Gittin 60

מי קוראין לא הוה בידיה אתא ושייליה לרבי יצחק נפחא אמר ליה אחריהן קוראין תלמידי חכמים הממונין פרנסים על הצבור ואחריהן תלמידי חכמים הראויין למנותם פרנסים על הציבור ואחריהן בני תלמידי חכמים שאבותיהן ממונים פרנסים על הצבור ואחריהן ראשי כנסיות וכל אדם

who reads from the Torah? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who said to him: After them read the Torah scholars who are appointed as leaders [parnasim] of the community. And after them read Torah scholars who are fit to be appointed as leaders of the community, even if in practice they received no such appointment. The Sages said that a Torah scholar who knows how to answer any question asked of him is fit to be appointed as leader of the community. And after them read the sons of Torah scholars whose fathers were appointed as leaders of the community. And after them read the heads of synagogues, and after them any person.

שלחו ליה בני גליל לרבי חלבו מהו לקרות בחומשים בבית הכנסת בציבור לא הוה בידיה אתא שייליה לרבי יצחק נפחא לא הוה בידיה אתא שאיל בי מדרשא ופשטוה מהא דאמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן ספר תורה שחסר יריעה אחת אין קורין בו

The people of the Galilee sent a question to Rabbi Ḥelbo: What is the halakha with regard to reading from ḥumashim, i.e., scrolls containing only one of the five books of the Torah, in the synagogue in public? Is this permitted, or is it necessary to read from a complete Torah scroll? An answer was not readily available to him. He came and asked Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, but an answer was not readily available to him either. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa came and asked this question in the study hall, and they resolved the difficulty from that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a Torah scroll that is missing even one sheet of parchment, one may not read from it in public. This indicates that an incomplete Torah scroll may not be used for a public Torah reading.

ולא היא התם מחסר במילתיה הכא לא מחסר במילתיה רבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו אין קוראין בחומשין בבית הכנסת משום כבוד צבור

The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so, i.e., this cannot serve as a proof to the matter at hand. There, it is lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as a sheet of parchment is missing, whereas here, it is not lacking part of the matter it is addressing, as it contains a complete book. Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: One does not read from ḥumashim in the synagogue out of respect for the community.

ורבה ורב יוסף דאמרי תרוייהו האי ספר אפטרתא אסור למקרי ביה בשבת מאי טעמא דלא ניתן ליכתב

And Rabba and Rav Yosef both say: It is prohibited to publicly read the haftara, the portion from the Prophets that is read after the weekly Torah portion, on Shabbat, from a scroll containing only the haftarot. What is the reason for this? It is because this type of scroll may not be written, as the words of the Prophets must also be written as complete books.

מר בר רב אשי אמר לטלטולי נמי אסור מאי טעמא דהא לא חזי למיקרי ביה ולא היא שרי לטלטולי ושרי למיקרי ביה

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: To handle such a scroll on Shabbat is also prohibited. What is the reason for this? It is because it is not fit to be read. Consequently, it is treated as set-aside [muktze] on Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this argument: But that is not so; rather, it is permitted to handle such a scroll and it is permitted to read from it.

דרבי יוחנן ורבי שמעון בן לקיש מעייני בספרא דאגדתא בשבתא והא לא ניתן ליכתב אלא כיון דלא אפשר עת לעשות לה׳ הפרו תורתך הכא נמי כיון דלא אפשר עת לעשות לה׳ הפרו תורתך

And a proof for this is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish used to read from a scroll of aggada containing the words of the Sages on Shabbat. But such a scroll may not be written, for in principle, the statements of the Oral Law may not be committed to writing. Rather, since it is not possible to remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). Here too, in the case of a haftara scroll, since it is not always possible to write complete books of the Bible, due to the expense, it is permitted to apply the reasoning of “It is time to act for the Lord; they have nullified your Torah.”

בעא מיניה אביי מרבה מהו לכתוב מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה חתומה ניתנה

Abaye raised a dilemma before Rabba: What is the halakha with regard to whether it is permitted to write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study it? The Gemara notes: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, meaning that Moses would teach the Jewish people one portion of the Torah, and then write it down, and then teach them the next portion of the Torah, and then write that down, and continue in this way until he committed the entire Torah to writing. And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book, meaning that the Torah was not written down incrementally, but rather, after teaching the Jewish people the entire Torah, Moses committed it to writing all at once.

תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה כיון דמגילה מגילה ניתנה כותבין או דילמא כיון דאידבק אידבק

The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma according to each opinion: Let the dilemma be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given scroll by scroll. On the one hand it is possible to say that since the Torah was originally given scroll by scroll, today as well one may write the Torah in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one should say that since it was ultimately joined together to form a single scroll, it was joined together and can no longer be written in separate scrolls.

תיבעי למאן דאמר תורה חתומה ניתנה כיון דחתומה ניתנה אין כותבין או דילמא כיון דלא אפשר כתבינן אמר ליה אין כותבין ומה טעם לפי שאין כותבין

And let the dilemma also be raised according to the one who says that the Torah was given as a complete book. On the one hand it is possible to say that since it was given from the outset as a complete book, one may not write it today in separate scrolls. Or on the other hand, perhaps one could say that since it is not always possible to write a complete Torah, one may write it in separate scrolls. Rabba said to him: One may not write the Torah in separate scrolls. And what is the reason? Because one may not write a scroll that is only part of the Torah.

איתיביה אף היא עשתה טבלא של זהב שפרשת סוטה כתובה עליה אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש משום רבי ינאי באלף בית

Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from a mishna (Yoma 37b) where it was taught: Queen Helene also fashioned a golden tablet as a gift for the Temple on which the Torah portion discussing a sota was written. When the priest would write the scroll of a sota in the Temple, he would copy this Torah portion from the tablet, so that a Torah scroll need not be taken out for that purpose. This indicates that it is permitted for one to write a single portion of the Torah. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says in the name of Rabbi Yannai: There is no proof from this mishna, as the tablet prepared by Queen Helene was not written in an ordinary manner, but rather it consisted of the letters of the alef-beit, i.e., only the first letter of each word was written on the tablet, and by looking at it the priest writing the sota scroll would remember what to write.

איתיביה כשהוא כותב רואה וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא אימא כמה שכתוב בטבלא

The Gemara raised an objection from a baraita that teaches: When the priest writes the sota scroll, he looks at and writes that which is written on the tablet, which indicates that the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara rejects this argument: Emend the baraita and say that it should read as follows: He looks at and writes like that which is written on the tablet. The tablet aids the priest in remembering the text that must actually be written.

איתיביה כשהוא כותב רואה בטבלא וכותב מה שכתוב בטבלא מה הוא כתוב בטבלא אם שכב אם לא שכב הכא במאי עסקינן בסירוגין

The Gemara raised an objection from a different baraita: When he writes, he looks at the tablet and writes that which is written on the tablet. And what is written on the tablet? “If a man lay with you…and if he did not lay with you” (see Numbers 5:19). Apparently, the full text of the passage was written on the tablet. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? The tablet fashioned by Queen Helene was written by alternating complete words and initials. The first words of each verse were written there, but the rest of the words in the verse were represented by initials. Therefore, this contribution of Queen Helene does not resolve the question of whether writing a scroll for a child is permitted.

כתנאי אין כותבין מגילה לתינוק להתלמד בה ואם דעתו להשלים מותר רבי יהודה אומר בבראשית עד דור המבול בתורת כהנים עד ויהי ביום השמיני

The Gemara comments: The question of whether or not writing a scroll for a child is permitted is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in the following baraita: One may not write a scroll containing only one portion of the Torah for the purpose of enabling a child to study, but if the writer’s intention is to complete the scroll, it is permitted. Rabbi Yehuda says: In the book of Genesis he may write a scroll from the beginning until the generation of the flood. In Torat Kohanim, the book of Leviticus, he may write a scroll from the beginning until “And it came to pass on the eighth day” (Leviticus 9:1).

אמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי בנאה תורה מגילה מגילה ניתנה שנאמר אז אמרתי הנה באתי במגילת ספר כתוב עלי רבי שמעון בן לקיש אומר תורה חתומה ניתנה שנאמר לקוח את ספר התורה הזאת

The Gemara returns to discuss the previously mentioned dispute. Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll, as it is stated: “Then I said, behold, I come with the scroll of the book that is written for me” (Psalms 40:8). King David is saying about himself that there is a section of the Torah, “the scroll of the book,” that alludes to him, i.e., “that is written for me.” This indicates that each portion of the Torah constitutes a separate scroll. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book, as it is stated: “Take this scroll of the Torah” (Deuteronomy 31:26), which teaches that from the outset the Torah was given as a complete unit.

ואידך נמי הכתיב לקוח ההוא לבתר דאידבק

The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, as well, isn’t it written “take,” indicating that the Torah scroll was given whole? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse is speaking about the Torah after it was joined together to form a single unit.

ואידך נמי הכתיב במגילת ספר כתוב עלי ההוא דכל התורה כולה איקרי מגילה דכתיב ויאמר אלי מה אתה רואה ואומר אני רואה מגילה עפה

The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Reish Lakish, as well, isn’t it written: “With the scroll of the book that is written for me,” indicating that the Torah was given scroll by scroll? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse teaches that the entire Torah is called a scroll. This is indicated in another verse as well, as it is written: “And He said to me: What do you see? And I said: I see a flying scroll” (Zechariah 5:2).

אי נמי לכדרבי לוי דאמר רבי לוי שמנה פרשיות נאמרו ביום שהוקם בו המשכן אלו הן פרשת כהנים ופרשת לוים ופרשת טמאים ופרשת שילוח טמאים ופרשת אחרי מות

Alternatively, this verse serves to allude to the sections of the Torah discussed in that statement of Rabbi Levi, as Rabbi Levi says: Eight sections were said on the day that the Tabernacle was erected, on the first of Nisan. They are: The section of the priests (Leviticus 21:1–22:26); the section of the Levites (Numbers 8:5–26); the section of the impure (Leviticus 13:1– 14:57); the section of the sending away of the impure (Numbers 5:1–4); the section beginning with the words “After the death” (Leviticus, chapter 16);

ופרשת שתויי יין ופרשת נרות ופרשת פרה אדומה

the section dealing with priests who have become intoxicated with wine (Leviticus 10:8–11); the section of the lamps (Numbers 8:1–7); and the section of the red heifer (Numbers, chapter 19), as all of these sections are necessary for service in the Tabernacle.

אמר רבי אלעזר תורה רוב בכתב ומיעוט על פה שנאמר אכתוב לו רובי תורתי כמו זר נחשבו ורבי יוחנן אמר רוב על פה ומיעוט בכתב שנאמר כי על פי הדברים האלה

§ The Gemara continues its discussion concerning the writing of the Torah: Rabbi Elazar says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted in writing, while the minority was transmitted orally, as it is stated: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah; they were reckoned a strange thing” (Hosea 8:12), meaning that the majority of the Torah was transmitted in written form. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The majority of the Torah was transmitted orally [al peh], while the minority was transmitted in writing, as it is stated with regard to the giving of the Torah to Moses on Mount Sinai: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27), which indicates that the greater part of the Sinaitic covenant was taught orally.

ואידך נמי הכתיב אכתוב לו רובי תורתי ההוא אתמוהי קא מתמה אכתוב לו רובי תורתי הלא כמו זר נחשבו

The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, as well, isn’t it written: “I wrote for him the greater part of My Torah”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: This verse is not a statement, but rather a rhetorical question expressing bewilderment: For did I write for him the greater part of My Torah? In that case they, the Jewish people, would be reckoned as strangers, meaning that there would be no difference between them and the nations of the world if everything was written down. Rather, the majority of the Torah must remain an oral tradition.

ואידך נמי הכתיב כי על פי הדברים האלה ההוא משום דתקיפי למיגמרינהו

The Gemara asks: And according to the other Sage, Rabbi Elazar, as well, isn’t it written: “For on the basis of these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel”? How does he understand this verse? The Gemara answers: That verse, which indicates that the covenant was based on that which was taught by oral tradition, is stated due to the fact that it is more difficult to learn matters transmitted orally, but not because these matters are more numerous than those committed to writing.

דרש רבי יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דרבי שמעון בן לקיש כתיב כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתיב כי על פי הדברים האלה הא כיצד דברים שבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה דברים שבעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא אלה אלה אתה כותב ואי אתה כותב הלכות

Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, expounded as follows: It is written: “Write you these matters” (Exodus 34:27), and it is written later in that same verse: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters.” How can these texts be reconciled? They mean to teach: Matters that were written you may not express them orally [al peh], and matters that were taught orally you may not express them in writing. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the mitzva recorded in the verse “Write you these matters” is used here in an emphatic sense: These matters, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.

אמר רבי יוחנן לא כרת הקדוש ברוך הוא ברית עם ישראל אלא בשביל דברים שבעל פה שנאמר כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל

Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The Holy One, Blessed be He, made a covenant with the Jewish people only for the sake of the matters that were transmitted orally [be’al peh], as it is stated: “For on the basis of [al pi] these matters I have made a covenant with you and with Israel” (Exodus 34:27).

מערבין בבית ישן מפני דרכי שלום מאי טעמא אילימא משום כבוד והא ההוא שיפורא דהוה מעיקרא בי רב יהודה ולבסוף בי רבה ולבסוף בי רב יוסף ולבסוף בי אביי ולבסוף בי רבא

§ The mishna teaches that the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards [eiruv] is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? If we say that it is to show respect to the owner of that house, but wasn’t it related about a certain charity box, which was fashioned for the benefit of the community and brought honor to the person in whose house it was placed, that initially it was placed in Rav Yehuda’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rabba’s house, and afterward it was transferred to Rav Yosef’s house, and afterward it was moved to Abaye’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rava’s house. This teaches that there is no issue here of respect, and that such items would ordinarily be moved from place to place.

אלא משום חשדא

Rather, say instead that the Sages instituted this enactment to avoid arousing suspicion. Since the eiruv had regularly been placed in a particular house, were it to be moved, people might think that the residents of the alleyway suspected that the owner of the house was stealing from them, and therefore they put it somewhere else.

בור שהוא קרוב לאמה וכו׳ איתמר בני נהרא רב אמר תתאי שתו מיא ברישא ושמואל אמר עילאי שתו מיא ברישא

§ The mishna teaches that 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. It was stated that the amora’im disagree about the following issue: When people own fields along a river and they irrigate their fields with water that is redirected from it, who among them enjoys first rights to irrigate his field? Rav said: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water, i.e., irrigate their fields, first. And Shmuel said: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first.

בדמיזל כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי במיסכר ואשקויי שמואל אמר עילאי שתו מיא ברישא דאמרי אנן מקרבינן טפי ורב אמר תתאי שתו מיא ברישא דאמרי נהרא כפשטיה ליזיל

The Gemara explains: With regard to a case where the water flows on its own, everyone agrees that whoever wishes to irrigate may do so as he wishes. When they disagree, it is with regard to a case where they need to dam the river and irrigate through channels. Shmuel said: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first because they can say: We are nearer to the river’s headwaters. And Rav said: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water first because they can say: Let the river go its natural way and after we take what we need, dam it as you please.

תנן בור הקרוב לאמה מתמלא ראשון מפני דרכי שלום תרגמה שמואל אליבא דרב באמה המתהלכת על פי בורו

We learned in the mishna that 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. This teaches that the party who is nearest to the water’s source enjoys first rights, and it supports Shmuel’s opinion and is difficult for Rav. Shmuel interpreted the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav: The mishna refers here to an irrigation channel that passes the mouth of the pit, so that the pit fills with water on its own, even without damming.

אי הכי מאי למימרא מהו דתימא מצי אמרי ליה סכר מיסכר ואשקי בהינדזא קא משמע לן

The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of stating this? It is obvious. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that the owners of the other fields can say to the owner of the pit: Dam your pit as well so that water not enter it, and irrigate your fields in proportion [hindeza], just like the rest of us. The mishna therefore teaches us that the owner of the pit is not required to do this, and consequently his pit is filled first.

אמר רב הונא בר תחליפא השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כמר ולא כמר כל דאלים גבר

Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa said: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of this Sage, Rav, nor in accordance with the opinion of that Sage, Shmuel, whoever is stronger prevails. Since the halakha has not been decided, the court refuses to judge the case and leaves the claimants to settle the matter themselves, in the hope that the rightful party will exert himself and prevail.

רב שימי בר אשי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה לותבן מר בעידנא אמר ליה אית לי עידנא לדידי ולותבן מר בליליא אמר ליה אית לי מיא לאשקויי אמר ליה אנא משקינא ליה למר מיא ביממא ולותבן מר בליליא אמר ליה לחיי

Rav Shimi bar Ashi came before Abaye and said to him: Master, set a time for me to study with you. Abaye said to him: I have a set time for myself, and I cannot devote it to you. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: Master, set a time for me at night, and we can study then. Abaye said to him: I have to bring water at night with which to irrigate my fields. Rav Shimi bar Ashi said to him: I will irrigate for Master during the day, and then Master can set a time for me at night to study with him. Abaye said to him: Very well; this is an acceptable arrangement.

אזל לעילאי אמר להו תתאי שתו מיא ברישא אזל לתתאי אמר להו עילאי שתו מיא ברישא אדהכי סכר מיסכר ואשקי כי אתא לקמיה דאביי אמר ליה כבי תרי עבדת לי ולא טעמינהו אביי לפירי דההיא שתא

What did Rav Shimi bar Ashi do? He first went to the owners of the uppermost fields, and said to them: The owners of the lowermost fields drink the water first, in accordance with the opinion of Rav. He then went to the owners of the lowermost fields, and said to them: The owners of the uppermost fields drink the water first, in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel. In the meantime, while the owners of the upper fields and the lower fields were arguing over who has first rights to the water, Rav Shimi bar Ashi dammed the river and irrigated Abaye’s fields. When he came before Abaye, the latter said to him: You have acted for me in accordance with two opposing opinions. And Abaye would not even taste the produce of that year because he thought that the water had reached his field in an unlawful manner.

הנהו בני בי חרמך דאזול כרו ברישא דשנוותא ואהדרוה ושדיוה בשילהי נהרא אתו עילאי לקמיה דאביי אמרו ליה קא מתקיל לנהרין אמר להו כרו בהדייהו טפי פורתא אמרו ליה קא יבשי פירין אמר להו זילו סליקו נפשייכו מהתם

It is related that there were certain residents of a place called Bei Ḥarmakh who went and dug a channel at the head of the Shanvata River in order to divert the water and allow it to circle their fields, and then they returned the water to the river further downstream. Those who owned fields further upstream came before Abaye, and said to him: This damages our river, as the water is not flowing as it once had. Abaye said to them: Dig a little deeper with them, and that should solve the problem. They said to him: If we do that, our pits will become dry. Once Abaye heard this he said to the residents of Bei Ḥarmakh: Go remove yourselves from there, and dam the diversion that you made for the river.

מצודות חיה ועופות ודגים יש בהן וכו׳ באוזלי ואוהרי

§ The mishna teaches: Taking animals, birds, or fish that were caught in traps belonging to another person is considered robbery on account of the ways of peace. And Rabbi Yosei says that this is full-fledged robbery. The Gemara comments: With regard to nets [uzlei] and woven traps [oharei],