ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Gitin 55
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 Shamayim!
(a) Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda testified that ...
1. ... even a Chareshes whose father married her off when she was a
Ketanah - can be divorced, all the more so a Chareshes who accepted her own
Kidushin as a Gedolah.
(b) Should the latter die - her husband inherits her.
2. ... a Ketanah bas Yisrael who is married to a Kohen - may eat Terumah,
even though in the absence of her father, she was married off by her mother
or brother and her Kidushin is only mi'de'Rabbanan.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Gudgoda also testified that ...
1. ... a stolen beam which the thief built into his mansion - may remain
intact, ad the thief need only pay its value. This is - because of Takanas
ha'Shavin (to encourage the thief to own up and do Teshuvah [which he will
not be inclined to do if he knows that he will be obligated to demolish his
mansion, which incidentally, is what the people of Ninveh did in the days
(d) The reason that Rebbi placed this Mishnah here is - because of the last
two cases, which are based on a Takanas Chachamim (following the style of
all the current Mishnos).
2. ... a stolen Chatas which is not publicly known to have been stolen -
will atone for its new owner (through of 'Hefker Beis-Din Hefker' [absolving
him from bringing another animal in its place]) because of Takanas
ha'Mizbei'ach (which will be explained shortly).
(a) Rava extrapolates a leniency regarding a Get from Rebbi Yochanan ben
Gudgoda. After having shown the witnesses the Get (not in his wife's
presence) that he is about to give his wife - he hands her the Get, and
tells her to take 'this Sh'tar Chov'.
(b) It is not so obvious following the Tana's words that such a Get will be
valid - because we might have thought that by referring to the Get as a
Sh'tar Chov, he canceled the Get.
(c) We know that he did not in fact, cancel the Get - because had he meant
to do so, he would informed the witnesses of this.
(d) The reason that he did this - is because he was embarrassed to tell his
wife that he was divorcing her.
(a) We know that a Chareshes who married a Kohen is not permitted to eat
Terumah - because instead of incorporating this concession in the Reisha (in
the Din of Chareshes), the Tana switched to a Ketanah who is not a
(b) The reason for this Halachah cannot be because we are afraid that if she
marries a Cheresh Kohen he may feed her (though it is unclear why she should
be any worse than a Ketanah whose mother or brother married her off - see
Maharsha) - because even if he did, we have a principle 'Katan Ochel
Neveilos, Ein Beis-Din Metzuvin Lehafrisho'.
(c) We conclude that what we are afraid of is that perhaps a Cheresh Kohen
will then feed his wife who is a Pikachas. Despite the fact that this
Kidushin too, is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and he ought to be permitted at least
to feed her Terumah de'Rabbanan (such as vegetables and fruit [other than
grain, wine and oil]), nevertheless, he is not - because we are afraid that
he might feed her Terumah d'Oraysa.
(d) We learned in our Mishnah that if a thief built a stolen beam into his
mansion, he may pay the value of the beam ... . That is the opinion of Beis
Hillel. According to Beis Shamai, he is obligated to demolish his mansion
and return the beam.
(a) And we learned in our Mishnah that a stolen Chatas which is not publicly
known to have been stolen - will atone for its new owner. According to
Ula, min ha'Torah, whether the Chatas is known to have been stolen or not,
it will not atone for the thief - because 'Yi'ush' on its own does not
acquire (added to the fact that it is a 'Mitzvah ha'Ba'ah ba'Aveirah' - see
Tosfos DH "Mai Ta'ama').
(b) Ula adds that the reason the Chachamim decreed that it should, is in
order that the Kohanim should not be depressed - for having eaten Chulin
that were Shechted in the Azarah.
(c) The reason exactly as Ula states, yet the Mishnah gives the reason as
'Tikun Mizbei'ach' - because the Kohens state of depression will cause them
to stop doing the Avodah.
(d) The Chachamim exempted the thief from bringing the Chatas that he was
obligated to bring - based on the principle that Shev ve'Al Ta'aseh' is not
considered uprooting the Torah.
(a) According to Rav Yehudah, min ha'Torah, the Chatas atones for the thief
whether the theft is publicly known or not - because he holds that Yi'ush
on its own acquires.
According to Rav Yehudah, when the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Al Chatas
ha'Gezulah *she'Lo Nod'ah la'Rabim* she'Hi Machaperes ... ', he was really
referring to 'Chatas ha'Gezulah *she'Nod'ah la'Rabim'*.
(b) The Chachamim decreed that if it is, it will not atone - so that the
Mizbe'ach should not be 'accused' of eating stolen goods.
(c) According to Ula, it is easy to understand why the Tana talks
specifically about a Chatas, rather than the more common Olah - because the
Kohanim's mood is the result of having eaten the Korban, which would not
apply to an Olah.
(d) The Tana talks about a Chatas according to Rav Yehudah, (despite the
fact that we are only concerned with the *Mizbe'ach* 'eating stolen goods'),
because it is a bigger Chidush to teach us that they even decreed by a
Chatas, despite the fact that some of the Korban was eaten by the Kohanim
and not the Mizbei'ach.
(a) The Mishnah in Bava Kama says that someone who stole an animal and then
declared it Hekdesh before Shechting or selling it - is Chayav to pay
double, but Patur from paying four or five times.
(b) The thief is exempt from paying four or five times in the latter case -
because the animal is no longer the owner's but belongs to Hekdesh (see the
Rashba on the previous Amud).
(c) The Tana of a Beraisa adds to the Mishnah - that if the thief were to
Shecht the same animal outside the Azarah, he would be Chayav Kareis for
(d) According to Ula, asks Rava, who maintains that Yi'ush does not acquire,
how can he can possibly become Chayav Kareis. Rav Shizbi answers - that he
is Chayav Kareis mi'de'Rabbanan.
(a) When they all laughed at Rav Shizbi because they did not consider the
notion of Kareis de'Rabbanan feasible, Rava commented - that when a great
man says something, one should not laugh (but try to understand what he
(b) So Rava explains that what Rav Shizbi's meant was - that the Kareis came
through a de'Rabanan (because the Rabbanan placed the animal in the domain
of the thief in order that he should be Chayav in the event that he Shechts
it outside the Azarah (just like they did with regard to the atonement and
(c) Rava was initially in a dilemma whether the Rabbanan placed the animal
in the domain of the thief from the time of the theft - in which case he
would acquire its shearings and its babies from the time of the theft until
the time of the Hekdesh; or from the time that he declared it Hekdesh - in
which case he would not.
(d) Rava concludes - like the second Tzad of the She'eilah, because he says,
it is not logical for Chazal to present him with a prize for stealing.
(a) A Sikrikun is a gentile murderer, whom one tended to bribe with land.
(b) When the Tana of our Mishnah says 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah
ba'Harugei Milchamah' - he is referring to the final battle against Titus
leading up to the Churban Bayis Sheini.
(c) The sale is void, if someone purchases a field ...
1. ... from the Sikrikun and then from the owner - because the owner can
argue either that he only agreed to sell the field to him because he was
afraid of the Sikrikun, or that he preferred the field to be in the hands of
a Jewish purchaser, because he was an easier person to deal with in
(d) If someone first purchased the field from the owner or the wife, and
then from the Sikrikun or the husband - the sale is valid.
2. ... that is designated for the wife's Kesuvah from the husband and then
from the wife - because the wife can argue that she only agreed to the sale
in order to satisfy her husband.
(a) The above is the opinion of the Mishnah Rishonah (which will be
explained shortly). The Mishnah Acharonah requires someone who purchases a
field from a Sikrikun to pay the owner a quarter of the price ([which in
real terms means a third] rather than go with him to Beis-Din) - because the
Chachamim assessed this to be the amount the Sikrikun deducted from its real
price, when he sold it to him.
(b) Should the owner wish to redeem his field from the Sikrikun after the
Sikrikun has offered it to the would-be purchaser (see Tosfos-Yom-tov) - he
has first rights to do so.
(c) Rebbi and his specially-appointed Beis-Din decided - that if the
Sikrikun held on to the property for twelve months, anyone may purchase it
(and the owner cannot claim first rights to it), though the purchaser must
still pay the quarter to the original owner.
(a) The problem we have with the Tana's statement that there was no Sikrikun
during the time of the final battle with Titus, but there was afterwards
is - that if anything, the opposite is true; if there was no Sikrikun during
the time of the final battle with Titus, then there would certainly not have
been any afterwards.
(b) The Din Sikrikun is - that someone who purchases a field from a
Sikrikun, must verify the sale with the owner before it can be finalized.
(c) We therefore interpret 'Lo Hayah Sikrikun bi'Yehudah ba'Harugei
Milchamah' to mean - that during the time of the battle with Titus, the Din
Sikrikun did not apply?
(d) This ruling is based on the principle - 'Talyuhah ve'Zavin, Z'vinei
Z'vina' (that if someone who has been forced to sell a field by being
suspended on a tree, sells it, his sale is valid, because he really means to
sell); likewise in our case, in the time of Titus, anyone who gave his field
to a Sikrikun, really gave it to him with a full heart (as will now be
(a) Rav Asi bases the opening statement in our Mishnah on the three orders
issued by Titus. The first of these was that anyone who did not kill a Jew
would himself be killed. Anybody who killed a Jew, following ...
1. ... the second command - would be fined four Zuzim.
(b) The first half of the opening statement ('Lo Hayah Sikrikun ... ')
pertains - to the first two commands, where the threat of death was very
2. ... the third command - would be killed.
(c) Following the third command - the owner's reasoning in selling to the
Sikrikun would be - 'Let him take the field today. Tomorrow, I sill take him
(a) We can learn from the Pasuk "Ashrei Adam Mefached Tamid ... " - to try
and foretell the potential harm and damage that might result from our
actions (before we perform them).
(b) That is precisely what happened in the episode of Kamtza and bar Kamtza.
A certain man instructed his servant to invite Kamtza to his Se'udah, but
not bar Kamtza - because he was friendly with the former, but hated the
(c) Upon discovering that the servant had inadvertently mixed up the two
names and invited bar Kamtza instead of Kamtza - he asked bar Kamtza to
(d) After he refused his offer of ...
1. ... payment for his portion - bar Kamtza offered to pay for half the
2. ... payment for half the Se'udah - he offered to pay for the entire
(a) The man then tool hold of bar Kamtza and led him out of the hall.
(b) The Ba'al ha'Se'udah was clearly guilty of not paying heed to the above
Pasuk - by not reckoning how vicious someone who has been publicly
embarrassed can become (and perhaps the Chachamim, who witnessed the scene,
but remained silent, or Rebbi Zecharyah ben Avkulas on the following Amud,
who tolerated bar Kamtza) are included too) See also Agados Maharsha.