GITIN 55 (4 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim Yisachar (ben Yaakov) Smulewitz of Cleveland on his Yahrzeit, by his daughter and son in law, Jeri & Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel.


TOSFOS DH "v'Al ha'Ketanah"

תוס' ד"ה "ועל הקטנה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why in some cases we permit her to eat only Rabbinic Terumah, and sometimes we do not permit anything at all.)

בתרומה דרבנן איירי למ"ד אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה כדאמרינן בריש האשה רבה (יבמות צ.) דמפרש ואוכלת בגינו תרומה בתרומה דרבנן


Explanation: This is referring to Rabbinic Terumah, according to the opinion that the Chachamim do not have the power to uproot something from the Torah. This is indeed stated in Yevamos (90a), where the Gemara explains the statement, "she eats Terumah because of him" as referring to Rabbinic Terumah.

וא"ת ולוקמה אפילו בתרומה דאורייתא דקטן אוכל נבלות הוא


Question: Let us say that this is even referring to Torah Terumah, as a minor who eats animals that are improperly slaughtered does not have to be stopped by Beis Din!

וי"ל דקטן אוכל נבלות בעיא היא בפרק חרש (שם קיד.) ולא איפשיטא אי ב"ד מצווין להפרישו או לאו


Answer#1: Whether or not a minor who eats improperly slaughtered animals must be stopped is a question asked in Yevamos (114a). The Gemara does not conclude one way or another.

ועוד דאוכלת בגינו משמע דאפי' מאכילה בידים


Answer#2: Additionally, "she eats because of him," implies that he could even feed her with his hands (which is more stringent than whether or not Beis Din must stop him).

ועוד משמע דאפי' לכי גדלה אוכלת מכח זה אע"פ שעדיין לא בעל


Answer#3: Additionally, the Gemara implies that even when she grows older she can eat due to this marriage, even though he did not yet have marital relations with her.

והכא לא גזרינן תרומה דרבנן אטו דאורייתא כדגזרינן בסמוך גבי חרש בפקחת


Implied Question: Here, we do not make a decree on Rabbinic Terumah due to Torah Terumah, as we indeed do when a Cheiresh marries a regular woman. (Note: What is the difference between the two cases?)

דאפי' תאכל תרומה דאורייתא הא קטנה היא.


Answer: Even if she will eat Torah Terumah (in our case), she is a minor. (Note: This is as opposed to the case of the Cheiresh who marries a regular woman, where there are no minors involved.)


TOSFOS DH "Mai Taima"

תוס' ד"ה "מאי טעמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos clarifies whether or not Ula holds that Yiush is generally effective.)

הכא סבר עולא דיאוש לא קני ובמרובה (ב"ק סז.) נמי אמר עולא מנין ליאוש שאינו קונה כו'


Observation: Ula here holds that Yiush (giving up hope of ever retrieving the object) does not acquire. In Bava Kama (67a), Ula also asks, "How do we know that Yiush does not acquire (etc.)?"

והקשה ר"ת דבהגוזל בתרא (שם קיד.) גבי פלוגתא דר"ש ורבנן דגנב וגזלן אמר עולא מחלוקת בסתם אבל בידוע דברי הכל יאוש קונה


Question: Rabeinu Tam asks that in Bava Kama (114a) there is an argument between Rebbi Shimon and the Rabbanan regarding a hidden thief and a brazen thief. Ula says that their argument is in a case where we did not hear that the victim had Yiush. If we had, everyone agrees that Yiush would be effective. (Note: This shows Ula holds Yiush is effective!)

ואומר ר"ת דבכל מקום יאוש קונה לעולא רק לענין קרבן שיהא כשר להקרבה קאמר הכא ובמרובה דלא קני משום דמצוה הבאה בעבירה היא


Answer: Rabeinu Tam answers that Ula generally holds that Yiush acquires. Only regarding a Korban, in order that it should be valid to be brought, Ula holds here and in Bava Kama that Yiush does not acquire, as this is a Mitzvah that can only be performed to the sin that was performed with it.

ותדע דבסמוך פריך לעולא מגנב והקדיש ואח"כ מכר וטבח כו' ולא פריך מגופה אמאי פטר מד' וה' והא לאו דהקדש קטבח אי יאוש לא קני אלא ודאי יאוש לכל מילי קני רק לענין הקרבה


This is clearly true. Later, the Gemara asks a question from Ula from the case of someone who stole and then dedicated what he stole to Hekdesh. He then proceeded to sell and slaughter what he stole. The Gemara (conspicuously) does not ask, why is he exempt from paying four or five times its value? He did not slaughter the animal of Hekdesh if Yiush does not allow the thief to acquire! (Note: A clear question on Ula.) Rather, it must be that Yiush generally does acquire according to Ula, except when it comes to bringing Korbanos.

ולהכי פריך מדתניא עלה דבחוץ חייב כרת אלמא ראוי לפתח אהל מועד הוא ואפי' לענין הקרבה קני יאוש


This is why the Gemara asked from the Beraisa that states that if the thief (mentioned immediately above slaughtered the animal) outside (the Beis Hamikdash), he would be liable to be punished with Kares. This implies that the dedicated animal is fit to be brought to the Ohel Moed (as a Korban), and that even regarding Korbanos it seems that Yiush acquires.

וקשה לרבינו יצחק בסמוך דמסיק רבא דוולדות אינן שלו רק משעת הקדש ואליבא דעולא קאמר כדמוכח הסוגיא ואי לעולא יאוש קני הא על כרחך משעת יאוש דהיינו משעת גניבה גיזותיה וולדותיה דידיה הוו


Question#1: Rabeinu Yitzchak has difficulty with this due to a later Gemara where Rava concludes that the offspring of this animal are only his from the time of Hekdesh. Rava's position is according to Ula, as is clear from our Gemara. If Ula holds Yiush acquires, it must be that from the time of Yiush means from the time of the theft he acquires the shearings and the offspring. (Note: How can Rava conclude it is from the time of Hekdesh?)

ועוד קשה דמשמע דאי יאוש קני אתי שפיר


Question#2: There is additional difficulty, as the Gemara implies that if Yiush acquires there is no difficulty.

והא במרובה (ב"ק סח:) פריך אפכא ר' יוחנן לריש לקיש דאמר חיוביה לפני יאוש אבל לאחר יאוש שלו הוא טובח ושלו הוא מוכר מגנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר כו' אימת אילימא לפני יאוש מי קדוש אלא פשיטא לאחר יאוש


The Gemara in Bava Kama (68b) quotes Rebbi Yochanan asking the opposite to Reish Lakish, who holds that he is liable before Yiush. After Yiush, the thief is considered to be slaughtering or selling his own animal. Rebbi Yochanan asks from the Beraisa above that if someone stole, dedicated to Hekdesh, and then slaughtered and stole etc. Rebbi Yochanan asks, when did this happen? If it was before Yiush, is the Hekdesh valid? It must be that it all happened after Yiush.

ואי יאוש קני מאי איריא הקדיש כי לא הקדיש נמי פטור מד' וה' דשלו הוא טובח ושלו הוא מוכר


If Yiush acquires, why is it important in this case that he dedicate the animal? If he doesn't dedicate the animal he should still be exempt from paying four or five times the value as he is slaughtering and selling his own animal!

וליכא לשנויי כדמשני התם לר"ל כגון שהקדישוהו בעלים בבית גנב דא"כ מאי קפריך לעולא כרת מאי עבידתיה הא מתחייב כרת שפיר דהא ראוי לפתח אהל מועד כיון שהקדישו בעלים


One cannot answer (our question) as the Gemara there answers for Reish Lakish that the case is where the owner declared that it should be Hekdesh in the house of the thief. If so, what is the Gemara's question here on Ula that there should not be any liability for Kares? He is clearly liable for Kares, as it is able to be brought to the Beis Hamikdash as a Korban, being that it was dedicated by the true owner!

ונראה לרבינו יצחק דבכל מקום לעולא יאוש לא קני והאי דהגוזל בתרא (שם דף קיד.) הוי יאוש ושינוי השם דמעיקרא משכא והשתא אברזא כדאמר במרובה (שם דף סו: ושם)


Answer: It seems to Rabeinu Yitzchak that Ula generally holds that Yiush is not effective. The Gemara in Bava Kama (114a, that implies it is effective) is referring to a case where there was Yiush in addition to a change in the name of the item. Originally it was called a Mashcha (piece of wood), and in the end it was called Abarza (a table), as stated earlier there (66b).

ואע"ג דגבי קרבן נמי הוי יאוש ושינוי השם כדאמרינן נמי התם (דף סז.) מעיקרא חולין והשתא הקדש


Implied Question: Regarding a Korban there is also Yiush and a change in the name, as is also stated there (67a) that originally it was called Chulin and now it is called Kodesh. (Note: Why, then, should a Korban be any different?)

מ"מ כיון דאינו קנוי אלא מחמת שהקדיש ולא היה קנוי לו קודם פסליה רחמנא להקרבה משום מצוה הבאה בעבירה


Answer: Even so, being that the only reason it is acquired is because he was Makdish it, and he did not acquire it beforehand, the Torah said that it is unfit to be brought as a Korban due to the fact that it would be a Mitzvah done because a sin was performed.

ומיהו אם היה קנוי לו קודם ההקדש לא הוה חשיב מצוה הבאה בעבירה


Observation: However, if he would acquire it before he would be Makdish it, it would not be considered a Mitzvah done because a sin was performed.

כדמוכח בסוכה (דף ל.) דאמר להו רב הונא להנהו אוונכרי כי זבניתו אסא מן העובדי כוכבים ליגזוז אינהו כו' ופריך וליקננהו בשינוי השם משמע דאי קנו ליה תו לא הוה מצוה הבאה בעבירה


This is apparent from the Gemara in Sukah (30a), where Rav Huna said to the merchants that when they buy Hadassim (myrtle branches) from the Nochrim, they should let the Nochrim harvest the Hadassim. The Gemara asks, why don't the Jews acquire the Hadassim because of a change in their name? This implies that if they would indeed acquire it, there would be no problem that a Mitzvah was done because a sin was performed.

ודוחק לומר דסבר כר' יצחק בר נחמני דלא חייש למצוה הבאה בעבירה


It is difficult to say that he holds like Rebbi Yitzchak bar Nachmeini who does not hold that there is a problem for a Mitzvah to be done because a sin was performed.

ועוד אמרינן התם האי כשורא דמטללתא עבדו בה רבנן תקנתא מפני השבים ובסוכה לא בעינן משלכם ולא מיפסלא אלא משום מצוה הבאה בעבירה וכי קנייה בתקנתא דרבנן לא חשיב מצוה הבאה בעבירה כל שכן אי קנו קנין גמור


Additionally, we say there that the Rabbanan instituted that a beam from a roof can be paid for instead of physically returned (and making the thief break his roof to repent) in order to make it easier for thieves to repent. A Sukah does not have a requirement that it has to be yours, and therefore would not become invalid for a reason other than the fact that the Mitzvah could only be performed due to the sin. If the thief acquires it due to a Rabbinic decree (that he does not have to return it, but rather can pay its value), there is no longer a problem of doing a Mitzvah through a sin. There would certainly be no problem if he properly acquired the beam.

והא דאמר בריש הגוזל קמא (ב"ק צד.) הרי שגזל סאה של חיטין טחנה לשה ואפאה והרים ממנה חלה כיצד יברך אין זה מברך אלא מנאץ ואע"ג דקנה קודם לכן דשנוי קונה


Implied Question: The Gemara states in Bava Kama (94a) that if someone steals a Sa'ah of wheat, and proceeds to grind, knead, bake it into bread, and take Chalah from it, how can he make a blessing? Such a person is not one who is blessing, but rather one who is scoffing! The Gemara says this despite the fact that the wheat was clearly acquired with this Shinui (change, i.e. grinding) well before the blessing. (Note: Why is there a problem if he already acquired it, and we have just established that the acquisition takes away the association of the sin.)

לענין ברכה ראוי להחמיר יותר וחשיב מצוה הבאה בעבירה אע"ג דכבר קנה אין להזכיר שם שמים עליו


Answer: Regarding a blessing it is appropriate to be more stringent and consider this still to be a Mitzvah done through sin. Even though he has already acquired it, he should not mention Hash-m's name on it.

והשתא בשמעתין אי לאו ההיא דתני עלה אתי שפיר לעולא הא דפטור מד' וה' דהוי יאוש ושינוי השם


Explanation: Now in our Gemara, without the additional Beraisa (which our Gemara uses to ask a question on Ula), it is understandable according to Ula why the thief would be exempt from paying four or five times the value of the animal. This is because there is Yiush and a change of its name.

דליכא למיפרך נמי אי יאוש קני כי לא הקדיש נמי


One cannot ask that if Yiush acquires, when he is not Makdish he should also totally acquire the animal.

דלרב יהודה נמי יאוש גרידא לא קני אלא יאוש ושינוי השם ולא חייש לטעם דמצוה הבאה בעבירה.


According to Rav Yehudah, Yiush alone is not effective, but Yiush together with a change of name is effective, and takes away the problem that it is a Mitzvah done through sin.



TOSFOS DH "Shelo Yomru"

תוס' ד"ה "שלא יאמרו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how the Chachamim allowed the bringing of another Chatas.)

וא"ת וכי יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה בקום עשה דמן התורה אין צריך להביא קרבן אחר


Question: Do the Chachamim have the ability to actively uproot a Torah law? According to Torah law, there is no need to bring another Korban.

וי"ל דדווקא נודעה קודם זריקה אינה מכפרת אבל לאחר זריקה שכבר נתכפר לא הצריכוהו להביא אחרת.


Answer: Only if it was known before sprinkling does it not atone. However, after sprinkling, where the atonement was already done, they did not require him to bring another Korban.


TOSFOS DH "Ki Heichi"

תוס' ד"ה "כי היכי"

(SUMMARY: Rashi and Tosfos argue about the nature of this animal being in his possession.)

פירש בקונטרס דקנסוהו רבנן


Explanation: Rashi explains that the Rabbanan gave him a fine (that it should be in his possession).

וקשה דמי לא עסקינן דאפילו שחטה אחר בחוץ דחייב


Question: This is difficult. Aren't we dealing with a case where even if someone else slaughtered the animal outside the Beis Hamikdash he would liable?

אלא כיון דלא נודעה לרבים אוקמוה ברשותיה שלא יהו כהנים עצבים וממילא מחייב השוחט בחוץ.


Opinion#2: Rather, being that it is not known to the public we say that it is in his possession, in order that the Kohanim should not be sad. This automatically causes whoever slaughters it outside the Beis Hamikdash to be held liable.


TOSFOS DH "l'Gizoseha"

תוס' ד"ה "לגיזותיה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Gemara had to "establish" that the thief owned these things.)

וא"ת אפי' קודם הקדש הן שלו דהא תנן (ב"ק דף צג:) גזל פרה מעוברת וילדה ורחל טעונה וגזזה משלם דמי פרה העומדת לילד ודמי רחל העומדת ליגזז ואם נתעברה אצלו משלם כשעת הגזלה


Question: Even before Hekdesh, they are his. The Mishnah states in Bava Kama (93b) that if someone stole a pregnant cow that gave birth or a sheep loaded with wool which he proceeded to shear, he pays the value of a cow that is about to give birth and a sheep that is about to be shorn. If it became pregnant in his domain, he pays the amount it was worth when he stole it.

וי"ל דנפקא מינה לר"מ דאמר התם בגמרא משלם אותה ואת גיזותיה ואת ולדותיה משום דקנסו גזלן


Answer: The difference would be according to Rebbi Meir in Bava Kama (95a-b), who says in the Gemara there that he pays for it, its shearings, and its offspring because they gave a fine to the thief (not because it actually was acquired by him).

ואע"ג דשינוי קונה הכא מ"מ בשעת הקדש אוקמוה ברשותיה ולא קנסו


Even though a Shinui acquires, during Hekdesh they established it in his domain and did not give him a fine.

ולרבי יהודה דאמר גזילה חוזרת בעיניה לרב זביד דאמר אליביה שבח שעל גבי הגזילה דנגזל הוי הכא דאוקמוה ברשותיה דגזלן הוי


According to Rebbi Yehudah in Bava Kama (ibid.) who says that the stolen item can be returned as it is, and Rav Zvid's understanding of Rebbi Yehudah (ibid.) that the improvement on the item belongs to the owner, here that improvement switches to the domain of the thief.

אבל לרב פפא דאמר אליביה דהוי דגזלן לא נפקא מינה מידי


However, according to Rav Papa who says that according to Rebbi Yehudah this improvement belongs to the thief, there indeed is no practical difference.

ולרבי שמעון דאמר התם למחצה ולשליש ולרביע הכא הוי הכל שלו


According to Rebbi Shimon who says in Bava Kama (ibid.) that the improvement made in the thief's possession is split in half, thirds, or quarters (depending on what the custom of shepherds (i.e. our thief) is to take someone else's animal and improve it), here everything would be considered belonging to the thief.

אבל לרב זביד דאמר דלר"ש כוליה דגזלן לא נפקא מינה מידי הכא במאי דאוקמוה ברשותיה.


However, according to Rav Zvid who says that according to Rebbi Shimon everything belongs to the thief, there is no difference here by saying that we establish that it is in the possession of the thief.


TOSFOS DH "b'Yehudah"

תוס' ד"ה "ביהודה"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Romans started up with Yehudah.)

בירושלמי בראשונה גזרו גזרה על יהודה לפי שמסורת בידם מאבותם שיהודה הרג עשו דכתיב (בראשית מט) ידך בעורף אויביך ותניא נמי בספרי ידיו רב לו בשעה שהרג את עשו


Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that the Romans first made their decree against Yehudah, as they had a tradition from their ancestors that Yehudah killed Eisav. This is as the Pasuk states, "Your hand is at the back of the neck of your enemy" (Bereishis 49:8). The Sifri also states, "His hands are mighty to him - (refers to) when he killed Eisav."

ובסוף פ"ק דסוטה (דף יג.) דאמר חושים בן דן שקל קולפא ומחייה ארישיה דעשו ונתרו עיניה ונפלו אכרעיה דיעקב


Implied Question: At the end of the first chapter of Sotah (13a), the Gemara states that Chushim, son of Dan, took a staff and struck Eisav's head, causing his eyes to fall out onto the knees of Yaakov. (Note: This implies that Chushim, not Yehudah, killed Eisav.)

שמא לא מת באותה הכאה עד שעמד עליו יהודה והרגו.


Answer: Perhaps he did not die with that blow (and did not die at all), until Yehudah came and killed him.


TOSFOS DH "Ashrei Adam"

תוס' ד"ה "אשרי אדם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why Rebbi Yochanan quotes the Pasuk, "Praised is a person who is always scared.")

בפ' הרואה (ברכות ס.) אמרינן חזייה לההוא גברא דהוה מפחד א"ל חטאה את דכתיב פחדו בציון חטאים ופריך מקרא דהכא ומוקי לה בדברי תורה שדואג שלא ישכח תלמודו וחוזר על משנתו תמיד


Explanation: The Gemara in Berachos (60a) says that he (Rebbi Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi) saw a person who was scared. He told him that he was a sinner, as the Pasuk says, "Sinners are scared in Zion." The person asked him, "Doesn't the Pasuk say, "Praised is a person who is always scared?" The Gemara answers that this latter Pasuk is discussing someone who is scared that he should not forget his learning, and he therefore constantly reviews his learning.

והכא נמי מייתי ליה אהני עובדי שבטחו על רוב טובתם ושלוותם לבייש את בר קמצא ולעמוד על בת קיסר והיה להם לפחד ולדאג מן הפורענות ולא דמי לאדם המתפחד בחנם.


The Gemara here similarly quotes this Pasuk regarding these incidents, where people were confident due to their mostly good and peaceful lives that they could embarrass Bar Kamtza and stand against the daughter of the Caesar. They should have been scared and worried about the punishments that could come to them due to their actions. This is unlike someone who is worried for nothing.