POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Gitin 54
GITIN 53-55 - Sponsored by Rabbi Dr. Eli Turkel and his wife, Jeri
Turkel. May Hashem bless them with many years of Simcha,
health and fulfillment, and may they see all of their children
and grandchildren follow them in the ways of Torah and Yir'as
1) FINING UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSERS OF TORAH LAWS
(a) Question (Beraisa): If a non-Kohen (unintentionally) ate
Tamei Terumah - he pays an equal quantity of Tahor
2) FINING UNINTENTIONAL TRANSGRESSERS OF RABBINIC LAWS
1. If he paid with Tamei Chulin - Sumchus cites R. Meir
to say that if this was unintentional, it is valid
payment; if he intentionally gave Tamei Chulin, it
is not valid payment;
(b) Answer: There the man intended to fulfill his Mitzvah to
pay; R. Meir only says that we fine him when he was not
engaged in a Mitzvah.
2. Chachamim say, in either case, it is considered
payment, but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.
3. Question: When he intentionally gave Tamei Chulin
(according to R. Meir), why is it not valid? He ate
something totally unfit for the Kohen, and paid
something which (he thought would be) fit for the
Kohen to eat when the Kohen is Tamei!
4. Answer (Rava): The Beraisa is abbreviated; it should
read thusly: If he ate Tamei Terumah - he pays back
Chulin, it may be Tahor or Tamei;
5. If he ate Tahor Terumah - he pays back Tahor Chulin;
i. If he paid Tamei Chulin - Sumchus cites R. Meir
to say that if this was unintentional, it is
valid payment; if not, not;
6. (Culmination of question - Rav Acha brei d'Rav Ika):
R. Meir holds that we do not fine an unintentional
transgression on account of intentional, Chachamim
say that we do.
ii. Chachamim say, in either case, it is considered
payment, but he must also pay Tahor Chulin.
(c) Question (Beraisa): Blood (of a sacrifice) that became
Tamei and was thrown on the Altar - if unintentionally,
the sacrifice may be eaten; if intentionally, the
sacrifice is forbidden.
(d) Answer: There the man intended to get atonement, it is
not fitting to fine him.
(e) Question (Mishnah): One who tithes food on Shabbos - if
unintentionally, the food may be eaten; if intentionally,
it is forbidden.
(f) Answer: There the man intended to make his food
permissible, it is not fitting to fine him.
(g) Question (Mishnah): One who immerses vessels on Shabbos -
if unintentionally, he may use them; if intentionally, he
(h) Answer: There the man intended to purify his vessels, it
is not fitting to fine him.
(a) Contradiction: We find elsewhere that R. Yehudah does
fine by mid'Rabanan laws!
3) WHEN IS 1 WITNESS BELIEVED?
1. (Beraisa - R. Meir and R. Yehudah): (There was a
mixture of permitted nuts with forbidden Parech nuts
(a special species - such nuts, when whole, are
never nullified.)) The nuts fell and broke - whether
or not this was intentional, the mixture is still
(b) Answer: There, R. Yehudah fines lest the person scheme to
make them fall so they will become nullified.
2. R. Yosi and R. Shimon say, if they fell
unintentionally, the nuts may become nullified, if
3. mid'Oraisa, any minority is nullified - mid'Rabanan,
a minority of important things is not nullified -
still, R. Yehudah fines!
(c) Contradiction: There, R. Yosi does not fine by a
mid'Rabanan law; elsewhere, he does!
1. (Mishnah): A man has a tree of Orlah or Kilai
ha'Kerem (a forbidden crossbreed in a vineyard), and
cannot remember which of his trees this is. (A tree
cannot become nullified, but the fruits can.) He may
not harvest his trees - if he did, the forbidden
produce is nullified if he knows that the permitted
produce is more than 200 times as much as the
forbidden produce, provided that he did not intend
(d) Answer (Rava and Ravin): Normally, a person would be
careful not to allow 1 tree to forbid all his trees, he
would clearly designate the forbidden tree - therefore,
this case is rare, so R. Yosi makes no fine.
2. R. Yosi says, even if he intended for this, the
forbidden produce is nullified.
(a) (Mishnah): A Kohen made a sacrifice Pigul (invalid
through intent to eat or offer it outside the allowed
time or place) - if he intentionally did this, he must
4) WHEN IS THE SCRIBE BELIEVED?
(b) (Gemara - Beraisa): Reuven was working with Shimon's
Tahor produce. Reuven tells Shimon that it became Tamei -
he is believed;
1. The same applies if he was offering Shimon's
sacrifice, and he says that it became Pigul.
(c) If Reuven tells Shimon that the produce or sacrifice
which Reuven was dealing with on a previous day became
Tamei or Pigul, he is not believed.
(d) Question: What is the difference between the cases?
(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): He is only believed when it is in his
power to do as he says (make it Tamei or Pigul) at the
time he tells him.
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): Reuven is not believed when he did not
tell Shimon the first time he saw him.
(g) Levi told Yehudah: The produce we were working with the
other day, it became Tamei.
1. R. Ami: Letter of the law, Levi is not believed.
(h) Question: Where does the Torah say this?
(i) Answer #2 (R. Yitzchak bar Bisna): We learn from the
inner sin-offerings on Yom Kipur, which the Kohen Gadol
could (transgress and) make Pigul.
2. R. Asi: But R. Yochanan cited R. Yosi to say that
the Torah says he is believed!
1. Question: How would we know that they are Pigul? "No
other man will be on the Tent of Meeting (when the
Kohen Gadol brings these offerings)"!
(j) Objection: No, we could have heard him saying that he
offers them in order to burn the fast on the Altar after
the allowed time.
2. Answer: It must be, the Kohen Gadol is believed!
1. Question: But we would not know that he said this
when he offered them - perhaps he offered them
before saying this!
(k) A scribe said: The Sefer Torah I wrote for Ploni is
invalid, because the occurrences of Hash-m's name are not
Lishmah (I wrote them without intention).
2. Answer: Perhaps someone saw the Kohen Gadol through
an opening in the wall of the Heichal (and knows
that he was saying this as he offered them).
i. The objection to R. Yitzchak's proof is left
1. R. Ami: Who has the Sefer Torah?
(l) Question: Why can't he overwrite those names with
intention to sanctify them?
2. The scribe: Ploni.
3. R. Ami: You forfeit your wages by your admission,
but you are not believed to disqualify the Sefer
4. R. Yirmeyah: Granted, he does not receive wages for
writing those names, but he should get paid for
writing the rest!
5. R. Ami: Since the names are not Lishmah, the Sefer
Torah is worthless.
1. Suggestion: R. Ami does not hold as R. Yehudah.
(m) A scribe said: The Sefer Torah I wrote for Ploni is
invalid, because I did not make the parchments Lishmah.
i. (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): A scribe needed to
write Hash-m's name; he mistakenly thought that
he needs to write 'Yehudah'. He omitted writing
the 'Daled' (so it turns out that he wrote
Hash-m's name, but not Lishmah) - he overwrites
the letters with intention to sanctify them;
2. Rejection: R. Ami can hold as R. Yehudah - R.
Yehudah only permitted overwriting 1 name of Hash-m
- but not to overwrite all occurrences, for such a
Sefer appears spotted.
ii. Chachamim say, this is not a nice writing of
1. R. Avahu: Who has the Sefer Torah?
2. The scribe: Ploni.
3. R. Avahu: Since you are believed to forfeit your
wages, you are also believed to disqualify the Sefer
(a) Question: Why is this different than R. Ami's case?
(b) Answer: There, one can say that the scribe really wrote
it Lishmah, but thought he could disqualify the Sefer and
still receive most of his wages, as R. Yirmeyah thought;
here, the scribe knows he forfeits his entire wage -
presumably, he is telling the truth!