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


Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Gitin 54

GITIN 53-55 - Sponsored by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel and his wife, Jeri Turkel. May Hashem bless them with many years of Simcha, health and fulfillment, and may they see all of their children and grandchildren follow them in the ways of Torah and Yir'as Shamayim!


(a) Question (Beraisa): If a non-Kohen (unintentionally) ate Tamei Terumah - he pays an equal quantity of Tahor Chulin;
1. If he paid with Tamei Chulin - Sumchus cites R. Meir to say that if this was unintentional, it is valid payment; if he intentionally gave Tamei Chulin, it is not valid payment;
2. Chachamim say, in either case, it is considered payment, but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.
3. Question: When he intentionally gave Tamei Chulin (according to R. Meir), why is it not valid? He ate something totally unfit for the Kohen, and paid something which (he thought would be) fit for the Kohen to eat when the Kohen is Tamei!
4. Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated; it should read thusly: If he ate Tamei Terumah - he pays back Chulin, it may be Tahor or Tamei;
5. If he ate Tahor Terumah - he pays back Tahor Chulin;
i. If he paid Tamei Chulin - Sumchus cites R. Meir to say that if this was unintentional, it is valid payment; if not, not;
ii. Chachamim say, in either case, it is considered payment, but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.
6. (Culmination of question - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika): R. Meir holds that we do not fine an unintentional transgression on account of intentional, Chachamim say that we do.
(b) Answer: There the man intended to fulfill his Mitzvah to pay; R. Meir only says that we fine him when he was not engaged in a Mitzvah.
(c) Question (Beraisa): Blood (of a sacrifice) that became Tamei and was thrown on the Altar - if unintentionally, the sacrifice may be eaten; if intentionally, the sacrifice is forbidden.
(d) Answer: There the man intended to get atonement, it is not fitting to fine him.
(e) Question (Mishnah): One who tithes food on Shabbos - if unintentionally, the food may be eaten; if intentionally, it is forbidden.
(f) Answer: There the man intended to make his food permissible, it is not fitting to fine him.
(g) Question (Mishnah): One who immerses vessels on Shabbos - if unintentionally, he may use them; if intentionally, he may not.
(h) Answer: There the man intended to purify his vessels, it is not fitting to fine him.
(a) Contradiction: We find elsewhere that R. Yehudah does fine by mid'Rabanan laws!

1. (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah): (There was a mixture of permitted nuts with forbidden Parech nuts (a special species - such nuts, when whole, are never nullified.)) The nuts fell and broke - whether or not this was intentional, the mixture is still forbidden;
2. R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if they fell unintentionally, the nuts may become nullified, if not, not.
3. mid'Oraisa, any minority is nullified - mid'Rabanan, a minority of important things is not nullified - still, R. Yehudah fines!
(b) Answer: There, R. Yehudah fines lest the person scheme to make them fall so they will become nullified.
(c) Contradiction: There, R. Yosi does not fine by a mid'Rabanan law; elsewhere, he does!
1. (Mishnah): A man has a tree of Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem (a forbidden crossbreed in a vineyard), and cannot remember which of his trees this is. (A tree cannot become nullified, but the fruits can.) He may not harvest his trees - if he did, the forbidden produce is nullified if he knows that the permitted produce is more than 200 times as much as the forbidden produce, provided that he did not intend for this;
2. R. Yosi says, even if he intended for this, the forbidden produce is nullified.
(d) Answer (Rava and Ravin): Normally, a person would be careful not to allow 1 tree to forbid all his trees, he would clearly designate the forbidden tree - therefore, this case is rare, so R. Yosi makes no fine.
(a) (Mishnah): A Kohen made a sacrifice Pigul (invalid through intent to eat or offer it outside the allowed time or place) - if he intentionally did this, he must pay.
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): Reuven was working with Shimon's Tahor produce. Reuven tells Shimon that it became Tamei - he is believed;
1. The same applies if he was offering Shimon's sacrifice, and he says that it became Pigul.
(c) If Reuven tells Shimon that the produce or sacrifice which Reuven was dealing with on a previous day became Tamei or Pigul, he is not believed.
(d) Question: What is the difference between the cases?
(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): He is only believed when it is in his power to do as he says (make it Tamei or Pigul) at the time he tells him.
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): Reuven is not believed when he did not tell Shimon the first time he saw him.
(g) Levi told Yehudah: The produce we were working with the other day, it became Tamei.
1. R. Ami: Letter of the law, Levi is not believed.
2. R. Asi: But R. Yochanan cited R. Yosi to say that the Torah says he is believed!
(h) Question: Where does the Torah say this? (i) Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna): We learn from the inner sin-offerings on Yom Kipur, which the Kohen Gadol could (transgress and) make Pigul.
1. Question: How would we know that they are Pigul? "No other man will be on the Tent of Meeting (when the Kohen Gadol brings these offerings)"!
2. Answer: It must be, the Kohen Gadol is believed!
(j) Objection: No, we could have heard him saying that he offers them in order to burn the fast on the Altar after the allowed time.
1. Question: But we would not know that he said this when he offered them - perhaps he offered them before saying this!
2. Answer: Perhaps someone saw the Kohen Gadol through an opening in the wall of the Heichal (and knows that he was saying this as he offered them).
i. The objection to R. Yitzchak's proof is left difficult.
(k) A scribe said: The Sefer Torah I wrote for Ploni is invalid, because the occurrences of Hash-m's name are not Lishmah (I wrote them without intention).
1. R. Ami: Who has the Sefer Torah?
2. The scribe: Ploni.
3. R. Ami: You forfeit your wages by your admission, but you are not believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah.
4. R. Yirmeyah: Granted, he does not receive wages for writing those names, but he should get paid for writing the rest!
5. R. Ami: Since the names are not Lishmah, the Sefer Torah is worthless.
(l) Question: Why can't he overwrite those names with intention to sanctify them?
1. Suggestion: R. Ami does not hold as R. Yehudah.
i. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): A scribe needed to write Hash-m's name; he mistakenly thought that he needs to write 'Yehudah'. He omitted writing the 'Daled' (so it turns out that he wrote Hash-m's name, but not Lishmah) - he overwrites the letters with intention to sanctify them;
ii. Chachamim say, this is not a nice writing of Hash-m's name.
2. Rejection: R. Ami can hold as R. Yehudah - R. Yehudah only permitted overwriting 1 name of Hash-m - but not to overwrite all occurrences, for such a Sefer appears spotted.
(m) A scribe said: The Sefer Torah I wrote for Ploni is invalid, because I did not make the parchments Lishmah.
1. R. Avahu: Who has the Sefer Torah?
2. The scribe: Ploni.
3. R. Avahu: Since you are believed to forfeit your wages, you are also believed to disqualify the Sefer Torah.
(a) Question: Why is this different than R. Ami's case?
(b) Answer: There, one can say that the scribe really wrote it Lishmah, but thought he could disqualify the Sefer and still receive most of his wages, as R. Yirmeyah thought; here, the scribe knows he forfeits his entire wage - presumably, he is telling the truth!
Next daf


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