Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) TESTIMONIES OF R. YOCHANAN BEN GUDGADA

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

1. If a father engaged 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 used it in a building, he may return its value to the owner - this is an enactment to help people repent;
4. If a sin-offering was stolen, and this was not publicly known, it brings atonement - this is an enactment on behalf of the Altar.

(b) (Gemara - Rava): From R. Yochanan ben Gudgada's testimony, we may deduce: If a man told witnesses that he is going to divorce his wife, and he told her to take a loan document, she is divorced.

1. Just as a woman without understanding can be divorced, also a normal woman can be divorced without her knowledge.
2. Question: This is obvious!
3. Answer: One might have thought, since he told her that he is giving a loan document, he shows that he is not divorcing her.

i. We hear, 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 he is divorcing her.

(c) (Mishnah): And an (orphaned) minor girl...
(d) Question: We infer, a deaf wife of a Kohen does not eat Terumah - why not?
(e) Answer: This is a decree, lest a deaf wife of a deaf Kohen will eat.
(f) Question: Why shouldn't she - a deaf person is exempt from all Mitzvos!
(g) Answer: This is a decree, lest a normal wife of a deaf Kohen will eat.
(h) Question: Why shouldn't she eat Terumah mid'Rabanan (since mid'Rabanan, she is a Kohen's wife)!
(i) Answer: This is as decree, lest she eat Terumah mid'Oraisa.
(j) (Mishnah): A stolen beam that was built into a building...
(k) (Beraisa): Reuven stole a beam and built into a building - Beis Shamai say, he must dissemble the building to return the beam; Beis Hillel say, he need only pay its value - this is an enactment to help people repent.

(a) (Mishnah): A sin-offering that was stolen...
(b) (Ula): mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew it was stolen, it does not atone, because the thief does not acquire through the despair of the one from who he stole.

1. Question: Why did Chachamim enact that if it was not publicly known, it atones?
2. Answer: In order that Kohanim should not be sad (that they ate an invalid sacrifice).
3. Question: But the Mishnah says, this is an enactment on behalf of the Altar!
4. Answer (Ula): Yes - if the Kohanim would be sad, they would not offer sacrifices on the Altar.

(c) (Rav Yehudah): mid'Oraisa, whether or not people knew it was stolen, it atones, because the thief acquires through the despair of the one from who he stole.

1. Question: Why did Chachamim enact that if it was publicly known, it does not atone?
2. Answer: So people should not say that stolen animals are brought on the Altar.

(d) According to Ula, we understand why the Mishnah specified 'sin-offering' (this is eaten by Kohanim).
(e) Question: According to Rav Yehudah, why did the Mishnah specify 'sin-offering' - the same applies to a burnt-offering!
(f) Answer: It is a bigger Chidush to teach the case of a sin-offering.

1. Not only a burnt-offering, which is entirely burned on the Altar, but even a sin-offering, by which only the blood and Chelev go to the Altar, and the rest is eaten by Kohanim, Chachamim decreed lest people say that the Altar consumes stolen animals.

(g) (Mishnah): If a sin-offering was stolen, and this was not publicly known, it brings atonement - this is an enactment on behalf of the Altar.

1. This is as Ula says.
2. Question: According to Rav Yehudah, the enactment is the opposite (that a sin-offering that was known to be stolen does not atone)!
3. Answer: That is what the Mishnah refers to: if it was not publicly known, it brings atonement - but if it was known, it does not atone, as an enactment on behalf of the Altar.

(h) Question (Rava - Mishnah): Reuven stole an animal, declared it to be a sacrifice, and slaughtered it or sold it - he pays double the value (the standard fine for theft), but not the 4 or 5-fold penalty for selling or slaughtering a stolen animal;

1. (Beraisa): If he slaughtered outside the Mikdash in such a case, he is liable to Kares (excision, for slaughtering a sacrifice outside the Mikdash).
2. If a thief does not acquire through despair, why is liable - he was not able to make it a sacrifice!

(i) Answer (Rav Shizbi): He is liable to 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, the thief is liable to Kares through the words of Chachamim - they said, the animal belongs to him in order that he will get Kares.

(j) Question (Rava): When Chachamim said that the animal is his - is this from the time he stole it, or from the time he made it a sacrifice?

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

(k) Answer (Rava): Presumably, it only belongs to the thief from the time he makes it a sacrifice, in order that he should not profit from his sin.

(a) (Mishnah): The law of Sikrikon (extortionists) did not apply in Yehudah when Titus was waging war, it only applies after this.

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 took it from Shimon, the (former) sale is valid.

(b) If Levi buys land from Yehudah (on which there was 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, in 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