Gittin 110

ומה טעם אמרו נודעה אינה מכפרת שלא יאמרו מזבח אוכל גזילות

Why then was it laid down that if [the fact is] known it is not expiatory?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not distinctly stated in the Mishnah, but is clearly implied. ');">¹</span>

בשלמא לעולא היינו דקתני חטאת אלא לרב יהודה מאי איריא חטאת אפי' עולה נמי

In order that people should not say that the altar is fed from [the proceeds of] robbery. If we accept 'Ulla's view we quite understand why the Mishnah says 'SIN-OFFERING'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because only in this case where the priests eat of the flesh is there any danger of their becoming grieved. ');">²</span>

לא מיבעיא קאמר לא מיבעיא עולה דכליל היא אלא אפי' חטאת נמי דחלב ודם הוא דסליק לגבי מזבח ואידך כהנים אכלי ליה אפי' הכי גזור שלא יאמרו מזבח אוכל גזילות

But if Rab Judah's view is right, why does it say 'SIN-OFFERING'? The same would apply to a burnt-offering also?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is wholly burnt, ');">³</span>

תנן על חטאת הגזולה שלא נודעה לרבים שהיא מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח בשלמא לעולא ניחא אלא לרב יהודה איפכא מיבעי ליה

— A stronger instance is taken: not only is this the case with a burnt-offering which is entirely [consumed on the altar], but even in the case of a sin-offering where only the fat and blood are put on the altar and the rest is eaten by the priests, even there they applied the rule, in order that people should not say that the altar is fed from robbery.

הכי נמי קאמר לא נודעה מכפרת נודעה אינה מכפרת מפני תיקון המזבח

We learnt: THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT KNOWN TO MANY, MAKES EXPIATION SO AS NOT TO CAUSE LOSS TO THE ALTAR. This raises no difficulty if we accept the view of 'Ulla, but on the view of Rab Judah we ought to have the opposite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., 'a sin-offering&nbsp;… if this is generally known, makes no expiation'. ');">⁴</span>

מתיב רבא גנב והקדיש ואחר כך טבח ומכר משלם תשלומי כפל ואינו משלם תשלומי ארבעה וחמשה ותני עלה בחוץ כי האי גוונא ענוש כרת ואי אמרת יאוש כדי לא קני כרת מאי עבידתיה

— This in fact is what he means: if [the fact is] not known it is expiatory, but if it is known it is not expiatory, to prevent loss to the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By giving it a bad name. ');">⁵</span>

אמר רב שיזבי כרת מדבריהם אחיכו עליה כרת מדבריהם מי איכא אמר להו רבא גברא רבה אמר מילתא לא תחוכו עלה כרת שעל ידי דבריהן באתה לו אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה כי היכי דליחייב עלה

Raba raised an objection [from the following]: 'If a man stole [a beast] and sanctified it and then slaughtered and sold it, he makes twofold restitution but not four and fivefold.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' B.K. 68b (Sonc. ed.) p. 395, q.v. for notes. ');">⁶</span>

אמר רבא הא וודאי קא מיבעיא לי כי אוקמוה רבנן ברשותיה משעת גניבה או משעת הקדישה למאי נפקא מינה לגיזותיה וולדותיה מאי הדר אמר רבא מסתברא משעת הקדישה שלא יהא חוטא נשכר:

And with reference to this it was taught: If [after dedication] he should kill the animal outside the precincts, his penalty is <i>kareth</i>.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. For killing a sacred animal outside the precincts of the Temple. ');">⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> לא היה סיקריקון ביהודה בהרוגי מלחמה מהרוגי המלחמה ואילך יש בה סיקריקון כיצד לקח מסיקריקון וחזר ולקח מבעל הבית מקחו בטל מבעל הבית וחזר ולקח מסיקריקון מקחו קיים

Now if you say that Renunciation does not of itself confer ownership [on the robber], how does <i>kareth</i> come in?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because when he dedicated it the animal was not his, and therefore when he killed it it was not sacred. ');">⁸</span>

לקח מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה מקחו בטל מן האשה וחזר ולקח מן האיש מקחו קיים זו משנה ראשונה

— R. Shezbi replied: It means, the <i>kareth</i> decreed by the Rabbis. They laughed at him: Is there such a thing, [they said,] as <i>kareth</i> decreed by the Rabbis? — Said Raba to them: When a great man has said something, do not laugh at him; he means, <i>kareth</i> which comes to him through their regulation; for it was the Rabbis who declared it to be in his possession<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When he dedicated it. ');">⁹</span>

ב"ד של אחריהם אמרו הלוקח מסיקריקון נותן לבעלים רביע אימתי בזמן שאין בידן ליקח אבל יש בידן ליקח הן קודמין לכל אדם

so that he might be liable for it. Raba further said: What I should like to know is this: When the Rabbis declared him to be the owner, did they mean this to apply from the time of stealing or from the time of sanctifying? What practical difference does it make? [It makes a difference] in respect of the fleece and the young;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he was declared owner from the time of the theft, then the fleece was grown or the calf was born while the animal was in his possession, and he has not to make restitution for these. ');">¹⁰</span>

רבי הושיב בית דין ונמנו שאם שהתה בפני סיקריקון שנים עשר חדש כל הקודם ליקח זכה אבל נותן לבעלים רביע:

what is the law? — Raba then [answered his own question] saying: It is reasonable to suppose that it is from the time that he sanctified them, so that a sinner should not profit from his offence.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> השתא בהרוגי המלחמה לא היה בה סיקריקון מהרוגי מלחמה ואילך יש בה סיקריקון

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. THERE WAS NO SICARICON<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This word is usually regarded as being connected with the Latin sicarius, and is explained to mean a Roman soldier who threatened to kill a Jew but let him go on being given some of his property. Jastrow, however, very plausibly suggests that it is a corruption of [G], the Imperial fiscus which after the war of Bar Cochba confiscated and appropriated the property of Jews who had fought against the Romans. ');">¹¹</span>

אמר רב יהודה לא דנו בה דין סיקריקון קאמר דאמר רבי אסי ג' גזירות גזרו גזרתא קמייתא כל דלא קטיל ליקטלוהו מציעתא כל דקטיל לייתי ארבע זוזי בתרייתא כל דקטיל ליקטלוהו הלכך קמייתא ומציעתא כיון דקטלי אגב אונסיה גמר ומקני

IN JUDEA FOR THOSE KILLED IN WAR.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara will explain the meaning of this passage. It is not clear whether only the war of Bethar is meant or the earlier war against Titus as well. ');">¹²</span>

בתרייתא אמרי האידנא לישקול למחר תבענא ליה בדינא:

AS FROM [THE TERMINATION OF] THE SLAUGHTER OF THE WAR<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra in the Gemara. ');">¹³</span>

אמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי כח, יד) אשרי אדם מפחד תמיד ומקשה לבו יפול ברעה אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים אתרנגולא ותרנגולתא חרוב טור מלכא אשקא דריספק חרוב ביתר

THERE HAS BEEN SICARICON THERE. HOW DOES THIS RULE APPLY? IF A MAN BUYS A FIELD FROM THE SICARICON AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER, HIS PURCHASE IS VOID,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we say that the owner only sold it out of fear, and with a mental reservation. ');">¹⁴</span>

אקמצא ובר קמצא חרוב ירושלים דההוא גברא דרחמיה קמצא ובעל דבביה בר קמצא עבד סעודתא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל אייתי לי קמצא אזל אייתי ליה בר קמצא

BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND THEN FROM THE SICARICON IT IS VALID. IF A MAN BUYS [A PIECE OF A MARRIED WOMAN'S PROPERTY]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Settled on her by her Kethubah. V. B.B. 49b. ');">¹⁵</span>

אתא אשכחיה דהוה יתיב אמר ליה מכדי ההוא גברא בעל דבבא דההוא גברא הוא מאי בעית הכא קום פוק אמר ליה הואיל ואתאי שבקן ויהיבנא לך דמי מה דאכילנא ושתינא

FROM THE HUSBAND AND THEN BUYS IT AGAIN FROM THE WIFE, THE PURCHASE IS VOID,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because we assume that she only consented to the sale to oblige her husband. ');">¹⁶</span> BUT IF HE BUYS IT FIRST FROM THE WIFE AND THEN FROM THE HUSBAND IT IS VALID. THIS WAS [THE RULING] OF THE FIRST MISHNAH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 163, n. 7. ');">¹⁷</span> THE SUCCEEDING <i>BETH DIN</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Beth din of those who came after them.' ');">¹⁸</span> HOWEVER, LAID DOWN THAT IF A MAN BUYS PROPERTY FROM THE SICARICON HE HAD TO GIVE THE ORIGINAL OWNER A QUARTER [OF THE VALUE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being estimated that the sicaricon would take a quarter less than the real value. ');">¹⁹</span> TH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It being estimated that the sicaricon would take a quarter less than the real value. ');">¹⁹</span> S,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That a purchase from the sicaricon is valid. ');">²⁰</span> HOWEVER, IS ONLY THE CASE WHEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER IS NOT IN A POSITION TO BUY IT HIMSELF, BUT IF HE IS HE HAS THE RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION. RABBI ASSEMBLED A <i>BETH DIN</i> AND THEY DECIDED BY VOTE THAT IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN IN THE HANDS OF THE SICARICON TWELVE MONTHS, WHOSOEVER FIRST PURCHASED IT ACQUIRED THE TITLE, BUT HE HAD TO GIVE A QUARTER [OF THE PRICE] TO THE ORIGINAL OWNER. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. If there was no sicaricon for those killed in the war is it possible that there should have been after the termination of the war? — Rab Judah said: It means that the rule of sicaricon was not applied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., the heirs could not come and invalidate the sale to the third party. According to J. and Tosef. this rule was instituted in order to promote the settlement of Jews in Judea [H], otherwise Jews would be afraid to purchase fields from the sicaricon for fear that the heirs would come and claim the return of their property.] ');">²¹</span> For R. Assi has stated: They [the Roman Government] issued three successive decrees. The first was that whoever did not kill [a Jew on finding him] should himself be put to death. The second was that whoever killed [a Jew] should pay four <i>zuz</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a fine. ');">²²</span> The last was that whoever killed a Jew should himself be put to death.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Halevy Doroth, I.e., attempts on the basis of Josephus Wars VI, 9, 2; VII, 6; VII, 6.6, to place the three decrees shortly after the year 70 C.E.] ');">²³</span> Hence in the first two [periods], [the Jew], being in danger of his life, would determine to transfer his property<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore the purchase of it from the sicaricon by a third party was valid. [The phrase [H] is here used in a loose sense and is not to be taken literally. It signifies that the owner despairs of the field and will make no attempt to recover it. Similarly in the case of the Mishnah, the heirs to those fields that had been seized of those killed in the war, had given up all hope of recovering the fields. Though legally, since there has been no actual transfer, they could by rights reclaim the fields when the opportunity presented itself it was nevertheless ruled that the sale to the third party is valid for the reason stated in n. 3. This removes the contradiction which Solomon Adreth points out in his Hiddushin between our Talmud and the Tosefta.] ');">²⁴</span> [to the sicaricon] but in the last [period] he would say to himself, Let him take it today; tomorrow I will sue him for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since the original owner had not waived his title, the purchase by a third party was not valid. [And similarly in the case of the heirs of those who are killed after the war, since they do not despair, the law of sicaricon applies. That is, the non-Jew who seized the land is treated as an ordinary robber and his sale of the field to a third party is invalid. The reason of [H] is not applicable in this case since the heir himself will see to it to recover the property. For attempts to solve the problems connected with the subject, v. Elbogen MGWJ. 1925, pp. 349ff. Feist, MGWJ. 71, pp. 138, Gulak, Tarbiz, V, p. 23ff., and Halevy, Doroth, I.e., p. 130e.] ');">²⁵</span> R. Johanan said: What is illustrative of the verse, Happy is the man that feareth alway, but he that hardeneth his heart shall fall into mischief?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Prov. XXVIII, 14. What follows illustrates the endless misery and mischief caused by hardness of heart. ');">²⁶</span> The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'locust and son of locust'. The meaning is that a very trivial cause set in motion the train of events which led to the destruction of Jerusalem; and similarly with the slaughter which accompanied and followed the war of Bar Cochba. ');">²⁷</span> the destruction of Tur Malka<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' ['The Mountain of the King'. V. Pseudo-Jonathan, Judges IV, 5, where Mt. Ephraim is rendered by Tur Malka. According to Horowitz, Palestine, p. 240, it denotes the whole mountainous region stretching from the Valley of Jezreel to the south of Judah, including the mountains of Samaria, known also by the Hebrew name Har ha-Melek. (V. also Buchler, JQR, XVI, pp. 180ff.) There is still some uncertainty whence this name was derived. Was it perhaps because this region lay within the great conquests of John Hyrcanus that it was given the name? v. p. 77a n. 3a. The destruction of Tur Malka is placed by Buchler, op. cit. p. 186ff. during the war 66-70]. ');">²⁸</span> came through a cock and a hen; the destruction of Bethar came through the shaft of a leather. The destruction of Jerusalem came through a Kamza and a Bar Kamza in this way. A certain man had a friend Kamza and an enemy Bar Kamza. He once made a party and said to his servant, Go and bring Kamza. The man went and brought Bar Kamza. When the man [who gave the party] found him there he said, See, you tell tales about me; what are you doing here? Get out. Said the other: Since I am here, let me stay, and I will pay you for whatever I eat and drink.