Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Gittin

Folio 55a

What is the difference between this case and that of R. Ammi? — In that case it might be argued that the scribe mistakenly adopted the view of R. Jeremiah,¹  but here, since he stakes the whole of his fee and yet comes and tells, we presume that he is telling the truth.

MISHNAH. R. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA TESTIFIED²  THAT A DEAF-MUTE GIRL WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER FATHER CAN BE PUT AWAY WITH A GET,³  AND THAT

A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE MARRIED TO A PRIEST CAN EAT OF THE TERUMAH,⁴  AND THAT IF SHE DIES HER HUSBAND INHERITS HER, AND THAT IF A BEAM WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED IS BUILT INTO A PALACE⁵  RESTITUTION FOR IT MAY BE MADE IN MONEY,⁶  SO AS NOT TO PUT OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF PENITENTS, AND THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT [KNOWN] TO MANY,⁷  MAKES EXPIATION, TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR.⁸

GEMARA. Raba said: From the testimony of R. Johanan b. Gudgada we learn that if a man said to the witnesses [to the Get],⁹  See this Get which I am about to give to her [my wife], and then he said to his wife, Take this bond, the divorce is valid. For did not R. Johanan b. Gudgada affirm that the consent of the wife is not necessary? So here we do not require her knowledge.¹⁰  Surely this is obvious? [It required to he stated] because you might have thought that his saying to her 'take this bond' rendered the Get void. [Raba therefore] teaches us that if he had meant to annul it he would have said so to the witnesses, and the reason why he spoke so to the wife was because he was ashamed [to call it a Get].

THAT A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE. A deaf-mute woman, however, [according to this] cannot eat.¹¹  What is the reason? — As a precaution against a deaf-mute priest giving a deaf-mute woman [terumah] to eat.¹²  And suppose she does? She would only be like a child eating forbidden meat?¹³  — It is a precaution against the possibility of a deaf-mute priest giving terumah to a wife in possession of her faculties. But allow him at least to give her terumah which is such only by the rule of the Rabbis?¹⁴  — This is a precaution against the risk of her eating terumah which is such according to the Torah.

AND THAT IF A BEAM WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A PALACE. The Rabbis taught: If a man wrongfully takes a beam and builds it into a palace, Beth Shammai say that he must demolish the whole palace and restore the beam to its owner. Beth Hillel, however, say that the latter can claim only the money value of the beam, so as not to place obstacles in the way of penitents.¹⁵

THAT A SIN OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED. 'Ulla said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the [fact is generally] known or not, [the offering] does not make expiation, the reason being that Renunciation¹⁶  does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber].¹⁷  Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] not known the offering is expiatory? — So that the priests should not be grieved.¹⁸  Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But our Mishnah says TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR? — He replied to them: When the priests are grieved the altar is not attended to. Rab Judah, however, said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the fact [of its having been wrongfully acquired] is known or not known, the offering is expiatory, the reason being that Renunciation does of itself confer ownership [on the robber].

1. That he would lose only the fee for the names, and he was willing to risk this to annoy the purchaser.
2. V. 'Ed. VII, 9.
3. Although being deaf-mute she is not capable of giving consent, and although her marriage having been contracted by her father is a binding one.
4. Although her marriage is valid only by the rule of the Rabbis and not of the Torah. But she may eat only such as is terumah in Rabbinic law alone, but not what is terumah in Biblical law, which does not recognise her as the priest's wife.
5. Or any other building.
6. Instead of the actual beam being restored. V. infra.
7. [Three persons (v. J. a.l.)].
8. Lit., 'for the good order of the altar'. This is discussed in the Gemara infra.
9. Not in the wife's presence.
10. Which in this case includes consent.
11. As otherwise R. Johanan b. Gudgada would have stated the rule in reference to such a one.
12. The marriage of a deaf-mute priest to a deaf-mute woman was valid only by Rabbinical rule, and therefore she was not permitted to eat terumah.
13. Nebelah, v, Glos. And according to some authorities the Beth din do not step in to prevent this, v. Yeb. 114a.
14. The marriage, valid in rabbinical law, should be recognised in regard to such terumah.
15. As if they had to destroy the whole building they would not offer to make restitution.
16. Ye'ush. The abandonment by the owner of the hope of recovery.
17. Unless there has also been a change of ownership from the robber to a third party.
18. When they find out that they have eaten from a non-sacred animal that has been killed within the temple precincts, the flesh of which was forbidden, v. B.K. 67a.

Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] known it is not expiatory?¹  In order that people should not say that the altar is fed from [the proceeds of] robbery. If we accept 'Ulla's view we quite understand why the Mishnah says 'SIN-OFFERING'.²  But if Rab Judah's view is right, why does it say 'SIN-OFFERING'? The same would apply to a burnt-offering also?³  — A stronger instance is taken: not only is this the case with a burnt-offering which is entirely [consumed on the altar], but even in the case of a sin-offering where only the fat and blood are put on the altar and the rest is eaten by the priests, even there they applied the rule, in order that people should not say that the altar is fed from robbery.

We learnt: THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT KNOWN TO MANY, MAKES EXPIATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE LOSS TO THE ALTAR. This raises no difficulty if we accept the view of 'Ulla, but on the view of Rab Judah we ought to have the opposite?⁴  — This in fact is what he means: if [the fact is] not known it is expiatory, but if it is known it is not expiatory, to prevent loss to the altar.⁵

Raba raised an objection [from the following]: 'If a man stole [a beast] and sanctified it and then slaughtered and sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not four and fivefold.⁶  And with reference to this it was taught: If [after dedication] he should kill the animal outside the precincts, his penalty is kareth.'⁷  Now if you say that Renunciation does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber], how does kareth come in?⁸  — R. Shezbi replied: It means, the kareth decreed by the Rabbis. They laughed at him: Is there such a thing, [they said,] as kareth decreed by the Rabbis? — Said Raba to them: When a great man has said something, do not laugh at him; he means, kareth which comes to him through their regulation; for it was the Rabbis who declared it to be in his possession⁹  so that he might be liable for it. Raba further said: What I should like to know is this: When the Rabbis declared him to be the owner, did they mean this to apply from the time of stealing or from the time of sanctifying? What practical difference does it make? [It makes a difference] in respect of the fleece and the young;¹⁰  what is the law? — Raba then [answered his own question] saying: It is reasonable to suppose that it is from the time that he sanctified them, so that a sinner should not profit from his offence.

MISHNAH. THERE WAS NO SICARICON¹¹  IN JUDEA FOR THOSE KILLED IN WAR.¹²  AS FROM [THE TERMINATION OF] THE SLAUGHTER OF THE WAR¹³  THERE HAS BEEN SICARICON THERE. HOW DOES THIS RULE APPLY? IF A MAN BUYS A FIELD FROM THE SICARICON AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER, HIS PURCHASE IS VOID,¹⁴  BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND THEN FROM THE SICARICON IT IS VALID. IF A MAN BUYS [A PIECE OF A MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY]¹⁵  FROM THE HUSBAND AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE WIFE, THE PURCHASE IS VOID,¹⁶  BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE WIFE AND THEN FROM THE HUSBAND IT IS VALID. THIS WAS [THE RULING] OF THE FIRST MISHNAH.¹⁷  THE SUCCEEDING BETH DIN,¹⁸  HOWEVER, LAID DOWN THAT IF A MAN BUYS PROPERTY FROM THE SICARICON HE HAD TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER [OF THE VALUE].¹⁹  TH¹⁹  S,²⁰  HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE WHEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BUY IT HIMSELF, BUT IF HE IS HE HAS THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION. RABBI ASSEMBLED A BETH DIN AND THEY DECIDED BY VOTE THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE SICARICON TWELVE MONTHS, WHOSOEVER FIRST PURCHASED IT ACQUIRED THE TITLE, BUT HE HAD TO GIVE A QUARTER [OF THE PRICE] TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER.

GEMARA. If there was no sicaricon for those killed in the war is it possible that there should have been after the termination of the war? — Rab Judah said: It means that the rule of sicaricon was not applied.²¹  For R. Assi has stated: They [the Roman Government] issued three successive decrees. The first was that whoever did not kill [a Jew on finding him] should himself be put to death. The second was that whoever killed [a Jew] should pay four zuz.²²  The last was that whoever killed a Jew should himself be put to death.²³  Hence in the first two [periods], [the Jew], being in danger of his life, would determine to transfer his property²⁴  [to the sicaricon] but in the last [period] he would say to himself, Let him take it today; tomorrow I will sue him for it.²⁵

R. Johanan said: What is illustrative of the verse, Happy is the man that feareth alway, but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief?²⁶  The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza;²⁷  the destruction of Tur Malka²⁸  came through a cock and a hen; the destruction of Bethar came through the shaft of a leather. The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.

1. This is not distinctly stated in the Mishnah, but is clearly implied.
2. Because only in this case where the priests eat of the flesh is there any danger of their becoming grieved.
3. Which is wholly burnt,
4. Viz., 'a sin-offering … if this is generally known, makes no expiation'.
5. By giving it a bad name.
6. B.K. 68b (Sonc. ed.) p. 395, q.v. for notes.
7. V. Glos. For killing a sacred animal outside the precincts of the Temple.
8. Because when he dedicated it the animal was not his, and therefore when he killed it it was not sacred.
9. When he dedicated it.
10. If he was declared owner from the time of the theft, then the fleece was grown or the calf was born while the animal was in his possession, and he has not to make restitution for these.
11. This word is usually regarded as being connected with the Latin sicarius, and is explained to mean a Roman soldier who threatened to kill a Jew but let him go on being given some of his property. Jastrow, however, very plausibly suggests that it is a corruption of [G], the Imperial fiscus which after the war of Bar Cochba confiscated and appropriated the property of Jews who had fought against the Romans.
12. The Gemara will explain the meaning of this passage. It is not clear whether only the war of Bethar is meant or the earlier war against Titus as well.
13. V. infra in the Gemara.
14. Because we say that the owner only sold it out of fear, and with a mental reservation.
15. Settled on her by her Kethubah. V. B.B. 49b.
16. Because we assume that she only consented to the sale to oblige her husband.
17. V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 163, n. 7.
18. Lit., 'the Beth din of those who came after them.'
19. It being estimated that the sicaricon would take a quarter less than the real value.
20. That a purchase from the sicaricon is valid.
21. [I.e., the heirs could not come and invalidate the sale to the third party. According to J. and Tosef. this rule was instituted in order to promote the settlement of Jews in Judea [H], otherwise Jews would be afraid to purchase fields from the sicaricon for fear that the heirs would come and claim the return of their property.]
22. As a fine.
23. [Halevy Doroth, I.e., attempts on the basis of Josephus Wars VI, 9, 2; VII, 6; VII, 6.6, to place the three decrees shortly after the year 70 C.E.]
24. And therefore the purchase of it from the sicaricon by a third party was valid. [The phrase [H] is here used in a loose sense and is not to be taken literally. It signifies that the owner despairs of the field and will make no attempt to recover it. Similarly in the case of the Mishnah, the heirs to those fields that had been seized of those killed in the war, had given up all hope of recovering the fields. Though legally, since there has been no actual transfer, they could by rights reclaim the fields when the opportunity presented itself it was nevertheless ruled that the sale to the third party is valid for the reason stated in n. 3. This removes the contradiction which Solomon Adreth points out in his Hiddushin between our Talmud and the Tosefta.]
25. And since the original owner had not waived his title, the purchase by a third party was not valid. [And similarly in the case of the heirs of those who are killed after the war, since they do not despair, the law of sicaricon applies. That is, the non-Jew who seized the land is treated as an ordinary robber and his sale of the field to a third party is invalid. The reason of [H] is not applicable in this case since the heir himself will see to it to recover the property. For attempts to solve the problems connected with the subject, v. Elbogen MGWJ. 1925, pp. 349ff. Feist, MGWJ. 71, pp. 138, Gulak, Tarbiz, V, p. 23ff., and Halevy, Doroth, I.e., p. 130e.]
26. Prov. XXVIII, 14. What follows illustrates the endless misery and mischief caused by hardness of heart.
27. Lit., 'locust and son of locust'. The meaning is that a very trivial cause set in motion the train of events which led to the destruction of Jerusalem; and similarly with the slaughter which accompanied and followed the war of Bar Cochba.
28. ['The Mountain of the King'. V. Pseudo-Jonathan, Judges IV, 5, where Mt. Ephraim is rendered by Tur Malka. According to Horowitz, Palestine, p. 240, it denotes the whole mountainous region stretching from the Valley of Jezreel to the south of Judah, including the mountains of Samaria, known also by the Hebrew name Har ha-Melek. (V. also Buchler, JQR, XVI, pp. 180ff.) There is still some uncertainty whence this name was derived. Was it perhaps because this region lay within the great conquests of John Hyrcanus that it was given the name? v. p. 77a n. 3a. The destruction of Tur Malka is placed by Buchler, op. cit. p. 186ff. during the war 66-70].