Gittin 52a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Orphans

[minors],

who attached themselves

to themselves

to a householder,

so that he would handle their property and attend to their needs, and they would conduct their affairs according to his direction.

Or if their father appointed for them

[on their behalf]

their father

someone who would be

an administrator

over their property, or the court appointed him for this purpose.

He can repair their produce and separate terumot and tithes, and moreover,

he is obligated

to

tithe

their

produce,

since he is responsible for the welfare of the orphans.

We learned in the Mishna [Shevuot 42a]: “And these are those who take an oath without a claim [that is, without a definite claim, but rather, they make him a claim based on uncertainty: perhaps you withheld something of mine]: partners, sharecroppers, and administrators,” since they labor with the property, and we are concerned that perhaps they assumed that it was permitted for themselves and took from the property; therefore, they make them take an oath concerning this.

An administrator whom the father of orphans appointed,

when the orphans grow up and their property leaves his control,

must take an oath

to them that he has nothing of theirs in his possession.

One whom the court appointed does not take an oath,

because of the betterment of society, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Abba Shaul says: The matters are reversed:

if the court appointed him, he takes an oath, and if the father of orphans appointed him, he does not take an oath, because of the betterment of society.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “An administrator is obligated to tithe the produce” of the orphans.

And we challenge it:

But it was taught—

It is written [Numbers 18:28]: “So shall you also offer a contribution to the Lord from all your tithes.”

And we expound:

1.

“You”—

but not partners,

for a partner cannot contribute on behalf of his fellow’s portion without his knowledge.

2.

“You”—

but not sharecroppers,

for a sharecropper cannot contribute on behalf of the householder’s portion.

3.

“You”—

but not administrators.

4. And all the more so,

that we expound “you”

—but not one who contributes from that which is not his

at all.

If so, it is difficult: how did we learn that an administrator contributes from the produce of orphans!?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said: It is not difficult

for the Mishna and the beraita.

Here

[the Mishna]

is referring to feeding

the orphans immediately, and concerning this we learned: “An administrator is obligated to tithe their produce.”

Here

[the beraita]

is referring to setting it aside,

leaving the grain in the storehouse until they grow up; and concerning this they said: “You”—but not administrators. For why should they tithe it? When the orphans grow up, they themselves will tithe it.

And it was taught,

in another beraita, in accordance with Rav Hisda’s words:

The beraita before us details the laws of an administrator:

1.

Administrators contribute and tithe in order to feed, but not in order to set aside.

—In accordance with Rav Hisda’s words.

2.

And they sell

the administrators

animals, slaves and maidservants, houses, fields, and vineyards for them in order to feed

the orphans immediately from the money.

But not in order to set aside

the money, lest the money be stolen, and also because it is in honor of their father’s household that these properties remain in their possession.

3.

And they sell them produce, wines, oils, and fine flours

[the language of fine flour],

in order to feed, but not in order to set aside.

4.

And they make for them a lulav

[the four species of the lulav]

and a willow branch

for Hoshana Rabbah,

and a sukka and ritual fringes, and

likewise

everything that has

[an amount to be spent on it] a limit and

a fixed measure.

And we learn

to include

[to bring] within this category also

a shofar,

which they need to make for them, since they are obligated in these mitzvot because of education.

5.

And they acquire for them a Torah scroll

to study from it, and likewise

phylacteries

and mezuzot, and

likewise

everything that has a fixed measure, to include a Megilla

[the Scroll of Esther].

6.

And

in any event,

they do not impose

[fix an amount]

upon them

to give

charity,

because it is something that has no fixed measure, since at every moment there are poor people, and if we impose charity upon them, their property will be found to be consumed.

And

likewise

they do not redeem captives on their behalf

[through their money]

the captives,

even though it is a great mitzva.

And not every matter that has no fixed measure

and limit; and we learn

to include

also

comforting mourners

[when they used to bring much to the mourner’s house, to dine and give him drink]

7.

And administrators are not permitted to litigate

with one who challenges the orphans’ property, lest the orphans become liable through their claims. Rather, they should defer the judgment, and when the orphans grow up, they will litigate with him.

And it might have entered our minds that they are not permitted to litigate either

to cause loss or

to

establish a right in

a judgment concerning

the orphans’ property.

And we are astonished: In order

to establish a right, why not

be the administrators permitted to litigate with him? And if they litigated and indeed the orphans prevailed, why would it not be a valid judgment!?

And we explain:

Rather, this is what it says: An administrator has no power

to

“cause loss”

to the orphans, even though he entered into litigation

“in order to establish a right” in the orphans’ property; nevertheless, if they become liable, the orphans do not suffer a loss.

nevertheless, if they were found liable, the orphans do not suffer a loss.

8.

And administrators are not permitted to sell

a field and purchase another, and they may not even sell a field that stands

at a distance

from their place and involves toil and loss,

and redeem

[purchase, even if it had been theirs and they sold it] a field that stands

nearby

and is convenient to manage.

Likewise, they are not permitted to sell

a

field

of inferior quality and redeem one of superior quality.

And we explain:

What is the reason

that they should not purchase a more excellent field? Because

perhaps they will be blighted,

that is, perhaps specifically that purchased field will be blighted and ruined, and it will turn out that they caused the orphans’ money to be lost.

9.

And administrators are not permitted to sell fields

that the orphans have no need for

and to acquire

in exchange for them

slaves,

even though the orphans need them, lest they die or become ill.

But they may sell slaves and acquire fields with them,

because fields are something more enduring than slaves.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: They may not even sell slaves and acquire fields.

And we explain:

What is the reason,

that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel prohibits acquiring fields in which there is no concern of death or illness? Because

perhaps they will not be settled

[perhaps they will not be free of challenges to their ownership].

10.

And administrators are not permitted to emancipate slaves,

even though the slave redeems himself at his value and the orphans suffer no loss; nevertheless, the administrator has no ownership to emancipate him.

But,

if the orphans need money for sustenance or to purchase fields,

they sell them to others,

a complete sale,

and others emancipate them,

if they wish.

Rabbi says: I say, he too gives

the administrators

his own value

[the money equal to his value]

and goes out

to freedom, for just as they are permitted to sell them to others, so they are permitted to receive the money from the slave

because

the administrator

is like one who sells him to him

[to the slave himself].

11.

And he must render an account with them at the end

[at the end of the period of the administration]; when the orphans grow up, he renders an account with them of how much he brought in for them and how much he spent, and he takes an oath that nothing of theirs remains in his possession.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:

He is trusted, and

he need not

render an account with them.

12.

The

court

does not appoint

[appoint]

women as administrators,

for it is not their way to go out and come and toil,

and

not

slaves as administrators,

for they are not trustworthy,

and

not

minors,

for they do not possess understanding.

But if the father of the orphans appointed them

to be administrators,

the authority is in his hands.

That certain guardian who was in the neighborhood [

his vicinity] of

Rabbi Meir, who was selling land and buying slaves [

selling the orphans’ land and buying slaves].

And Rabbi Meir did not allow him [

and did not permit him]

Rabbi Meir to do so, as we learned: And guardians are not authorized to sell fields and buy slaves.

to do this, as we learned: trustees are not permitted to sell fields and buy slaves.

They showed him in his dream [

they showed Rabbi Meir in a dream]:

“I am destroying, and you are building!?”

the wealth had come to their father through a prohibition, and in Heaven they wanted it to be lost.

Even so, he paid no attention [

Rabbi Meir did not relate] to the dream, because

he said: “Dreams’ words neither raise nor lower”

and perhaps the matter is not true.

Those two men with whom Satan became involved [

those two people whom Satan incited] to cause them to sin,

for every twilight [

between the suns] of Friday evening,

they would quarrel with one another [

they were fighting with each other].

Rabbi Meir happened [

happened]

to come there [

to that place];

he detained them [

he prevented them from quarreling]

for three twilights, until he made them

through this

peace [

they reconciled with one another].

He heard [

Rabbi Meir heard Satan],

saying: “Woe” [

an expression of distress]

that Rabbi Meir removed that man from his house [

that Rabbi Meir expelled that man from his house], and he was speaking about himself, for the place of quarrel and strife is Satan’s house.

That certain guardian who was in the neighborhood [

his vicinity] of

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, who was selling [

selling]

land that was not needed by the orphans

that the orphans did not need

and buying oxen [

buying them for the work of the field],

and he did not say to him

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

anything at all [

anything].

For

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi held

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

like Rabbi Yose

that the ox is the principal element of the field, and therefore he is permitted to sell a field and buy oxen.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yose said: In all my days [

ever]

I did not call my wife: “My wife.”

And

in all my days I did not call

my ox: “My ox.”

Rather, my wife

I would call:

“My house,”

because she is the principal element of the house, for all the needs of the house are performed through her, and it is said [Proverbs 14:1]: “The wise among women builds her house.”

And my ox

I would call:

“My field,”

because it is the principal element of the field, and it is written [Proverbs 14:4]: “And abundant produce comes through the strength of an ox.”

Those orphans [

those orphans]

who were relying upon that old woman [

who had placed themselves with that old woman].

They had a cow [

a cow],

which she took and sold for them [

she sold it to others].

They came [

they came],

relatives before Rav Nachman to complain about that old woman.

to complain about that old woman.

They said to him

the relatives to Rav Nachman:

“What is her authority that she sold it,” meaning, who appointed her guardian, and how can she sell it!?

that is, who appointed her as trustee, and how can she sell it?!

He said to them

Rav Nachman:

“We learned: ‘Orphans who relied upon a householder,’” meaning, we have learned that a person becomes a guardian by the orphans relying upon him, even though the court did not appoint him, nor the orphans’ father.

They said to him:

“But the price rose” [

the market price rose], and the old woman received for the orphans according to the lower price.

A treasurer who bought for consecrated property, or who sold to a common person, acquires not by pulling but only by a monetary acquisition.

A common person buying from a common person acquires by pulling and not by money.

Rav Nachman answered them: After the customers pulled it, the price rose, and

it rose while in the buyer’s domain.

They said to him:

“But”

still,

they have not taken

the orphans have not received

the money.

He said to them: “If so,” the cow rose in value in the orphans’ domain, and

the cow increased in value while in the orphans’ domain, and

this is what Rav Chanilai bar Idi said [

in the name of]

Shmuel.

For Rav Chanilai bar Idi said in the name of Shmuel: The property of orphans

the Sages ordained that

is like consecrated property, and is not acquired

by pulling,

but by money.

The wine [

his wine]

of Ravina Ukva [

a person’s name],

the orphan [

the orphan],

customers pulled it

from the guardian,

at

the price of

four four

dinars per barrel.

And

before the money was given,

the wine rose in price

and the wine

, and stood [

stood]

at six six [

six six] dinars per barrel.

They came before Rav Nachman,

to ask whether they had acquired it through their pulling, and would pay only four per barrel, or had they still not acquired it, and could the orphan retract?

He said to them: “This is what Rav Chanilai bar Idi said in the name of Shmuel, for Rav Chanilai bar Idi said in the name of Shmuel: The property of orphans is like consecrated property,”

by enactment of the Sages,

and is not acquired

by pulling,

but by money,

and therefore, as long as the customers have not given the money, they have not acquired it.

Now the Gemara explains in which case the statement of Rav Chanilai, who said: The property of orphans is like consecrated property, applies.

For sometimes it is to the benefit of the orphans that they should acquire by pulling, like an ordinary person, and not by money; and then the law of the orphans is like that of an ordinary person, for the Sages ordained that they acquire by money for their benefit, and not to their detriment.

a.

Pull [

they pulled]

produce from the orphans,

and before the giving of the money

the produce rose in price

and the produce.

This is what Rav Chanilai bar Idi said,

and the orphans can retract.

b. They pulled produce from the orphans, and afterward

it became cheaper [

its price fell], the customers cannot retract, and they must pay according to the time of the pulling.

For

the power of an ordinary person should not be more stringent

and preferable

than

the power of

consecrated property.

And in a case where the produce became cheaper after the pulling, the ordinary person benefits from the fact that “pulling acquires” for him, and therefore the same law applies to orphans: they acquire by pulling.

c.

They caused produce to be pulled for the orphans [

customers gave the orphans produce to pull], if

the produce rose in price

and the produce.

The orphans’ benefit is to acquire by pulling like an ordinary person, and therefore we say:

the power of an ordinary person should not be more stringent than that of consecrated property,

and they pay only according to the time of the pulling.

d. Orphans pulled produce, and before the giving of the money

the produce became cheaper

and the produce.

They thought to say [

the members of the academy thought to say regarding this law]: The orphans’ benefit is that the pulling should not be effective for them, and

this is what Rav Chanilai bar Idi said,

and the orphans could retract.

Rav Shisha, son of Rav Idi, said to them: “This” [

behold] is not their benefit, but

it is a detriment for them [

for them].

For sometimes they will need produce [

for sometimes the orphans will need produce], and they will not have ready money in their possession.

And there is no one who will give it to them [

there is no one who will agree to give it to them]

until they give money [

until they give money].

And therefore, they acquire through pulling, and they pay according to the time of the pulling, for in such a case the Sages did not ordain that pulling should not be effective for orphans.

e.

They gave [

they gave]

the orphans’ money

to the seller

for produce,

and before the pulling

the produce became cheaper

and the produce.

The orphans’ benefit is that they can retract, so as not to acquire except by pulling, like an ordinary person, and therefore we say:

the power of an ordinary person should not be more stringent than that of consecrated property.

f. Orphans gave money to the seller, and before the pulling of the produce

the produce rose in price

and the produce.

They thought to say [

the members of the academy]:

This is what Rav Chanilai bar Idi said,

that they acquire through the giving of the money, and the seller cannot retract, and they do not need to add to the price.