Gittin 5

הַנִּזָּקִין שָׁמִין לָהֶם בְּעִדִּית וּבַעַל חוֹב בְּבֵינוֹנִית, וּכְתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּזִבּוּרִית. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף כְּתֻבַּת אִשָּׁה בְּבֵינוֹנִית:

Damages are assessed relative to the best quality (of grain in the field) [Even though this is Torah-mandated, viz. (Exodus 22:4): "The best of his field and the best of his vineyard shall he pay," this tanna holds that Scripture speaks of the best of the field of the nizzak (the one damaged); and because of "the general good," the sages stated that the mazzik (the causer of the damage) should pay the best of his property, even if it is better than the best of the nizzak, so that men be careful not to cause damage.], and a creditor (claims) from the middle quality [For according to Scripture, he claims only from the lowest quality, viz. (Deuteronomy 24:12): "And the man who is indebted to you shall bring out to you the pledge outside," and a man is likely to bring out only the least valuable of his possessions; but because of "the general good" they mandated that a creditor claim from the middle quality, so that the door not be locked to loans.], and the kethubah of a woman (is claimed from) the lowest quality. [For "the closing of the door" is not to be feared in this instance. "For more than a man wants to marry, a woman wants to be married."] R. Meir says: The kethubah of a woman, too, (is claimed from) the middle quality. [The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir].

אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְכָסִים בְּנֵי חוֹרִין, וַאֲפִלּוּ הֵן זִבּוּרִית. אֵין נִפְרָעִין מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים, אֶלָּא מִן הַזִּבּוּרִית:

Payment is not exacted from bound property [nechasim meshubadim] when free property obtains, even if it (the free property) be of the lowest quality. [e.g., If a debtor sold his middle-quality property, which is bound to the creditor, the creditor cannot seize it from the buyer if free property remained with the debtor, even if it were of the lowest quality.] Only the lowest quality is exacted in payment from the property of orphans.

אֵין מוֹצִיאִין לַאֲכִילַת פֵּרוֹת וּלְשֶׁבַח קַרְקָעוֹת וְלִמְזוֹן הָאִשָּׁה וְהַבָּנוֹת מִנְּכָסִים מְשֻׁעְבָּדִים, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. וְהַמּוֹצֵא מְצִיאָה, לֹא יִשָּׁבַע, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם:

Payment is not exacted for the eating of fruits, for the enrichment of land, and for the food of one's wife and daughters from bound property, for "the general good." [If one stole a field and sold it to another, and he sowed it and it sprouted and produced fruit, and the despoiled one came and claimed it with its fruit from the buyer (reimbursing him only for his expenses), the buyer returns and claims the price of the field from bound property, it having been sold to him with a guarantee by bill of sale, this being "a loan against a note" (milveh bishtar), and (he claims) the price of the fruit from free, and not from bound property. The same applies when the buyer enriched the land by planting trees or fertilizing it, and the like. ("and for the food of one's wife and daughters":) this being a condition of the kethubah, viz.: "And you shall dwell in my house and be fed through my property; and the daughters that you have by me will dwell in my house and be fed through my property, etc." When they come to claim their food, they do so only from free property, and not from bound property. ("for 'the general good'":) For these are indeterminate things and exact allowances cannot be made for them.] And if one found a lost object [and returned it, and the owner claimed that he did not return all of it], he does not take an oath, for "the general good." [For if an oath were imposed upon him, no one would take pains to return a lost object.]

יְתוֹמִים שֶׁסָּמְכוּ אֵצֶל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת אוֹ שֶׁמִּנָּה לָהֶן אֲבִיהֶן אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס, חַיָּב לְעַשֵּׂר פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן. אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס שֶׁמִּנָּהוּ אֲבִי יְתוֹמִים, יִשָּׁבֵעַ. מִנָּהוּ בֵית דִּין, לֹא יִשָּׁבֵעַ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, חִלּוּף הַדְּבָרִים. הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ בְּשׁוֹגֵג, פָּטוּר. בְּמֵזִיד, חַיָּב. הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּגְּלוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ מְזִידִין, חַיָּבִין:

If orphans relied upon a householder [to conduct their affairs — even though he were not appointed an apotropos, he is deemed one ("apotropos," from the Latin: father-"pater"; children-"potos" — hence: "apotropos"-"the father of the young")], or if their father appointed an apotropos for them, he must tithe their fruits. If an apotropos were appointed by the father of the orphans, he must swear (that he did not misappropriate anything of theirs). [For if he derived no benefit, he would not be an apotropos for him, and the oath would not act as a deterrent (to his accepting the appointment)]. If beth-din appointed him, he does not swear. [For he is doing beth-din a "favor" by accepting their charge and exerting himself gratis; and if he had to swear, this would act as a deterrent.] Abba Shaul sys: "Just the opposite." [If beth-din appointed him, he must swear. For because he derived the satisfaction of gaining the reputation of an honest man, trusted by beth-din, the oath would not act as a deterrent. But if the father of the orphans appointed him, he does not swear, for he is doing him a favor by exerting himself gratis for his children, and if an oath were imposed upon him, it would act as a deterrent. The halachah is in accordance with Abba Shaul.] If one defiles [the clean produce of his neighbor] or mixes [terumah with his neighbor's chullin (mundane produce), causing him a loss by constraining him to sell it cheap to the Cohanim], or mixes [libational wine with kosher wine, so that benefit may not be derived from it] — (if he does so) unwittingly, he is not liable; if intentionally, he is liable. [By law, he should not be liable, for "Non-recognizable damage is not called 'damage,.'"; but because of "the general good," that men not go and defile their neighbor's produce under exemption from liability, (he was rendered liable).] If Cohanim invalidated in the sanctuary [offerings that they slaughtered and whose blood they sprinkled, by the thought of eating them outside of their proper time, disqualifying them (as offerings) for their owners] — (if they did so) intentionally, they are liable. [For they knew that they rendered it unfit thereby. They must reimburse the owners, who must bring other offerings. And even if it were a gift-offering, which must not be replaced, still, the owner is chagrined at his offering's not being sacrificed, for it was his desire to bring it as a gift.]

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:

R. Yochanan b. Gudgeda testified that a deaf-mute whose father married her is given a divorce. [Even though she was a bona fide married woman, her father having accepted her betrothal when she was a minor, still, she is given a get, and she receives her get when she is a deaf-mute, even though her consent is lacking. For a woman can be divorced perforce, so that her consent is not required.]; and that the minor daughter of an Israelite [an orphan, whose marriage is rabbinically (and not Scripturally) sanctioned] eats terumah [rabbinically mandated terumah, this not being decreed against by reason of (the possibility of her coming to eat) Scripturally mandated terumah]; and that if she died, her husband inherits her; and that if one built a beam that he had stolen into a building, monetary reimbursement is sufficient, [for the good of the penitent; for if he were required to raze his building and return the beam itself, he would be deterred from repenting.]; and that a stolen sin-offering, which was not known to many [as being stolen] atones [and another need not be brought], for "the good of the altar," [that the Cohanim not be distressed by (the thought of) having eaten chullin (non-consecrated food) from (an animal) slaughtered in the azarah (the Temple court) and the altar be "deserted," the Cohanim refraining from performing the (sacrificial) service.]

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:

There was no sikrikon [a gentile murderer] in Judah [That is, they did not adjudicate the law of sikrikon to say that one who bought the land of a Jew from a gentile murderer had to enter into judgment with the owner.] in the (time of) the slain of the war [ i.e., when the decree was sore upon Israel to be slain in the war. If one bought a field from the sikrikon at that time, his purchase stood, and he did not need to enter into judgment with the (former) Israelite owner of the land; for the Israelite, being forced (to sell his land on pain of death), fully commits himself to the sale of the land to the sikrikon. And it is ruled (Bava Kamma 47b): "If one were suspended (not to be taken down until he sold) and he sold, his sale is a sale."] But from those slain in (the time of) war on, [where there was no decree (upon Israel) to be slain, there is sikrikon. [The law of sikrikon is adjudicated, to say that one who bought (the land of an Israelite) from a sikrikon has to enter into judgment with the (former) owner, as explained in the Mishnah.] How so? If he bought (the field) from the sikrikon and then bought it from the owner, the purchase is void, [for we say that he (the former owner) acted out of fear (of the sikrikon)]. (If he bought it) from the owner and then bought it from the sikrikon, the purchase stands. If he bought it [land set aside for his wife's kethubah] from the man, and then bought it from the woman, the purchase is void, [for she can say: "I was just trying to please my husband"]. (If he bought it) from the woman and then bought it from the man, the purchase stands. This (what we learned above) is an earlier Mishnah. The beth-din after them said: If one buys from a sikrikon he gives a quarter (of the value of the field) to the owner, [for they estimated that the sikrikon, having gotten the field for nothing, lowered the price by a quarter]. When is this so? When they (the former owners) do not have enough money to buy it back; but if they have enough money to buy it back, they take precedence to all men. Rebbi convened a beth-din, which ruled that if it were in the possession of the sikrikon for twelve months, whoever came first (to purchase it) acquired it; but he had to give a quarter to the (former) owner.

חֵרֵשׁ רוֹמֵז וְנִרְמָז. וּבֶן בְּתֵירָא אוֹמֵר, קוֹפֵץ וְנִקְפָּץ, בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. הַפָּעוֹטוֹת, מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר, בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין:

A deaf-mute gestures and is gestured to. [Whatever he gestures or others gesture to him and he acquiesces — all of it stands.] And Ben Betheirah says: kofetz venikfatz ["remizah" (gesturing) is with the hand or the head. "k'fitzah" is turning up the lips, as in (Job 5:16): "And iniquity has turned up (kaftzah) her mouth." "K'fitzah is not as distinct as remizah.] with metaltelin (chattel) [i.e., if he sold chattel. The halachah is not in accordance with Ben Betheirah.] Peutoth [young children of seven or eight, if they are bright and conversant with buying and selling; or children of nine or ten, even if they are not that bright] — their buying is buying and their selling is selling with metaltelin [and their gift is a gift, whether they be healthy or shechiv mera (at the point of death); whether it be a large or a small gift.]

וְאֵלּוּ דְבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. בּוֹר שֶׁהוּא קָרוֹב לָאַמָּה, מִתְמַלֵּא רִאשׁוֹן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְצוּדוֹת חַיָּה וְעוֹפוֹת וְדָגִים יֵשׁ בָּהֶם מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. מְצִיאַת חֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם גָּזֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. עָנִי הַמְנַקֵּף בְּרֹאשׁ הַזַּיִת, מַה שֶּׁתַּחְתָּיו גָּזֵל, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, גָּזֵל גָּמוּר. אֵין מְמַחִין בְּיַד עֲנִיֵּי גוֹיִם בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:

These things were instituted to foster peace: A Cohein reads first (in the Torah); and after him, a Levite; and after him, an Israelite [when they are equal in wisdom; but if the Israelite were greater in wisdom, he takes precedence to the Cohein and the Levite (for "a mamzer who is a Torah scholar takes precedence to a high-priest who is an ignoramus.") This is the law of the gemara; but the practice today is that a Cohein, even if he is an ignoramus, takes precedence to the greatest sage in Israel.] to foster peace. [For according to the Torah, the Cohein can allow anyone he wishes to read in the Torah before him; and "to foster peace" they instituted that he read first and not allow another to do so, so that quarreling not break out, viz.: "Why did you let him read and not the other?" And it makes no difference in this regard whether it be a Sabbath or a festival, when there are many congregants, or a Monday or Thursday — at the present time a Cohein always reads first and may not permit an Israelite to read before him, so as to avoid quarrels. And if there be no Cohein there, "the bundle is scattered," and a Levite reads next only if he is of greater eminence (than the others). Others say that (in such an instance) a Levite does not read at all. And this is the halachah.] An eruv is placed in an old house [ The inhabitants of a courtyard, who are wont to place their Sabbath eruv in the same house every week, should not place it in a different house ], to foster peace. [ For those who were wont to see the eruv in that house, now, not seeing it, might come to say that they carry without an eruv, casting suspicion upon them.] The (water) pit which is closest to the duct [coming from the river] is filled up first [and afterwards, those below it], to foster peace. Theft obtains with (what is taken from) the nets "of" (i.e., which are used to trap) animals birds and fish [even though they lack an "inside" to (legally) acquire their snare], to foster peace [and is not subject to prosecution in beth-din]. R. Yossi says: It is absolute theft [by rabbinical ordinance, and it is subject to prosecution in beth-din. In any event, R. Yossi concedes that it is not theft by Torah law to make one liable for transgression of a negative commandment. (The halachah is not in accordance with R. Yossi)]. Theft obtains with what is found by a deaf-mute, a simpleton, or a minor, to foster peace. R. Yossi says: It is absolute theft. If a pauper were menakef olives (of peah or shikchah) ["menakef" = cutting, as in (Isaiah 10:34): "Venikaf (and he will cut down) the thickets of the forest"], what falls below him is subject to theft, to foster peace. R. Yossi says: It is absolute theft. We do not protest the taking of leket, shikchah, or peah by gentile paupers, to foster peace.

מַשְׁאֶלֶת אִשָּׁה לַחֲבֶרְתָּהּ הַחֲשׁוּדָה עַל הַשְּׁבִיעִית, נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵחַיִם וְתַנּוּר, אֲבָל לֹא תָבֹר וְלֹא תִטְחַן עִמָּהּ. אֵשֶׁת חָבֵר מַשְׁאֶלֶת לְאֵשֶׁת עַם הָאָרֶץ, נָפָה וּכְבָרָה, וּבוֹרֶרֶת וְטוֹחֶנֶת וּמַרְקֶדֶת עִמָּהּ, אֲבָל מִשֶּׁתַּטִּיל הַמַּיִם, לֹא תִגַּע עִמָּהּ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי עוֹבְרֵי עֲבֵרָה. וְכֻלָּן לֹא אָמְרוּ אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. וּמַחֲזִיקִין יְדֵי גוֹיִם בַּשְּׁבִיעִית, אֲבָל לֹא יְדֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְשׁוֹאֲלִין בִּשְׁלוֹמָן, מִפְּנֵי דַרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם:

A woman may lend her neighbor who is suspect of shevi'ith [i.e., of keeping the fruits of the sabbatical year and of secreting them from (the time of their required) removal on: a sifter, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. But she may not sieve or grind with her [to assist her, it being forbidden to directly assist transgressors in their act of transgression.] The wife of a chaver (a Torah scholar) may lend a sifter or a sieve to the wife of an ignorant man, and she may sieve and grind and sift with her, [for the majority of the ignorant tithe]; but when she puts water [on the dough], she may not touch it with her, [for when she rolls it, it becomes subject to challah, and it becomes unclean by contact with unclean vessels, the yeast having become susceptible to uncleanliness (by the addition of the water), and she helps her to roll; and it is forbidden to impart uncleanliness to challah.] And all were stated only to foster peace. [They allowed them to lend them vessels and to help them (not at the time of the transgression itself) only to foster peace.] And the hands of gentiles may be strengthened [i.e., it is permitted to wish them success (when they work their fields on the sabbatical year)]; but not the hands of Jews (who perform such labor). And they (the gentiles) are greeted [on all days, even on their festivals, even though they are thereby graced with the name of Heaven, "Shalom" (Peace) being one of the names of the Holy One Blessed be He], to foster peace.