12th CYCLE DEDICATION
GITIN 55 (4 Elul) - Dedicated l'Iluy Nishmas Chaim Yisachar (ben Yaakov) Smulewitz of Cleveland on his Yahrzeit, by his daughter and son in law, Jeri & Eli Turkel of Raanana, Israel.

1)TESTIMONIES OF R. YOCHANAN BEN GUDGADA

(a)(Mishnah): R. Yochanan ben Gudgada testified to the following laws:

1.If a man was Mekadesh his deaf daughter (when she was a minor or Na'arah), her husband can divorce her;

2.If an (orphaned) minor girl is married to a Kohen, she may eat Terumah. If she dies, he inherits her;

3.If a man stole a beam and built it into a building, he may return its value to the owner. This is an enactment to help people repent;

4.If one was Makdish a stolen animal to be a Korban Chatas, and this was not publicly known, it atones. This is an enactment for the Mizbe'ach.

(b)(Gemara - Rava): We may infer from R. Yochanan's testimony that if a man told witnesses that he is going to divorce his wife, and he told her to take a loan document (and gave a Get to her), she is divorced;

1.Just like a woman without understanding can be divorced, also a healthy woman can be divorced without her knowledge.

2.Question: This is obvious!

3.Answer: One might have thought that since he told her that he gives to her a loan document, he shows that he is not divorcing her.

i.Rava teaches that this is not so. If so, he would have told the witnesses that he is not divorcing her.

ii.He deceived her because he was embarrassed to say that he is divorcing her.

(c)(Mishnah): An (orphaned) minor girl (married to a Kohen may eat Terumah).

(d)Question: We did not say so about a deaf wife of a Kohen. What is the reason?

(e)Answer: This is a decree, lest a deaf wife of a deaf Kohen eat.

(f)Question: Why shouldn't she eat? A deaf person is exempt from all Mitzvos!

(g)Answer: This is a decree, lest a healthy wife of a deaf Kohen eat.

(h)Question: Why shouldn't she eat Terumah mid'Rabanan? (Mid'Rabanan, she is a Kohen's wife!)

(i)Answer: This is a decree, lest she eat Terumah mid'Oraisa.

(j)(Mishnah): If a stolen beam was built into a building...

(k)(Beraisa - Beis Shamai): If Reuven stole a beam and built it into a building, he must dissemble the building to return the beam;

(l)Beis Hillel say, he need only pay its value. This is an enactment to help people repent.

2)A STOLEN CHATAS

(a)(Mishnah): A stolen Chatas...

(b)(Ula): Mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew that it was stolen, it does not atone, because the thief does not acquire through the despair of the owner.

1.Question: Why did Chachamim enact that if it was not publicly known, it atones?

2.Answer: This was lest Kohanim be sad (that they ate a Pasul Korban).

3.Question (Mishnah): This is an enactment for the Mizbe'ach.

4.Answer (Ula): If the Kohanim would be sad, they would not offer Korbanos on the Mizbe'ach.

(c)(Rav Yehudah): Mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew that it was stolen, it atones, because the thief acquired through the despair of the owner. (The thief owes only its value to the owner.)

55b----------------------------------------55b

1.Question: Why did Chachamim enact that if it was publicly known, it does not atone?

2.Answer: This is lest people say that the Mizbe'ach consumes (and accepts) stolen animals.

(d)According to Ula, we understand why the Mishnah specified a Chatas (Kohanim eat it).

(e)Question: According to Rav Yehudah, why did the Mishnah specify a Chatas? The same applies to an Olah!

(f)Answer: It is a bigger Chidush to teach about a Chatas;

1.An Olah is entirely burned on the Mizbe'ach. Only the blood and Chelev of a Chatas go on the Mizbe'ach, and the rest is eaten by Kohanim. Still, Chachamim decreed lest people say that the Mizbe'ach consumes stolen animals.

(g)Question (Mishnah): If it was not publicly known that a Chatas was stolen, it atones. This is an enactment on behalf of the Mizbe'ach.

1.This is like Ula. According to Rav Yehudah, the enactment is the opposite (that if it was known that it was stolen, it does not atone)!

(h)Answer: Indeed, the Mishnah means that if it was not publicly known, it brings atonement, but if it was known, it does not atone. This is an enactment for the Mizbe'ach.

(i)Question (Rava - Mishnah): If Reuven stole an animal, was Makdish it, and slaughtered it or sold it, he pays double the value (the standard fine for theft), but not the four or five-fold penalty for selling or slaughtering a stolen animal;

1.(Beraisa): If he slaughtered outside the Mikdash in such a case, he is Chayav Kares (for slaughtering a Korban outside the Mikdash).

2.If a thief does not acquire through despair, why is he Chayav Kares? His Hekdesh was invalid! (It is not a Korban.)

(j)Answer (Rav Shizbi): He is Chayav Kares mid'Rabanan.

1.Rabanan laughed at this. There is no Kares mid'Rabanan!

2.Rava: Do not laugh at the words of a great man! He means that the thief is Chayav Kares through the words of Chachamim. They said that the animal belongs to him, in order that he will get Kares.

(k)Question (Rava): When Chachamim said that the animal is his, is this from when he stole it, or from when he made it a Korban?

1.This determines who owns the shearings and offspring in the interim.

(l)Answer (Rava): Presumably, it belongs to the thief only from when he was Makdish it, lest he profit from his sin.

3)BUYING LAND FROM ONE WHO DOES NOT OWN IT

(a)(Mishnah): There was no Sikrikon (extortionist) in Yehudah when Titus was waging war. After the war, there was.

1.The law is, if Reuven bought land from a Sikrikon who took it from Shimon, and afterwards Reuven bought the land from Shimon, (even) the (latter) sale is null;

2.If Reuven bought land from Shimon, and then from the Sikrikon who previously took it from Shimon, the (former) sale is valid.

(b)If Levi buys land from Yehudah (on which there is a lien to pay the Kesuvah of Yehudah's wife) and later buys it from Yehudah's wife, the latter sale is null;

(c)If Levi buys it from Yehudah's wife, and later buys it from Yehudah, the sales are valid.

(d)Initially the law of Sikrikon was as said above. Later, it was enacted that when Reuven buys from a Sikrikon, he pays a quarter of the price to Shimon.

1.This is only when Shimon could not have redeemed his own land. If he could have, Shimon has first rights of redemption.

(e)Rebbi set up a Beis Din. They voted and ruled that if the land was by the Sikrikon for 12 months, anyone may buy it, but he must pay Shimon a quarter of the price.

(f)Gemara - Question: It is unreasonable that there was no Sikrikon during the war, but after the war there was!

(g)Answer (Rav Yehudah): We did not apply the law of Sikrikon until after the war.

1.(R. Asi): There were three decrees (of Romi). First, they decreed that anyone who does not kill (Yisre'elim) will be killed. Then, they decreed that anyone who kills will receive four Zuz. Then, they decreed that anyone who kills will be killed.

2.During the first two decrees, Yisre'elim were being killing rampantly, so amidst coercion, they decided absolutely to give their land (to spare their lives). During the last decree, one who was coerced said that he gives his land, but he intended to retrieve it in court afterwards.

4)HOW THE CHURBAN CAME

(a)(R. Yochanan): "Happy is the one who is always afraid; one who hardens his heart will fall in evil" - Yerushalayim was destroyed through the enmity between Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. Tur Malka was destroyed due to a rooster and a hen. Beitar was destroyed due to a carriage wheel.

(b)Yerushalayim was destroyed through the enmity between Kamtza and Bar Kamtza. A certain man had a friend named Kamtza and an enemy named Bar Kamtza. He made a banquet and asked his servant to invite Kamtza. The servant mistakenly invited Bar Kamtza. The host saw Bar Kamtza at the banquet.

1.The host: What are you doing here? You are my enemy! Leave!

2.Bar Kamtza: Since I am already here, let me stay. I will pay for my meal.

3.The host: No.

4.Bar Kamtza: I will pay for half the banquet!

5.The host: No.

6.Bar Kamtza: I will pay for the entire banquet!

7.The host did not consent; he bodily threw him out.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF