Mishnah.org Logo

Today's Mishnah Yomi

Gittin 5:5 - 5:6

The Mishnah Yomi for Tuesday, June 25, 2024 is Gittin 5:5 - 5:6

＜ Previous DayTodayNext Day ＞

Mishnah 1

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 5 Mishnah 5

גיטין פרק ה׳ משנה ה׳

5
Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified before the Sages about the case of a deaf-mute woman who was married off by her father when she was a minor, so that her marriage took effect by Torah law. He said that she can be released from her marriage through a bill of divorce, whether as a minor or after she reaches adulthood. Although as a deaf-mute woman she is not legally competent to give her consent, the divorce is effective because divorce does not require the woman’s consent. And similarly, he testified about the case of the minor daughter of a non-priest who was orphaned from her father and then married off to a priest by her mother or brother, so that her marriage took effect by rabbinic law. He said that nevertheless she may partake of teruma, although by Torah law it is prohibited for one who is not in a priestly household to partake of teruma. And furthermore if this girl dies, then her husband inherits her estate. It is not said that because the validity of the marriage is by rabbinic law and not Torah law he is not entitled to inherit from her. And Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda further testified about a stolen beam that was already built into a large building [bira], that the victim of the robbery receives only the value of the beam but not the beam itself, due to an ordinance instituted for the penitent. By Torah law, a robber is obligated to return any stolen item in his possession, provided that its form has not been altered. If one stole a beam and incorporated it into a building, then by Torah law he would have to destroy the building and return the beam. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and allowed a robber to return the value of the beam. And lastly, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified about a sin-offering that was obtained through robbery but that was not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner. He said that it effects atonement for the robber who sacrifices it, for the benefit of the altar, as will be explained in the Gemara.
הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גֻּדְגְּדָה עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְגֵט. וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁאוֹכֶלֶת בַּתְּרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה, בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ. וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בַבִּירָה, שֶׁיִּטֹּל אֶת דָּמָיו, מִפְּנֵי תַקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים. וְעַל חַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לָרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ:
ה׳

על החרשת שהשיאה אביה – and even though she is a completely married woman, for her father had received her betrothal when she was a child/minor, even so she goes free with a Jewish bill of divorce and receives her Jewish bill of divorce while she is deaf-mute; and even though she lacks “knowledge,” since a woman is divorced against her will, therefore, we don’t require “knowledge.”

וכל קטנה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן – and she is an orphan, and her marriage is not valid other than according to the Rabbis.

שאוכלת בתרומה – according to the Rabbis, for we do not make the decree that [eating] Terumah/heave-offering according to the Rabbis is like [eating] Terumah of the Torah-law.

מריש – beam

בירה – a large house

מפני תקנת השבים – for it you require him [i.e., the thief] to take down (literally, “exterminate”) his home (or an entire group of buildings) and return the [stolen] beam itself (see Talmud Gittin 47a), he would be prevented from repenting.

שלא נודעה לרבים – that t was stolen

שהיא מכפרת – and there is no need to bring another.

מפני תקון מזבח – so that the Kohanim will not be sad that they unconsecrated meat that was slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, and it would lead to the altar being void, that they were prevented from performing the Temple ritual.

על החרשת שהשיאה אביה. ואע״ג דהויא אשת איש גמורה שהרי קבל אביה קדושיה כשהיא קטנה, אפ״ה יוצאה בגט, ומקבלת את גטה כשהיא חרשת, ואע״ג דלית בה דעתא, דאשה מתגרשת בעל כרחה, הלכך לא בעינן דעתה:

ועל קטנה בת ישראל. שנשאת לכהן. והיא יתומה, דלא הוי נשואים אלא מדרבנן:

שאוכלת בתרומה. דרבנן. ולא גזרינן תרומה דרבנן אטו תרומה דאורייתא:

מריש. קורה:

בירה. בית גדול:

מפני תקנת השבים. שאם אתה מצריכו לקעקע בירתו ולהחזיר המריש עצמו, ימנע מלעשות תשובה:

שלא נודעה לרבים. שהיא גזולה:

שהיא מכפרת. ואין צריך להביא אחרת:

מפני תקון מזבח. שלא יהיו כהנים עצבים שאכלו חולין שנשחטו בעזרה, ונמצא מזבח בטל, שנמנעים מלעבוד עבודה:

Mishnah 2

Mishnayos Gittin Perek 5 Mishnah 6

גיטין פרק ה׳ משנה ו׳

6
The law of Sicarii [Sikarikon] did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war. From the time that people were being killed in the war and onward, the law of Sicarii did apply there. What is this law of Sicarii? If one first purchased land from a Sicarius, who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, and afterward the buyer returned and purchased the same field a second time from the prior landowner, his purchase is void. The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the prior owner and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from a Sicarius, his purchase stands. Similarly, if one first purchased from the husband the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, his purchase is void. The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, his purchase stands. This is the initial version of this mishna. Later, the court of those who came after the Sages who composed that mishna said: With regard to one who purchased a field from a Sicarius, he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value. When does this apply? At a time when the prior owner is unable to purchase the field himself. But if he is able to purchase it himself, he precedes anyone else. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi later convened a court, and they counted their votes and determined that if the field remained before, i.e., in the possession of, the Sicarius for twelve months, whoever first purchases the field acquires possession of it, but he must give the prior owner one-fourth of the field’s value.
לֹא הָיָה סִיקָרִיקוֹן בִּיהוּדָה בַהֲרוּגֵי מִלְחָמָה. מֵהֲרוּגֵי מִלְחָמָה וְאֵילָךְ, יֶשׁ בָּהּ סִיקָרִיקוֹן. כֵּיצַד. לָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מִקָּחוֹ בָטֵל. מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, מִקָּחוֹ קַיָּם. לָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה, מִקָּחוֹ בָטֵל. מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ, מִקָּחוֹ קַיָּם. זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ, הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ. אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדָן לִקַּח. אֲבָל יֵשׁ בְּיָדָן לִקַּח, הֵן קוֹדְמִין לְכָל אָדָם. רַבִּי הוֹשִׁיב בֵּית דִּין וְנִמְנוּ, שֶׁאִם שָׁהֲתָה בִפְנֵי סִיקָרִיקוֹן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לִקַּח, זוֹכֶה, אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ:
ו׳

לא היה סקריקון – a murdering heathen, that is do say, that they did not adjudicate the law concerning the purchase of confiscated property (see Talmud Gittin 55b) to say that whomever purchases Jewish land from a murdering heathen, will be liable to adjudicate with the owners.

משעת הרוגי מלחמה – At the time when the decree was difficult for the Jews [that they would be] killed during warfare, for a person who buys from him at that time, his purchase is valid, and there was no need to adjudicate with an Israelite who owns the land, since as a result of unavoidable compulsion where an Israelite would complete a sale to the heathen murderers, and we hold (Talmud Bava Batra 47b): “If a person consents to sell something through fear of physical violence (literally, “if they hang him and he sells”), the sale is valid.

אבל מהרוגי המלחמה ואילך – when there was no decree to be killed, they adjudicated the law concerning the purchase of confiscated propery, to say that when he purchases it from him, they should do a judgment with the owners as it is explained in the Mishnah.

מקחו בטל – for as we say that he did it out of fear.

לקח מן האיש – land that is designated for his wife’s Ketubah.

מקחו בטל – for she said that I did it only to gratify my husband (but did not mean to sell – see Talmud Ketubot 95a).

נותן לבעלים רביע – that they estimated, for the heathen murderers which it had come into his hand without paying for it, he bought [the confiscated field] for one-fourth less than its real value.

לא היה סקריקון. נכרי רוצח. כלומר לא דנו דין סקריקון, לומר שהקונה קרקע של ישראל מיד הנכרי רוצח, יהיה חייב לדון עם הבעלים:

בשעת הרוגי המלחמה. בשעה שהיתה הגזירה קשה על ישראל ליהרג במלחמה. שהלוקח ממנו באותה שעה היה מקחו קיים ולא היה צריך לדון עם הישראל בעל הקרקע, משום דאגב אונסיה דישראל הוה גמר ומקנה לסיקריקון. וקיי״ל [ב״ב מז:] תלוהו וזבין זביניה זביני:

אבל מהרוגי המלחמה ואילך. שלא היתה הגזירה ליהרג, דנו דין סקריקון, לומר שהקונה ממנו יעשה דין עם הבעלים. כמו שמפורש במשנה:

מקחו בטל. דאמרינן מיראה עבד:

לקח מן האיש. קרקע המיוחד לכתובת אשתו:

מקחו בטל. דאמרה נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי:

נותן לבעלים רביע. ששיערו, דסיקריקון מתוך שבחנם בא לידו מוזיל גביה רבעא:

Mishnah Yomi FAQ

Still have a question? Contact Us