(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 55

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) What did Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testify with regard to ...
  1. ... a Chareshes whose father married her off when she was a Ketanah? Will the same apply to a Chareshes who accepted her own Kidushin as a Gedolah?
  2. ... a Ketanah bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen? What is the Chidush?
(b) Who inherits the latter in the event of her death?

(c) And what did Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testify with regard to ...

  1. ... a stolen beam which the thief built into his mansion? Why is that?
  2. ... a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen?
(d) What is this Mishnah doing here in Gitin?
(a) Rava extrapolates a leniency regarding a Get from Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda.
What does the husband do after having shown the witnesses the Get (not in his wife's presence) that he is about to give his wife? What does he tell his wife as he hands her the Get?

(b) What is the Chidush? Is it not obvious that following the Tana's words, such a Get will be valid?

(c) How do we know that he did not in fact, cancel the Get?

(d) Why did he do such a strange thing? Why did he not divorce his wife directly?

(a) How do we know that a Chareshes who married a Kohen is not permitted to eat Terumah?

(b) Why can the reason for this Halachah not be because we are afraid that if she marries a Cheresh Kohen he may feed her?

(c) We conclude that what we are afraid of is that perhaps a Cheresh Kohen will then feed his wife who is a Pikachas.
Seeing as that Kidushin too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, why should he not be permitted to feed her Terumah de'Rabbanan (such as vegetables and fruit [other than grain, wine and oil])?

(d) We learned in our Mishnah that if a thief built a stolen beam into his mansion, he may pay the value of the beam ... .
Is this a unanimous opinion?

(a) And we learned in our Mishnah that a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen - will atone for its new owner.
According to Ula, min ha'Torah, whether the Chatas is known to have been stolen or not, it will not atone for the thief.
Why not?

(b) Ula adds that the reason the Chachamim decreed that it should, is in order that the Kohanim should not be depressed.
What does this mean? Why should the deeds of the thief cause the Kohanim to become depressed?

(c) If the reason is as Ula states, then why did the Mishnah give the reason as 'Tikun Mizbei'ach'?

(d) By what authority did the Chachamim exempt the thief from bringing the Chatas that he was obligated to bring? Why is this not considered uprooting the Torah?

Answers to questions



(a) According to Rav Yehudah, min ha'Torah, the Chatas atones for the thief whether the theft is publicly known or not.
Why is that?

(b) Then why did the Chachamim decree that if it is, it will not atone?

(c) According to Ula, it is easy to understand why the Tana talks specifically about a Chatas, rather than the more common Olah.
Why is that?

(d) But why does the Tana talk about a Chatas according to Rav Yehudah, seeing as we are only concerned with the *Mizbe'ach* 'eating theft'?

6) According to Rav Yehudah, why does the Tana of our Mishnah say 'Al Chatas ha'Gezulah *she'Lo Nod'ah la'Rabim* she'Hi Machaperes ... ', since, according to him, the decree was on 'Chatas ha'Gezulah *she'Nod'ah la'Rabim'*?


(a) What does the Mishnah in Bava Kama say about someone who stole an animal and then declared it Hekdesh before Shechting or selling it vis-a-vis payment of double and four or five times?

(b) In the latter case, why is the thief exempt from paying four or five times?

(c) What does the Tana of a Beraisa add to the Mishnah regarding Shechutei Chutz?

(d) According to Ula, asks Rava, who maintains that Yi'ush does not acquire, how can he can possibly become Chayav Kareis.
How does Rav Shizbi answer Rava's Kashya?

(a) What did Rava comment when they all laughed at Rav Shizbi because they did not consider the notion of Kareis de'Rabbanan feasible?

(b) So how did Rava explain Rav Shizbi's statement?

(c) Rava was initially in a dilemma whether the Rabbanan placed the animal in the domain of the thief from the time of the theft, or from the time that he declared it Hekdesh.
What are the ramifications of Rava's She'eilah?

(d) What does Rava conclude?

(a) What is a Sikrikun?

(b) Which battle is the Tana of our Mishnah referring to when he says 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei Milchamah'?

(c) Why is the sale void, if someone purchases a field ...

  1. ... from the Sikrikun and then from the owner?
  2. ... that is designated for the wife's Kesuvah from the husband and then from the wife?
(d) What will be the Din if someone first purchased the field from the owner or the wife, and then from the Sikrikun or the husband?
(a) The above is the opinion of the Mishnah Rishonah (which will be explained shortly). The Mishnah Acharonah requires someone who purchases a field from a Sikrikun to pay the owner a quarter of the price (rather than go with him to Beis-Din).
Why this figure?

(b) What will happen should the owner wish to redeem his field from the Sikrikun after the Sikrikun has offered it to the would-be purchaser (see Tosfos-Yom-tov)?

(c) What did Rebbi and his specially-appointed Beis-Din decide regarding this matter?

(a) What problem do we have with the Tana's statement that there was no Sikrikun during the time of the final battle with Titus, but there was afterwards?

(b) What is the Din Sikrikun?

(c) How do we then interpret this statement? What does 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei Milchamah' then mean?

(d) Why not? On what principle is this ruling based?

(a) Rav Asi bases the opening statement in our Mishnah on the three orders issued by Titus. The first of these was that anyone who did not kill a Jew would himself be killed.
What would happen to anybody who killed a Jew, following ...
  1. ... the second command?
  2. ... the third command?
(b) To which of these does the first half of the opening statement ('Lo Hayah Sikrikun ... ') pertain?

(c) What would be the owner's reasoning in selling to the Sikrikun, following the third command?

(a) What advice can we learn from the Pasuk in Mishlei "Ashrei Adam Mefached Tamid ... "?

(b) That is precisely what happened in the episode of Kamtza and bar Kamtza. Why did a certain man instruct his servant to invite Kamtza to his Se'udah, but not bar Kamtza?

(c) What did he do when he discovered that the servant had inadvertently mixed up the two names and invited bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza?

(d) What did bar Kamtza offer the man to be allowed to remain after he refused his offer of ...

  1. ... payment for his portion?
  2. ... payment for half the Se'udah?
(a) What did the man then do?

(b) Who was guilty of not paying heed to the above Pasuk?

Answers to questions

Next daf


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