Gittin 105

היינו מדמע

is practically the same as mixing <i>terumah</i>. What says the other [to this]? — [He says that the penalty for this is of the nature of] a fine,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Kenas v. Glos. Because the damage done is not visible. This point is discussed infra. ');">¹</span>

ואידך קנסא הוא ומקנסא לא ילפינן

and we do not base rules for imposing fines on mere inference.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But the rule must be stated expressly in each case. Lit., 'we do not derive from Kenas'. ');">²</span>

ולמאן דיליף קנסא מקנסא כל הני למה לי

But those who hold that the imposition of fines can be based on mere inference — why do they require all the items to be specified? They are all necessary. For if [the Mishnah] had mentioned only one who renders foodstuffs unclean, then, supposing the food was <i>terumah</i>, I would say that the reason [why compensation has to be made] is because he spoils it completely,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., as food for the priest. V. supra p. 236, n. 7. ');">³</span>

צריכא דאי תנא מטמא אי תרומה הוה אמינא משום דקא מפסיד לה לגמרי ואי מטמא חולין משום דאסור לגרום טומאה לחולין שבארץ ישראל אבל מדמע אימא לא

and if the food was non-sacred, because it is forbidden to cause uncleanness to non-sacred food in Eretz Israel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of the Perushim. V. p. 236, n. 7. ');">⁴</span>

ואי אשמעינן מדמע משום דשכיח אבל מטמא דלא שכיח אימא לא

but one who mixes ordinary food with <i>terumah</i> I should say need not make compensation. Again, if one who mixes ordinary food with <i>terumah</i> had been mentioned I should say the reason is because this is a common occurrence,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore it was deemed necessary to impose a fine. ');">⁵</span>

ואי אשמעינן מטמא ומדמע משום דלא קים ליה בדרבה מיניה

but in the case of one who renders foodstuffs unclean, which is not a common occurrence, I should say the rule does not apply. If again both one who renders unclean and one who mixes had been specified, I should say the reason with them [for requiring compensation] is that no heavier penalty is involved, but I should not apply this rule to one who makes a libation, where a heavier penalty is involved. Therefore we are told [that we apply here] the principle of R. Jeremiah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which we learn that the lighter penalty stands in this case, v. supra p. 237. n. 4. ');">⁶</span>

אבל מנסך דקים ליה בדרבה מיניה אימא לא קא משמע לן כדרבי ירמיה

But if we accept [the teaching] learnt by the father of R. Abin, 'At first they said, The one who renders unclean and the one who makes a libation, but later they added also the one who mixes,' why do I require all the items?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely if there is liability for libation which involves a heavier penalty there must be a penalty for mixing. ');">⁷</span>

ולהא דתני אבוה דר' אבין בראשונה היו אומרים המטמא והמנסך חזרו לומר אף המדמע כל הני למה לי

— They are still necessary. For if only the one who renders unclean had been mentioned, I should have said that the reason is because no greater penalty is involved, but I should not have applied the rule to one who makes a libation, where a greater penalty is involved. If again the one who makes a libation had been mentioned, I should have said this was because the stuff is spoilt entirely, but I should not have applied the rule to one who renders unclean, where the stuff is not spoilt entirely. If again these two had been mentioned, I should say the reason is because the loss involved is considerable, but I should not apply the rule to one who mixes, where the loss involved is small.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the stuff can still be sold to a priest at no great sacrifice. ');">⁸</span>

צריכא דאי אשמעינן מטמא משום דלא קים ליה בדרבה מיניה אבל מנסך דקים ליה בדרבה מיניה אימא לא

Hence all were necessary.

ואי אשמעינן מנסך משום דקא מפסיד ליה לגמרי אבל מטמא דלא מפסיד ליה לגמרי אימא לא

Hezekiah said: The rule of the Torah is that one who commits these offences whether inadvertently or deliberately is liable to pay compensation. The reason is that damage of which there is no visible sign<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., here, where the stuff is in exactly the same condition after the offence has been committed as before. ');">⁹</span>

ואי אשמעינן הני תרתי משום דהפסד מרובה אבל מדמע דהפסד מועט אימא לא צריכא

is legally accounted as damage.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Torah in the case of damage done by man makes no distinction between innocent and presumptuous, v. B.K. 85b. ');">¹⁰</span>

אמר חזקיה דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד חייב מאי טעמא היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק

Why then did the Rabbis lay down that [if one does these things] inadvertently he is not liable? So that they should tell [the victims].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And so save them from eating terumah etc. unwittingly. ');">¹¹</span>

ומה טעם אמרו בשוגג פטור כדי שיודיעו

If that is the reason, then one who does these things presumptuously should also be quit? — How can you think so? Seeing that he deliberately tries to injure him, will he not certainly tell him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his whole purpose is to vex him. ');">¹²</span>

אי הכי אפילו במזיד נמי השתא לאוזוקי קא מכוין אודועי לא מודע ליה

R. Johanan said that the rule of the Torah is that whether one commits these offences innocently or deliberately he is not liable, the reason being that damage of which there is no visible sign is not legally accounted damage. Why then did the Rabbis ordain that [one who does them] presumptuously is liable? So that it should not become a common thing for a man to go and render unclean the foodstuffs of his neighbour and say, I have no liability.

ור' יוחנן אמר דבר תורה אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד פטור מאי טעמא היזק שאינו ניכר לא שמיה היזק ומה טעם אמרו במזיד חייב שלא יהא כל אחד ואחד הולך ומטמא טהרותיו של חבירו ואומר פטור אני

We have learnt: 'If priests render the sacrifice piggul<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XIX, 7: And if it (the flesh of the peace-offering) be eaten on the third day, it is an abomination (piggul). The Rabbis derived from the language of the text the rule that the flesh became piggul even if there was merely an intention of eating it on the third day. ');">¹³</span>

תנן הכהנים שפגלו במקדש מזידים חייבין ותני עלה מפני תיקון העולם

in the Sanctuary, if they did so presumptuously they are liable [to make compensation];'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the bringer of the sacrifice, who now has to bring a new one. ');">¹⁴</span>

ואי אמרת היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק האי שוגגין פטורין מפני תיקון העולם מיבעי ליה

and in connection therewith it was taught: 'To prevent abuses.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for the good order of the world'. I.e., this is a Rabbinic, not a Scriptural rule. ');">¹⁵</span>

הכי נמי קאמר מזידין חייבין הא שוגגין פטורין מפני תיקון העולם

Now if you hold that damage which is not visible is legally accounted damage, then it should say, 'if they did so innocently they are not liable, to prevent abuses'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that they should tell the owners. Because according to the Torah they are liable. V. supra, n. 2. ');">¹⁶</span>

מתיב רבי אלעזר העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים ואי אמרת היזק שאינו ניכר שמיה היזק בדיני אדם נמי לחייב

— This in fact is what is meant: 'If they act presumptuously they are liable; from which we infer that if they acted innocently they are not liable, to prevent abuses.' R. Eleazar [raised the following as] an objection: 'If one does work with the waters of purification and with the heifer of purification,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'red heifer': v. Num. XIX. It was forbidden to do any work work with it. ');">¹⁷</span>

הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה פרה שהכניסה לרבקה על מנת שתינק ותדוש מי חטאת ששקל בהן משקלות

he is exempt before the earthly court but liable before the heavenly court.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. B.K. 56a. I.e., he is punished by the hands of heaven but not with any earthly punishment. ');">¹⁸</span>

והאמר רבא מי חטאת

Now if you maintain that damage which is invisible is legally accounted as damage, then he should be liable also before the earthly court? — He raised the objection and he himself answered it, thus: [The work referred to in the case of] the heifer [was] that he brought it into the stall with the intention of letting it suck and then threshing with it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he had not yet done with it any work for which the earthly court could punish him, but he is punished by heaven for his intention. ');">¹⁹</span> in the case of the water [the work referred to was] that he balanced weights against it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We assume that the exact weight of the water was known to him. In this case he had done no actual work with the water. ');">²⁰</span> But has not Raba said that water of purification