Gittin 108

נפלו ונתפצעו אחד שוגג ואחד מזיד לא יעלו דברי ר"מ ורבי יהודה רבי יוסי ור' שמעון אומרים בשוגג יעלו במזיד לא יעלו

If these nuts [of 'uncircumcision']<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the first three years after the planting of the tree. V. Lev. XIX, 23. Certain species of nuts, on account of their particular value, as long as they are whole do not lose their identity in whatever large mass they may happen to become mixed up. When cracked, however, they are treated like ordinary nuts and are neutralized if their proportion to the permitted element is not more than one to one hundred. 'V. 'Orlah III, 6-8. ');">¹</span>

והא הכא דמדאורייתא חד בתרי בטל ורבנן הוא דגזור וקא קניס ר' יהודה התם היינו טעמא דר' יהודה משום דאתי לאיערומי

fell among others and were then broken, whether [the act was done] inadvertently or deliberately they are not merged in the mass.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they do not rise in the scale', i.e., they are not neutralized, but still retain their identity as something forbidden. ');">²</span>

ורמי דרבי יוסי אדרבי יוסי דתנן נטיעה של ערלה ושל כלאי הכרם שנתערבו בנטיעות אחרות הרי זה לא ילקט ואם ליקט יעלו באחד ומאתים ובלבד שלא יתכוין ללקט

This is the ruling of R. Meir and R. Judah. R. Jose and R. Simeon, however, say that if [it was done] inadvertently they are merged, but if deliberately they are not. Now here is a case where according to the rule of the Torah [the forbidden element] loses its identity [if its proportion is not more than] one to two, and it is the Rabbis who decreed [that the proportion must be less than one to two hundred], and yet R. Judah imposes the line [in the case of innocent transgression]? — R. Judah there is influenced by the special consideration that [without this penalty] the offender may act with guile.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., he will mix them purposely and pretend that it was done innocently. ');">³</span>

ר' יוסי אומר אף המתכוין ללקט יעלו באחד ומאתים

A contradiction was also pointed out between two statements of R. Jose. For we have learnt: If a sapling of 'uncircumcision or of the mixed plants of the vineyard becomes mixed up with other saplings, its fruit should not be gathered,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it still retains its identity as long as it is attached to the soil, and is not merged in the field as a whole. ');">⁴</span>

הא אתמר עלה אמר רבא חזקה אין אדם אוסר את כרמו בנטיעה אחת וכן כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן חזקה אין אדם אוסר את כרמו בנטיעה אחת:

but if gathered it becomes merged in two hundred and one times the quantity [of permitted fruit], provided, however, that the gathering was not done with that purpose in view. R. Jose says, Even if it was gathered deliberately, it is merged in two hundred and one times [its own quantity!]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 'Orlah, I, 6. Which seems to conflict with R. Jose's ruling with regard to the nuts. ');">⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הכהנים שפגלו במקדש מזידין חייבין:

— [This is no difficulty] since with reference to this it has been recorded: Raba said: The presumption is that a man does not make his whole vineyard forbidden for the sake of a single sapling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By planting in it one sapling of 'uncircumcision' without some clear sign. Such a thing being exceptional, we do not impose a special penalty for an offence to which it may accidentally lead. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר היה עושה עמו בטהרות ואמר לו טהרות שעשיתי עמך נטמאו היה עושה עמו בזבחים וא"ל זבחים שעשיתי עמך נתפגלו נאמן אבל אמר לו טהרות שעשיתי עמך ביום פלוני נטמאו וזבחים שעשיתי עמך ביום פלוני נתפגלו אינו נאמן

So too when Rabin came [from Palestine] he said in the name of R. Johanan: The presumption is that a man will not make his whole vineyard forbidden for the sake of a single sapling.

מאי שנא רישא ומאי שנא סיפא אמר אביי כל שבידו נאמן

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. PRIESTS WHO MADE THE FLESH IN THE SANCTUARY PIGGUL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By declaring at the time of bringing the sacrifice that they intended the flesh to be eaten after the prescribed time. V. Supra, p. 239, n. 5. ');">⁷</span>

רבא אמר כגון דאשכחיה ולא אמר ליה ולא מידי ולבתר הכי אשכחיה ואמר ליה

IF THEY DID SO DELIBERATELY ARE LIABLE TO PAY COMPENSATION.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to provide a fresh sacrifice, since the first owing to their action has not brought expiation. ');">⁸</span>

ההוא דאמר ליה לחבריה טהרות שעשיתי עמך ביום פלוני נטמאו אתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה שורת הדין אינו נאמן אמר לפניו רבי אסי רבי אתה אומר כן הכי אמר ר' יוחנן משום רבי יוסי מה אעשה שהתורה האמינתו

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Our Rabbis taught: If a man is helping another to prepare ritually clean things, and he says to him, The clean things that I have prepared with you have been defiled, or if he is helping him with sacrifices and he says to him, The sacrifices with which I have been helping you have been rendered piggul, his word is taken. If, however, he says, The clean things which I was assisting you to prepare on such and such a day have become unclean, or the sacrifices with which I was assisting you on such and such a day have been rendered piggul, his word is not taken. Why is the rule different in the first case from that of the second? — Abaye replied: So long as it is in his power to do [again what he says he has done], his word is taken.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' We understand the Baraitha therefore to be speaking of a case where he says this while he is still helping the other; e.g., while the blood is being sprinkled he may say that the killing was piggul. We then believe him because he can still render the sprinkling piggul. ');">⁹</span>

היכן האמינתו א"ר יצחק בר ביסנא כהן גדול ביוה"כ יוכיח דכי אמר פגול מהימן ומנא ידעינן והכתיב (ויקרא טז, יז) וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד אלא לאו משום דמהימן

Rab said: [Where we do not believe is] if, for instance, he came across him and said nothing to him and then came across him again and told him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because then we suppose that he merely says this to vex him. But otherwise we do believe him, even if he only says so afterwards. According to Raba we have to translate, 'If a man was helping&nbsp;… and afterwards said etc.' ');">¹⁰</span>

ודלמא דשמעניה דפגיל אי לאו דמהימן אע"ג דשמעניה נמי לא מהימן דדלמא לבתר הכי קאמר

A certain man said to another: The clean things which I helped you to prepare on such and such a day have become unclean. He applied to R. Ammi, who said to him: According to the strict letter of the law, you need not believe him. R. Assi observed to him: Rabbi, this is what you say, but R. Johanan has distinctly said in the name of R. Jose: What can I do, seeing that the Torah has declared him credible?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even when he declares if after some time. ');">¹¹</span>

ודלמא דחזיניה בפישפש קשיא

Where has it declared him credible? — R. Isaac b. Bisna replied: The proof is from the high priest on the Day of Atonement, since if he says [that his sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. his ceremonies in the inner shrine. V. Lev. XVI, 12-17. ');">¹²</span>

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה ספר תורה שכתבתי לפלוני אזכרות שלו לא כתבתים לשמן אמר ליה ספר תורה ביד מי אמר ליה ביד לוקח אמר ליה נאמן אתה להפסיד שכרך ואי אתה נאמן להפסיד ספר תורה

was] 'piggul', we believe him. Now how do we know [that he made it 'piggul' when he was doing the service], seeing that it is written, And there shall be no man in the tent of meeting?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 17. ');">¹³</span>

אמר ליה רבי ירמיה נהי דהפסיד שכר אזכרות שכר דספר תורה כוליה מי הפסיד אמר ליה אין שכל ספר תורה שאין אזכרות שלו כתובות לשמן אינו שוה כלום

The reason must therefore be that he is credible. But perhaps this is because we heard him make it 'piggul'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He was heard to say, e.g., that he sprinkles the blood with the intention to burn the fat after the specified time. ');">¹⁴</span>

וליעבר עלייהו קולמוס וליקדשיה כמאן נימא דלא כרבי יהודה

— If he were not credible, we could not believe him even if we heard him, since he might have said this after performing the ceremony.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case it would not be piggul. ');">¹⁵</span>

דתנן הרי שהיה צריך לכתוב את השם ונתכוון לכתוב יהודה וטעה ולא הטיל בו דלת מעביר עליו קולמוס ומקדשו דברי רבי יהודה וחכמים אומרים אין השם מן המובחר

But perhaps it means that we saw him through the pispas?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One of two small gateways between the inner part of the Temple (hekal) and the place where the knives were kept. Zeb. 55. He was seen through the pispas to make the piggul declaration whilst sprinkling the blood. ');">¹⁶</span>

אפילו תימא רבי יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה אלא בחדא אזכרה אבל דכולי ספר תורה לא משום דמיחזי כמנומר

— This is indeed a difficulty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Against the dictum of R. Isaac b. Bisna. ');">¹⁷</span>

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דר' אבהו א"ל ס"ת שכתבתי לפלוני גוילין שלו לא עיבדתים לשמן א"ל ספר תורה ביד מי א"ל ביד לוקח אמר לו מתוך שאתה נאמן להפסיד שכרך אתה נאמן להפסיד ספר תורה

A certain man appeared before R. Ammi and said to him: In a scroll of the Law which I have written for So-and-so I have not written the names [of God] with proper intention.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra. ');">¹⁸</span> He asked him: Who has the scroll? — He replied: The purchaser. Whereupon he said to him: Your word is good to deprive you of your fee, but it is not good to spoil a scroll of the Law. Said R. Jeremiah to him: Granted that he has lost his fee for the names, is he to lose it for the whole of the scroll? He replied: Yes, because a scroll in which the names of God have not been written with proper intention is not worth anything. But cannot he go over them with a pen and so sanctify them? What authority would allow this? Not, we would say, R. Judah; for we have learnt, 'Suppose the scribe had to write the tetragrammaton, and he intended [instead] to write Yehwdah [Judah]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus leaving the letters of the divine name, YHWH, written however without proper intention. ');">¹⁹</span> and he made a mistake and left out the daleth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus leaving the letters of the divine name, YHWH, written however without proper intention. ');">¹⁹</span> he can go over it with a pen and sanctify it. So R. Judah. The Sages, however, say that this name is not of the best'? — You may even say that he is in accord with R. Judah. For R. Judah would allow this only in the case of one mention of the Name, but not throughout a whole scroll, because it would make it look bizarre. A certain man came before R. Abbahu saying, I have written a scroll of the Law for So-and-so but did not prepare the parchments for the purpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which would disqualify the scroll. V. supra 20a. ');">²⁰</span> He asked him, Who has the scroll? — He replied, The purchaser. He said to him: Since your word is good to deprive you of your fee, it is also good to spoil the scroll.