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 61
GITIN 61 - dedicated by Mr. Avi Berger of Queens, N.Y. in memory of his
parents, Pinchas ben Reb Avraham Yitzchak and Leah bas Michal Mordechai
1) ENACTMENTS FOR THE SAKE OF SHALOM
(a) (Mishnah): (One may not take from) traps for animal,
birds or fish...
2) HELPING TRANSGRESSORS
(b) All agree that it is absolute theft to take from a net
(because the owner of the net acquires what is trapped);
(c) Regarding hooks: Chachamim say that it was enacted that
one may not take from them, for the sake of Shalom; R.
Yosi says, also this is full theft.
(d) (Mishnah): What a deaf person, lunatic or minor
finds...R. Yosi says, this is absolute theft.
(e) (Rav Chisda): R. Yosi means, it is absolute theft
1. R. Yosi says that Beis Din makes him return it;
Chachamim say, Beis Din does not force him.
(f) (Mishnah): A poor man in an olive tree knocking down
olives - what is below...
(g) (Beraisa): If the poor man held the olives in his hand
before casting them down, all agree that this is absolute
(h) [Version #1 (Rashi): Rav Kahana was going to Hutzal; he
saw a man throwing sticks to knock down dates; Rav Kahana
ate some of them.
1. The man: I threw them down with my hands!]
(i) [Version #2 (Tosfos): Rav Kahana was going to Hutzal; he
saw a man throwing down branches of a date tree. Rav
Kahana thought that the man only wanted the wood; he ate
some of the dates.
1. The man: I threw them down with my hands (I want the
dates - it is full theft to take them)!]
(j) (Mishnah): We do not protest by Nochrim that take Leket,
Shichchah and Pei'ah, for the sake of Shalom.
2. Rav Kahana: Because he is from R. Yoshiyah's region,
he knows the law well.
(k) (Beraisa): We support poor Nochrim along with poor
Yisraelim, we visit sick Nochrim along with sick
Yisraelim, and we bury Nochrim as well as Yisraelim - all
this is for the sake of Shalom.
(a) (Mishnah): Leah is suspected of transgressing Shemitah -
Sarah may lend her a sifter, grinder or oven, but she may
not sift or grind with her;
(b) Sarah, the wife of a Chaver (a trustworthy man, regarding
tithes or Taharah) may lend Leah (the wife a commoner) a
sifter, and she may sift and grind with her, but once she
adds water (e.g. to knead), she may not, for we do not
1. What is allowed was only permitted is for the sake
(c) We encourage Nochrim working in Shemitah, but not
Yisraelim, and we may greet Nochrim with 'Shalom', for
the sake of Shalom.
(d) (Gemara) Question: What is the difference between the
first and second cases of the Mishnah (in the second
case, she may help sift and grind)?
(e) Answer #1 (Abaye): Most commoners tithe properly.
(f) Answer #2 (Rava): The second case refers to helping (the
wife of) a Chaver regarding tithes who is a commoner
1. Since the prohibition to make Chulin Tamei in Eretz
Yisrael is only mid'Rabanan, we are more lenient.
(g) Question: The end of the second clause says, once she
adds water, Sarah may not help her - this implies, the
beginning of the second clause is unrelated to Taharah!
2. (Beraisa - R. Meir): A commoner is one who does not
eat Chulin in Taharah; Chachamim say, it is one who
does not tithe properly.
(h) Answer: Both parts of the second clause pertain to
Taharah: the beginning deals with Tum'ah of Chulin - this
only involves a Rabbinical prohibition;
1. The end of the clause deals with Tum'ah of Chalah,
which is mid'Oraisa.
(i) Contradiction (Beraisa): We may grind our food or deposit
it by people that eat Shemitah produce or eat their
produce in Tum'ah, but we may not grind the food or take
deposits from such people.
3) ARE COMMONERS SUSPECTED OF SWITCHING FOOD?
(j) Answer (Abaye): The Beraisa speaks of a Kohen that eats
Terumah in Tum'ah, which a Torah prohibition.
(k) Question: If so, why may we deposit our food by him?
1. Contradiction (Beraisa): We may deposit Terumah by a
Yisrael commoner, but not by a Kohen commoner, for
he feels free to touch it.
(l) Answer #1 (R. Ilai): We may deposit in a sealed
(m) Objection: We should be concerned, perhaps his wife will
move it when she is Nidah!
(n) Answer #2 (R. Yirmeyah): We may deposit food which was
not Huchshar (prepared, by having liquid put on it) to
become Tamei, but not food which was Huchshar.
(o) Contradiction (Mishnah): One who takes wheat to be ground
by a Kusi or a commoner - it keeps its status regarding
tithes and Shemitah, but not regarding Taharah.
(p) Answer: We already answered this - we may deposit food
which was not Huchshar, but not food which was Huchshar!
1. Question: Why was the question even asked?
2. Answer: This Mishnah was brought in order to ask a
(a) This Mishnah said, it keeps its status regarding tithes
and Shemitah - we are not concerned that the food was
1. Contradiction (Mishnah): One who deposits food by
his mother-in-law (who is suspected regarding
tithes) must tithe what he deposits by her and takes
back, for she is suspected to switch spoiling
(b) Question: Is it really true that commoners are not
suspected of switching?
2. Answer: As R. Yehudah explains - she is suspected to
switch, for she wants her daughter to eat good food,
but is embarrassed to tell her son-in-law that his
food was spoiling.
1. (Mishnah): One who deposits food by an innkeeper -
he must tithe what he gives her and what he receives
back, because she switches.
(c) Answer [Version #1 (Rashi): There, she rationalizes - I
will a favor for the Talmid, he will eat my warm bread, I
will eat his cold bread.]
(d) [Version #2 (Tosfos): There, she rationalizes switching -
he should eat warm bread, and I, who toil for him, should
(e) Question (Beraisa) [Version #1 (Rashi): Sarah, the wife
of a Chaver may grind with Leah, a commoner's wife when
Sarah is Teme'ah (then she is careful not to eat), but
not when she is Tehorah (lest she forget, and eat);
1. R. Shimon ben Elazar says, even when she is Teme'ah
she may not, for Leah will give her, and she will
(f) [Version #2 (Tosfos): Sarah, the wife of a Chaver may
grind with Leah, a commoner's wife when Leah (knows that
she) is Teme'ah (then she is careful not to touch the
grain), but not when she (thinks she) is Tehorah (lest
she give some to Sarah to eat);
1. R. Shimon ben Elazar says, even when Leah is Teme'ah
Sarah may not help, perhaps another woman (a
commoner's wife) will give to Sarah to eat.]
(g) Answer (Rav Yosef): There also, she rationalizes - an ox
eats as it works, also Sarah is entitled to eat!
2. (Summation of question): If a commoner's wife is
suspected of stealing, all the more so she is
suspected of switching!