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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 10, 2016 | 讗壮 讘讗讚专 讗壮 转砖注状讜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Gittin 59

Cases are brought in which non-Jews seize land and yet the law of sikrikon doesn’t apply. 聽The sale of a deaf person who signals can be considered a good sale, and the sale of a child (who is mature enough to understand) is considered a good sale. 聽The laws of the order of aliyot during Torah reading were instituted in order that people don’t fight over who is more respected. 聽Other changes聽are brought in the mishna that were instituted because of darkei shalom and they will be discussed further in the gemara.

讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪谞讬讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜诪讬谞讗讬 讚讬讚讬 诪谞讜 讘专讬砖讗

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.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟讜诪讗讜转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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?

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 砖讗谞讬 诪谞讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪谞讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛讜讜 诪转讞讬诇讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 诪讬诪讜转 诪砖讛 讜注讚 专讘讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚

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.

讜诇讗 讛讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讛 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讛讜讛 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讛 驻谞讞住 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 驻谞讞住 讛讜讜 讝拽谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn鈥檛 there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Elazar, who was Joshua鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 there Elazar, who outlived Joshua? The Gemara answers: During his day, there was Pinehas, who was Elazar鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: Wasn鈥檛 there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讗讜诇 讛讜讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讚讜讚 讛讜讛 注讬专讗 讛讬讗讬专讬

The Gemara further objects: Wasn鈥檛 there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Samuel pass away in Saul鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge.

讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讘注讬谞谉 讛讗 讛讜讛 砖诇诪讛 讛讜讛 砖诪注讬 讘谉 讙专讗 讜讛讗 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Ira the Jairite pass away in David鈥檚 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鈥檛 there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon鈥檚 master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I聽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.

讛讗 讛讜讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讘谞讗 讛讗 讗讬拽讟讬诇 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讝专讗 讛讜讛 谞讞诪讬讛 讘谉 讞讻诇讬讛

The Gemara further objects: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讜注讚 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讚诪讬讻祝 讛讜讛 讻讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬

Rav A岣, 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讞专砖 专讜诪讝 讜谞专诪讝 讜讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 拽讜驻抓 讜谞拽驻抓 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛驻注讜讟讜转 诪拽讞谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专谉 诪诪讻专 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘专诪讬讝讛

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗祝 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 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 Na岣an teaches us that ben Beteira鈥檚 validation of lip movements applies only to transactions involving movable property, but not to bills of divorce.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讜讛讗谞谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

There are those who say an alternative version of the previous passage, that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 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.

讛驻注讜讟讜转 诪拽讞谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专谉 诪诪讻专 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜注讚 讻诪讛 诪讞讜讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讻讘专 砖讬转 讻讘专 砖讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻讘专 砖讘 讻讘专 转诪谞讬 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讻讘专 转砖注 讻讘专 注砖专

搂 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 Yitz岣k, 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.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诇驻讬 讞讜专驻讬讛 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜

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鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In order to provide for the child鈥檚 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.

讜讬讗诪专 诇讗砖专 注诇 讛诪诇转讞讛 讛讜爪讗 诇讘讜砖 诇讻诇 注讜讘讚讬 讛讘注诇 诪讗讬 诪诇转讞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞诪诇诇 讜谞诪转讞

Having cited a tradition reported by Rabbi Abba bar Ya鈥檃kov, the Gemara cites another such statement with regard to a different matter: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he said to him who was over the wardrobe [melta岣]: Bring forth garments for all the worshippers of the Ba鈥檃l鈥 (II聽Kings 10:22). What is the meaning of the word melta岣鈥? Rabbi Abba bar Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is something that can be compressed and then stretched [nimlal venimta岣] 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬讙专 诇讜 讘讜谞讬讬诐 讘谉 谞讜谞讬讬诐 诇专讘讬 住讬讘谞讬 讜讞讜诪住 住诇住诇讛 讜诪诇诪诇讗 住讬讘谞讬 讜讞讜诪住 讻讗诪讙讜讝讗 讜驻诇讙讬讛 讚讗诪讙讜讝讗 住诇住诇讛 讜诪诇诪诇讗 讻驻讬住转拽讗 讜驻诇讙讬 讚驻讬住转拽讗 诪讗讬 诪诇诪诇讗 讚讘专 讛谞诪诇诇 讜谞诪转讞

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A wealthy man named Bonyam ben Nunyam once sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: Sivni and 岣ms, 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 岣ms 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鈥檚 body. The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of the term malmala? It is something that can be compressed and stretched.

讜讟注讜转谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讚 砖转讜转 讻讙讚讜诇

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鈥檚 value, like the mistake of an adult. If the buyer or seller underpaid or overcharged up to one-sixth of the article鈥檚 true value, the wronged party can demand reimbursement. If the error in price was greater than one-sixth, the transaction is annulled.

讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 诪转谞转讜 诪讗讬 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛

Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a young child鈥檚 gift? Rav Yeimar says: His gift is not a valid gift. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: His gift is a valid gift.

讗驻讻讜讛 讜砖讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讚讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讘专 诪专 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 诪专 讞讚 讻专注讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜讞讚 讻专注讬讛 讗讚专讙讗 讜讗诪专谞讗 诇讬讛 诪转谞转讜 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇谉 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讗讞转 诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讗讞转 诪转谞讛 诪专讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 诪转谞讛 诪讜注讟转

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鈥檚 gift is not valid. Rav Mordekhai said to them: Go say to Mar son of my Master, Rav Ashi: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专讜 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讻讛谉 拽讜专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讬讜 诇讜讬 讜讗讞专讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讬砖谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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.

讘讜专 砖讛讜讗 拽专讜讘 诇讗诪讛 诪转诪诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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.

诪爪讜讚讜转 讞讬讛 讜注讜驻讜转 讜讚讙讬诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

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.

诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

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.

注谞讬 讛诪谞拽祝 讘专讗砖 讛讝讬转 诪讛 砖转讞转讬讜 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

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.

讗讬谉 诪诪讞讬谉 讘讬讚 注谞讬讬 讙讜讬诐 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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鈥檃], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讻转讜讘 诪砖讛 讗转 讛转讜专讛 讛讝讗转 讜讬转谞讛 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 讗讟讜 讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诇讜讬

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: 鈥淎nd Moses wrote this Torah, and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜谞讙砖讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诇讜讬

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near鈥 (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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘谞讬 注诪专诐 讗讛专谉 讜诪砖讛 讜讬讘讚诇 讗讛专谉 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐

Rav Ashi said that this halakha is derived from here: 鈥淭he sons of Amram, Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy鈥 (I聽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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜拽讚砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘拽讚讜砖讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜拽讚砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻转讜讞 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讘专讱 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬驻讛 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is stated with regard to a priest: 鈥淎nd you shall sanctify him鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall sanctify him,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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.

讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐

Abaye objected: Aren鈥檛 the halakhot of the entire Torah also given on account of the ways of peace, as it is written: 鈥淗er ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讻讚诪专 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘拽注专讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 讛讜讗 驻讜砖讟 讬讚讜 转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞诇讜拽 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘讜 讗讜 诇诪讬 砖讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜

Rather, Abaye said: The mishna鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 诪专 注诇讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住注讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 讚讗转讜 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽专讬 讘讻讛谞讬 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讗谞讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讛谞讬 讞砖讬讘讬 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讻祝 讛讜讜 讻讬讬驻讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诐 讻讛谉 谞转驻专讚讛 讞讘讬诇讛 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诐 诇讜讬 拽讜专讗 讻讛谉

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讛谉 讗讞专 讻讛谉 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诪讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 诇讜讬 讗讞专 诇讜讬 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讗讜转讜 讻讛谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讜讬 讗讞专 诇讜讬 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讗讜 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗讞专 讻讛谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 砖谞讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: What is different that in the case where one Levite reads from the Torah after another Levite, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 砖谞讬 讚诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪诪讝专转 讗讜 谞转讬谞讛 谞住讬讘 讜驻住诇讬讛 诇讝专注讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讞诇讜爪讛 谞住讬讘 讜讗讞诇讬讛 诇讝专注讬讛

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鈥檚 father married a divorced woman or a yevama who underwent 岣litza [岣lutza] and thereby disqualified his children from the priesthood (see Leviticus 21:7).

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讜讬 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讬

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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讬讜砖讘讬谉 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讬讜爪讗讬谉

With regard to the concern itself, the Gemara asks: And about whom is there a concern? Who might mistakenly think that the first priest鈥檚 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.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讙诇讬诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗讞专讬讛谉

The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi 岣lbo: After them, the priest and the Levite,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 59

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Gittin 59

讗谞讗 讛讜讗讬 讘诪谞讬讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讜诪讬谞讗讬 讚讬讚讬 诪谞讜 讘专讬砖讗

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.

讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讚讬谞讬 诪诪讜谞讜转 讜讛讟讛专讜转 讜讛讟讜诪讗讜转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛讙讚讜诇 讜讚讬谞讬 谞驻砖讜转 诪转讞讬诇讬谉 诪谉 讛爪讚

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 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?

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 砖讗谞讬 诪谞讬谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讚讻讜诇讛讜 诪谞讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪谉 讛爪讚 讛讜讜 诪转讞讬诇讬谉

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.

讜讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讛讬诇诇 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讜讜诇住 诪讬诪讜转 诪砖讛 讜注讚 专讘讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚

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.

讜诇讗 讛讗 讛讜讛 讬讛讜砖注 讛讜讛 讗诇注讝专 讛讗 讛讜讛 讗诇注讝专 讛讜讛 驻谞讞住 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 驻谞讞住 讛讜讜 讝拽谞讬诐

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn鈥檛 there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Elazar, who was Joshua鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 there Elazar, who outlived Joshua? The Gemara answers: During his day, there was Pinehas, who was Elazar鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: Wasn鈥檛 there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

讛讗 讛讜讛 砖讗讜诇 讛讜讛 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讚讜讚 讛讜讛 注讬专讗 讛讬讗讬专讬

The Gemara further objects: Wasn鈥檛 there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 Samuel pass away in Saul鈥檚 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鈥檛 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鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge.

讜讛讗 谞讞 谞驻砖讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讘注讬谞谉 讛讗 讛讜讛 砖诇诪讛 讛讜讛 砖诪注讬 讘谉 讙专讗 讜讛讗 拽讟诇讬讛 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Ira the Jairite pass away in David鈥檚 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鈥檛 there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon鈥檚 master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn鈥檛 Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I聽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.

讛讗 讛讜讛 讞讝拽讬讛 讛讜讛 砖讘谞讗 讛讗 讗讬拽讟讬诇 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 注讝专讗 讛讜讛 谞讞诪讬讛 讘谉 讞讻诇讬讛

The Gemara further objects: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檚 equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 诪讬诪讜转 专讘讬 讜注讚 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 转讜专讛 讜讙讚讜诇讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讛讜讛 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 砖讗谞讬 讛讜谞讗 讘专 谞转谉 讚诪讬讻祝 讛讜讛 讻讬讬祝 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗砖讬

Rav A岣, 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鈥檛 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讞专砖 专讜诪讝 讜谞专诪讝 讜讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 拽讜驻抓 讜谞拽驻抓 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讛驻注讜讟讜转 诪拽讞谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专谉 诪诪讻专 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪谉 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讗讘诇 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讘专诪讬讝讛

GEMARA: Rav Na岣an 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.

驻砖讬讟讗 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转谞谉 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗祝 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Rav Na岣an鈥檚 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 Na岣an teaches us that ben Beteira鈥檚 validation of lip movements applies only to transactions involving movable property, but not to bills of divorce.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讻诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讻讱 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘讙讬讟讬谉 讜讛讗谞谉 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 转谞谉 讗讬诪讗 讗祝 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉

There are those who say an alternative version of the previous passage, that Rav Na岣an 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鈥檛 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.

讛驻注讜讟讜转 诪拽讞谉 诪拽讞 讜诪诪讻专谉 诪诪讻专 讘诪讟诇讟诇讬谉 讜注讚 讻诪讛 诪讞讜讬 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专讬讛 讻讘专 砖讬转 讻讘专 砖讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讻讘专 砖讘 讻讘专 转诪谞讬 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讻讘专 转砖注 讻讘专 注砖专

搂 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 Yitz岣k, 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.

讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻诇 讞讚 讜讞讚 诇驻讬 讞讜专驻讬讛 讜讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讻讚讬 讞讬讬讜

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鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: In order to provide for the child鈥檚 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.

讜讬讗诪专 诇讗砖专 注诇 讛诪诇转讞讛 讛讜爪讗 诇讘讜砖 诇讻诇 注讜讘讚讬 讛讘注诇 诪讗讬 诪诇转讞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专 讛谞诪诇诇 讜谞诪转讞

Having cited a tradition reported by Rabbi Abba bar Ya鈥檃kov, the Gemara cites another such statement with regard to a different matter: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he said to him who was over the wardrobe [melta岣]: Bring forth garments for all the worshippers of the Ba鈥檃l鈥 (II聽Kings 10:22). What is the meaning of the word melta岣鈥? Rabbi Abba bar Ya鈥檃kov says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: It is something that can be compressed and then stretched [nimlal venimta岣] 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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讬讙专 诇讜 讘讜谞讬讬诐 讘谉 谞讜谞讬讬诐 诇专讘讬 住讬讘谞讬 讜讞讜诪住 住诇住诇讛 讜诪诇诪诇讗 住讬讘谞讬 讜讞讜诪住 讻讗诪讙讜讝讗 讜驻诇讙讬讛 讚讗诪讙讜讝讗 住诇住诇讛 讜诪诇诪诇讗 讻驻讬住转拽讗 讜驻诇讙讬 讚驻讬住转拽讗 诪讗讬 诪诇诪诇讗 讚讘专 讛谞诪诇诇 讜谞诪转讞

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A wealthy man named Bonyam ben Nunyam once sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: Sivni and 岣ms, 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 岣ms 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鈥檚 body. The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of the term malmala? It is something that can be compressed and stretched.

讜讟注讜转谉 注讚 讻诪讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 注讚 砖转讜转 讻讙讚讜诇

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鈥檚 value, like the mistake of an adult. If the buyer or seller underpaid or overcharged up to one-sixth of the article鈥檚 true value, the wronged party can demand reimbursement. If the error in price was greater than one-sixth, the transaction is annulled.

讘注讬 讗讘讬讬 诪转谞转讜 诪讗讬 专讘 讬讬诪专 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛 诪专 讘专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛

Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a young child鈥檚 gift? Rav Yeimar says: His gift is not a valid gift. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: His gift is a valid gift.

讗驻讻讜讛 讜砖讚专讜讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讚讻讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇讜 讗诪专讜 诇讘专 诪专 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 注讜讘讚讗 讻讬 讛讜讛 拽讗讬 诪专 讞讚 讻专注讬讛 讗讗专注讗 讜讞讚 讻专注讬讛 讗讚专讙讗 讜讗诪专谞讗 诇讬讛 诪转谞转讜 诪讗讬 讜讗诪专 诇谉 诪转谞转讜 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诪转谞转 砖讻讬讘 诪专注 讜讗讞转 诪转谞转 讘专讬讗 讗讞转 诪转谞讛 诪专讜讘讛 讜讗讞转 诪转谞讛 诪讜注讟转

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鈥檚 gift is not valid. Rav Mordekhai said to them: Go say to Mar son of my Master, Rav Ashi: Wasn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪专讜 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讻讛谉 拽讜专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讜讗讞专讬讜 诇讜讬 讜讗讞专讬讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 诪注专讘讬谉 讘讘讬转 讬砖谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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.

讘讜专 砖讛讜讗 拽专讜讘 诇讗诪讛 诪转诪诇讗 专讗砖讜谉 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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.

诪爪讜讚讜转 讞讬讛 讜注讜驻讜转 讜讚讙讬诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

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.

诪爪讬讗转 讞专砖 砖讜讟讛 讜拽讟谉 讬砖 讘讛谉 诪砖讜诐 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

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.

注谞讬 讛诪谞拽祝 讘专讗砖 讛讝讬转 诪讛 砖转讞转讬讜 讙讝诇 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讝诇 讙诪讜专

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.

讗讬谉 诪诪讞讬谉 讘讬讚 注谞讬讬 讙讜讬诐 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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鈥檃], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讻转讜讘 诪砖讛 讗转 讛转讜专讛 讛讝讗转 讜讬转谞讛 讗诇 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 讗讟讜 讗谞讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诇讜讬

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: 鈥淎nd Moses wrote this Torah, and delivered it to the priests, the sons of Levi鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜谞讙砖讜 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 讗讟讜 讗谞谉 诇讗 讬讚注讬谞谉 讚讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 诇讜讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讻讛谉 讘专讬砖讗 讜讛讚专 诇讜讬

Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the priests, the sons of Levi, shall come near鈥 (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.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讘谞讬 注诪专诐 讗讛专谉 讜诪砖讛 讜讬讘讚诇 讗讛专谉 诇讛拽讚讬砖讜 拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬诐

Rav Ashi said that this halakha is derived from here: 鈥淭he sons of Amram, Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated, that he should be sanctified as most holy鈥 (I聽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.

专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 讜拽讚砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘拽讚讜砖讛 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讜拽讚砖转讜 诇讻诇 讚讘专 砖讘拽讚讜砖讛 诇驻转讜讞 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讘专讱 专讗砖讜谉 讜诇讬讟讜诇 诪谞讛 讬驻讛 专讗砖讜谉

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba said that this halakha is derived from here, as it is stated with regard to a priest: 鈥淎nd you shall sanctify him鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall sanctify him,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐

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.

讻诇 讛转讜专讛 讻讜诇讛 谞诪讬 诪驻谞讬 讚专讻讬 砖诇讜诐 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讚专讻讬讛 讚专讻讬 谞讜注诐 讜讻诇 谞转讬讘讜转讬讛 砖诇讜诐

Abaye objected: Aren鈥檛 the halakhot of the entire Torah also given on account of the ways of peace, as it is written: 鈥淗er ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace鈥 (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.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讻讚诪专 讚转谞讬讗 砖谞讬诐 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讝讛 诇讝讛 讘拽注专讛 砖诇砖讛 讗讬谉 诪诪转讬谞讬谉 讛讘讜爪注 讛讜讗 驻讜砖讟 讬讚讜 转讞诇讛 讜讗诐 讘讗 诇讞诇讜拽 讻讘讜讚 诇专讘讜 讗讜 诇诪讬 砖讙讚讜诇 诪诪谞讜 讛专砖讜转 讘讬讚讜

Rather, Abaye said: The mishna鈥檚 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.

讜讗诪专 诪专 注诇讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘住注讜讚讛 讗讘诇 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 讚讗转讜 诇讗讬谞爪讜讬讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专转 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 诇讗 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬诪讬诐 讟讜讘讬诐 讚砖讻讬讞讬 专讘讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖谞讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗 专讘 讛讜谞讗 拽专讬 讘讻讛谞讬 讘砖讘转讜转 讜讬讜诐 讟讜讘 砖讗谞讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讜专讘讬 讗住讬 讻讛谞讬 讞砖讬讘讬 讚讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 诪讬讻祝 讛讜讜 讻讬讬驻讬 诇讬讛

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鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诐 讻讛谉 谞转驻专讚讛 讞讘讬诇讛 讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 谞拽讟讬谞谉 讗讬谉 砖诐 诇讜讬 拽讜专讗 讻讛谉

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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讛谉 讗讞专 讻讛谉 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诪讜 砖诇 专讗砖讜谉 诇讜讬 讗讞专 诇讜讬 诇讗 讬拽专讗 诪砖讜诐 驻讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讘讗讜转讜 讻讛谉

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诇讜讬 讗讞专 诇讜讬 讚讗讬讻讗 驻讙诐 砖谞讬讛诐 讚讗诪专讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讗讜 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗讞专 讻讛谉 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 砖谞讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗

The Gemara raises a question with regard to Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement: What is different that in the case where one Levite reads from the Torah after another Levite, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan 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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 砖谞讬 讚诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪诪讝专转 讗讜 谞转讬谞讛 谞住讬讘 讜驻住诇讬讛 诇讝专注讬讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗诪专讬 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讞诇讜爪讛 谞住讬讘 讜讗讞诇讬讛 诇讝专注讬讛

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鈥檚 father married a divorced woman or a yevama who underwent 岣litza [岣lutza] and thereby disqualified his children from the priesthood (see Leviticus 21:7).

住讜祝 住讜祝 诇讜讬 诪讬 拽讗 讛讜讬

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.

讜诇诪讗谉 讗讬 诇讬讜砖讘讬谉 讛讗 拽讗 讞讝讜 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讬讜爪讗讬谉

With regard to the concern itself, the Gemara asks: And about whom is there a concern? Who might mistakenly think that the first priest鈥檚 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.

砖诇讞讜 诇讬讛 讘谞讬 讙诇讬诇讗 诇专讘讬 讞诇讘讜 讗讞专讬讛谉

The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi 岣lbo: After them, the priest and the Levite,

Scroll To Top