Gittin 59
אֲנָא הֲוַאי בְּמִנְיָינָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, וּמִינַּאי דִּידִי מְנוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא.
I was present for the counting of the vote in the court set up in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when they established this ordinance, and they would start with me first, asking for my opinion on the matter, although I was the youngest member of the court.
וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְהַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת – מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצַּד!
The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna (Sanhedrin 32a): In cases of monetary law and in cases involving ritual purities and impurities, the judges begin their deliberations with the opinion of the most learned member sitting on the bench, as a demonstration of honor to him. But in cases of capital law, they begin their deliberations with the opinion of the youngest member who sits on one of the side benches of the court, lest the junior members be unduly influenced by the opinion of their elders, and people come to be wrongfully executed as a result. The matter involving Rav was not a capital case. Why did they begin their deliberations with Rav, who was certainly not the most learned member of the court, as that designation clearly belonged to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?
אָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולָס: שָׁאנֵי מִנְיָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִנְיָנַיְיהוּ מִן הַצַּד הֲווֹ מַתְחִילִין.
And Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, who says: The counting of the vote in the court in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was different, as all of their deliberations and countings of the vote would begin with the junior members sitting on the side. This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, nobody would be so brazen as to contradict him.
וְאָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי ווֹלֶס: מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה וְעַד רַבִּי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד.
And apropos of the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, who says: From the days of Moses and until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual.
וְלָא?! הָא הֲוָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ! הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר. הָא הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר! הֲוָה פִּנְחָס. וְהָא הֲוָה פִּנְחָס! הֲווֹ זְקֵנִים.
The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn’t there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Elazar, who was Joshua’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there Elazar, who outlived Joshua? The Gemara answers: During his day, there was Pinehas, who was Elazar’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: Wasn’t there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.
הָא הֲוָה שָׁאוּל! הֲוָה שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה דָּוִד! הֲוָה עִירָא הַיָּאִירִי.
The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Samuel pass away in Saul’s lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there David, who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: There was Ira the Jairite, who was David’s equal in Torah knowledge.
וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי בָּעֵינַן. הָא הֲוָה שְׁלֹמֹה! הֲוָה שִׁמְעִי בֶּן גֵּרָא. וְהָא קַטְלֵיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara objects: But didn’t Ira the Jairite pass away in David’s lifetime? The Gemara answers: In order to qualify for this designation, we require that he be the leading figure in both Torah and high office for all the years that he is the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon’s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness all of his years.
הָא הֲוָה חִזְקִיָּה! הֲוָה שֶׁבְנָא. הָא אִיקְּטִיל! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה עֶזְרָא! הֲוָה נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה.
The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Hezekiah, who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: There was Shebnah in that generation, who was Hezekiah’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t he killed in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no similar individual who reigned supreme in both Torah and high office all of his years. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Ezra, who was the greatest Torah sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: There was Nehemiah ben Hacaliah who was his equal.
אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִימוֹת רַבִּי וְעַד רַב אָשֵׁי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְלָא?! וְהָא הֲוָה הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן! שָׁאנֵי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, דְּמֵיכָף הֲוָה כַּיִיף לֵיהּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי.
Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: I also say something similar, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi, we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn’t there Huna bar Natan, who enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan is different, as he himself was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.
מַתְנִי׳ חֵרֵשׁ רוֹמֵז וְנִרְמָז. וּבֶן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: קוֹפֵץ וְנִקְפָּץ – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין.
MISHNA: The following enactments were also made for the betterment of the world: A deaf-mute may express his wishes through gestures [romez]; that is to say, he can signal that he wishes to buy or sell a certain item, and the purchase or sale is valid. And similarly he may respond to others through gestures; that is to say, he can signal that he agrees to a transaction initiated by another party, and the transaction is valid. And ben Beteira says: Signals are not necessary, as even if he expresses his wishes to buy or sell through lip movements [kofetz] or responds to others through lip movements, the transaction is valid. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. It was similarly enacted that a purchase made by young children [paotot] is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, אֲבָל בְּגִיטִּין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּרְמִיזָה.
GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says in clarification of the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and ben Beteira: The dispute is only with regard to the purchase or sale of movable property. But with regard to bills of divorce, all agree, even ben Beteira, that a deaf-mute can communicate only through gestures and not through lip movements.
פְּשִׁיטָא, ״בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״אַף בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as didn’t we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary, lest you say that the mishna means that these halakhot apply even to transactions involving movable property, and they similarly apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce. Therefore, Rav Naḥman teaches us that ben Beteira’s validation of lip movements applies only to transactions involving movable property, but not to bills of divorce.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּגִיטִּין. וְהָאֲנַן ״בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״ תְּנַן! אֵימָא: ״אַף בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״.
There are those who say an alternative version of the previous passage, that Rav Naḥman says as follows: Just as there is a dispute between the first tanna and ben Beteira with regard to transactions involving movable property, so too, there is a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means as follows: These halakhot apply even to transactions involving movable property, and similarly they apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce.
הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. וְעַד כַּמָּה? מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה לְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ: כְּבַר שֵׁית – כְּבָר שַׁב. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: כְּבַר שַׁב – כְּבַר תַּמְנֵי. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: כְּבַר תֵּשַׁע – כְּבַר עֶשֶׂר.
§ The mishna teaches that a purchase made by young children is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. The Gemara asks: And from what age are children included in this enactment? Rav Yehuda pointed to Rav Yitzḥak, his son: From the age of about six or seven. Rav Kahana said: From the age of about seven or eight. It was taught in a baraita: From the age of about nine or ten.
וְלָא פְּלִיגִי; כֹּל חַד וְחַד לְפִי חוּרְפֵּיהּ. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו.
The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree about the issue itself; rather, each child is evaluated according to his sharpness. Some children are gifted and understand the nature of business transactions from an earlier age, while others are slower and do not reach the requisite understanding until they are older. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this enactment for young children? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In order to provide for the child’s livelihood, as there may be times a child will have no other way to support himself but to engage in some type of business. If his transactions are not valid, he will go hungry.
״וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל הַמֶּלְתָּחָה, הוֹצֵא לְבוּשׁ לְכֹל עוֹבְדֵי הַבָּעַל״ – מַאי ״מֶלְתָּחָה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר הַנִּמְלָל וְנִמְתָּח.
Having cited a tradition reported by Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov, the Gemara cites another such statement with regard to a different matter: The verse states: “And he said to him who was over the wardrobe [meltaḥa]: Bring forth garments for all the worshippers of the Ba’al” (II Kings 10:22). What is the meaning of the word “meltaḥa”? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is something that can be compressed and then stretched [nimlal venimtaḥ] back to its former size; i.e., a certain type of garment that can be folded up so that it is very small, and afterward unfolded so that it is very large.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁיגֵּר לוֹ בּוּנְיָים בֶּן נוּנְיָים לְרַבִּי – סִיבְנִי, וְחוֹמֶס, סַלְסָלָה, וּמַלְמָלָא. סִיבְנִי וְחוֹמֶס – כְּאַמְגּוּזָא וּפַלְגֵיהּ דְּאַמְגּוּזָא. סַלְסָלָה וּמַלְמָלָא – כְּפִיסְתְּקָא וּפַלְגוּ דְּפִיסְתְּקָא. מַאי מַלְמָלָא? דָּבָר הַנִּמְלָל וְנִמְתָּח.
When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A wealthy man named Bonyam ben Nunyam once sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: Sivni and ḥoms, salsela and malmala, which were all special types of linen. The Gemara explains what was unique about each of these fabrics: When folded, the sivni and ḥoms could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a nut and half a nut. When the salsela and malmala were folded, they could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a pistachio nut and half a pistachio nut. These fabrics were so thin that they could be compressed to a small size, but when they were unfolded they were large enough to cover Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s body. The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of the term malmala? It is something that can be compressed and stretched.
וְטָעוּתָן עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: עַד שְׁתוּת כְּגָדוֹל.
The Gemara returns to examine the matter of the transactions of young children and asks: And up to how much is their mistake? What is the maximum amount a child can underpay or overcharge without the mistake canceling the sale? Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says: Up to one-sixth of the article’s value, like the mistake of an adult. If the buyer or seller underpaid or overcharged up to one-sixth of the article’s true value, the wronged party can demand reimbursement. If the error in price was greater than one-sixth, the transaction is annulled.
בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: מַתְּנָתוֹ, מַאי? רַב יֵימַר אֲמַר: אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה; מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה.
Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a young child’s gift? Rav Yeimar says: His gift is not a valid gift. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: His gift is a valid gift.
אַפְכוּהָ וְשַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מׇרְדֳּכַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לְבַר מָר, לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא? כִּי הֲוָה קָאֵי מָר – חַד כַּרְעֵיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְחַד כַּרְעֵיהּ אַדַּרְגָּא, וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַאי? וַאֲמַר לַן: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה – אַחַת מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע וְאַחַת מַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, אַחַת מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה וְאַחַת מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת.
The Sages reversed the attributions of these two statements and sent word of this dispute to Rav Mordekhai, leading him to understand that it was Mar bar Rav Ashi who said that the child’s gift is not valid. Rav Mordekhai said to them: Go say to Mar son of my Master, Rav Ashi: Wasn’t the incident as follows? When the Master, Rav Ashi, was standing with one foot on the ground and one foot on the step, we said to him: What is the halakha with regard to a young child’s gift? And he said to us: His gift is a valid gift, whether it is the gift of a person on his deathbed, who gives instructions before his death concerning the disposal of his property, or it is the gift of a healthy person, whether it is a large gift or it is a small gift. In all cases the gift is valid.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
MISHNA: Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. The Sages instituted this order on account of the ways of peace, so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace, as will be explained in the Gemara.
בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
The Sages enacted that the pit that is nearest to the irrigation channel that supplies water to several pits or fields is filled first on account of the ways of peace. They established a fixed order for the irrigation of fields, so that people would not quarrel over who is given precedence.
מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.
Animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps are not acquired by the one who set the traps until he actually takes possession of them. Nevertheless, if another person comes and takes them, it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.
מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.
Similarly, a lost item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is not acquired by him, since he lacks the legal competence to effect acquisition. Nevertheless, taking such an item from him is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.
עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו גָּזֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם; רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גָּזֵל גָּמוּר.
If a poor person gleans olives at the top of an olive tree and olives fall to the ground under the tree, then taking those olives that are beneath it is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. Rabbi Yosei says: This is full-fledged robbery.
אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גּוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּכְתּוֹב מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וַיִּתְּנָהּ אֶל הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי״ – אַטּוּ אֲנָא לָא יָדַעְנָא דְּכֹהֲנִים, בְּנֵי לֵוִי נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר לֵוִי.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that at public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? What is the source of this halakha in the Torah? Rav Mattana said: As the verse states: “And Moses wrote this Torah, and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi” (Deuteronomy 31:9). The Gemara explains the inference: Is that to say I do not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? Why is it necessary for the verse to say this? Rather, the Torah was first delivered to the priests and afterward to the other Levites, and this serves as the source for the enactment that first a priest reads from the Torah, and after him a Levite.
רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא אָמַר, מֵהָכָא: ״וְנִגְּשׁוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי לֵוִי״ – אַטּוּ אֲנַן לָא יָדְעִינַן דְּכֹהֲנִים, בְּנֵי לֵוִי נִינְהוּ? אֶלָּא כֹּהֵן בְּרֵישָׁא, וַהֲדַר לֵוִי.
Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is written: “And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near” (Deuteronomy 21:5). The Gemara asks: Is that to say I do not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? Rather, the Torah was first given to the priests and afterward to the other Levites, and from this we learn that first a priest reads from the Torah, and after him a Levite.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״בְּנֵי עַמְרָם אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה, וַיִּבָּדֵל אַהֲרֹן לְהַקְדִּישׁוֹ קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים״.
Rav Ashi said that this halakha is derived from here: “The sons of Amram, Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy” (I Chronicles 23:13). This indicates that Aaron and his descendants, the priests, are considered to be holier than the rest of the tribe of Levi. Consequently, they are given precedence in public Torah readings.
רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה. תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְקִדַּשְׁתּוֹ״ – לְכׇל דָּבָר שֶׁבִּקְדוּשָּׁה; לִפְתּוֹחַ רִאשׁוֹן, וּלְבָרֵךְ רִאשׁוֹן, וְלִיטּוֹל מָנָה יָפָה רִאשׁוֹן.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is stated with regard to a priest: “And you shall sanctify him” (Leviticus 21:8), giving a priest priority for every matter of sanctity. And with regard to this verse, a Sage from the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “And you shall sanctify him,” giving a priest priority for every matter of sanctity: To open the discussion in the study hall first, to recite the blessing of Grace after Meals first, and to take a fine portion at a meal first, meaning that he can choose any portion at a meal for himself.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם?! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וּמִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: According to this, why does the mishna teach that the priest reads first from the Torah on account of the ways of peace, indicating that this is a rabbinic enactment? Is it not by Torah law that he reads first? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Indeed, it is by Torah law, but the reason that the priest reads first is on account of the ways of peace.
כׇּל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ נָמֵי מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״דְּרָכֶיהָ דַרְכֵי נוֹעַם וְכׇל נְתִיבוֹתֶיהָ שָׁלוֹם״!
Abaye objected: Aren’t the halakhot of the entire Torah also given on account of the ways of peace, as it is written: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17)? Consequently, this halakha is no different from the other halakhot in the Torah, all of which were given to increase pleasantness and tranquility in the world.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְכִדְמַר; דְּתַנְיָא: שְׁנַיִם – מַמְתִּינִין זֶה לָזֶה בַּקְּעָרָה. שְׁלֹשָׁה – אֵין מַמְתִּינִין. הַבּוֹצֵעַ – הוּא פּוֹשֵׁט יָדוֹ תְּחִלָּה, וְאִם בָּא לַחְלוֹק כָּבוֹד לְרַבּוֹ אוֹ לְמִי שֶׁגָּדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ – הָרְשׁוּת בְּיָדוֹ.
Rather, Abaye said: The mishna’s statement that a priest reads first from the Torah on account of the ways of peace is in accordance with what was said by my master, Rabba. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Berakhot 5:3): When two people are eating together from a single dish, they must wait for each other, but if there are three, each eats when he wishes and they do not need to wait for each other. Generally, the one who breaks bread extends his hand to take food first, but if he wishes to show respect to his teacher or to one who is greater than he and allow him to take first, he has permission to do so.
וְאָמַר מָר עֲלַהּ: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּסְעוּדָה, אֲבָל בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת לֹא, דְּאָתוּ לְאִינְּצוֹיֵי.
And the Master, Rabba, said with regard to this baraita: They taught this with regard to a meal, that one may show honor to a person of greater stature and allow him to take food first. But in the synagogue, one may not show another honor, because the congregants are liable to come to quarrel about who is the most distinguished among them. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna is that to prevent strife and controversy, it is not permitted for a priest to honor an Israelite and allow him to read first from the Torah in his place.
אָמַר רַב מַתְנָה: הָא דְּאָמְרַתְּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת לֹא, לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיָמִים טוֹבִים – דִּשְׁכִיחִי רַבִּים, אֲבָל בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי – לָא.
Rav Mattana said: With regard to this matter that you stated, that in the synagogue a priest is not permitted to honor an Israelite and allow him to read first, we said this only concerning Shabbatot and Festivals, when many people are present for the services, but not on Mondays and Thursdays, when only a small number of people are there. On those days it is permitted for one to honor his superior, and there is no concern that this will lead to a quarrel.
אִינִי?! וְהָא רַב הוּנָא קָרֵי בְּכָהֲנֵי בְּשַׁבָּתוֹת וְיוֹם טוֹב! שָׁאנֵי רַב הוּנָא, דַּאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי וְרַבִּי אַסִּי – כָּהֲנֵי חֲשִׁיבִי דְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מֵיכָף הֲווֹ כַּיְיפִי לֵיהּ.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? Is it actually prohibited for a priest to honor his teacher and allow him to read first in his place? But didn’t Rav Huna, who was not a priest, read the Torah section ordinarily reserved for priests, even on Shabbatot and Festivals? The Gemara answers: Rav Huna is different, as even Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, the most important priests in Eretz Yisrael, were subject to his jurisdiction. Therefore, there was no concern about a quarrel, because everyone agreed that he was the leading authority of the generation and it was fitting that he should read from the Torah first.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נָקְטִינַן: אֵין שָׁם כֹּהֵן – נִתְפָּרְדָה חֲבִילָה. וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי, נָקְטִינַן: אֵין שָׁם לֵוִי – קוֹרֵא כֹּהֵן.
§ Abaye said that we have a tradition that if there is no priest there in the synagogue at the time of the Torah reading, the bundle is separated, i.e., a Levite is not shown precedence over Israelites. And Abaye said that we have a tradition that if there is no Levite there in the synagogue, a priest reads in his place.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּהֵן אַחַר כֹּהֵן לֹא יִקְרָא, מִשּׁוּם פְּגָמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן. לֵוִי אַחַר לֵוִי לֹא יִקְרָא מִשּׁוּם פְּגַם שְׁנֵיהֶם! כִּי קָאָמְרִינַן, בְּאוֹתוֹ כֹּהֵן.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: One priest should not read after another priest, because people might mistakenly think that the second priest was called to read due to a flaw that was found in the status of the first one, i.e., that he was found not to be a priest. And one Levite should not read after another Levite, because people might mistakenly think that there is a flaw in both of them. If two Levites read one after the other, people might say that the second is not a Levite but an Israelite, or else that the first was not a Levite, and therefore a real Levite was called to read in his place. The Gemara answers: When we said that when there is no Levite present a priest reads in his place, we were speaking of the same priest who had already read from the Torah, for in that case there is no concern that people will think that a flaw had been found in his status.
מַאי שְׁנָא לֵוִי אַחַר לֵוִי, דְּאִיכָּא פְּגַם שְׁנֵיהֶם – דְּאָמְרִי: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לָאו לֵוִי הוּא; כֹּהֵן אַחֵר כֹּהֵן נָמֵי, אָמְרִי: חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ לָאו כֹּהֵן הוּא! כְּגוֹן דְּמוּחְזָק לַן בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי שֵׁנִי, דְּכֹהֵן הוּא.
The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: What is different that in the case where one Levite reads from the Torah after another Levite, Rabbi Yoḥanan says that there is concern that people might mistakenly think that there is a flaw in both of them? It must be that he is concerned that people might say that one of them, either the first or the second, is certainly not a Levite. If so, in the case where one priest reads from the Torah after another priest, he should also be concerned that people might say that one of them, either the first or the second, is certainly not a priest. Why, then, was Rabbi Yoḥanan concerned only about suspicions that might be raised about the first priest? The Gemara answers: He speaks about a case where we have a presumption concerning the father of the second one, that he is a priest.
הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּמוּחְזָק לַן בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי שֵׁנִי, דְּלֵוִי הוּא! אֶלָּא אָמְרִי: מַמְזֶרֶת אוֹ נְתִינָה נְסֵיב, וּפַסְלֵיהּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, אָמְרִי: גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ חֲלוּצָה נְסֵיב, וְאַחֲלֵיהּ לְזַרְעֵיהּ!
The Gemara asks: If so, here too, in the case of the Levites let us say that we have a presumption concerning the father of the second one, that he is a Levite. Rather, the concern here is that even if it is known that he is the son of a Levite, people might say that perhaps the father married a mamzeret, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship, or a Gibeonite woman, and thereby disqualified his children, so that they are considered Israelites rather than Levites. If so, then here too, in the case of the priests, there is concern that people might say that perhaps the priest’s father married a divorced woman or a yevama who underwent ḥalitza [ḥalutza] and thereby disqualified his children from the priesthood (see Leviticus 21:7).
סוֹף סוֹף, לֵוִי מִי קָא הָוֵי?!
The Gemara answers: Ultimately, is he a Levite? If the priest is disqualified from the priesthood owing to his blemished lineage, he has the status of an Israelite, not a Levite. Therefore, if he reads from the Torah after another priest, and it is known that his father is a priest, then it must be that he too is a qualified priest. Therefore, the only reason for concern is that people might say that there is a flaw in the status of the first priest.
וּלְמַאן? אִי לְיוֹשְׁבִין – הָא קָא חָזוּ לֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לְיוֹצְאִין.
With regard to the concern itself, the Gemara asks: And about whom is there a concern? Who might mistakenly think that the first priest’s status is blemished? If you say that the concern is for those sitting in the synagogue until the end of the Torah reading, that is not a valid concern, as they see that he is counted as one of the seven who must read from the Torah, and therefore he must certainly be a qualified priest. Rather, the concern is for those who leave before the conclusion of the reading, and do not know that he was counted among the seven readers.
שְׁלַחוּ לֵיהּ בְּנֵי גָלִילָא לְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ: אַחֲרֵיהֶן,
The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: After them, the priest and the Levite,
