ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
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
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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 ...
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
(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
(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
(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).