Gittin 109

ומאי שנא מדרבי אמי התם איכא למימר טעי בדר' ירמיה הכא כיון דקא מפסיד כוליה אגריה ואתא ואמר אימור קושטא קאמר:

What is the difference between this case and that of R. Ammi? — In that case it might be argued that the scribe mistakenly adopted the view of R. Jeremiah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he would lose only the fee for the names, and he was willing to risk this to annoy the purchaser. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> העיד רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא על החרשת שהשיאה אביה שהיא יוצאה בגט

but here, since he stakes the whole of his fee and yet comes and tells, we presume that he is telling the truth.

ועל קטנה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן שאוכלת בתרומה ואם מתה בעלה יורשה

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. R. JOHANAN B. GUDGADA TESTIFIED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 'Ed. VII, 9. ');">²</span>

ועל המריש הגזול שבנאו בבירה שיטול את דמיו מפני תקנת השבים

THAT A DEAF-MUTE GIRL WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER FATHER CAN BE PUT AWAY WITH A GET,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although being deaf-mute she is not capable of giving consent, and although her marriage having been contracted by her father is a binding one. ');">³</span>

ועל חטאת הגזולה שלא נודעה לרבים שהיא מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח:

AND THAT

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבא מעדותו של רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא אמר לעדים ראו גט זה שאני נותן לה וחזר ואמר לה כנסי שטר חוב זה הרי זו מגורשת מי לא אמר ר' יוחנן בן גודגדא לא בעינן דעתה ה"נ לא בעינן דעתה

A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE MARRIED TO A PRIEST CAN EAT OF THE <i>TERUMAH</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although her marriage is valid only by the rule of the Rabbis and not of the Torah. But she may eat only such as is terumah in Rabbinic law alone, but not what is terumah in Biblical law, which does not recognise her as the priest's wife. ');">⁴</span>

פשיטא מהו דתימא כיון דאמר כנסי שטר חוב זה בטולי בטליה קמ"ל אם איתא דבטליה לעדים הוה אמר להו והאי דקאמר הכי משום כיסופא:

AND THAT IF SHE DIES HER HUSBAND INHERITS HER, AND THAT IF A BEAM WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED IS BUILT INTO A PALACE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or any other building. ');">⁵</span>

ועל קטנה בת ישראל: ואילו חרשת לא אכלה מ"ט גזירה שמא יאכיל חרש בחרשת

RESTITUTION FOR IT MAY BE MADE IN MONEY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of the actual beam being restored. V. infra. ');">⁶</span>

וליכול קטן אוכל נבלות הוא

SO AS NOT TO PUT OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF PENITENTS, AND THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT [KNOWN] TO MANY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Three persons (v. J. a.l.)]. ');">⁷</span>

גזרה שמא יאכיל חרש בפיקחת

MAKES EXPIATION, TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'for the good order of the altar'. This is discussed in the Gemara infra. ');">⁸</span>

ולאכול בתרומה דרבנן גזירה שמא אתי לאכולי בתרומה דאורייתא:

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Raba said: From the testimony of R. Johanan b. Gudgada we learn that if a man said to the witnesses [to the Get],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not in the wife's presence. ');">⁹</span>

ועל המריש הגזול שבנאו: תנו רבנן גזל מריש ובנאו בבירה ב"ש אומרים מקעקע כל הבירה כולה ומחזיר מריש לבעליו וב"ה אומרים אין לו אלא דמי מריש בלבד משום תקנת השבין:

See this Get which I am about to give to her [my wife], and then he said to his wife, Take this bond, the divorce is valid. For did not R. Johanan b. Gudgada affirm that the consent of the wife is not necessary? So here we do not require her knowledge.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which in this case includes consent. ');">¹⁰</span>

ועל חטאת הגזולה כו': אמר עולא דבר תורה בין נודעה ובין לא נודעה אינה מכפרת

Surely this is obvious? [It required to he stated] because you might have thought that his saying to her 'take this bond' rendered the Get void. [Raba therefore] teaches us that if he had meant to annul it he would have said so to the witnesses, and the reason why he spoke so to the wife was because he was ashamed [to call it a Get].

מ"ט יאוש כדי לא קני ומה טעם אמרו לא נודעה מכפרת שלא יהו כהנים עצבין

THAT A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE. A deaf-mute woman, however, [according to this] cannot eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As otherwise R. Johanan b. Gudgada would have stated the rule in reference to such a one. ');">¹¹</span>

אמרי ליה רבנן לעולא והאנן מפני תיקון המזבח תנן אמר להם כיון דכהנים עצבין נמצא מזבח בטל

What is the reason? — As a precaution against a deaf-mute priest giving a deaf-mute woman [<i>terumah</i>] to eat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage of a deaf-mute priest to a deaf-mute woman was valid only by Rabbinical rule, and therefore she was not permitted to eat terumah. ');">¹²</span>

ורב יהודה אמר דבר תורה בין נודעה בין לא נודעה מכפרת מאי טעמא יאוש כדי קני

And suppose she does? She would only be like a child eating forbidden meat?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nebelah, v, Glos. And according to some authorities the Beth din do not step in to prevent this, v. Yeb. 114a. ');">¹³</span> — It is a precaution against the possibility of a deaf-mute priest giving <i>terumah</i> to a wife in possession of her faculties. But allow him at least to give her <i>terumah</i> which is such only by the rule of the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The marriage, valid in rabbinical law, should be recognised in regard to such terumah. ');">¹⁴</span> — This is a precaution against the risk of her eating <i>terumah</i> which is such according to the Torah. AND THAT IF A BEAM WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED HAS BEEN BUILT INTO A PALACE. The Rabbis taught: If a man wrongfully takes a beam and builds it into a palace, Beth Shammai say that he must demolish the whole palace and restore the beam to its owner. Beth Hillel, however, say that the latter can claim only the money value of the beam, so as not to place obstacles in the way of penitents.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As if they had to destroy the whole building they would not offer to make restitution. ');">¹⁵</span> THAT A SIN OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED. 'Ulla said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the [fact is generally] known or not, [the offering] does not make expiation, the reason being that Renunciation<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ye'ush. The abandonment by the owner of the hope of recovery. ');">¹⁶</span> does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unless there has also been a change of ownership from the robber to a third party. ');">¹⁷</span> Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] not known the offering is expiatory? — So that the priests should not be grieved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When they find out that they have eaten from a non-sacred animal that has been killed within the temple precincts, the flesh of which was forbidden, v. B.K. 67a. ');">¹⁸</span> Said the Rabbis to 'Ulla: But our Mishnah says TO PREVENT LOSS TO THE ALTAR? — He replied to them: When the priests are grieved the altar is not attended to. Rab Judah, however, said: According to the rule of the Torah, whether the fact [of its having been wrongfully acquired] is known or not known, the offering is expiatory, the reason being that Renunciation does of itself confer ownership [on the robber].