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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 10, 2023 | 讻状讗 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Gittin 55

Rabbi Yochanan ben Gudgada testified about several laws, one pertaining to a takana, and the Gemara discusses each of the laws.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讟注讬 讘讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪驻住讬讚 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讙专讬讛 讜讗转讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬诪讜专 拽讜砖讟讗 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case in which Rabbi Ami said that the scribe is not deemed credible to disqualify the Torah scroll? The Gemara answers: There it can be said that the scribe was lying and merely wished to distress the purchaser of the Torah scroll. He claimed that he had written God鈥檚 names without the proper intention because he made the mistake of Rabbi Yirmeya. He thought, as Rabbi Yirmeya did, that as a result of his purported admission he would lose only his wage for writing the holy names, but he would still receive payment for the rest of the scroll. Here, by contrast, since the scribe knows that by claiming that he did not process the parchment with the proper intention, he causes the loss of his entire wage, and he nevertheless comes and says this, you should say that he speaks the truth and should be deemed credible. Since he is deemed credible and there is no concern that he merely wished to distress the purchaser, the Torah scroll is disqualified.


诪转谞讬壮 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟


MISHNA: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified before the Sages about the case of a deaf-mute woman who was married off by her father when she was a minor, so that her marriage took effect by Torah law. He said that she can be released from her marriage through a bill of divorce, whether as a minor or after she reaches adulthood. Although as a deaf-mute woman she is not legally competent to give her consent, the divorce is effective because divorce does not require the woman鈥檚 consent.


讜注诇 拽讟谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 砖讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诪转讛 讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讛


And similarly, he testified about the case of the minor daughter of a non-priest who was orphaned from her father and then married off to a priest by her mother or brother, so that her marriage took effect by rabbinic law. He said that nevertheless she may partake of teruma, although by Torah law it is prohibited for one who is not in a priestly household to partake of teruma. And furthermore if this girl dies, then her husband inherits her estate. It is not said that because the validity of the marriage is by rabbinic law and not Torah law he is not entitled to inherit from her.


讜注诇 讛诪专讬砖 讛讙讝讜诇 砖讘谞讗讜 讘讘讬专讛 砖讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐


And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a large building [bira], that the victim of the robbery receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. By Torah law, a robber is obligated to return any stolen item in his possession, provided that its form has not been altered. If one stole a beam and incorporated it into a building, then by Torah law he would have to destroy the building and return the beam. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and allowed a robber to return the value of the beam.


讜注诇 讞讟讗转 讛讙讝讜诇讛 砖诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诇专讘讬诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞


And lastly, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that was obtained through robbery but that was not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner. He said that it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it, for the benefit of the altar, as will be explained in the Gemara.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪注讚讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讗诪专 诇注讚讬诐 专讗讜 讙讟 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转讛


GEMARA: Rava says: Learn from the testimony of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda in the mishna that if the husband secretly says to witnesses: See this bill of divorce that I am about to give to my wife, and then he says to his wife: Take this promissory note, then she is divorced even when she herself does not know that the document in her hand is a bill of divorce. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda say that we do not require the woman鈥檚 consent for a bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect even when she is a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent to give her consent? Here too, one should say that we do not require the woman鈥檚 consent.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讘讟诇讬讛 诇注讚讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Why would the divorce not be valid? The Gemara explains: Lest you say: Since he said to his wife: Take this promissory note, after talking to the witnesses, he meant to cancel the bill of divorce with these words, Rava therefore teaches us: If it is so that he meant to cancel the bill of divorce, he would have told the witnesses that this was his intention. The fact that he did not do so indicates that he had no intention of canceling it. And the reason he said to his wife that he was handing her a promissory note is due to embarrassment, as he was ashamed to tell her that he was giving her a bill of divorce. Consequently, he gave it to her in such a way that she did not immediately know that it was a bill of divorce that she received.


讜注诇 拽讟谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬诇讜 讞专砖转 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇 讞专砖 讘讞专砖转


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about the case of a minor daughter of a non-priest who was married to a priest, and said that she may partake of teruma. The Gemara comments: This indicates that only the minor daughter can partake of teruma, while one can infer from this that a deaf-mute woman who was married to a priest may not partake of teruma. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The Sages decreed that a deaf-mute woman married to a priest may not partake of teruma lest a deaf-mute priest come to feed teruma to his deaf-mute wife, as it is common for deaf-mute men to marry deaf-mute women, but their marriage is not effective by Torah law.


讜诇讬讻讜诇 拽讟谉 讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讜转 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: Why does this matter? And let him feed her teruma. Isn鈥檛 she like a minor who eats forbidden animal carcasses? Since the deaf-mute woman is not considered to be legally competent, she is not subject to the prohibition against partaking of teruma. As in the case of a minor who is eating forbidden food, there is no requirement to prevent her from doing so.


讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇 讞专砖 讘驻讬拽讞转


The Gemara answers: Rather, the Sages decreed that a deaf-mute woman married to a priest may not partake of teruma lest a deaf-mute priest come to feed teruma to his halakhically competent wife. Since the validity of their marriage is by rabbinic law, it is therefore prohibited for the woman to partake of teruma, as by Torah law, she is not the wife of a priest. There is a concern that a distinction will not be made between the marriage of a halakhically competent man and deaf-mute woman, in which case the woman is permitted to partake of teruma, and the marriage of a deaf-mute man and a halakhically competent woman, in which case the woman is prohibited from partaking of teruma. Owing to this error, a deaf-mute man might come to feed his wife something that is forbidden to her.


讜诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讻讜诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


The Gemara asks: But let her partake of teruma that is defined as such by rabbinic law, as marriage that is valid by rabbinic law should suffice to permit partaking of such teruma. The Gemara answers: The Sages decreed that he may not feed her teruma even by rabbinic law, lest he come to feed her teruma by Torah law.


讜注诇 讛诪专讬砖 讛讙讝讜诇 砖讘谞讗讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讝诇 诪专讬砖 讜讘谞讗讜 讘讘讬专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽注拽注 讻诇 讛讘讬专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诪专讬砖 诇讘注诇讬讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 诪专讬砖 讘诇讘讚 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a building and said that the injured party receives the value of the beam but not the beam itself. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:5): If one robbed another of a beam and built it into a building, Beit Shammai say: He must destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owners. And Beit Hillel say: The injured party receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted for the sake of the penitent. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and required the robber to return only the value of the beam. The mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜注诇 讞讟讗转 讛讙讝讜诇讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘讬谉 谞讜讚注讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that was obtained through robbery, and said that provided that it was not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner, it effects atonement for the robber. Ulla says: By Torah law, the halakha is as follows: Whether it is known or whether it is not known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement for the robber who sacrifices it.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诪讻驻专转 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讻讛谞讬诐 注爪讘讬谉


What is the reason for this? The owner鈥檚 despair of recovering an article that was stolen from him does not by itself enable the robber to acquire the stolen item. Since the stolen animal was not altered in any way, it does not belong to the robber, and he cannot sacrifice it as an offering and achieve atonement through it. And what is the reason that the Sages said that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery it effects atonement? It is so that the priests not be distraught about having sacrificed an animal unfit for the altar.


讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜讛讗谞谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讛谞讬诐 注爪讘讬谉 谞诪爪讗 诪讝讘讞 讘讟诇


The Rabbis said to Ulla: How can you explain the issue in this manner? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: It effects atonement for the benefit of the altar, which indicates that the halakha was enacted for the benefit of the altar, not for the benefit of the priests? Ulla said to them: When the priests are distraught, the altar is found idle. The priests will not sacrifice all of the offerings when they are distraught.


讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘讬谉 谞讜讚注讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诪讻驻专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 拽谞讬


This is one explanation, but Rav Yehuda says: By Torah law, whether it is known or it is not known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it. What is the reason for this? The owner鈥檚 despair of recovering an article that was stolen from him by itself enables the robber to acquire the stolen item. Once the owner despairs of regaining possession, the stolen item becomes the robber鈥檚 property and he can consecrate it. Therefore, the offering was sacrificed in a fitting manner, and it effects atonement for the robber.


讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 谞讜讚注讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讝讘讞 讗讜讻诇 讙讝讬诇讜转


And what is the reason that the Sages said that if it is known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement? It is so that people not say that the altar consumes stolen property.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讟讗转 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诇讛 谞诪讬


The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, this is the reason that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a sin-offering: The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to halakha, they are likely to become distraught. But according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that the concern is about the honor of the altar, why does the mishna mention specifically the case of a sin-offering; shouldn鈥檛 the same concern apply to a burnt-offering, as well, as it too is burned on the altar?


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 注讜诇讛 讚讻诇讬诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讗转 谞诪讬 讚讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讙讝讜专 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讝讘讞 讗讜讻诇 讙讝讬诇讜转


The Gemara answers: The mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and the mishna should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to teach the halakha in the case of a burnt-offering, which is entirely consumed on the altar. In that case, people will certainly say that the altar consumes stolen property. But even in the case of a sin-offering, where only the fat and the blood go up to be consumed on the altar and the rest is consumed by the priests, even so they issued a decree and said that the stolen sin-offering does not effect atonement, so that people should not say that the altar consumes stolen property.


转谞谉 注诇 讞讟讗转 讛讙讝讜诇讛 砖诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诇专讘讬诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara further clarifies the two understandings: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that had been obtained through robbery but that is not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner, and said that it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it, for the benefit of the altar. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, it works out well, as he understands that the Sages instituted that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does effect atonement. But according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, it should have stated just the opposite, namely, that if it was publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诪讻驻专转 谞讜讚注讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞


The Gemara answers: That is also what the mishna is saying: If it is not known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it effects atonement, but if this is known, it does not effect atonement, for the benefit of the altar.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讙谞讘 讜讛拽讚讬砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讻专转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛


Rava raises an objection from what was learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 74a): If one stole an animal and consecrated it, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, he pays double payment like a thief (see Exodus 22:3), but he does not pay fourfold or fivefold payment, as one must ordinarily pay when he slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep that he stole from another person (Exodus 21:37). And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If one slaughtered an animal outside the Temple in a case like this, he is punishable by karet for having sacrificed an offering outside the Temple. And if you say that the owner鈥檚 despair of recovering an item that was stolen from him does not by itself enable the thief to acquire the stolen item, what is the relevance of mentioning karet? The punishment of karet should not apply, as the thief cannot consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讻专转 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讻专转 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 转讞讜讻讜 注诇讛 讻专转 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘讗转讛 诇讜 讗讜拽诪讜讛 专讘谞谉 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讛


Rav Sheizevi said: This means that he is liable to receive karet by rabbinic law. Those who heard this laughed at him. Is there such a thing as karet by rabbinic law? Rava said to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. What Rav Sheizevi means is karet that comes to him through the words of the Sages, who declared that the thief鈥檚 consecration is valid. It is the Sages who placed the animal in his possession, so that he would become liable for it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讜讜讚讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讻讬 讗讜拽诪讜讛 专讘谞谉 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诪砖注转 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讜 诪砖注转 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讝讜转讬讛 讜讜诇讚讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪砖注转 讛拽讚讬砖讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专


Rava said: Although I agree with Rav Sheizevi, this matter is certainly a dilemma for me. When the Sages placed the animal in his possession, did they do so from the time of the theft or from the time of the consecration? What is the difference between these possibilities? There is a difference with regard to its wool and with regard to its offspring. If the animal was placed in his possession from the time of the theft, the wool that it grows and the offspring that it births are his, and he is not required to return them to the animal鈥檚 owner. But if the animal becomes his only when he consecrates it, he is required to return them. What is the halakha? Rava then said, in answer to his own question: It stands to reason that the Sages placed the animal in his possession from the time of the consecration. This is so that the sinner not profit from his crime. Otherwise, the thief would benefit from the rabbinic decree that was instituted to increase his liability.


诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讛讬讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛专讜讙讬 诪诇讞诪讛 诪讛专讜讙讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讬砖 讘讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽讞讜 讘讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 诪拽讞讜 拽讬讬诐


MISHNA: The law of Sicarii [Sikarikon] did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war. From the time that people were being killed in the war and onward, the law of Sicarii did apply there. What is this law of Sicarii? If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, and afterward the buyer returned and purchased the same field a second time from the prior landowner, his purchase is void. The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the prior owner and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from a Sicarius, his purchase stands.


诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 诪拽讞讜 讘讟诇 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 诪拽讞讜 拽讬讬诐 讝讜 诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛


Similarly, if one first purchased from the husband the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, his purchase is void. The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, his purchase stands. This is the initial version of this mishna.


讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讞专讬讛诐 讗诪专讜 讛诇讜拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 谞讜转谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讘讬注 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讚谉 诇讬拽讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讬讚谉 诇讬拽讞 讛谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讚诐


Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field鈥檚 value. When does this apply? At a time when the prior owner is unable to purchase the field himself. But if he is able to purchase it himself, he precedes anyone else.


专讘讬 讛讜砖讬讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜谞诪谞讜 砖讗诐 砖讛转讛 讘驻谞讬 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 诇讬拽讞 讝讻讛 讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讘讬注


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later convened a court, and they counted their votes and determined that if the field remained before, i.e., in the possession of, the Sicarius for twelve months, whoever first purchases the field acquires possession of it, but he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field鈥檚 value.


讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讘讛专讜讙讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 诪讛专讜讙讬 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讬砖 讘讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉


GEMARA: The Gemara challenges the mishna鈥檚 assertion that the law of Sicarii did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war: Now if in the time that people were being killed in the war, there were no Sicarii stealing land, is it possible that from the time that people were being killed in the war and onward there were Sicarii?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚谞讜 讘讛 讚讬谉 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 拽讗诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 砖诇砖 讙讝讬专讜转 讙讝专讜 讙讝专转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讻诇 讚诇讗 拽讟讬诇 诇讬拽讟诇讜讛讜 诪爪讬注转讗 讻诇 讚拽讟讬诇 诇讬讬转讬 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讻诇 讚拽讟讬诇 诇讬拽讟诇讜讛讜 讛诇讻讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讟诇讬 讗讙讘 讗讜谞住讬讛 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬


Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is saying that in the time that people were being killed in the war they did not apply the law of Sicarii, but rather they would confirm the purchases of land made from the Sicarii. The reason for this is in accordance with what Rabbi Asi said: The gentile authorities issued three decrees during and in the aftermath of the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple. The first decree was that anyone who does not kill a Jew should himself be killed. The second decree was that anyone who kills a Jew should pay four dinars as a fine. The last decree was that anyone who kills a Jew should himself be killed. Therefore, during the time of the first and second decrees, the time when people were being killed in the war, since the gentile would kill Jews, then the owner of the field, owing to the danger posed to his life, would fully transfer ownership of his field to the Sicarius.


讘转专讬讬转讗 讗诪专讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 诇诪讞专 转讘注谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗


Then, during the time of the last decree, after the time when people were being killed in the war, anybody whose field was stolen by a Sicarius would say to himself: Now let him take the field; tomorrow I will claim it from him in court. Although the gentile had the advantage and could force the owner to give him the field, the assumption is that the owner did not fully transfer possession of the field to him, as he thought that he would still be able to recover it in court.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专讬 讗讚诐 诪驻讞讚 转诪讬讚 讜诪拽砖讛 诇讘讜 讬驻讜诇 讘专注讛 讗拽诪爪讗 讜讘专 拽诪爪讗 讞专讜讘 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗转专谞讙讜诇讗 讜转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讞专讜讘 讟讜专 诪诇讻讗 讗砖拽讗 讚专讬住驻拽 讞专讜讘 讘讬转专


搂 Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗appy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief鈥 (Proverbs 28:14)? Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. The place known as the King鈥檚 Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. The city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [rispak].


讗拽诪爪讗 讜讘专 拽诪爪讗 讞专讜讘 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚专讞诪讬讛 拽诪爪讗 讜讘注诇 讚讘讘讬讛 讘专 拽诪爪讗 注讘讚 住注讜讚转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 拽诪爪讗 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讘专 拽诪爪讗


The Gemara explains: Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza.


讗转讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘注诇 讚讘讘讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讛讻讗 拽讜诐 驻讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讗讬 砖讘拽谉 讜讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讚诪讬 诪讛 讚讗讻讬诇谞讗 讜砖转讬谞讗


The man who was hosting the feast came and found bar Kamtza sitting at the feast. The host said to bar Kamtza. That man is the enemy [ba鈥檃l devava] of that man, that is, you are my enemy. What then do you want here? Arise and leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: Since I have already come, let me stay and I will give you money for whatever I eat and drink. Just do not embarrass me by sending me out.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Gittin is sponsored by Elaine and聽Saul聽Schreiber in honor of their daughter-in-law Daniela Schreiber on receiving her Master of Science in Marriage and Family Therapy.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Gittin: 51-57 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the laws pertaining to someone in charge of the property of orphans and his...
talking talmud_square

Gittin 55: Bar Kamtza and Rabbinic Apathy

NOTE: Apologies for the late release. This time, massive machine error, in a complicated way. Hopefully now resolved... A new...
aggadot d roberts

Legendary

Occasionally the daf we are learning matches up perfectly with the time of year or with current events. Such is...

Gittin 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 55

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讟注讬 讘讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 诪驻住讬讚 讻讜诇讬讛 讗讙专讬讛 讜讗转讗 讜讗诪专 讗讬诪讜专 拽讜砖讟讗 拽讗诪专


The Gemara asks: And in what way is this case different from the case in which Rabbi Ami said that the scribe is not deemed credible to disqualify the Torah scroll? The Gemara answers: There it can be said that the scribe was lying and merely wished to distress the purchaser of the Torah scroll. He claimed that he had written God鈥檚 names without the proper intention because he made the mistake of Rabbi Yirmeya. He thought, as Rabbi Yirmeya did, that as a result of his purported admission he would lose only his wage for writing the holy names, but he would still receive payment for the rest of the scroll. Here, by contrast, since the scribe knows that by claiming that he did not process the parchment with the proper intention, he causes the loss of his entire wage, and he nevertheless comes and says this, you should say that he speaks the truth and should be deemed credible. Since he is deemed credible and there is no concern that he merely wished to distress the purchaser, the Torah scroll is disqualified.


诪转谞讬壮 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 注诇 讛讞专砖转 砖讛砖讬讗讛 讗讘讬讛 砖讛讬讗 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讙讟


MISHNA: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified before the Sages about the case of a deaf-mute woman who was married off by her father when she was a minor, so that her marriage took effect by Torah law. He said that she can be released from her marriage through a bill of divorce, whether as a minor or after she reaches adulthood. Although as a deaf-mute woman she is not legally competent to give her consent, the divorce is effective because divorce does not require the woman鈥檚 consent.


讜注诇 拽讟谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖谞砖讗转 诇讻讛谉 砖讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗诐 诪转讛 讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讛


And similarly, he testified about the case of the minor daughter of a non-priest who was orphaned from her father and then married off to a priest by her mother or brother, so that her marriage took effect by rabbinic law. He said that nevertheless she may partake of teruma, although by Torah law it is prohibited for one who is not in a priestly household to partake of teruma. And furthermore if this girl dies, then her husband inherits her estate. It is not said that because the validity of the marriage is by rabbinic law and not Torah law he is not entitled to inherit from her.


讜注诇 讛诪专讬砖 讛讙讝讜诇 砖讘谞讗讜 讘讘讬专讛 砖讬讟讜诇 讗转 讚诪讬讜 诪驻谞讬 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬诐


And Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a large building [bira], that the victim of the robbery receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. By Torah law, a robber is obligated to return any stolen item in his possession, provided that its form has not been altered. If one stole a beam and incorporated it into a building, then by Torah law he would have to destroy the building and return the beam. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and allowed a robber to return the value of the beam.


讜注诇 讞讟讗转 讛讙讝讜诇讛 砖诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诇专讘讬诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞


And lastly, Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that was obtained through robbery but that was not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner. He said that it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it, for the benefit of the altar, as will be explained in the Gemara.


讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪注讚讜转讜 砖诇 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 讗诪专 诇注讚讬诐 专讗讜 讙讟 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 谞讜转谉 诇讛 讜讞讝专 讜讗诪专 诇讛 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讛专讬 讝讜 诪讙讜专砖转 诪讬 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 讙讜讚讙讚讗 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讚注转讛


GEMARA: Rava says: Learn from the testimony of Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda in the mishna that if the husband secretly says to witnesses: See this bill of divorce that I am about to give to my wife, and then he says to his wife: Take this promissory note, then she is divorced even when she herself does not know that the document in her hand is a bill of divorce. Didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda say that we do not require the woman鈥檚 consent for a bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect even when she is a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent to give her consent? Here too, one should say that we do not require the woman鈥檚 consent.


驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻谞住讬 砖讟专 讞讜讘 讝讛 讘讟讜诇讬 讘讟诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗诐 讗讬转讗 讚讘讟诇讬讛 诇注讚讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讜讛讗讬 讚拽讗诪专 讛讻讬 诪砖讜诐 讻讬住讜驻讗


The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this obvious? Why would the divorce not be valid? The Gemara explains: Lest you say: Since he said to his wife: Take this promissory note, after talking to the witnesses, he meant to cancel the bill of divorce with these words, Rava therefore teaches us: If it is so that he meant to cancel the bill of divorce, he would have told the witnesses that this was his intention. The fact that he did not do so indicates that he had no intention of canceling it. And the reason he said to his wife that he was handing her a promissory note is due to embarrassment, as he was ashamed to tell her that he was giving her a bill of divorce. Consequently, he gave it to her in such a way that she did not immediately know that it was a bill of divorce that she received.


讜注诇 拽讟谞讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讬诇讜 讞专砖转 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇 讞专砖 讘讞专砖转


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about the case of a minor daughter of a non-priest who was married to a priest, and said that she may partake of teruma. The Gemara comments: This indicates that only the minor daughter can partake of teruma, while one can infer from this that a deaf-mute woman who was married to a priest may not partake of teruma. The Gemara explains: What is the reason for this? The Sages decreed that a deaf-mute woman married to a priest may not partake of teruma lest a deaf-mute priest come to feed teruma to his deaf-mute wife, as it is common for deaf-mute men to marry deaf-mute women, but their marriage is not effective by Torah law.


讜诇讬讻讜诇 拽讟谉 讗讜讻诇 谞讘诇讜转 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: Why does this matter? And let him feed her teruma. Isn鈥檛 she like a minor who eats forbidden animal carcasses? Since the deaf-mute woman is not considered to be legally competent, she is not subject to the prohibition against partaking of teruma. As in the case of a minor who is eating forbidden food, there is no requirement to prevent her from doing so.


讙讝专讛 砖诪讗 讬讗讻讬诇 讞专砖 讘驻讬拽讞转


The Gemara answers: Rather, the Sages decreed that a deaf-mute woman married to a priest may not partake of teruma lest a deaf-mute priest come to feed teruma to his halakhically competent wife. Since the validity of their marriage is by rabbinic law, it is therefore prohibited for the woman to partake of teruma, as by Torah law, she is not the wife of a priest. There is a concern that a distinction will not be made between the marriage of a halakhically competent man and deaf-mute woman, in which case the woman is permitted to partake of teruma, and the marriage of a deaf-mute man and a halakhically competent woman, in which case the woman is prohibited from partaking of teruma. Owing to this error, a deaf-mute man might come to feed his wife something that is forbidden to her.


讜诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讗转讬 诇讗讻讜诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗


The Gemara asks: But let her partake of teruma that is defined as such by rabbinic law, as marriage that is valid by rabbinic law should suffice to permit partaking of such teruma. The Gemara answers: The Sages decreed that he may not feed her teruma even by rabbinic law, lest he come to feed her teruma by Torah law.


讜注诇 讛诪专讬砖 讛讙讝讜诇 砖讘谞讗讜 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讙讝诇 诪专讬砖 讜讘谞讗讜 讘讘讬专讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪拽注拽注 讻诇 讛讘讬专讛 讻讜诇讛 讜诪讞讝讬专 诪专讬砖 诇讘注诇讬讜 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 诇讜 讗诇讗 讚诪讬 诪专讬砖 讘诇讘讚 诪砖讜诐 转拽谞转 讛砖讘讬谉


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a building and said that the injured party receives the value of the beam but not the beam itself. With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Bava Kamma 10:5): If one robbed another of a beam and built it into a building, Beit Shammai say: He must destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owners. And Beit Hillel say: The injured party receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted for the sake of the penitent. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and required the robber to return only the value of the beam. The mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


讜注诇 讞讟讗转 讛讙讝讜诇讛 讻讜壮 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘讬谉 谞讜讚注讛 讜讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转


搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that was obtained through robbery, and said that provided that it was not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner, it effects atonement for the robber. Ulla says: By Torah law, the halakha is as follows: Whether it is known or whether it is not known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement for the robber who sacrifices it.


诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诪讻驻专转 砖诇讗 讬讛讜 讻讛谞讬诐 注爪讘讬谉


What is the reason for this? The owner鈥檚 despair of recovering an article that was stolen from him does not by itself enable the robber to acquire the stolen item. Since the stolen animal was not altered in any way, it does not belong to the robber, and he cannot sacrifice it as an offering and achieve atonement through it. And what is the reason that the Sages said that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery it effects atonement? It is so that the priests not be distraught about having sacrificed an animal unfit for the altar.


讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 诇注讜诇讗 讜讛讗谞谉 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞 转谞谉 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讛谞讬诐 注爪讘讬谉 谞诪爪讗 诪讝讘讞 讘讟诇


The Rabbis said to Ulla: How can you explain the issue in this manner? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: It effects atonement for the benefit of the altar, which indicates that the halakha was enacted for the benefit of the altar, not for the benefit of the priests? Ulla said to them: When the priests are distraught, the altar is found idle. The priests will not sacrifice all of the offerings when they are distraught.


讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讘讬谉 谞讜讚注讛 讘讬谉 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诪讻驻专转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 拽谞讬


This is one explanation, but Rav Yehuda says: By Torah law, whether it is known or it is not known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it. What is the reason for this? The owner鈥檚 despair of recovering an article that was stolen from him by itself enables the robber to acquire the stolen item. Once the owner despairs of regaining possession, the stolen item becomes the robber鈥檚 property and he can consecrate it. Therefore, the offering was sacrificed in a fitting manner, and it effects atonement for the robber.


讜诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 谞讜讚注讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讝讘讞 讗讜讻诇 讙讝讬诇讜转


And what is the reason that the Sages said that if it is known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement? It is so that people not say that the altar consumes stolen property.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讞讟讗转 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讞讟讗转 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诇讛 谞诪讬


The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, this is the reason that the tanna teaches the halakha with regard to a sin-offering: The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to halakha, they are likely to become distraught. But according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, that the concern is about the honor of the altar, why does the mishna mention specifically the case of a sin-offering; shouldn鈥檛 the same concern apply to a burnt-offering, as well, as it too is burned on the altar?


诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 注讜诇讛 讚讻诇讬诇 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讞讟讗转 谞诪讬 讚讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讛讜讗 讚住诇讬拽 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讗讬讚讱 讻讛谞讬诐 讗讻诇讬 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讙讝讜专 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 诪讝讘讞 讗讜讻诇 讙讝讬诇讜转


The Gemara answers: The mishna is speaking utilizing the style of: It is not necessary, and the mishna should be understood as follows: It is not necessary to teach the halakha in the case of a burnt-offering, which is entirely consumed on the altar. In that case, people will certainly say that the altar consumes stolen property. But even in the case of a sin-offering, where only the fat and the blood go up to be consumed on the altar and the rest is consumed by the priests, even so they issued a decree and said that the stolen sin-offering does not effect atonement, so that people should not say that the altar consumes stolen property.


转谞谉 注诇 讞讟讗转 讛讙讝讜诇讛 砖诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诇专讘讬诐 砖讛讬讗 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞 讘砖诇诪讗 诇注讜诇讗 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛


The Gemara further clarifies the two understandings: We learned in the mishna: Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that had been obtained through robbery but that is not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner, and said that it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it, for the benefit of the altar. Granted, according to the opinion of Ulla, it works out well, as he understands that the Sages instituted that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does effect atonement. But according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda, it should have stated just the opposite, namely, that if it was publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 谞讜讚注讛 诪讻驻专转 谞讜讚注讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻驻专转 诪驻谞讬 转讬拽讜谉 讛诪讝讘讞


The Gemara answers: That is also what the mishna is saying: If it is not known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it effects atonement, but if this is known, it does not effect atonement, for the benefit of the altar.


诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讙谞讘 讜讛拽讚讬砖 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讟讘讞 讜诪讻专 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讻驻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇诐 转砖诇讜诪讬 讗专讘注讛 讜讞诪砖讛 讜转谞讬 注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 注谞讜砖 讻专转 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讬讗讜砖 讻讚讬 诇讗 拽谞讬 讻专转 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚转讬讛


Rava raises an objection from what was learned in a mishna (Bava Kamma 74a): If one stole an animal and consecrated it, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, he pays double payment like a thief (see Exodus 22:3), but he does not pay fourfold or fivefold payment, as one must ordinarily pay when he slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep that he stole from another person (Exodus 21:37). And it is taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna: If one slaughtered an animal outside the Temple in a case like this, he is punishable by karet for having sacrificed an offering outside the Temple. And if you say that the owner鈥檚 despair of recovering an item that was stolen from him does not by itself enable the thief to acquire the stolen item, what is the relevance of mentioning karet? The punishment of karet should not apply, as the thief cannot consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.


讗诪专 专讘 砖讬讝讘讬 讻专转 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 讗讞讬讻讜 注诇讬讛 讻专转 诪讚讘专讬讛诐 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘讗 讙讘专讗 专讘讛 讗诪专 诪讬诇转讗 诇讗 转讞讜讻讜 注诇讛 讻专转 砖注诇 讬讚讬 讚讘专讬讛谉 讘讗转讛 诇讜 讗讜拽诪讜讛 专讘谞谉 讘专砖讜转讬讛 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚诇讬讞讬讬讘 注诇讛


Rav Sheizevi said: This means that he is liable to receive karet by rabbinic law. Those who heard this laughed at him. Is there such a thing as karet by rabbinic law? Rava said to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him. What Rav Sheizevi means is karet that comes to him through the words of the Sages, who declared that the thief鈥檚 consecration is valid. It is the Sages who placed the animal in his possession, so that he would become liable for it.


讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讗 讜讜讚讗讬 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬 讻讬 讗讜拽诪讜讛 专讘谞谉 讘专砖讜转讬讛 诪砖注转 讙谞讬讘讛 讗讜 诪砖注转 讛拽讚讬砖讛 诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讙讬讝讜转讬讛 讜讜诇讚讜转讬讛 诪讗讬 讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪住转讘专讗 诪砖注转 讛拽讚讬砖讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专


Rava said: Although I agree with Rav Sheizevi, this matter is certainly a dilemma for me. When the Sages placed the animal in his possession, did they do so from the time of the theft or from the time of the consecration? What is the difference between these possibilities? There is a difference with regard to its wool and with regard to its offspring. If the animal was placed in his possession from the time of the theft, the wool that it grows and the offspring that it births are his, and he is not required to return them to the animal鈥檚 owner. But if the animal becomes his only when he consecrates it, he is required to return them. What is the halakha? Rava then said, in answer to his own question: It stands to reason that the Sages placed the animal in his possession from the time of the consecration. This is so that the sinner not profit from his crime. Otherwise, the thief would benefit from the rabbinic decree that was instituted to increase his liability.


诪转谞讬壮 诇讗 讛讬讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘讛专讜讙讬 诪诇讞诪讛 诪讛专讜讙讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讬砖 讘讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讻讬爪讚 诇拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 诪拽讞讜 讘讟诇 诪讘注诇 讛讘讬转 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 诪拽讞讜 拽讬讬诐


MISHNA: The law of Sicarii [Sikarikon] did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war. From the time that people were being killed in the war and onward, the law of Sicarii did apply there. What is this law of Sicarii? If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, and afterward the buyer returned and purchased the same field a second time from the prior landowner, his purchase is void. The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the prior owner and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from a Sicarius, his purchase stands.


诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 诪拽讞讜 讘讟诇 诪谉 讛讗砖讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 诪谉 讛讗讬砖 诪拽讞讜 拽讬讬诐 讝讜 诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛


Similarly, if one first purchased from the husband the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, his purchase is void. The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, his purchase stands. This is the initial version of this mishna.


讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讞专讬讛诐 讗诪专讜 讛诇讜拽讞 诪住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 谞讜转谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讘讬注 讗讬诪转讬 讘讝诪谉 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讚谉 诇讬拽讞 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讬讚谉 诇讬拽讞 讛谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讻诇 讗讚诐


Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field鈥檚 value. When does this apply? At a time when the prior owner is unable to purchase the field himself. But if he is able to purchase it himself, he precedes anyone else.


专讘讬 讛讜砖讬讘 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜谞诪谞讜 砖讗诐 砖讛转讛 讘驻谞讬 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讻诇 讛拽讜讚诐 诇讬拽讞 讝讻讛 讗讘诇 谞讜转谉 诇讘注诇讬诐 专讘讬注


Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later convened a court, and they counted their votes and determined that if the field remained before, i.e., in the possession of, the Sicarius for twelve months, whoever first purchases the field acquires possession of it, but he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field鈥檚 value.


讙诪壮 讛砖转讗 讘讛专讜讙讬 讛诪诇讞诪讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 讘讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 诪讛专讜讙讬 诪诇讞诪讛 讜讗讬诇讱 讬砖 讘讛 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉


GEMARA: The Gemara challenges the mishna鈥檚 assertion that the law of Sicarii did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war: Now if in the time that people were being killed in the war, there were no Sicarii stealing land, is it possible that from the time that people were being killed in the war and onward there were Sicarii?


讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讚谞讜 讘讛 讚讬谉 住讬拽专讬拽讜谉 拽讗诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 砖诇砖 讙讝讬专讜转 讙讝专讜 讙讝专转讗 拽诪讬讬转讗 讻诇 讚诇讗 拽讟讬诇 诇讬拽讟诇讜讛讜 诪爪讬注转讗 讻诇 讚拽讟讬诇 诇讬讬转讬 讗专讘注 讝讜讝讬 讘转专讬讬转讗 讻诇 讚拽讟讬诇 诇讬拽讟诇讜讛讜 讛诇讻讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 讜诪爪讬注转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讟诇讬 讗讙讘 讗讜谞住讬讛 讙诪专 讜诪拽谞讬


Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is saying that in the time that people were being killed in the war they did not apply the law of Sicarii, but rather they would confirm the purchases of land made from the Sicarii. The reason for this is in accordance with what Rabbi Asi said: The gentile authorities issued three decrees during and in the aftermath of the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple. The first decree was that anyone who does not kill a Jew should himself be killed. The second decree was that anyone who kills a Jew should pay four dinars as a fine. The last decree was that anyone who kills a Jew should himself be killed. Therefore, during the time of the first and second decrees, the time when people were being killed in the war, since the gentile would kill Jews, then the owner of the field, owing to the danger posed to his life, would fully transfer ownership of his field to the Sicarius.


讘转专讬讬转讗 讗诪专讬 讛讗讬讚谞讗 诇讬砖拽讜诇 诇诪讞专 转讘注谞讗 诇讬讛 讘讚讬谞讗


Then, during the time of the last decree, after the time when people were being killed in the war, anybody whose field was stolen by a Sicarius would say to himself: Now let him take the field; tomorrow I will claim it from him in court. Although the gentile had the advantage and could force the owner to give him the field, the assumption is that the owner did not fully transfer possession of the field to him, as he thought that he would still be able to recover it in court.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专讬 讗讚诐 诪驻讞讚 转诪讬讚 讜诪拽砖讛 诇讘讜 讬驻讜诇 讘专注讛 讗拽诪爪讗 讜讘专 拽诪爪讗 讞专讜讘 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讗转专谞讙讜诇讗 讜转专谞讙讜诇转讗 讞专讜讘 讟讜专 诪诇讻讗 讗砖拽讗 讚专讬住驻拽 讞专讜讘 讘讬转专


搂 Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淗appy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief鈥 (Proverbs 28:14)? Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. The place known as the King鈥檚 Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen. The city of Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [rispak].


讗拽诪爪讗 讜讘专 拽诪爪讗 讞专讜讘 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讚专讞诪讬讛 拽诪爪讗 讜讘注诇 讚讘讘讬讛 讘专 拽诪爪讗 注讘讚 住注讜讚转讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇砖诪注讬讛 讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬 拽诪爪讗 讗讝诇 讗讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 讘专 拽诪爪讗


The Gemara explains: Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. This is as there was a certain man whose friend was named Kamtza and whose enemy was named bar Kamtza. He once made a large feast and said to his servant: Go bring me my friend Kamtza. The servant went and mistakenly brought him his enemy bar Kamtza.


讗转讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讛讜讛 讬转讬讘 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讻讚讬 讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讘注诇 讚讘讘讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讙讘专讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讘注讬转 讛讻讗 拽讜诐 驻讜拽 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗转讗讬 砖讘拽谉 讜讬讛讬讘谞讗 诇讱 讚诪讬 诪讛 讚讗讻讬诇谞讗 讜砖转讬谞讗


The man who was hosting the feast came and found bar Kamtza sitting at the feast. The host said to bar Kamtza. That man is the enemy [ba鈥檃l devava] of that man, that is, you are my enemy. What then do you want here? Arise and leave. Bar Kamtza said to him: Since I have already come, let me stay and I will give you money for whatever I eat and drink. Just do not embarrass me by sending me out.

Scroll To Top