(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 59

GITIN 59 & 60 - 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) The prominent 'Amora' who sat on the Beis-Din of Rebbi when they introduced the waiting period of one year into the Din of Sikrikun - was Rav (who was either an average member of the Beis-Din or the most junior).

(b) We learn from the Pasuk in Mishpatim "ve'Lo Sa'aneh al Riv" (which is written without a 'Yud') - that, when it comes to matters concerning life and death, one asks the most senior Dayan for his opinion last (because were he to offer his opinion first, the other Dayanim would be forced to follow his opinion), but not when it comes to money-matters or matters of Tum'ah and Taharah.

(c) Rabah Brei de'Rava (or Rebbi Hillel Brei de'Rav Valas) reconciles this with the fact that Rav was the first to be asked his opinion on the matter, and not Rebbi (even though it was not a matter of life and death) - by pointing out that this was Rebbi's Beis-Din, and Rebbi establishes the Pasuk "ve'Lo Sa'aneh al Riv" by all issues (even not of life and death).

(a) According to Rabah Brei de'Rava (or Rebbi Hillel Brei de'Rav Valas) - between the days of Moshe and Rebbi, according to Rabah Brei de'Rava (or Rebbi Hillel Brei de'Rav Valas) - there did not exist 'Torah and Gedulah' in the same person.

(b) Torah and greatness did not exist in the same person in Yehoshua, Elazar, Pinchas, the Zekeinim and Shaul - because, in Yehoshua's time, there was Elazar, in Elazar's time, Pinchas, in Pinchas' time, the Z'keinim, in the Z'keinim's time, Shaul and in Shaul's time, Shmuel.

(c) We do not reckon ...

1. ... David - because of Iyra ha'Ya'iri
2. ... Shlomoh - because of Shim'i ben Geira.
3. ... Chizkiyah - because of Shevna.
4. ... Ezra - because of Nechemyah.
5. ... Shaul after the death of Shmuel, David after the death of Iyra ha'Yairi, Shlomoh after the death of Shim'i ben Geira and Chizkiyah after the death of Shevna (whom Sancheriv killed) - because we only reckon those whose Torah and greatness were unique all their lives.
1. In spite of Shaul's greatness in Torah - he failed to teach others Torah.
2. Shevna was greater than Chizkiyah - inasmuch as the latter would Darshen to a hundred and ten thousand Talmidim, whilst *he* Darshened to a hundred and thirty thousand.
(a) Rav Acha Brei de'Rava says the same about the period between Rebbi and Rav Ashi as Rabah Brei de'Rava (or Rebbi Hillel Brei de'Rav Valas) said about the period between Moshe and Rebbi, even though - Huna bar Nasan possessed Torah and greatness too.

(b) Rabah Brei de'Rava nevertheless ascribed Torah and greatness to Rav Ashi (and not to Huna B'rei de'Rav Nasan) - because Huna himself subordinated himself to Rav Ashi.

(a) When the Tana Kama says 'Cheresh ...
1. ... Romez' - he means that whenever he hints something with his fingers, it is valid.
2. ... ve'Nirmaz' - that whenever we hint to him and he nods his head in approval, it is valid too.
(b) ben Beseira says - that even if he only moves his lips or responds to us when we move ours, we accept it too.

(c) The Tana concludes 'ha'Pe'utos Mikchan Mekach u'Memkaran Memkar ... '. This is confined however - to Metaltelin.

(a) Rav Nachman restricts ben Beseira's leniency to Metaltelin, but not to Gitin. Despite the fact that ben Beseira specifically said 'bi'Metaltelin', Rav Nachman nevertheless found it necessary to tell us that - because we would otherwise have thought that when he said 'bi'Metaltelin', he meant *even* bi'Metaltelin, and certainly by Gitin seeing as he married by way of hint, whereas the Metaltelin came into his possession by way of Yerushah.

(b) Chazal were more lenient regarding Metaltelin than by Karka - because the Pe'utos need the interaction in order to live, as we explained above.

(c) The second Lashon quotes Rav Nachman as saying - that just as they argue by Metaltelin, so too, do they argue by Gitin.

(a) There are three interpretations of the age of 'Pe'utos': six or seven (Rav Yehudah); seven or eight (Rav Kahana) - the third interpretation (that of the Tana of a Beraisa) is nine or ten.

(b) In fact, we explain - the three opinions do not argue. It depends on how smart the child is.

(c) The reason that Chazal legalized the transactions of Pe'utos by Metaltelin, says Rebbi Aba bar Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan, is - to enable them to live (because if their sales would be invalid, nobody could sell them food).

(d) When ben Beseira says 'bi'Metaltelin' - he means 'Af bi'Metaltelin'.

(a) Yehu ordered the man in charge of the Meltachah to take out clothes from there for the servants of Ba'al. Rebbi Aba bar Ya'akov Amar Rebbi Yochanan translates "Meltachah" - as a store-house for linen clothes (since Meltachah is the acronym of 'Davar ha'*Nimalal ve'Nimtach* (something that stretches when it is rolled in one's hand).

(b) Bunayim ben Nunayim sent Rebbi 'Sivni, Chumas, Salselah and Malmela'. Bunayim ben Nunayim - was a wealthy Jew (though, according to others, he was Rebbi Meir's Talmid, ben Nannes).

(c) The significance of 'Sivni, Chumas, Salselah and Malmela' is - that they are four different kinds of fine quality linen garments.

(d) Before their erroneous transactions ...

1. ... become Bateil - Pe'utos have leeway up to and including a sixth of the market price.
2. ... remain valid but the excess must be returned - up to but excluding a sixth (all this just like anybody else).
(a) According to Rav Yeimar, even though the sale of a Pa's is valid, his Matanah is not; according to Mar bar Rav Ashi - there is no difference. Both are valid.

(b) Rav Yeoman's reason is because doing someone a pure favor is not considered a necessity (he does not need it to live). Mar bar Rav Ashi counters that - if someone gives a gift, it is usually in return for a favor that the recipient of the gift did him (so that giving gifts becomes part of the necessary interaction between people to live).

(c) When they told Rav Mordechai details of the Machlokes, but inadvertently switched the opinions - he remarked that they should inform Mar bar Rav Ashi that his father (Rav Ashi, his own Rebbe) disagreed with him.

(d) He quoted Rav Ashi - who was standing with one foot on the ladder leading up to the attic, as saying - that whether the Pa'ot is a Shechiv-Mera or healthy, whether it is a large gift or a small one, his Matanah is valid.

(a) Chazal instituted that a Kohen reads first in the Torah, then a Levi and then a Yisrael - because of Darkei Shalom (which means that the Kohen and the Levi cannot forego their honor, even if they want to.

(b) 'Me'arvin be'Bayis Yashan' is also a Takanas Chachamim. It means - that the members of a Chatzer may not move the Eiruv from the house where it is regularly placed to another house in the same Chatzer.

(c) Still regarding the issue of Darkei Shalom, they instituted that ...

1. ... the water-pits that are nearest the stream - have the first rights to fill their pits from the stream.
2. ... the catch that is caught in wild animal and animal traps and fishing nets - is subject to theft.
(d) According to Rebbi Yossi, it is considered real theft mi'de'Rabbanan (which will be explained in the Sugya). The Din Torah in this regard is - that as long as the person has not made a Kinyan on the animals in his traps, they are not his (and anyone may take them).
(a) The Tana of our Mishnah also cites the same Machlokes between the Tana Kama and Rebbi Yossi regarding the findings of a 'Chashu'. The third regard in which he quotes the same Machlokes is - that of a poor man who is cutting olives from an olive-tree.

(b) The Tana of our Mishnah's final statement is - that one may not prevent a poor Nochri from collecting Leket, Shikchah and Pe'ah.




(a) Rav Masna learns from the Pasuk "Vayichtov Moshe es ha'Torah ha'Zos Vayitnah el *ha'Kohanim B'nei Levi"* - that a Kohen must be called up to he Torah first, and then a Levi.

(b) Amora'im learn this from various Pesukim. The final D'rashah is that of Rebbi Chiya bar Aba from the Pasuk "ve'Kidashto" from which Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns ...

1. ... Lifto'ach Rishon - meaning all matters of prestige, such as being called up first and speaking first at meetings.
2. ... u'Levarech Rishon - which means Birchas ha'Mazon.
(c) The third thing in his list is - to receive a good portion (i.e. when dividing with a Yisrael something that they own jointly - see also Tosfos DH 've'Litol').

(d) When Rav Yosef, in an effort to resolve the Kashya how we can ascribe calling up a Kohen to the Torah first to 'Darkei Shalom', when it is derived from the Pasuk "ve'Kidashto", answered 'd'Oraysa, u'Mipnei Darchei Shalom' - Abaye objected on the grounds that the Pasuk in Mishlei describe the whole Torah as "Derachehah Darchei No'am, ve'Chol Nesivosehah Shalom", so why should the Tana describe this particular Halachah in this way more than any other?

(a) So Abaye interprets the priority of calling up a Kohen first to Mar's explanation of a Beraisa. 'Mar', as far as Abaye is concerned, is - Rabah.

(b) If two people are eating together from the same dish, and one of them has to stop eating for some reason or another, the other one is obligated to stop eating until his friend has finished whatever he has to do. But if there are three, the other two are not obligated to wait for the third.

(c) The person who recites the B'rachah (the owner of the meal) - has the first right to help himself from the serving dish.


1. The Tana qualifies this latter Halachah - permitting the Mevarech to hand over this right to his Rebbe or to someone else.
2. Abaye uses this to explain the 'Darchei Shalom' in our Mishnah - which forbids the Kohen or the Levi to do this.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan forbids calling up one Levi after another - because both of them are subject to suspected of being Pasul (because their father married a woman who is a Mamzeres or a Nesinah).

(b) Rav Huna would be called up to the Torah first even on Shabbos and Yom-Tov, even though he was not a Kohen - because he was the Gadol ha'Dor (even Rebbi Ami and Rebbi Asi, those distinguished Kohanim from Eretz Yisrael, were subordinate to him.

(c) When Abaye said that if there is no ...

1. ... Kohen present, 'Nispardah ha'Chavilah', he meant - that the order no longer prevails, and that the Levi is not called up at all (or that it is not necessary to call him up before calling up a Yisrael).
2. ... Levi, then a Kohen is called up in his place, he meant - that the same Kohen who was called up first, is called up again for Levi. This does not clash with Rebbi Yochanan, who said that one may not call up two Kohanim one after another.
(d) Rebbi Yochanan's reason for saying that is - so that people should not accuse the first Kohen of being Pasul, as we shall see shortly.
(a) Rebbi Yochanan forbid calling up one Levi after another - because both of them stand to be suspected of being Pasul.

(b) We initially reject the explanation that we are only concerned what people will say about the first Kohen, but not the second (like we are by two Levi'im) is because the Tana is speaking when the second Kohen's father is known to be a Kohen, on the grounds - that by the same token, the second Levi should not come under suspicion either.

(c) We establish Rebbi Yochanan when both the father of the second Kohen and the father of the second Levi are known to be Kohen and Levi respectively. However, as far as the Levi is concerned, we are concerned people will suspect him of marrying a Mamzeres or a Nesinah, disqualifying his son from the Leviyah (which is why he was called up as a Yisrael) after a Levi. The same concern (or that his father married a Gerushah or Chalutzah) will not pertain to the second Kohen - because if his father married a woman who is Pasul, then he would be Pasul from the Levi'ah too (so why would he have been called up after a Kohen)?

(d) Rebbi Yochanan is however, concerned that people will consider the first of the two Kohanim Pasul, in spite of the fact that six people were called up after him (and not seven) - because he is concerned about the suspicions of people who leave Shul before the end of Leining, who do not know how many people were called up after the 'Pasul' Kohen.

Next daf


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