 注专拽 诇讬讛 注讘讚讗 诇讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讞诪讜专讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖诪诇转讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讻诇 讗讘讬讚转 讗讞讬讱 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讘注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 slave escaped to Bei Kutai, a place where Samaritans lived. He sent a request to the residents of that place: Return him to me. They sent a response to him: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave,鈥 so we will not return this slave to you. He sent a response to them: The verse also states with regard to lost items: 鈥淎nd you shall restore it to him鈥and so you shall do for his donkey and so you shall do for his garment and so you shall do for anything your brother has lost鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2鈥3). They sent a response to him again: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave鈥? Rav 岣sda sent a response to them: That verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and my slave escaped from one location outside of Eretz Yisrael to another location outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖诪注 诇讛讜 拽专讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what is different about this case that led him to send a response to them specifically in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and not in accordance with any other interpretation of the verse? The Gemara answers: Because that is how the Samaritans would understand the verse. Samaritans did not generally accept the explanations of the Sages, and this explanation accords with the straightforward reading of the verse, while the other explanations do not.

讗讘讬讬 讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 砖讚专讜讛 诇讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 砖诇讞 住讬诪谞讗 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讚讞讬讜讜专讗 讻专讬住讬讛 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞讞诪谞讬 讗转 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪砖讚专谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讱 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 讞诪专讬 诇讗讜 讻专讬住讬讬讛讜 讞讬讜讜专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates that Abaye lost a donkey among the Samaritans in Bei Kutai. He sent a request to them: Send it to me. They sent a response to him: Send a distinguishing mark and we will return it to you. He sent the following distinguishing mark to them: That its belly is white. They sent a response to him: If not for the fact that you are Na岣ani, meaning that we know that you are a trustworthy man, we would not send it to you. Is that to say that bellies of all donkeys aren鈥檛 white? Therefore, it is not a true distinguishing mark.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讘专讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉

MISHNA: The captives are not redeemed for more than their actual monetary value, for the betterment of the world; and one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors for the betterment of the world, so that kidnappers will not be more restrictive with their captives to prevent them from escaping. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives, so that kidnappers will not avenge the escape of the captives by treating other captives with cruelty.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讜讞拽讗 讚爪讘讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诇讙专讘讜 讜诇讬讬转讜 讟驻讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to this expression: For the betterment of the world, is it due to the financial pressure of the community? Is the concern that the increase in price will lead to the community assuming financial pressures it will not be able to manage? Or perhaps it is because the result of this will be that they will not seize and bring additional captives, as they will see that it is not worthwhile for them to take Jews captive?

转讗 砖诪注 讚诇讜讬 讘专 讚专讙讗 驻专拽讗 诇讘专转讬讛 讘转诇讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer based on the fact that Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter who was taken captive with thirteen thousand gold dinars. This indicates that private citizens may pay excessive sums to redeem a captive if they so choose. Therefore, it must be that the reason for the ordinance was to avoid an excessive burden being placed upon the community. If the ordinance was instituted to remove the incentive for kidnappers to capture Jews, a private citizen would also not be permitted to pay an excessive sum.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 注讘讚 讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 注讘讚

Abaye said: And who told us that he acted in accordance with the wishes of the Sages? Perhaps he acted against the wishes of the Sages, and this anecdote cannot serve as a proof.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘专讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 砖讘讜讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚

The mishna taught: And one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors, for the betterment of the world. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when there is only one captive. If this ordinance was instituted for the benefit of the other captives, so that the kidnappers should not avenge a captive鈥檚 escape by treating the others with cruelty, then if there is only one captive to begin with, one may help him to escape. If it was instituted so that kidnappers in general will not act restrictively with their captives, it would be prohibited in this case as well.

讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讞砖谉 拽讚专讗 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 注讬诇讬砖 讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讗讞讚 诪讗诇祝 诪爪讗转讬 讜讗砖讛 讘讻诇 讗诇讛 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙专诪讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗砖转讘讬讬谉 讜讗讬砖转讘讗讬 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters would stir a boiling pot with their bare hands, and people thought that the heat did not harm them due to their righteousness. Rav Ilish had a difficulty with a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎 man one of a thousand I have found, and a woman among all those have I not found鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:28). Aren鈥檛 there Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters, who were exceptionally righteous? These words caused them to be taken captive, due to the evil eye, and Rav Ilish was also taken captive with them.

讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讙讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讬讚注 讘诇讬砖谞讗 讚爪讬驻讜专讬 讗转讗 注讜专讘讗 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 讗诪专 注讜专讘讗 砖讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 住诪讬讻谞讗 注诇讬讛

One day a certain man was sitting with him in captivity who knew the language of birds. A raven came and called to Rav Ilish. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is the raven saying? He said to him that it is saying: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Rav Ilish said: It is a lying raven, and I do not rely on it.

讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讬讜谞讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 讗诪专 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谞讛 诪转讬诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪转专讞讬砖 诇讬 谞讬住讗 讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讞讝讬 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬 拽讬讬诪谉 讘讛讬诪谞讜转讬讬讛讜 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜

In the meantime, a dove came and was calling out. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is it saying? He said to him that the dove said: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Ilish said: The Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove; I conclude from the dove鈥檚 words that a miracle will happen for me, and I can attempt to escape. Rav Ilish said: Before I leave, I will go and I will see Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters. If they remained steadfast in their faith and are acting appropriately, then I will take them with me and I will return them to their home.

讗诪专 谞砖讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 住讚专谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 砖诪注讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗诪专谉 注讚讬 讙讜讘专讬谉 讜谞讛专讚注讬 讙讜讘专讬谉 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 诇砖讘讜讬讬讛讜 讚诇讬专讞拽讬谞讛讜 诪讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转讜 讗讬谞砖讬谉 讜诇讬砖诪注讬 讜诇讬驻专拽讬谞谉

He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde鈥檃 to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors.

拽诐 注专拽 讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬转专讞讬砖 诇讬讛 谞讬住讗 注讘专 讘诪讘专讗 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗砖讻讞讜讛 讜拽讟诇讜讛 讻讬 讛讚专谉 讜讗转谉 讗诪专 讛讜讜 拽讗 讘讞砖谉 拽讬讚专讗 讘讻砖驻讬诐

Upon hearing this Rav Ilish arose and escaped. He and that man who knew the language of the birds came to a river crossing. A miracle happened for him and he crossed the river on a ferry, and the captors found that man and killed him. When Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters were returned and they came back from their captivity, Rav Ilish said: They would stir the pot with witchcraft, and that is why they were not burned by the boiling pot, but it was not due to their righteousness.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 住驻专讬诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬讜转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉

MISHNA: And Torah scrolls, phylacteries, or mezuzot are not purchased from the gentiles when they acquire these objects, if they request more than their actual monetary value,

诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

for the betterment of the world, so as not to cause an increase in the theft of sacred Jewish ritual objects in order to sell them for large sums of money.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讘讜讚讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讬转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讙谞讜讝

GEMARA: Rav Budya said to Rav Ashi that one could infer the following from the mishna: It is for more than their actual monetary value that one may not purchase them; however, for their precise value, one may purchase them. Can one learn from the mishna that with regard to a Torah scroll that is found in the possession of a gentile, one can read from it after obtaining it from the gentile, and there is no concern that perhaps the gentile wrote it and it is unfit? Rav Ashi answered: Perhaps this does not mean that the Torah scroll is purchased in order to read from it, but rather in order to inter it and not to use it; however, it is nevertheless purchased so that it will not be desecrated by the gentiles.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讟讬谞谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘讜 诪讬谉 讬砖专祝 讻转讘讜 讙讜讬 讬讙谞讝 谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚 诪讬谉 讬讙谞讝 谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讬讙谞讝 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜

Rav Na岣an says: We have a tradition that a Torah scroll that was written by a heretic should be burned; a Torah scroll written by a gentile should be interred; a Torah scroll found in the possession of a heretic, and it is not clear who wrote it, should be interred. With regard to a Torah scroll found in the possession of a gentile, some say it should be interred and some say that one may read from it.

住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘讜 讙讜讬 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬砖专祝 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讙谞讝 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: With regard to a Torah scroll that was written by a gentile, it is taught in one baraita: It should be burned, and it is taught in another baraita: It should be interred, and it is taught in another baraita: One may read from it. There is a three-fold contradiction concerning the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专祝 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 住转诐 诪讞砖讘转 讙讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: That which is taught in a baraita, that it should be burned, is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The unspecified intentions of a gentile are for idol worship, and therefore everything he wrote is assumed to be written for the sake of idolatrous worship and must be burned.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讙谞讝 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪驻砖专讜谞讬讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 砖讻转讘谉 诪讬谉 讜诪住讜专 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讻讜转讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽砖专转诐 讜讻转讘转诐 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽砖讬专讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讻转讬讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽砖讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讻转讬讘讛

And that which is taught in a baraita, which said that it should be interred, is the opinion of this tanna, as Rav Hamnuna, son of Rava of Pashronya, taught: A Torah scroll, phylacteries, or mezuzot that were written by a heretic or an informer, a gentile or a slave, a woman or a minor, or a Samaritan or a Jewish apostate, are unfit, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them as a sign on your hand鈥and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8鈥9). From this juxtaposition, one can derive the following: Anyone who is included in the mitzva of binding the phylacteries, i.e., one who is both obligated and performs the mitzva, is included in the class of people who may write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot; but anyone who is not included in the mitzva of binding is not included in the class of people who may write sacred texts. This baraita equates the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile to the halakha of Torah scrolls written by these other types of people, which are interred.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讞讬谉 住驻专讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讬讜 讻转讜讘讬谉 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讘爪讬讚谉 砖讛讬讛 讻讜转讘 住驻专讬诐 讜讛转讬专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讬拽讞 诪诪谞讜

And concerning that which is taught in a baraita, i.e., that one may read from it, that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:6): One may purchase Torah scrolls from gentiles in any location, provided that they are written in accordance with their halakhot. And there was an incident involving a gentile in Tzaidan who would write Torah scrolls, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted the Jews to purchase the Torah scrolls from him.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讬讘讜讚 诇砖诪谉 讘注讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪谉 诇讗 讘注讬

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel require that the preparation of the parchment of Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot be for their sake, i.e., for the sake of their use in a mitzva, but he does not require that the writing be for their sake?

讚转谞讬讗 爪讬驻谉 讝讛讘 讗讜 砖讟诇讛 注诇讬讛谉 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇讜转 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讻砖专讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 注讬讘讚谉 诇砖诪谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 驻住讜诇讜转 注讚 砖讬注讘讚谉 诇砖诪谉

The Gemara quotes the source that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires that the parchment be prepared for their sake: As it is taught in a baraita: If one took phylacteries and coated them with gold or patched them with the skin of a non-kosher animal, then they are unfit. However, if one patched them with the skin of a kosher animal, then they are fit, and this is so even though he did not prepare them, i.e., the skin, for their sake, i.e., for the sake of their use in a mitzva. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if he patched them with the skin of a kosher animal they are unfit, until he prepares them for their sake. Being that he holds that the parchment needs to be prepared for their sake, their actual writing should certainly be done for their sake.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙专 砖讞讝专 诇住讜专讜 诇住讜专讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讞讜讝专 诇住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讬专讗讛

Rabba bar Shmuel says: That incident in Tzaidan involved a convert who returned to his previous corrupt ways [suro] by reverting to living like a gentile. He nevertheless remains a Jew. The Gemara asks: If he returned to his previous corrupt ways all the more so should the Torah scroll be rendered unfit, as he is a heretic. Once he learns the Jewish faith and abandons it, he is considered a heretic. Rav Ashi says: This means that he returned to his previous corrupt ways due to fear, and not because he rejected the Jewish faith. He ceased acting like a Jew out of fear of reprisal. Since he is a Jew, it is permitted for him to read from the Torah scrolls that he writes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讬谉 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讟专驻注讬拽 诪讗讬 讟专驻注讬拽 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬住转讬专讗

搂 The Gemara clarifies the halakha from the mishna that one may not purchase sacred items from a gentile for more than their actual value. The Sages taught: One may increase payment beyond their value up to a terapa鈥檌k. The Gemara asks: What is a terapa鈥檌k? Rav Sheshet said: It is an istera, worth one half of a dinar.

讛讛讬讗 讟讬讬注转讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讞讬讬转讗 讚转驻讬诇讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讬讛讘转 诇讬 专讬砖 专讬砖 讘转诪专讬 讗讬诪诇讬讗 讝讬讛专讗 砖拽诇讗 砖讚转讬谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讘注讬 诇讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬谞讛讜 讘讗驻讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain Arab merchant woman [taya鈥檃ta] who brought a sack [岣yeta] of phylacteries in front of Abaye. He said to her: Would you give me each pair for a date? She became full of anger, and took the phylacteries and threw them into the river because Abaye offered her such a small amount in exchange for them. Abaye said in remorse: I should not have denigrated the phylacteries so much in her presence, but rather, I should have offered to pay her their actual value.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讬讞讝讬专

MISHNA: A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation, i.e., he heard that she had committed adultery, may not remarry her, even if it becomes clear that she did not in fact commit adultery. Similarly, if one divorces his wife due to a vow that she took, and he could not live with her under the conditions of her vow, he may not remarry her. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he divorces her due to any vow that the public was aware of, he may not remarry her, but if he divorces her due to a vow that the public was not aware of, he may remarry her.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖爪专讬讱 讞拽讬专转 讞讻诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讞拽讬专转 讞讻诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讝讛

The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says: If he divorces her due to any vow that requires investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, he may not bring remarry her, but if he divorces her due to a vow that does not require investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, and is dissolved even without that, he may bring remarry her. Rabbi Elazar said: They prohibited him from remarrying her in this case, where she stated a vow that requires dissolution by a halakhic authority, only due to that case, where she stated a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘爪讬讚谉 讘讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讬 诪讙专砖讬讱 讜讙专砖讛 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident in Tzaidan involving one man who said to his wife: It is konam, i.e., it is forbidden like an offering, if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to remarry her for the betterment of the world.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱

GEMARA: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: And the halakha stated in the mishna, which says that in certain cases a man who divorces his wife may not remarry her, is only applicable when he said to her explicitly: I am removing you from the house due to your bad reputation,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Gittin 45

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 45

讜专讘 注谞谉 讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讬讛

The Gemara says: And as for Rav Anan, who could not determine in which case the money of the sale is returned, the baraita was not known to him, so he was not able to use it in order to resolve his dilemma.

讜讗讬 诪讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪诪讗讬 讚讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讚讬诇诪讗 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讜诪注讜转 诪转谞讛 谞讬谞讛讜 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪拽讚砖 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 讚讗讬转诪专 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讗讞讜转讜 专讘 讗诪专 诪注讜转 讞讜讝专讬谉 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诪注讜转 诪转谞讛

And if Rav Anan would attempt to resolve his dilemma from the statement of Shmuel, who said that the sale does not take effect at all, this should mean that the money used in the sale is returned, it is possible to say: From where can you assume that it is not sold, and therefore the money is returned? Perhaps it is not sold and the money is considered to be a gift, just as it is according to the opinion of Shmuel in the case of one who betroths his sister. As it was stated with regard to one who betroths his sister, Rav said: The money he gave for the betrothal is returned, since the betrothal does not take effect; and Shmuel said: This money is a gift, meaning that he wished to give a gift to his sister and he did so in this manner. Therefore, Rav Anan remained uncertain as to when Shmuel required the money to be returned.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚拽谞住讬谞谉 诇诇讜拽讞 谞拽谞住讬讛 诇诪讜讻专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讙谞讘 讗诇讗 讞讜专讗 讙谞讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 注讻讘专讗 讞讜专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛

With regard to the halakha that if one sells his slave to a Jew outside of Eretz Yisrael it is the purchaser who loses his money, Abaye said to Rav Yosef: What did you see to cause you to say that we apply the penalty to the purchaser, in that he is required to emancipate the slave and loses his money; we should apply the penalty to the seller, and he should be required to return the money. Rav Yosef answered Abaye with a parable and said to him: It is not the mouse that steals, but the hole that steals. In other words, a mouse cannot steal anything unless he has a hole for hiding the stolen items. Here too, the slave would not have been sold without the help of the purchaser. The Gemara questions this logic: But if not for the mouse, from where would the hole have the stolen item; since they both contribute to the prohibited act, each of them is deserving of being penalized.

诪住转讘专讗 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讗讬住讜专讗 讛转诐 拽谞住讬谞谉

Rav Yosef responded to him: It stands to reason that anywhere that the forbidden item, i.e., the slave, is, in this case, with the purchaser, there we should penalize.

讛讛讜讗 注讘讚讗 讚注专拽 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讗讝诇 诪专讬讛 讗讘转专讬讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 谞讻转讜讘 诇讱 砖讟专讗 讗讚诪讬讛 讜讻转讜讘 诇讬讛 讙讬讟讗 讚讞讬专讜转讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诪驻拽谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讱 诪讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

搂 The Gemara relates: There was a certain slave who fled from his master from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael. His master followed him to Eretz Yisrael and came before Rabbi Ami. Rabbi Ami said to the master: We will write a promissory note for his value for you, and you should write a bill of manumission for him. And if you do not do this, I will remove him from you entirely, since he does not have to return to outside of Eretz Yisrael, based on the statement of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讗 讬砖讘讜 讘讗专爪讱 驻谉 讬讞讟讬讗讜 讗讜转讱 诇讬 讬讻讜诇 讘讙讜讬 砖拽讬讘诇 注诇讬讜 砖诇讗 诇注讘讜讚 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 讗砖专 讬谞爪诇 讗诇讬讱 诪注诐 讗讚讜谞讬讜 诪讗讬 转拽谞转讜 注诪讱 讬砖讘 讘拽专讘讱 讜讙讜壮

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the residents of the Land of Canaan: 鈥淭hey shall not dwell in your land lest they make you to sin against Me, for you will serve their gods; for they will be a snare to you鈥 (Exodus 23:33). One might have thought that the verse is also speaking of a gentile who accepted upon himself not to engage in idol worship, and is teaching that such a gentile may not dwell in Eretz Yisrael as well; therefore the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave who escaped to you from his master鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:16). The baraita understands that the verse is speaking in metaphoric terms about a gentile who has come to Eretz Yisrael, escaping his idolatrous past. The baraita continues: What is this gentile鈥檚 remedy? 鈥淗e shall dwell with you in your midst鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:17). This teaches that as long as he accepts upon himself not to engage in idol worship, he may remain in Eretz Yisrael.

讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗讬 诪注诐 讗讚讜谞讬讜 诪注诐 讗讘讬讜 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘诪讜讻专 注讘讚讜 诇讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

And the explanation of the verse in the baraita is difficult for Rabbi Yoshiya: This expression employed in the verse: 鈥淔rom his master,鈥 is imprecise if it is speaking about a gentile who abandons idol worship, as it should have stated: From his father, as a father is a more apt metaphor for the religion in which one was raised. Rather, Rabbi Yoshiya explains differently and says: The verse is speaking of one who sells his slave to a Jew who lives outside of Eretz Yisrael, and the continuation of the verse: 鈥淗e shall dwell with you,鈥 means that he does not go to his new master outside of Eretz Yisrael, but is emancipated and remains in Eretz Yisrael.

讜拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讛讗讬 讗砖专 讬谞爪诇 讗诇讬讱 讗砖专 讬谞爪诇 诪注诪讱 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 讘注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

And the explanation of Rabbi Yoshiya is difficult for Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya: If it is referring to a slave who is sold to one outside of Eretz Yisrael, then this expression: 鈥淲ho escaped to you,鈥 is not accurate, as he is leaving from Eretz Yisrael, not escaping to Eretz Yisrael. According to Rabbi Yoshiya鈥檚 explanation, it should have stated: Who escaped from you. Rather, Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, said: The verse is speaking of a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, which indicates that in such a case he may dwell there and is not returned to his master. Based on this statement of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, Rabbi Ami told the master that the slave will in any case be emancipated.

转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讘诇讜拽讞 注讘讚 注诇 诪谞转 诇砖讞专专讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讚讻转讘 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 诇讻砖讗拽讞讱 讛专讬 注爪诪讱 拽谞讜讬 诇讱 诪注讻砖讬讜

It is taught in another baraita: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave鈥 (Deuteronomy 23:16); Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse is speaking of one who acquires a slave in order to emancipate him. The court may not deliver him to this master, because he is not his slave and he may not treat him as such. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: For example, when he wrote to the slave like this: When I will purchase you, you are hereby acquired to yourself from now. The new master does not take possession of the slave, as he is emancipated immediately upon being purchased.

专讘 讞住讚讗 注专拽 诇讬讛 注讘讚讗 诇讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讛讚专讜讛 谞讬讛诇讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讞诪讜专讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇砖诪诇转讜 讜讻谉 转注砖讛 诇讻诇 讗讘讬讚转 讗讞讬讱 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讜讛讻转讬讘 诇讗 转住讙讬专 注讘讚 讗诇 讗讚讜谞讬讜 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讛讛讜讗 讘注讘讚 砖讘专讞 诪讞讜爪讛 诇讗专抓 诇讗专抓 讜讻讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛

The Gemara relates that Rav 岣sda鈥檚 slave escaped to Bei Kutai, a place where Samaritans lived. He sent a request to the residents of that place: Return him to me. They sent a response to him: The verse states: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave,鈥 so we will not return this slave to you. He sent a response to them: The verse also states with regard to lost items: 鈥淎nd you shall restore it to him鈥and so you shall do for his donkey and so you shall do for his garment and so you shall do for anything your brother has lost鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:2鈥3). They sent a response to him again: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淵ou shall not deliver to his master a slave鈥? Rav 岣sda sent a response to them: That verse is referring to a slave who escaped from outside of Eretz Yisrael to Eretz Yisrael, and in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and my slave escaped from one location outside of Eretz Yisrael to another location outside of Eretz Yisrael.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讚砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讻讚专讘讬 讗讞讬 讘专讘讬 讬讗砖讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚诪砖诪注 诇讛讜 拽专讗讬

The Gemara asks: And what is different about this case that led him to send a response to them specifically in accordance with the explanation of Rabbi A岣i, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, and not in accordance with any other interpretation of the verse? The Gemara answers: Because that is how the Samaritans would understand the verse. Samaritans did not generally accept the explanations of the Sages, and this explanation accords with the straightforward reading of the verse, while the other explanations do not.

讗讘讬讬 讗讬专讻住 诇讬讛 讞诪专讗 讘讬 讻讜转讗讬 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 砖讚专讜讛 诇讬 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 砖诇讞 住讬诪谞讗 砖诇讞 诇讛讜 讚讞讬讜讜专讗 讻专讬住讬讛 砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚谞讞诪谞讬 讗转 诇讗 讛讜讛 诪砖讚专谞讗 诇讬讛 谞讬讛诇讱 讗讟讜 讻讜诇讬 讞诪专讬 诇讗讜 讻专讬住讬讬讛讜 讞讬讜讜专讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara relates that Abaye lost a donkey among the Samaritans in Bei Kutai. He sent a request to them: Send it to me. They sent a response to him: Send a distinguishing mark and we will return it to you. He sent the following distinguishing mark to them: That its belly is white. They sent a response to him: If not for the fact that you are Na岣ani, meaning that we know that you are a trustworthy man, we would not send it to you. Is that to say that bellies of all donkeys aren鈥檛 white? Therefore, it is not a true distinguishing mark.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 讬转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 讜讗讬谉 诪讘专讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉

MISHNA: The captives are not redeemed for more than their actual monetary value, for the betterment of the world; and one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors for the betterment of the world, so that kidnappers will not be more restrictive with their captives to prevent them from escaping. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives, so that kidnappers will not avenge the escape of the captives by treating other captives with cruelty.

讙诪壮 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讛讗讬 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讜讞拽讗 讚爪讘讜专讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 诇讙专讘讜 讜诇讬讬转讜 讟驻讬

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to this expression: For the betterment of the world, is it due to the financial pressure of the community? Is the concern that the increase in price will lead to the community assuming financial pressures it will not be able to manage? Or perhaps it is because the result of this will be that they will not seize and bring additional captives, as they will see that it is not worthwhile for them to take Jews captive?

转讗 砖诪注 讚诇讜讬 讘专 讚专讙讗 驻专拽讗 诇讘专转讬讛 讘转诇讬住专 讗诇驻讬 讚讬谞专讬 讝讛讘

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer based on the fact that Levi bar Darga redeemed his daughter who was taken captive with thirteen thousand gold dinars. This indicates that private citizens may pay excessive sums to redeem a captive if they so choose. Therefore, it must be that the reason for the ordinance was to avoid an excessive burden being placed upon the community. If the ordinance was instituted to remove the incentive for kidnappers to capture Jews, a private citizen would also not be permitted to pay an excessive sum.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 注讘讚 讚讬诇诪讗 砖诇讗 讘专爪讜谉 讞讻诪讬诐 注讘讚

Abaye said: And who told us that he acted in accordance with the wishes of the Sages? Perhaps he acted against the wishes of the Sages, and this anecdote cannot serve as a proof.

讜讗讬谉 诪讘专讬讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘讜讬讬谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 砖讘讜讬讬谉 诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讞讚

The mishna taught: And one may not aid the captives in their attempt to escape from their captors, for the betterment of the world. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives. The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two reasons given? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them when there is only one captive. If this ordinance was instituted for the benefit of the other captives, so that the kidnappers should not avenge a captive鈥檚 escape by treating the others with cruelty, then if there is only one captive to begin with, one may help him to escape. If it was instituted so that kidnappers in general will not act restrictively with their captives, it would be prohibited in this case as well.

讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘讞砖谉 拽讚专讗 讘讬讚讬讬讛讜 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 注讬诇讬砖 讻转讬讘 讗讚诐 讗讞讚 诪讗诇祝 诪爪讗转讬 讜讗砖讛 讘讻诇 讗诇讛 诇讗 诪爪讗转讬 讛讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讙专诪讗 诇讛讜 诪讬诇转讗 讜讗砖转讘讬讬谉 讜讗讬砖转讘讗讬 讗讬讛讜 谞诪讬 讘讛讚讬讬讛讜

搂 The Gemara relates that Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters would stir a boiling pot with their bare hands, and people thought that the heat did not harm them due to their righteousness. Rav Ilish had a difficulty with a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎 man one of a thousand I have found, and a woman among all those have I not found鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:28). Aren鈥檛 there Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters, who were exceptionally righteous? These words caused them to be taken captive, due to the evil eye, and Rav Ilish was also taken captive with them.

讬讜诪讗 讞讚 讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讙讘讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚讛讜讛 讬讚注 讘诇讬砖谞讗 讚爪讬驻讜专讬 讗转讗 注讜专讘讗 讜拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 讗诪专 注讜专讘讗 砖讬拽专讗 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 住诪讬讻谞讗 注诇讬讛

One day a certain man was sitting with him in captivity who knew the language of birds. A raven came and called to Rav Ilish. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is the raven saying? He said to him that it is saying: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Rav Ilish said: It is a lying raven, and I do not rely on it.

讗讚讛讻讬 讗转讗 讬讜谞讛 讜拽讗 拽专讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 注讬诇讬砖 讘专讞 讗诪专 讻谞住转 讬砖专讗诇 讻讬讜谞讛 诪转讬诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪转专讞讬砖 诇讬 谞讬住讗 讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讞讝讬 讘谞转讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬 拽讬讬诪谉 讘讛讬诪谞讜转讬讬讛讜 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜

In the meantime, a dove came and was calling out. Rav Ilish said to the man: What is it saying? He said to him that the dove said: Ilish, escape; Ilish, escape. Ilish said: The Congregation of Israel is compared to a dove; I conclude from the dove鈥檚 words that a miracle will happen for me, and I can attempt to escape. Rav Ilish said: Before I leave, I will go and I will see Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters. If they remained steadfast in their faith and are acting appropriately, then I will take them with me and I will return them to their home.

讗诪专 谞砖讬 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬转 诇讛讜 住讚专谉 诇讛讚讚讬 讘讘讬转 讛讻住讗 砖诪注讬谞讛讜 讚拽讗诪专谉 注讚讬 讙讜讘专讬谉 讜谞讛专讚注讬 讙讜讘专讬谉 诇讬诪讗 诇讛讜 诇砖讘讜讬讬讛讜 讚诇讬专讞拽讬谞讛讜 诪讛讻讗 讚诇讗 诇讬转讜 讗讬谞砖讬谉 讜诇讬砖诪注讬 讜诇讬驻专拽讬谞谉

He said: Women tell all of their secret matters to each other in the bathroom, so he went there to eavesdrop on them. He heard them saying: These captors are now our husbands, and the men of Neharde鈥檃 to whom we are married are our husbands. We should tell our captors to distance us from here so that our husbands should not come to this area and hear that we are here, and redeem us, and take us home. They preferred to remain with their captors.

拽诐 注专拽 讗转讗 讗讬讛讜 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 诇讚讬讚讬讛 讗讬转专讞讬砖 诇讬讛 谞讬住讗 注讘专 讘诪讘专讗 讜讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讗砖讻讞讜讛 讜拽讟诇讜讛 讻讬 讛讚专谉 讜讗转谉 讗诪专 讛讜讜 拽讗 讘讞砖谉 拽讬讚专讗 讘讻砖驻讬诐

Upon hearing this Rav Ilish arose and escaped. He and that man who knew the language of the birds came to a river crossing. A miracle happened for him and he crossed the river on a ferry, and the captors found that man and killed him. When Rav Na岣an鈥檚 daughters were returned and they came back from their captivity, Rav Ilish said: They would stir the pot with witchcraft, and that is why they were not burned by the boiling pot, but it was not due to their righteousness.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 住驻专讬诐 转驻讬诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讬讜转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉

MISHNA: And Torah scrolls, phylacteries, or mezuzot are not purchased from the gentiles when they acquire these objects, if they request more than their actual monetary value,

诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

for the betterment of the world, so as not to cause an increase in the theft of sacred Jewish ritual objects in order to sell them for large sums of money.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讘讜讚讬讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讬转专 注诇 讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讛讗 讘讻讚讬 讚诪讬讛谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇讙谞讜讝

GEMARA: Rav Budya said to Rav Ashi that one could infer the following from the mishna: It is for more than their actual monetary value that one may not purchase them; however, for their precise value, one may purchase them. Can one learn from the mishna that with regard to a Torah scroll that is found in the possession of a gentile, one can read from it after obtaining it from the gentile, and there is no concern that perhaps the gentile wrote it and it is unfit? Rav Ashi answered: Perhaps this does not mean that the Torah scroll is purchased in order to read from it, but rather in order to inter it and not to use it; however, it is nevertheless purchased so that it will not be desecrated by the gentiles.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 谞拽讟讬谞谉 住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘讜 诪讬谉 讬砖专祝 讻转讘讜 讙讜讬 讬讙谞讝 谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚 诪讬谉 讬讙谞讝 谞诪爪讗 讘讬讚 讙讜讬 讗诪专讬 诇讛 讬讙谞讝 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜

Rav Na岣an says: We have a tradition that a Torah scroll that was written by a heretic should be burned; a Torah scroll written by a gentile should be interred; a Torah scroll found in the possession of a heretic, and it is not clear who wrote it, should be interred. With regard to a Torah scroll found in the possession of a gentile, some say it should be interred and some say that one may read from it.

住驻专 转讜专讛 砖讻转讘讜 讙讜讬 转谞讬 讞讚讗 讬砖专祝 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讬讙谞讝 讜转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara asks: With regard to a Torah scroll that was written by a gentile, it is taught in one baraita: It should be burned, and it is taught in another baraita: It should be interred, and it is taught in another baraita: One may read from it. There is a three-fold contradiction concerning the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬砖专祝 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 住转诐 诪讞砖讘转 讙讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara explains: This is not difficult: That which is taught in a baraita, that it should be burned, is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: The unspecified intentions of a gentile are for idol worship, and therefore everything he wrote is assumed to be written for the sake of idolatrous worship and must be burned.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讙谞讝 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬 专讘 讛诪谞讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诪驻砖专讜谞讬讗 住驻专 转讜专讛 转驻诇讬谉 讜诪讝讜讝讜转 砖讻转讘谉 诪讬谉 讜诪住讜专 讙讜讬 讜注讘讚 讗砖讛 讜拽讟谉 讜讻讜转讬 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪讜诪专 驻住讜诇讬谉 砖谞讗诪专 讜拽砖专转诐 讜讻转讘转诐 讻诇 砖讬砖谞讜 讘拽砖讬专讛 讬砖谞讜 讘讻转讬讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽砖讬专讛 讗讬谞讜 讘讻转讬讘讛

And that which is taught in a baraita, which said that it should be interred, is the opinion of this tanna, as Rav Hamnuna, son of Rava of Pashronya, taught: A Torah scroll, phylacteries, or mezuzot that were written by a heretic or an informer, a gentile or a slave, a woman or a minor, or a Samaritan or a Jewish apostate, are unfit, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall bind them as a sign on your hand鈥and you shall write them on the doorposts of your house鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:8鈥9). From this juxtaposition, one can derive the following: Anyone who is included in the mitzva of binding the phylacteries, i.e., one who is both obligated and performs the mitzva, is included in the class of people who may write Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot; but anyone who is not included in the mitzva of binding is not included in the class of people who may write sacred texts. This baraita equates the halakha of a Torah scroll written by a gentile to the halakha of Torah scrolls written by these other types of people, which are interred.

讜讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 拽讜专讬谉 讘讜 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讛讜讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜拽讞讬谉 住驻专讬诐 诪谉 讛讙讜讬诐 讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讬讜 讻转讜讘讬谉 讻讛诇讻转谉 讜诪注砖讛 讘讙讜讬 讗讞讚 讘爪讬讚谉 砖讛讬讛 讻讜转讘 住驻专讬诐 讜讛转讬专 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讬拽讞 诪诪谞讜

And concerning that which is taught in a baraita, i.e., that one may read from it, that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:6): One may purchase Torah scrolls from gentiles in any location, provided that they are written in accordance with their halakhot. And there was an incident involving a gentile in Tzaidan who would write Torah scrolls, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel permitted the Jews to purchase the Torah scrolls from him.

讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讬讘讜讚 诇砖诪谉 讘注讬 讻转讬讘讛 诇砖诪谉 诇讗 讘注讬

The Gemara asks: And does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel require that the preparation of the parchment of Torah scrolls, phylacteries, and mezuzot be for their sake, i.e., for the sake of their use in a mitzva, but he does not require that the writing be for their sake?

讚转谞讬讗 爪讬驻谉 讝讛讘 讗讜 砖讟诇讛 注诇讬讛谉 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 驻住讜诇讜转 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讻砖专讜转 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖诇讗 注讬讘讚谉 诇砖诪谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜专 讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 驻住讜诇讜转 注讚 砖讬注讘讚谉 诇砖诪谉

The Gemara quotes the source that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel requires that the parchment be prepared for their sake: As it is taught in a baraita: If one took phylacteries and coated them with gold or patched them with the skin of a non-kosher animal, then they are unfit. However, if one patched them with the skin of a kosher animal, then they are fit, and this is so even though he did not prepare them, i.e., the skin, for their sake, i.e., for the sake of their use in a mitzva. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even if he patched them with the skin of a kosher animal they are unfit, until he prepares them for their sake. Being that he holds that the parchment needs to be prepared for their sake, their actual writing should certainly be done for their sake.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讙专 砖讞讝专 诇住讜专讜 诇住讜专讜 讻诇 砖讻谉 讚讛讜讬 诇讬讛 诪讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖讞讜讝专 诇住讜专讜 诪砖讜诐 讬专讗讛

Rabba bar Shmuel says: That incident in Tzaidan involved a convert who returned to his previous corrupt ways [suro] by reverting to living like a gentile. He nevertheless remains a Jew. The Gemara asks: If he returned to his previous corrupt ways all the more so should the Torah scroll be rendered unfit, as he is a heretic. Once he learns the Jewish faith and abandons it, he is considered a heretic. Rav Ashi says: This means that he returned to his previous corrupt ways due to fear, and not because he rejected the Jewish faith. He ceased acting like a Jew out of fear of reprisal. Since he is a Jew, it is permitted for him to read from the Torah scrolls that he writes.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讬谉 讘讚诪讬讛谉 注讚 讻讚讬 讟专驻注讬拽 诪讗讬 讟专驻注讬拽 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讗讬住转讬专讗

搂 The Gemara clarifies the halakha from the mishna that one may not purchase sacred items from a gentile for more than their actual value. The Sages taught: One may increase payment beyond their value up to a terapa鈥檌k. The Gemara asks: What is a terapa鈥檌k? Rav Sheshet said: It is an istera, worth one half of a dinar.

讛讛讬讗 讟讬讬注转讗 讚讗讬讬转讬 讞讬讬转讗 讚转驻讬诇讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讬讛讘转 诇讬 专讬砖 专讬砖 讘转诪专讬 讗讬诪诇讬讗 讝讬讛专讗 砖拽诇讗 砖讚转讬谞讛讜 讘谞讛专讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讗讘注讬 诇讬 诇讝诇讝讜诇讬谞讛讜 讘讗驻讛 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬

The Gemara relates: There was a certain Arab merchant woman [taya鈥檃ta] who brought a sack [岣yeta] of phylacteries in front of Abaye. He said to her: Would you give me each pair for a date? She became full of anger, and took the phylacteries and threw them into the river because Abaye offered her such a small amount in exchange for them. Abaye said in remorse: I should not have denigrated the phylacteries so much in her presence, but rather, I should have offered to pay her their actual value.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 诪砖讜诐 谞讚专 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖诇讗 讬讚注讜 讘讜 专讘讬诐 讬讞讝讬专

MISHNA: A man who divorces his wife due to her bad reputation, i.e., he heard that she had committed adultery, may not remarry her, even if it becomes clear that she did not in fact commit adultery. Similarly, if one divorces his wife due to a vow that she took, and he could not live with her under the conditions of her vow, he may not remarry her. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he divorces her due to any vow that the public was aware of, he may not remarry her, but if he divorces her due to a vow that the public was not aware of, he may remarry her.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖爪专讬讱 讞拽讬专转 讞讻诐 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讞拽讬专转 讞讻诐 讬讞讝讬专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讗住专讜 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪驻谞讬 讝讛

The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir says: If he divorces her due to any vow that requires investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, he may not bring remarry her, but if he divorces her due to a vow that does not require investigation and dissolution by a halakhic authority, and is dissolved even without that, he may bring remarry her. Rabbi Elazar said: They prohibited him from remarrying her in this case, where she stated a vow that requires dissolution by a halakhic authority, only due to that case, where she stated a vow that does not require dissolution by a halakhic authority.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪注砖讛 讘爪讬讚谉 讘讗讞讚 砖讗诪专 诇讗砖转讜 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 讗讬谞讬 诪讙专砖讬讱 讜讙专砖讛 讜讛转讬专讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 砖讬讞讝讬专谞讛 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛注讜诇诐

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said: There was an incident in Tzaidan involving one man who said to his wife: It is konam, i.e., it is forbidden like an offering, if I do not divorce you, and he divorced her; and the Sages permitted him to remarry her for the betterment of the world.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜讛讜讗 砖讗诪专 诇讛 诪砖讜诐 砖诐 专注 讗谞讬 诪讜爪讬讗讱

GEMARA: Rav Yosef bar Minyumi says that Rav Na岣an says: And the halakha stated in the mishna, which says that in certain cases a man who divorces his wife may not remarry her, is only applicable when he said to her explicitly: I am removing you from the house due to your bad reputation,

Scroll To Top