(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Gitin, 52

GITIN 52 - sponsored by Hagaon Rav Yosef Pearlman of London, England, a living demonstration of love for and adoration of the Torah.


QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that an Apotropos appointed to oversee the property of Yesomim is obligated to separate Ma'aser from their produce. The Gemara questions the Mishnah's ruling from a Beraisa that states that the verse which discusses Terumah says "Atem" ("you") (Bamidbar 18:28), teaching that only the owner of the field may separate Terumah, excluding an Apotropos from separating Terumah for Yesomim. Rav Chisda answers that when the Mishnah permits an Apotropos to separate Terumah, it permits him only to separate it for the purpose of feeding the fruit to the Yesomim now, but not to store the fruit away for later use later, nor to use for making a profit.

The question remains, though, that if the verse says that an Apotropos may not separate Terumah from the produce of the Yesomim because he is not the owner, then what difference does it make whether he is separating the Terumah to enable the Yesomim to eat the fruit now or for another purpose? In either case, he should not be allowed to separate Terumah!


(a) The TOSFOS RID and the RITVA explain that the Apotropos indeed has no right to separate Terumah from the produce of the Yesomim. The reason why he may separate Terumah is because of "Tikun ha'Olam." The Rabanan, through their power of "Hefker Beis Din Hefker," removed the fruit of the Yesomim from their possession and gave it to the Apotropos in order for him to separate Terumah from the fruit. They made this enactment for the sake of "Tikun ha'Olam," so that Yesomim have food available to eat.

(b) The RAMBAN explains that when it is clearly beneficial for the Yesomim (such as in order to enable them to eat), then the Apotropos may separate Terumah through the principle of *Zechiyah* ("Zachin l'Adam she'Lo b'Fanav"). That is, since it is a benefit to the Yesomim to have Terumah separated from their fruit in order to be able to eat it, the Apotropos may provide them with this benefit. However, the Apotropos may not separate Terumah for the Yesomim in order to store away the fruits, because doing so provides no clear Zechus for the Yesomim, and the Apotropos was not appointed as the Yesomim's Shali'ach to do so because the Yesomim are Ketanim and are unable to appoint a Shali'ach.

The Ramban is clearly learning that Zechiyah does not work through Shelichus (that is, the fact that the act is a benefit to the recipient shows us clearly that the person performing the act is acting in the capacity of a Shali'ach on behalf of the recipient), as Rashi learns earlier (9b). Rather, the Ramban maintains that the reason Zechiyah works is through a different mechanism altogether, as the RAN in Kidushin (42a) and others explain. Zechiyah is a different manner in which one can make something take effect for somebody else, without utilizing the mechanism of Shelichus. Zechiyah says that if it is beneficial for someone, then the Torah allows another person to make the benefit take effect without asking the recipient and without having to be his Shali'ach. Hence, when the Torah says "Atem," excluding an Apotropos, it does not mean "you" and not one who is *Zocheh* on behalf of the Yesomim, but rather one *can* be Zocheh (when it is a real Zechiyah, such as in order to provide them with food to eat) on behalf of Yesomim who are unable to appoint a Shali'ach.

This, however, seems to conflict with the principle set forth by the KETZOS HA'CHOSHEN, who writes that one cannot sell another Jew's Chametz before Pesach using the concept of Zechiyah, saying that it is beneficial for the Jew not to own Chametz during Pesach and to avoid transgressing the Aveirah of owning Chametz during Pesach, because Zechiyah works only to *give* something to someone and *not* to *remove* something from his possession. How, then, can the Ramban write that an Apotropos may separate Terumah from the fruits of Yesomim through Zechiyah, when that Zechiyah involves taking the Terumah fruits out of the possession of the Yesomim?

The answer is that separating Terumah does not involving giving something away. Rather, there was always some portion of fruits owned by Kohanim (i.e. Terumah) mixed in with the fruits (Tevel) of the Yesomim. By separating Terumah from the fruits, one is merely showing that these fruits are (and always were) the property of the Kohanim while the rest are the fruits of the Yesomim. Hence, one is not taking away anything from the Yesomim that belonged to them until now (see RAN in Nedarim 12a).

(c) The RASHBA writes that mid'Oraisa an Apotropos is really much more than a stranger appointed to oversee the Yesomim's property. He is actually a Shali'ach for the Yesomim. Even though the Yesomim cannot appoint a Shali'ach, the Apotropos is appointed to take care of the Yesomim and thus he is empowered like a hand of the Yesomim themselves. Therefore, whatever he does is fully binding, whether it is beneficial for them or detrimental to them. Even though the Yesomim cannot appoint a Shali'ach themselves, they can have an Apotropos who acts as if he was their own hand.

The Beraisa which says that an Apotropos cannot separate Terumah for Yesomim is only an Asmachta, says the Rashba. It is an Asmachta mid'Rabanan for the Halachah that the Rabanan instituted, saying that an Apotropos cannot separate Terumah in order to store away the remaining fruits.

The SHACH cited by the Ketzos ha'Choshen (CM 243:7), the PNEI YEHOSHUA, and the CHASAM SOFER here do not understand the Rashba to be saying this. They understand that the Rashba means to explain like the Ramban, who says that an Apotropos may separate Terumah for the Yesomim through the mechanism of Zechiyah. Consequently, they ask strong questions on the Rashba's explanation. However, CHIDUSHEI REBBI SHMUEL (Bava Basra 131b) points out that the intention of the Rashba is not that the Apotropos is able to separate Terumah through the principle of Zechiyah, but, as we have explained, the Apotropos is like a hand of the Yesomim, and thus he can effect a Zechus or a Chovah for them. He cites an example for this from RABEINU CHANANEL (cited by the ROSH in Bava Metzia 10a) who explains that an Apotropos is not considered to be a Tofes l'Ba'al Chov when he takes money, on behalf of the Yesomim, from someone who owes the Yesomim, but rather he is like a hand of the Yesomim themselves.

AGADAH: Rebbi Yosi teaches that a wife is called "Bayis." In numerous places we find metaphors of "building" used with regard to the marriage of a woman. Let us analyze the meaning behind this.
(a) When Boaz married Ruth, the people who witnessed the wedding blessed Boaz with the Berachah that Hashem should make Ruth "like Rachel and like Leah, who together *built* the house of Yisrael..." (Ruth 4:11), comparing the woman to a "Binyan."

Similarly, the Gemara in Kesuvos (8a) lists the Birchos Chasanim, the special Berachos which are recited for seven days after a wedding. In the Berachah of "Asher Yatzar," we say that Hashem "formed Adam in His image... and He established for him, from his own flesh, an everlasting structure," referring to Chavah. Rashi explains that Chavah is called a "Binyan," a structure, based on the verse, "va'Yiven... Es Hatzela" (Bereishis 2:22). The Gemara (Berachos 61a) tells us that the Torah calls Chavah a "structure" because of the physiological differences between man and woman which allow the woman to carry a child. (See also Rashi in Shemos 19:3 who says that "'*Beis* Yakov' -- the *house* of Yakov* -- refers to the woman.")

(b) The nature of a woman as a "Binyan" only manifests itself after she is married, when the man has the opportunity to serve as the "builder" and the woman has the opportunity to become "built."

HA'RAV DOVID COHEN, Shlit'a, points out that these "constructive" roles of man and woman are alluded to in their Hebrew titles.

A male child is called a "Ben," and a female child is called a "Bas." A grown man is called an "Ish," and a woman is called an "Ishah." The Chachamim point out that what differentiates "Ish" from "Ishah" is that the word "Ish" contains the letter Yud, and "Ishah" contains the letter Heh (Sotah 17a). When the male child, the "Ben," gets married, he acquires the Heh of the woman, the "Ishah," making him into a "Boneh" (spelled Beis, Nun, Heh). He is involved in building the Binyan. When the female child, the "Bas," gets married, she acquires the Yud of the man, the "Ish," and she becomes the Binyan or "Bayis," the foundation of the home.

Accordingly, Rebbi Yosi might have called his wife "Bayis" in order to remind himself of his responsibility towards her. It is only through his bond to her that his wife will become "built" into a proper "Bayis."

In a certain sense, the same can be said to explain why Rebbi Yosi called his ox his "field." The ox's potential to bring a person his livelihood must be developed by its owner, who invests his time and patience into plowing with it and caring for it. To remind himself of this, Rebbi Yosi called his ox his "field."

(c) The house that is built by a man and his wife is not just a physical one. It is a dwelling place for the Shechinah itself, for the Divine Presence of Hashem. The Gemara in Sotah (ibid.) teaches that when there is peace between a man and his wife, the Shechinah dwells in their midst. The letter Yud of the word "Ish" and the letter Heh of the word "Ishah" come together and form the name of Hashem, to symbolize that the Divine Presence rests upon them (see Rashi to Bereishis 30:16). Their home becomes a "Mikdash Me'at," a miniature reproduction of the Beis ha'Mikdash.

The Gemara in Sotah continues that, Chas v'Shalom, if there is not peace between a man and his wife, the letters of the name of Hashem -- the Yud and Heh -- depart from the "Ish" and "Ishah," leaving two flames -- "Esh" -- which destroy each other. It seems that when there is peace between them, fire also plays an important role. Hashem's presence is compared to an "all-consuming fire" (Devarim 4:24; see Sotah 14a). For this reason, smoke and fire always mark the place upon which the Divine Presence rests, as on Mount Sinai and in the pillar of flame that escorted the Jewish people out of Egypt. Zecharyah (2:9) tells us that when Hashem returns to Zion, He will be "as a protective wall of fire surrounding it," when He rests His Divine Presence inside it.

The peaceful union of man and wife creates a dwelling place for the protective fire that denotes Hashem's Presence. This, in turn, alludes to the fire of the Torah, which leads a person along the way of Hashem and protects Him from all harm (see Sotah 21a). "One who is without a wife is without Torah" (Yevamos 63a), and one who is *with* a wife is well-equipped to construct a house built on the foundations of Torah study and observance. (M. Kornfeld)


Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,