ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 58
GITIN 58 - sponsored by Harav Ari Bergmann of Lawrence, N.Y., out of love
for Torah and those who study it.
(a) According to Rabah bar bar Chana Amar Rebbi Yochanan, they found forty
Sa'ah of Tefilin in Beitar - on the heads of the slain.
(b) According to Rebbi Yanai be'Rebbi Yishmael however, they found three
boxes of forty Sa'ah each, and according to the Tana of a Beraisa, forty
boxes of three Sa'ah each. They do not argue - one is referring to the shel
Rosh, the other, to the shel Yad.
(c) The Pasuk cited by Rav Kahana (Or Shilo bar Mari) "bas Bavel ha'Shedudah
... Ashrei she'Yochez, ve'Nipetz Olalayich el ha'Sela" refers to the large
volume of brains that they found on the rocks. We know that the Pasuk is
referring to the first Churban - because it begins with the words "bas Bavel
(d) According to Rebbi Asi, they found four Kabin of brains - according to
Ula, it was nine.
(a) "The Pasuk writes "B'nei Tzi'on ha'Yekarim ha'Mesula'im be'Paz". This
cannot mean that they were covered with ornaments of Paz (a superior quality
gold) - because de'Bei Rebbi Yanai has already taught us that of the measure
of Paz that came to the world, half belonged to the Romans.
(b) What it means is - that the Yerushalmi'im were so beautiful that they
put Paz in the shade.
(c) Due to this beauty, when the Romans were Meshamesh ha'Mitah - they
would tie a Jew to the foot of their bed (so that they could look at him and
give birth to beautiful children - replacing the gold signet-rings
containing a beautiful picture that they had previously used for this
(d) This disgusting plague is hinted - in the Pasuk in Ki Savo "Gam Kol
Choli ve'Chol Makah Asher Lo Kasuv ... " (see Agados Maharsha).
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel connects with the Pasuk "Eini Olelah le'Nafshi
mi'Kol B'nos Iyri" - the incident where the Romans murdered countless
thousands of Cheder children (which we will now describe).
(b) There were four hundred Batei Keneisi'os in Beitar, and in each one four
hundred children's Rebbe's taught - four hundred children each.
(c) When the enemy first entered Beitar - the children prodded the enemy
soldiers with their sticks.
(d) When the enemy captured the town, they wrapped the children in their
Torah-scrolls and set them on fire.
(a) When Rebbi Yehoshua, who was in Rome, heard about the beautiful child
who had been taken captive, he stood outside the prison and called out the
Pasuk "Mi Nasan li'Meshisah Ya'akov ve'Yisrael le'Bozezim", to which the
child responded - "Zeh Hashem Chatanu Lo, ve'Lo Avu bi'Derachav Haloch ve'Lo
(b) Rebbi Yehoshua reacted to that - by acclaiming the child as a future
Torah leader, and promising to redeem him at any cost, which he did.
(c) His efforts did indeed bear fruit - because that captive become one of
the leading Torah luminaries of his generation.
(d) His name was Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha (the Kohen Gadol).
(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Rav relates the story of Rebbi Yishmael ben Elisha's
son and daughter who were captured by two different masters, connecting it
to the Pasuk in Eichah "Al Eileh Ani Bochiyah, Eini Eini Yordah Mayim" - the
two captors came to an agreement that they would pair of their two beautiful
slaves and share the babies. However, each of the two siblings, unaware who
the other captive was, spent the night in his respective corner, weeping at
the mere prospect of a child of the Kohen Gadol defiling the Kehunah by
having relations with a slave. In the morning, when they recognized each
other, they fell round one another's neck and wept bitterly until they
(b) Resh Lakish tells the story of Tzofnas bas Peniel who was taken captive.
She was called ...
1. ... 'Tzofnas' - because, due to her beauty, everyone would gaze at her
(from 'Tzofeh' - to look at or to gaze)?
(c) When, after abusing her all night, her captor offered her to sell her to
a particularly ugly man, and they began to disgrace her, she asked Hashem -
to have pity if, not on Yisrael, at least on His Holy and Mighty Name.
2. ... 'bas Pa'ane'ach' - because she was the daughter of the Kohen Gadol,
who would go 'Lifnai ve'Lifnim' (from 'Mefa'ane'ach', meaning 'hidden').
(d) Hashem, in an obvious reference to this incident, said "bas Ami Chigri
Sak, Hispalshi be'Eifer ... Ki Pis'om Yavo ha'Shoded Aleinu" (and not
'Aleichem') - because He was echoing the thoughts of Tzofnas, to say that
His Holy name was being desecrated alongside the honor of K'lal Yisrael.
(a) He also tells the story of a carpenter's apprentice who took a fancy to
his master's wife. When his master once needed to borrow money from him - he
asked him to send his wife to collect it and he would gladly lend it to him.
(b) When his master came to him three days later looking for his wife (with
whom he had spent three days) - he ...
1. ... told him that he had sent her back immediately, but that he believed,
some children had abused her after she left.
(c) What happened next was the final straw that caused the destruction of
the Beis Hamikdash - the moment his master divorced his wife, the apprentice
married her, and then, when the former was unable to repay his loan, the
latter forced him to work for him as a servant. The new couple blissfully
ate and drank, whilst the former husband, tears streaming down his face,
2. ... advised him to divorce her, and even volunteered to lend him the
money to pay her Kesuvah.
(d) According to others, what cause the destruction - was two men sharing
one woman, to one of whom she was married.
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that, if someone purchased a field from a
Sikrikun and then from the owner, the purchase is invalid. According to
Rav, the sale will be valid, if the owner wrote the buyer a Sh'tar - because
he would not have gone so far as to write a Sh'tar, had he not really meant
to authenticate the sale.
(b) What would be required in addition, for the sale to be valid, according
to Shmuel - would be to write Acharayus (that he accepts liability should
his creditors take it away from him) in the Sh'tar.
(c) Rav reconciles his opinion with the Beraisa, which states "Lakach ...
min ha'Ish, ve'Chazar ve'Lakach min ha'Ishah, Mekcho Bateil ad she'Tichtov
Lo Acharayus' - by interpreting 'Acharayus' to mean a Sh'tar (meaning that
the fact that he wrote him a Sh'tar is in itself, an expression of
responsibility [that he will not claim the field from him any more]).
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa states that if someone puchases a field from a
Sikrikun and retains it for three years before selling it to someone else,
the owner has claim on the second purchaser. The Tana cannot be speaking
when the second purchaser counters the owner by claiming that the first
purchaser bought the field from him (as well as from the Sikrikun) -
because in that case, even the first purchaser would have been believed (and
it would be obvious that the second one is believed too)?
(b) Despite the fact that he does not make such a claim, we nevertheless
believe him - on the grounds that, in cases such as these, Beis-Din make the
claim on his behalf.
(c) We reconcile this Beraisa with those in Bava Basra who hold that
Beis-Din do not claim on behalf of the heirs or the purchaser that the man
from whom he inherited or purchased the field purchased it in turn, from the
owner - by stressing that here, it is most unusual for the purchaser not to
clinch his sale by buying the field from the owner too (so it is fair to
assume that he did).
(a) The Beraisa speaks about a case where the Nochri claimed his field from
the owner in lieu of a debt (and not because he was a Sikrikun) or because
of Anperus - a Nochri who steals land, but without threatening the owner's
(b) The Tana says there - the Din of Sikrikun does not apply, and the
purchaser must return the field to the owner free of charge.
(c) In the case of Sikrikun, the additional condition that is required
before the purchaser may retain the field is - that the field remained with
the Sikrikun for at least twelve months before he sold it to the purchaser.
(d) This condition will not extend to the case of the creditor or to
Anperus - which must be returned to the owner irrespective.
(a) When Rav Yosef says that there is no Anperus in Bavel - he means that
the Din Anperus does not apply. The purchaser may in fact, retain the land
that he bought from the Anperus - because there were special (small-claims)
courts there that dealt with such claims, and if the owner did not take the
Anperus to such a court, we assume that he has foregone his claim.
(b) The Minhag was for the joint residents of each 'Bik'ah' (area of land
containing a number of fields) to pay their property taxes to one of
themselves, who would pay to the king's tax-collector on behalf of all of
them. If one of the residents was away and had not paid his taxes to the
representative - the other residents would pay the taxes on his behalf, and
they would then divide his field among themselves.
(a) When all the joint owners of his area paid Gidal bar Re'ila'i their
taxes - he went and paid the tax-collector three years taxes (the
difference, out of his own pocket).
(b) The other owners placed the onus of paying on behalf of an owner who had
been away for one year, upon Gidal's shoulders, and gave him the right to
benefit from his field. When the missing owner returned, he demanded - the
return of his field (see Tosfos DH 'Anan'), and that he would pay the tax
(which would no longer be covered by the tax that the representative paid).
(c) When the representative wished to recoup his losses, Rav Papa ruled -
that all the owners should be jointly responsible to repay him what he had
(d) Rav Huna B'rei de'Rav Yehoshua objected - on the grounds that it is only
by Sikrikun, that the purchaser may reclaim all his losses, but not in our
case, where nobody asked him to pay three years taxes in advance.
Consequently, Gidal would have to bear the loss himself.
(a) According to the Mishnah Acharonah, assuming that the owner is unable to
buy the field back, the purchaser must pay the owner a quarter of the price
of the field that he paid to the Sikrikun - because the Sikrikunim who
obtained the land free of charge in the first place, tended to re-sell it
for a quarter less than the market price. Consequently, Chazal required the
purchaser to pay the difference to the original owner, so that he should not
have gained (a bargain) at the owner's expense.
(b) Rav and Shmuel argue over the meaning of 'a quarter'. Both agree that
if he so wishes, he may return a quarter of the field, but they argue over
how much he must pay should he decide to pay with money. When ...
1. ... Rav says 'Revi'a be'Karka she'Hu Revi'a be'Ma'os' (according to the
text of the Aruch, who also replaces Rav with Rav Huna) - he means that - if
he returns the quarter in the form of land, that will be the equivalent of a
quarter of the price that he paid.
(c) The difference between them will of course, be if the purchaser decides
to pay money and not land. The reasoning behind the opinion of ...
2. ... Shmuel says 'Revi'a be'Karka she'Hein Sh'lish be'Ma'os' - if he
returns the quarter in the form of land, that will be the equivalent of a
third of the price that he paid.
1. ... Rav is - that the Sikrikun deducted a quarter from the market price
of the land (a field worth five quarters of a Manah for one Manah).
(d) Rav Ashi reconciles Shmuel with the Beraisa which explicitly states
'Revi'a be'Karka she'Hein Sh'lish be'Ma'os' - by explaining 'Sh'lish
be'Ma'os to mean a *fourth* third (i.e. after the three thirds that he paid
2. ... Shmuel is - that he deducted a third (a field worth one Manah for
three quarters of a Manah).