Se os órfãos contassem com um chefe de família [para conduzir seus assuntos — mesmo que ele não tenha sido apontado como apotropos, ele é considerado um ("apotropos", do latim: pai - "pater"; filhos - "potos" —daí: "apotropos" - "o pai dos jovens")], ou se o pai deles designou um apotropos para eles, ele deve dar o dízimo dos frutos. Se um apotropos foi nomeado pelo pai dos órfãos, ele deve jurar (que ele não se apropriou de nada deles). [Pois se ele não obtivesse nenhum benefício, ele não seria um apotropos para ele, e o juramento não seria um impedimento (para ele aceitar a nomeação)]. Se beth-din o indicou, ele não jura. [Pois ele está fazendo um favor a beth-din, aceitando o cargo deles e se esforçando gratuitamente; e se ele tivesse que jurar, isso seria um impedimento.] Abba Shaul sys: "Exatamente o contrário". [Se beth-din o indicou, ele deve jurar. Porque, por ter obtido a satisfação de ganhar a reputação de um homem honesto, confiado por beth-din, o juramento não seria um impedimento. Mas se o pai dos órfãos o indicou, ele não jura, pois está fazendo um favor a ele, se esforçando gratuitamente para seus filhos, e se um juramento lhe fosse imposto, isso atuaria como um impedimento. A halachá está de acordo com Abba Shaul.] Se alguém contamina [o produto limpo do seu vizinho] ou mistura [terumah com o chullin do seu vizinho (produtos mundanos), causando-lhe uma perda, forçando-o a vendê-lo barato aos Cohanim], ou mistura [vinho libacional com vinho kosher, de modo que seu benefício não possa ser derivado]—(se o faz) involuntariamente, ele não é responsável; se intencionalmente, ele é responsável. [Por lei, ele não deve ser responsabilizado, pois "O dano não reconhecível não é chamado de 'dano'."; mas por causa do "bem geral", que os homens não contaminem os produtos de seus vizinhos sob isenção de responsabilidade (ele foi responsabilizado).] Se Cohanim invalidasse no santuário [ofertas que eles massacraram e cujo sangue aspergiram, pelas pensou em comê-los fora do tempo adequado, desqualificá-los (como oferendas) para seus donos]—(se o fizeram) intencionalmente, eles são responsáveis. [Pois eles sabiam que a tornavam imprópria por meio disso. Eles devem reembolsar os proprietários, que devem trazer outras ofertas. E mesmo que fosse uma oferta de presentes, que não deve ser substituída, ainda assim, o proprietário fica desgostoso por sua oferta não ser sacrificada, pois era seu desejo trazê-la como um presente.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
יתומים שסמכו אצל בעל הבית – to do their work at his direction, for an administrator/guardian had not been appointed for them; but nevertheless, he was like an administrator.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
Introduction
The first two sections of this mishnah deal with certain responsibilities that guardians have in taking care of orphans. The final section deals with damages that are done to food or sacrifices that cannot be seen.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
אפוטרופוס – In the Roman language they would call a father PATER and children [would be called] POTOS. An explanation of APOTROPOS is the father of minor children.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
If orphans relied on a householder or if their father appointed a guardian for them, he must tithe their produce. A guardian has the responsibility to tithe the produce of orphans who are relying on him to manage their lives. This clause is here to introduce the next sections of the mishnah.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע – for if not [i.e. if he did not take an oath], that he had benefit from him, he would not have had an administrator, and because of the oath taken, he might shrink from serving as a guardian.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
A guardian who was appointed by the father of the orphans is required to take an oath. [A guardian who was] appointed by the court does not need to take an oath. Abba Shaul says that the rule is the reverse. When the orphans grow up, according to the law they can make the guardian swear that he did not misappropriate any of their money (see Shevuoth 7:8). According to the first opinion in this section, the orphans have such power only when they were appointed by the father. If the court appointed the guardian, he is not liable for such an oath. This is because the court forced him to be a guardian, and he didn’t necessarily receive any satisfaction. If the halakhah were to force him to take an oath, people would refuse to become guardians. However, if the father appointed him, the guardian has the satisfaction of helping out the father who was assumedly his friend. Since he has that satisfaction, he will accept becoming a guardian even though he might eventually have to take an oath. We can see here that the “tikkun olam” is to exempt guardians from taking oaths if the oath would deter them from accepting such appointments in the first place. Abba Shaul reasons that the exact opposite is true. If the father appoints him he need not swear since he was only doing a favor for the father. According to Abba Shaul, if guardians appointed by the father were forced to swear they would not want to become guardians. However, when the court appoints someone to be a guardian he gets the added benefit of the community knowing that the court believes that he is a trustworthy man. Since he receives this added benefit, he will not refuse becoming a guardian even if it might cause him to take an oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
מנוהו בית דין לא ישבע – as a gratuitous favor, as he does this for the Jewish court to accept their words and to trouble himself without pay, and if they bring a dispute [by requiring that] he take an oath [that he was faithful to his task], he can shrink from it [i.e., becoming a guardian].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Gittin
One who renders impure [someone else’s pure food] or mixes terumah [with someone else’s non-terumah produce] or makes a libation [with someone else’s wine], if he does so inadvertently, he is exempt, but if intentionally he is liable. Priests who intentionally made someone else’s sacrifice piggul in the Temple are liable. There are three types of invisible damage mentioned in this first clause. If one causes someone else’s terumah to become impure, it has to be thrown away. If someone mixes in terumah with another person’s normal produce it must be sold to priests at the price of terumah which is lower than the price of normal produce. Finally, if someone makes an idolatrous libation with someone else’s wine, the wine must be thrown away. Similarly, if one mixes already libated wine with non-libated wine it must all be thrown away. In all of these cases the damage is done but the object has not physically changed at all. The bottom line halakhah holds that damage that cannot be seen is not considered damage. Therefore, if any of these things were done intentionally, the damager need not make restitution. However, had he done so intentionally he must pay because of “tikkun olam” to prevent people from intentionally damaging other’s property. “Piggul” is a sacrifice offered by a priest who has intends to eat it at a time when that sacrifice may no longer be eaten. “Piggul” cannot be put onto the altar and it does not bring about the intended result of a sacrifice (for instance atonement). This is again a case of invisible damage, and as above, if a priest intentionally causes such damage he is liable.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
אבא שאול אומר חילוף הדברים – if he court appointed him, he should take an oath, since the benefit [he receives] has a voice that he is an honorable person [by not stealing from the funds in his care] for the Jewish court relies upon him and because of the oath taken, he will not shrink [from his duties in becoming a guardian]; [on the other hand], if the father of the orphans appointed him, he should not take an oath, as it is a gratuitous favor that he does for him to go to the trouble [of caring for] his children, and if they were to raise a dispute against him [by requiring that] he take an oath, he would shrink from his duties [of serving as a guardian]. And the Halakha is according to Abba Shaul.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
המטמא – [he defiles] the pure objects of his fellow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
המדמע – he mixes the heave-offering/sacred donation for the Kohanim with unconsecrated foods and causes it to lose value, as it is necessary to sell it to the Kohanim cheaply.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
המנסך – mixing wine poured for libations with kosher wine and it is forbidden to derive benefit [from it].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
במזיד חייב – but by law, he would be exempt, for damage that is not discernible in the object itself is not itself called damage (see Talmud Gittin 53a), but for the sake of the social order [we do not do this], so that every person would not go and defile his fellow’s pure objects, and say that I am exempt.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
הכהנים שפיגלו – [because of an improper intention in the mind of the officiating Kohen making] the sacrifices [rejectable] in that they slaughtered [the animals] and sprinkled their blood with the thought of eating from them at an inappropriate time, and it as not acceptable to the owners [of the sacrifices].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
מזידים – that they knew that they would be invalid by doing this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Gittin
חייבים – to pay their value to the owners, for they would have to bring other [sacrifices]; alternatively, it is a donation and is not obligated for indemnity payment. Nevertheless, it is difficult in his eyes that he would not make the sacrificial offering, for he was requested to bring a gift.
