(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 Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Gitin 47

GITIN 47 (2 Nisan) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas: R' Zev ben R' Aharon (Milner) zt'l, the Rav of Serenik (Byelorussia) by his great-granddaughter, Chani (Pogrow) Shaw and family.



(a) In the case of the man who sold himself to Luda'i - the 'Luda'i' were cannibals.

(b) Rebbi Ami wanted to redeem even him, and certainly his children - precisely because they were cannibals.

(c) The Rabbanan did not allow him to do so - on the grounds that he was seen eating Neveilos and T'reifos (making him a Min, whom 'one leads down into a deep pit, and does not allow to come up').

(d) They knew that he was not merely a Mumar le'Tei'avon (who ate Neveilos ... purely for pleasure (in which case the above Din would not apply) - because there were occasions when Kosher meat was available to him, yet he chose to eat Neveilos and T'reifos.

(a) When Resh Lakish sold himself to the Luda'i (see Tosfos DH 'Resh Lakish) - he took with him a sack that contained a heavy stone or piece of metal.

(b) He got them to agree that he tie them up and hit them with his sack - by asking as a last request before being placed in the pot, to tie them up and give each one of them one a half strokes.

(c) He asked each of the leering dead men (the result of the blow, whose impact caused them to gnash their teeth hard as they died, conveying the impression that they were leering) - whether he was perhaps leering at him because he had cheated him out of the remaining half stroke that he still owed him. (d) He declared when ...

1. ... his daughter asked him whether he did not need something to lie on whilst he slept - that this was not necessary, since his stomach (on which he used to lie) was his sheet.
2. ... on his death-bed, he found that he was left with one Kav of saffron - "ve'Azvu la'Acheirim Cheilam" (Tehilim, because in his opinion, everyone should use up all his resources [given to him by Hashem] before his death).
(a) Chazal obligated someone who sold a field to a Nochri in Eretz Yisrael - to purchase the Bikurim from him each year at any cost, and to take it to Yerushalayim?

(b) The reason for this decree is - to discourage people from selling their fields to Nochrim in Eretz Yisrael, and in the event that they did, to encourage them to buy it back.

(c) Rabah learns from the Pasuk ...

1. ... in Behar "Ki Li ha'Aretz" - that a Nochri cannot acquire any part of Eretz Yisrael to exempt it from the obligation of Ma'asros.
2. ... "Tehilim "ha'Shamayim Shamayim la'Hashem, ve'ha'Aretz Nasan li'Venei Adam" - that he can however, acquire it to dig in it pits, trenches and caves.
(d) Rebbi Elazar disagrees. He learns from the Pasuk "Ma'asar *Degancha*" "Degancha" 've'Lo D'gan Oved Kochavim', and from the Pasuk "la'Hashem ha'Aretz u'Melo'ah" - that he cannot acquire the field to dig in it pits ...
. 4)
(a) Rabah, who obligates the grain of a Nochri to be Ma'asered, learns from "Degancha" - as if the Torah had written (not "Degancha", but) "Diguncha" 've'Lo Digun Nochri'. 'Digun' means 'Miru'ach', flattening the pile which follows the winnowing, and which, according to Rabah (depending upon who performed it) determines whether the corn is subject to Ma'aser.

(b) The Mishnah in Pe'ah states 'ha'Leket, ve'ha'Shikchah ve'ha'Pe'ah shel Oved-Kochavim Chayavin be'Ma'aser Ela-im-Kein Hifkir'. Rabah does not want to establish the Mishnah by the Leket ... of a Yisrael that a Nochri collected - because then, why would it require the Nochri to declare it Hefker, since all Leket ... is Hefker anyway.

(c) The Mishnah therefore refers to - the Leket of a Nochri which a Yisrael collected. And Rabah extrapolates from there - that had the Nochri not declared it Hefker, it would be subject to Ma'asros (proving his opinion).

(d) We refute Rabah's proof (by accepting the explanation in the Mishnah that Rabah rejected) - because even though all Leket ... is Hefker, that is only for the poor to collect, whereas the Hefker of the Nochri renders it Hefker to the rich too.

(a) The Beraisa says that someone who purchased a field from a Nochri before the crops had grown to one third of their growth, and sold it back to him afterwards - is subject to Ma'aser (should a Jew subsequently purchase it from the Nochri).

(b) We can infer from here - that had it not become Chayav at the hand of the Yisrael, it would be Patur, posing a Kashya on Rabah.

(c) We reconcile Rabah with this Beraisa by establishing that it speaks in Syria - whose Ma'asros are only mi'de'Rabbanan, and the Rabbanan did not subject land belonging to a Nochri there to Ma'asros.

(d) This Tana holds 'Kibush Yachid (land captured by a Yachid, such as Syria that was captured by David for personal reasons, not in conjunction with the whole of Yisrael) Lo Sh'mei Kibush' (is not incorporated in the rest of Eretz Yisrael). According to those who hold 'Sh'mei Kibush', there would be no difference between land in Syria belonging to a Yisrael and land belonging to a Nochri.




(a) Rebbi says in a Beraisa that if a Yisrael and a Nochri purchased a field together, Tevel and Chulin are mixed together - meaning that each grain is half Chayav to be Ma'asered and half Patur (in which case even after they have divided the field, whoever purchases the section belonging to the Nochri will remain Chayav to Ma'aser half of what he bought.

(b) The only way of Ma'asering these crops is 'Minei u'Bei' - meaning from it on itself, not from it to exempt other crops, and not from other crops to exempt it.

(c) The reason for this is - because seeing as each grain is half-Chayav and half-Patur, when one takes from it on itself, the part of each grain that he separates that is Chayav exempts the equivalent part of what remains that is Chayav. But to separate from it on what is definitely Chayav constitutes 'min ha'P'tur al ha'Chiyuv', and what is definitely Chayav on it, 'min ha'Chiyuv al ha'P'tur'.

(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says - that the section of the Nochri is Patur, and that of the Yisrael, Chayav.

(b) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether we hold 'Yesh B'reirah' (Raban Shimon ben Gamliel) or 'Ein B'reirah' (Rebbi).

(c) According to Rabah, this Beraisa too (which clearly holds that land belonging to a Nochri is not subject to Ma'asros) speaks in Syria.

(a) The Beraisa rules that someone who sells a field to a Nochri is obligated to purchase each year the Bikurim and to bring them to Yerushalayim because of Tikun ha'Olam. Rav Chiya bar Avin extrapolates from there that - if not for Tikun ha'Olam, he would not be Chayav to do so, posing a Kashya on Rabah, according to whom the Nochri does not acquire the field to exempt it from Bikurim mi'd'Oraysa.

(b) Even though Rabah himself agrees that the seller is not obligated to purchase the Ma'asros from him he is nevertheless obligated to purchase the Bikurim - because whereas the basic obligation to separate Ma'asros is not an intrinsic one, but a Hechsher for eating it (since it removes the Din Tevel), in which case it does not extend to someone who does intend to eat it]), Bikurim (which is not subject to Tevel) is an obligation on the owner (whether he intends to eat it or not).

(c) Rav Ashi replies that there were two Takanos. This answers the Kashya on Rabah - because initially, they would bring the Bikurim of the field that they had sold to Nochrim mi'd'Oraysa, and it was only following the first decree which exempted them from doing so, that it became necessary to reinstate the obligation (mi'de'Rabbanan).

(d) The second Takanah is the one in our Mishnah. The first Takanah was - when Chazal saw that people were having no qualms about selling their fields to Nochrim, seeing as the Kedushah remained (leading them to believe that they had done nothing wrong). So they waived the Din Torah in the hope that people would think that, due to the fact that they were not obligated to buy back the Bikurim, they must have caused the Kedushah to dissipate (by having sold the field to a Nochri), and that this would prompt them to stop selling the fields to Nochrim.

(a) According to Rebbi Yochanan, someone who sells his field only for the Peiros brings Bikurim and reads the Parshah. This speaks about - someone who buys a field for ten years, say, after which time the field would automatically return to the owner.

(b) This can only refer to the time when the Yovel no longer applied - because as long as it did, every sale of land was only for the Peiros.

(c) The criterion for the Yovel to apply is - when all the tribes are living in their respective locations. That is why when Reuven and Gad were exiled from Eiver ha'Yarden by Sancheriv, the Yovel ceased to function.

(d) According to Resh Lakish, the buyer brings Bikurim but does not read the Parshah - because he holds 'Kinyan Peiros La'av ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami'. Consequently, the purchaser could not say "me'Reishis Kol P'ri ha'Adamah *Asher Nasata Li Hashem*". Rebbi Yochanan, on the other hand holds 'Kinyan Peiros ke'Kinyan ha'Guf Dami', so he could.

(a) Resh Lakish explains the Beraisa "u'le'Veisecha", 'Melamed she'Adam Meivi Bikurei Ishto ve'Korei", despite the fact that a husband has only a Kinyan Peiros in his wife's property (see Tosfos DH 'u'le'Veisecha') - inasmuch as a husband is different, because the Torah writes "u'le'Veisecha" (making it a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' [perhaps the reason for this is because of the principle 'Ishto ke'Gufo', which is confined to a husband and wife]).

(b) In the second Lashon, it is Resh Lakish who asks on Rebbi Yochanan from this Beraisa, which implies that specifically a husband reads when he brings the fruit from his wife's property, but not anybody else who only has a Kinyan ha'Guf - to which Rebbi Yochanan replies that the Torah indicates the Din by a husband, and we learn all other cases of Kinyan Peiros from there (because it is a Binyan Av).

(a) The Beraisa say that if a man is bringing his wife's Bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash when he hears that she died, he brings them and reads the Parshah - implying that (it is only because the husband inherited the fruit that he becomes obligated, but that) if his wife had not died, he would not read the Parshah, posing a Kashya on Rebbi Yochanan.

(b) Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina says that if someone appointed a Sheli'ach to take his Bikurim to the Beis Hamikdash, and the Sheli'ach died on the way, the owner brings the Bikurim but does not read the Parshah - because the Torah compares the Hava'ah to the Lekichah, to teach us that both must occur with the same person (i.e. the same person who sets out with the Bikurim must bring them to the Beis Hamikdash. Otherwise he cannot read the Parshah.

(c) We know that Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina is speaking about the owner himself and not another Shelia'ch finishing the job - because a Sheli'ach would not read even if he performed both the Lekichah and the Hava'ah (since he cannot say "Asher Nasata Li").

(d) This answers the Kashya we asked on Rebbi Yochanan - because the Beraisa needs to teach us that the husband brings the Bikurim that he now inherited (not because his wife died, but) despite the fact that she did, since we would otherwise have extended the Din of Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina (which pertains to the person actually bringing the Bikurim) to the owner (i.e. that even the owner must be the same when the Hava'ah takes place as at the time of the Lekichah).

Next daf


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