(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 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) We just resolved the discrepancies in Rebbi Meir. Although Rebbi Yehudah decrees Shogeg on account of Meizid by Isurim d'Oraysa, he did not decree in the case of someone who planted a tree in Shevi'is be'Shogeg, which he permits him to retain - because the people in his town were very strict regarding Shevi'is.

(b) When someone called a certain man from Rebbi Yehudah's town a Ger, son of a Ger, he replied that he did not fruit of Shevi'is like the person who called him the name did.

(a) The difference between the payment of someone who ate Terumah be'Shogeg and someone who ate it be'Meizid is - that whereas the former pays with Chulin fruit that is fit to (and that does become Terumah), the latter can pay money.

(b) The source for the former Din is the Pasuk in Emor 've'Nasan la'Kohen es ha'Kodesh"?

(c) The Beraisa requires someone who ate Terumah Temei'ah be'Shogeg to pay - Chulin Tehorin.

(d) In the event that he paid Chulin Temei'in, Sumchus Mishum Rebbi Meir rules 'be'Shogeg Tashlumav Tashlumin, be'Meizid Ein Tashlumav Tashlumin'. The Chachamim say - 'Echad Zeh ve'Echad Zeh Tashlumav Tashlumin, ve'Chozer u'Meshalem Chulin Tehorim.

(a) Even though he already payed once, the one who ate Terumah be'Shogeg is obligated to pay again - in the form of a K'nas for having paid Terumah Temei'ah instead of Tehorah.

(b) The problem with this K'nas is - what is the point of penalizing him, seeing as he ate Terumah Tehorah (which is not fit for a Kohen to eat during the days that he is Tamei), and payed him Chulin Temei'in (which is, according to his intention of paying Chulin), he seems to have done the Kohen a favor, so why is he penalized?

(c) We therefore amend the Beraisa. According to the new version, for eating Terumah Temei'ah be'Shogeg - he pays anything that is fit to become Terumah (irrespective of whether it is Tahor or Tamei).

(d) Rebbi Meir and the Rabbanan then argue - over what he must do if he ate Terumah Tehorah, and paid Chulin Temei'in.

(a) When Rebbi Meir says 'be'Meizid Ein Tashlumav Tashlumin' - he means that although what he paid is valid, he is obligated to pay again.

(b) The basis of the Machlokes between Rebbi Meir and the Chachamim is - whether 'Konsin Shogeg Atu Meizid' (the Chachamim) or not (Rebbi Meir).

(c) Even though min'ha'Torah he was Yotze with the first payment, and the second payment is only a K'nas mi'de'Rabbanan, Rebbi Meir does not decree here Shogeg Atu Meizid like he does by Metamei, Medamei and Menasech - because, seeing as the sinner made the effort to compensate, it is eveident that he is trying to make up for sinning, so what would be the point of punishing because he made a mistake in the process.

(a) If the blood of a Korban that became Tamei was sprinkled on the Mizbei'ach - the Korban is Kasher, because the the Kohen Gadol's Tzitz atones for the sin of Tum'ah.

(b) The Beraisa (whose author might be Rebbi Meir) says - that if the Kohen sprinkled it be'Meizid, the Korban is not Kasher (mi'de'Rabbanan) regarding the owner eating the meat of the Korban, but be'Shogeg, he is (though he is Yotze with the Korban in any case).

(c) Rebbi Meir does not decree Shogeg Atu Meizid here - because like in the previous case, the sinner made the effort to bring his Korban, so it seems senseless to penalize him for a mistake does not even appear to be his.

(d) We give the same answer regarding the Mishnah in Terumos 'ha'Me'aser be'Shabbos be'Shogeg Yochal, be'Meizid Lo Yochal', and the Mishnah there 'ha'Matbil Keilim be'Shabbos, be'Shogeg Yishtamesh Bahem ... '. The Isur that is involved here in the case of ...

1. ... 'ha'Me'aser be'Shabbos' is - that it resembles Mesaken (which in turn, is a Toldah of Makeh ba'Patish.
2. ... 'ha'Matbil Keilim be'Shabbos' - is exactly the same as that of Me'aser.



(a) Perech-nuts of Orlah are not Bateil even in a thousand - because they are Chashuv (significant), and mi'de'Rabbanan, a Davar Chashuv is not Bateil.

(b) If they were to break and fall into Heter by themselves - they would become Bateil.

(c) According to Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah, if the owner broke them, even be'Shogeg and they fell into the Heter, they would not become Bateil. 'Shogeg' in this case means - not with the intention of negating them for them to become Bateil.

(d) Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Shimon say - 'be'Shogeg Ya'alu, be'Meizid Lo Ya'alu'.

(a) Despite the fact that the non-Bitul of Perech-nuts is mi'de'Rabbanan, Rebbi Yehudah decrees Shogeg on account of Meizid - because we suspect that he will break the nuts be'Meizid and claim that he did it be'Shogeg.

(b) The Shiur Bitul of Orlah and K'lai ha'Kerem is - one in two hundred.

(c) A growing tree of Orlah is not Bateil in even more than that - because whatever is attached to the ground does not become Bateil.

(d) The Tana Kama permits fruit that is subsequently picked from it (Bedieved) - only on condition that he did not pick it in order to be Mevatel it. The reason that it is Bateil is - because he probably thought that it was Bateil when it was still attached, making him a Shogeg.

(a) Rebbi Yossi is more lenient than the Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Orlah. According to him - even if he picked the fruit with the express intention of being Mevatel it, it becomes Bateil.

(b) We reconcile Rebbi Yossi here with Rebbi Yossi in the Beraisa of Perech-nuts, who said 'be'Meizid Lo Ya'alu' - by citing Rava who said that nobody in his right mind will come to plant a tree of Orlah in his orchard without a mark of identification (to render all his trees forbidden). And due to the rare incidence of this case, Chazal did not include it in the decree.

(c) Ravin Amar Rebbi Yochanan 'Chazakah Ein Adam Oser es Karmo bi'Neti'ah Achas' (like Rava).

(a) Kohanim who render someone's Korban, Pigul, are obligated to pay, provided they did so be'Meizid.

(b) The Beraisa says that if someone is working with his friend in Taharos or Kodshei Mizbei'ach and tells him that the Taharos had become Tamei or the Kodshim Pigul - he is believed.

(c) According to Abaye, the difference between this case and a similar case, but where he referred to the Taharos or the Kodshim of a previous day, in which case he is not believed - is the fact that the latter is no longer 'be'Yado'. Rava does not require that it should still be 'be'Yado', and the reason that the Kohen is not believed in the latter case is - because on the previous occasion that the Kohen met him, he failed to mention the Pigul, suggesting that he had since fabricated the facts.

(d) Rebbi Ami thought to say like Abaye. Rebbi Yochanan however, quoting Rebbi Yossi said to him 'Mah E'eseh, she'ha'Torah He'eminaso', which Rebbi Yitzchak bar Bisna based on the Pasuk (regarding the Avodah on Yom-Kipur) "ve'Chol Adam Lo Yihyeh be'Ohel Mo'ed", in spite of which he is believed to say that he was Mefagel one of the Korbanos (see Tosfos DH 'de'Chi').

(a) We refute the above proof from the Pasuk in Acharei-Mos, by suggesting that perhaps they heard the Kohen Gadol stating the Pigul. We reject this counterproof however - on the grounds that if we did not believe him, we would have no way of knowing that he was not stating the Pigul after the Korban had been brought be'Kashrus.

(b) We reinstate the counterproof however - by pointing out that the Kohanim could have been watching the Kohen Gadol via the Pishpesh (one of two small side-doors that opened to the Heichal, through which they could see the Kohen Gadol performing the Avodah).

(a) Rebbi Ami ...
1. ... asked the Sofer who claimed that he had failed to write the Holy Names in the Sefer-Torah that he had written for so-and- so, Lishman - who was currently holding the Sefer-Torah.
2. ... subsequently ruled, when the Sofer replied that the Sefer was already in the hands of the purchaser - that, in that case, it was no longer be'Yado, and that, although he was believed to lose his remuneration, he was not believed to invalidate the Sefer.
3. ... replied to Rebbi Yirmiyah, who asked on what basis he should lose the remuneration for the entire Sefer, and not just for the Names - that a Sefer-Torah without Names was worthless.
(b) One could not simply overwrite the Names of Hashem to render the Sefer-Torah Kasher - because Rebbi Ami held like the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah, who hold that this would not render the Sefer, Kasher.

(c) This is based on a Machlokes in a Beraisa, in which Rebbi Yehudah and the Chachamim argue over someone who wrote Yehudah (but omitted the 'Vav') when he really should have written Hashem's Name.

1. Rebbi Yehudah says there - that he can validate the Sefer by overwriting the Name of Hashem.
2. The Chachamim say - that this will not validate the Sefer-Torah.
(d) Rebbi Ami's ruling might even follow the opinion of Rebbi Yehudah - who only permits one Name that has been corrected in this way, but not an entire Sefer-Torah, which would look blotched and would therefore be Pasul.
(a) When a Sofer claimed that in the course of preparing the Sefer-Torah that he had written for so-and-so, he had not made the G'vilin (the parchment) Lishman, Rebbi Avahu ruled - that since he was believed to lose his remuneration, he was also believed to invalidate the entire Sefer-Torah.

(b) Rebbi Ami would agree with Rebbi Avahu's ruling - on the grounds that whereas in his case, we could attribute the Sofer's claim to his belief that he would only lose the remuneration for the Names of Hashem (a relatively small loss), like Rebbi Yirmiyah; whereas in this case, why would anyone invalidate an entire Sefer-Torah (and lose all his remuneration) unless it was true.

Next daf


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