Gittin 104

דאתו למימר להו נשרפו חיטכם בעלייה

since the sellers would be able to say to them, Your wheat has been burnt in the storehouse.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., suppose the produce was accidentally burnt, the orphans could not say that they were not yet the owners of it and demand their money back, v. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 282, n. 7. ');">¹</span>

יהבי להו זוזי ליתמי אפירי אייקר לא יהא כח הדיוט חמור מהקדש זול סבור מינה היינו דרב חנילאי בר אידי

If [purchasers] have given money to orphans for produce and [the price] rises [before delivery has been made], then we say that the layman should not be more privileged than the Sanctuary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And delivery could not be demanded even from a layman in such a case; the sale can accordingly be cancelled. ');">²</span>

אמר להו רב שישא בריה דרב אידי הא רעה הוא לדידהו דזמנין דמצטרכי לזוזי וליכא דיהיב להו עד דיהבי להו פירי

If [the price] falls, then the students thought that here the rule of R. Hanilai b. Idi would apply,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the purchasers should not be able to retract. ');">³</span>

אמר רב אשי אנא ורב כהנא חתמינן אשטרא דאימיה דזעירא יתמא דמזבנא ארעא לכרגא בלא אכרזתא דאמרי נהרדעי לכרגא ולמזוני ולקבורה מזבנינן בלא אכרזתא:

but R. Shisha the son of R. Idi said to them, This might be detrimental to them, for they might sometimes want money, and no-one would give them before they delivered the produce.

עמרם צבעא אפוטרופא דיתמי הוה אתו קרובים לקמיה דרב נחמן אמרי ליה קא לביש ומכסי מיתמי אמר להו כי היכי דלישתמען מיליה

R. Ashi said: I and R. Kahana signed as witnesses to the deed of sale of the mother of the orphan Ze'ira, who sold some land in order to pay the poll tax without giving public notice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was usual to give thirty days' notice of the sale of property. ');">⁴</span>

קאכיל ושתי מדידהו ולא אמוד אימור מציאה אשכח והא קא מפסיד אמר להו אייתו לי סהדי דמפסיד ואיסלקיניה דאמר רב הונא חברין משמיה דרב אפוטרופוס דמפסיד מסלקינן ליה דאיתמר אפוטרופא דמפסיד רב הונא אמר רב מסלקינן ליה דבי רבי שילא אמרי לא מסלקינן ליה והלכתא מסלקינן ליה:

For the Nehardeans have ruled that to raise money for the poll tax, for food and for burial, land may be sold without public notice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.M. (Sonc. ed.) p. 620, n. 4. ');">⁵</span>

אפוטרופוס שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע: מאי טעמא אי לאו דאית ליה הנאה מיניה לא הוה ליה אפוטרופוס ומשום שבועה לא אתי לאמנועי:

Amram the dyer was the guardian of [some] orphans. The relatives came to R. Nahman and complained that he was [buying] clothes<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he clothes and covers'. ');">⁶</span>

מינוהו ב"ד לא ישבע: מלתא בעלמא הוא דעביד לבי דינא ואי רמית עליה שבועה אתי לאמנועי:

for himself from the property of the orphans. He said: [He dresses so] in order to command more respect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that his words should be heard'. ');">⁷</span>

אבא שאול אומר חילוף הדברים: מ"ט מינוהו ב"ד ישבע בההיא הנאה דקא נפיק עליה קלא דאיניש מהימנא הוא דהא סמיך עליה בי דינא משום שבועה לא אתי לאמנועי

[But, they said,] he eats and drinks out of their [money], as he is not a man of means. I would suggest, [he replied], that he had a valuable find. [But, they said,] he is spoiling [their property].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., by cutting down trees. ');">⁸</span>

מינהו אבי יתומים לא ישבע מילתא בעלמא הוא דעבדי להדדי ואי רמית עליה שבועה אתי לאמנועי אמר רב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל הלכתא כאבא שאול:

He said: Bring evidence that he is spoiling it and I will remove him. For R. Huna our colleague said in the name of Rab: If a guardian spoils the orphans' property we remove him. For it has been stated: 'If a guardian spoils the property, R. Huna says in the name of Rab that we remove him, while the School of R. Shilah say that we do not remove him.' The law, however, is that we remove him.

תניא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר זה וזה ישבע והלכה כדבריו

A GUARDIAN WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE FATHER OF THE ORPHANS IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH. What is the reason? — If he were not to derive some benefit from this, he would not become a guardian, and he will not be deterred by the requirement of an oath, IF, HOWEVER, THE <i>BETH DIN</i> APPOINTED HIM HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH. [The reason is that] he assumes the office only to oblige the <i>Beth din</i>, and if an oath is to be imposed on him he would refuse. ABBA SAUL SAYS THAT THE RULE IS THE REVERSE. What is the reason? — If the <i>Beth din</i> appoint him he is to take an oath, because for the sake of the benefit he derives from the reputation of being a trustworthy man on whom the <i>Beth din</i> relies he is not deterred by [the prospect of] an oath. [If, however,] the father of the orphans appoints him, he does not take an oath, as it was simply a friendly action between the two, and if you impose an oath on him he would refuse. R. Hanan b. Ammi said in the name of Samuel: The law follows Abba Saul.

תני רב תחליפא בר מערבא קמיה דר' אבהו אפוטרופוס שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע מפני שהוא נושא שכר אמר ליה את אייתת קבא וכיילת ליה אלא אימא מפני שהוא כנושא שכר:

It has been taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob says that both should take an oath, and so is the <i>halachah</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Read with Trani [H] not [H] of cur. edd.] ');">⁹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המטמא והמדמע והמנסך בשוגג פטור במזיד חייב:

R. Tahalifa the Palestinian<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the son of the West'. ');">¹⁰</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איתמר מנסך רב אמר מנסך ממש ושמואל אמר מערב

stated in the presence of R. Abbahu: A guardian who was appointed by the father of the orphans is required to take an oath, because he receives a fee. The Rabbi said to him: You have brought a <i>kab</i> and measured it out for him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the son of the West'. ');">¹⁰</span>

מ"ד מערב מ"ט לא אמר מנסך אמר לך מנסך קם ליה בדרבה מיניה

Rather say, 'because he is like one who receives a fee'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., what proof have you that he received a fee? ');">¹¹</span>

ואידך כדרבי ירמיה דא"ר ירמיה משעת הגבהה הוא דקנה מתחייב בנפשו לא הוי עד שעת ניסוך

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. ONE WHO RENDERS UNCLEAN [ANOTHER'S FOODSTUFFS]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether terumah or ordinary food. ');">¹²</span>

ולמאן דאמר מנסך מ"ט לא אמר מערב אמר לך מערב

OR MIXES [<i>TERUMAH</i> WITH THEM]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus rendering them forbidden to a layman. ');">¹³</span> OR MAKES A LIBATION [WITH HIS WINE],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The meaning of this is discussed infra. ');">¹⁴</span> IF HE DOES SO INADVERTENTLY, IS FREE FROM LIABILITY, BUT IF DELIBERATELY IS LIABLE [TO COMPENSATE HIM].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unclean terumah could not be eaten and could be used by the priests only for feeding cattle or for fuel. Non-sacred food also if unclean was rejected by the stricter sort (Perushim). Food mixed with terumah became prohibited to a layman and therefore had to be sold to a priest at a loss. Wine poured out in libation was forbidden. Hence in all these cases loss was involved. ');">¹⁵</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. It has been stated: [With regard to the expression] 'MAKES A LIBATION', Rab says that it means literally making a libation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., stirring it with his hand as preparatory to pouring it out. ');">¹⁶</span> [to a heathen deity], while Samuel says that it means only mixing [Jewish with heathen wine].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was sufficient to make it prohibited. ');">¹⁷</span> Why did the one who says it means mixing not accept the view that it means making a libation? — He will tell you the latter offence involves a heavier penalty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., the death penalty; and the rule is that a lighter penalty is not inflicted when a heavier one is involved for the same offence. ');">¹⁸</span> What does the other say [to this]? — Even as R. Jeremiah. For R. Jeremiah said that he [a robber] acquires possession from the moment he lifts the wine from the ground, whereas he does not become liable to capital punishment until he actually pours out the wine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the defendant has become liable for the payment of the wine in the capacity of a robber even before he commenced to commit the capital offence of idolatrous libations, and since the civil liability is neither for the same act nor for the same moment which occasions the liability for capital punishment, each liability stands. ');">¹⁹</span> Why does the one who says that it means making a libation not accept the view that it means mixing? — He will tell you, mixing wine