Gittin 55a — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

And what is different

in the case of Rabbi Abbahu from

that

of

Rabbi Ami

, who is not deemed trustworthy to disqualify the Torah scroll, even though he is deemed trustworthy to cause him to lose his wages?!

And we answer: It is not comparable, for

there it is possible to say

that he is lying, and intended to vex his fellow, and

he erred concerning Rabbi Yirmeya

, for he had thought that he would lose only the wages for writing the Divine Names, as in Rabbi Yirmeya’s objection.

But

here

—with regard to the parchment—

since

he knows

that he is losing all his wages

[all his wages],

and

nevertheless

he came and said

that it is disqualified, therefore

say

[one may say]:

the truth

[the truth]

he is saying.

Mishna:

a. The father betroths his minor daughter, and her betrothal is betrothal by Torah law.

b. A minor girl whose father died: the Sages enacted that her brothers and her mother shall be authorized to betroth her, or that she may betroth herself, and her betrothal is betrothal by rabbinic enactment.

c. A deaf-mute has no understanding, and is like a minor, and the Sages enacted betrothal for him; and likewise, a deaf-mute adult woman is betrothed by betrothal of their words.

d. A daughter of Israel who married a priest—she eats teruma, and is not a “non-priest” with regard to teruma.

e. Grain, wine, and oil

But the obligation of other things is only rabbinic, and their teruma is “rabbinic teruma.”

Four testimonies concerning halakha,

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgeda testified

from the mouths of his teachers: a. He testified

concerning the deaf-mute woman whom her father married off

when she was a minor, and she is a married woman by Torah law,

that she goes out with a bill of divorce

, meaning, her husband can divorce her, even though she lacks the understanding required for divorce, because the woman’s consent is not required in order to divorce her.

b.

And

he testified

concerning

an orphaned

minor daughter of Israel who

was betrothed, with rabbinic betrothal, and

married a priest, so that she eats

she

teruma

“rabbinic teruma,” even though her betrothal is only rabbinic, and we do not fear that she may eat “teruma by Torah law.”

And if she dies

, even though by Torah law her relatives inherit her and not her husband, nevertheless, by rabbinic enactment:

her husband inherits her.

c.

And

he testified

concerning the beam

[a beam]

that was stolen and that he built

the robber

into a mansion

[a large house],

that

he need not return the stolen object itself as Torah law requires, but

the victim shall take

the robbed party

its value

of the beam immediately from the robber. And the reason is:

because of the enactment for penitents

in repentance, for if you require him to demolish his mansion and return the beam itself, he will refrain from repenting, because he is afraid of losing so much.

d.

And

he testified

concerning

an offering animal,

a stolen sin-offering

, meaning, concerning a stolen animal that the robber consecrated as a sin-offering—

whose theft was not known to the public

that it was stolen,

that it effects atonement

and he need not bring another,

because of the betterment of the altar;

and the Gemara will explain this law.

Gemara:

Rava said: From the testimony of Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgeda

we learn:

If he

said to the witnesses

not in the woman’s presence:

“See this bill of divorce that I am giving her”

to my wife—

and

afterward

he returned and said to her: “Take this document of debt”

, as though he were not giving her a bill of divorce, but rather a document of debt—

she is divorced

, even though she did not know that she was receiving a bill of divorce, because her knowledge is not required in order to divorce her.

And proof of this is that

did

[is it the case that]

Rabbi Yohanan ben Gudgeda not say

, concerning a deaf-mute woman, that

we do not require her knowledge

? If so,

here

—when he says to her, “Take this document of debt”—

we likewise do not require her knowledge.

And we raise an objection:

Is it obvious!?

For the cases are similar to one another, so what did Rava teach anew?!

And we answer: It was necessary for him to say this, for

it might enter your mind: Since he said

to her

“Take this document of debt,”

he annulled it

[his intention was to annul] the bill of divorce, and she is not divorced.

He teaches us

Rava, that he does not intend to annul the bill of divorce, for

if indeed he had annulled it, he would have said

to them

[if indeed he had intended to annul it, he would have said so to the witnesses].

And since he did not annul it in the presence of the witnesses, his intention is to divorce her;

and this that he says thus

to his wife is

because of embarrassment

[shame], for he is embarrassed before her.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And concerning a minor daughter of Israel”

who married a priest, so that she eats teruma:

And we infer: Since it teaches “minor” and not “deaf-mute woman,” as in the first clause, it implies that specifically a minor eats,

whereas a deaf-mute woman

an adult who married a priest on her own

does not eat

, even rabbinic teruma.

And we explain:

What is the reason?

Because of

a decree lest he feed

even a priest who is himself

deaf-mute to

his

deaf-mute wife;

and he proceeds to explain it.

And we raise an objection:

Let her eat

, let this one eat too, even teruma by Torah law—what is the problem?! For this deaf-mute woman is like a

minor

who

eats improperly slaughtered animals

[she], since she has no understanding, and we are not commanded to prevent her from doing so?!

And we explain: A deaf-mute woman who married an able-minded priest does not eat,

a decree lest he feed a deaf-mute to an able-minded woman

who married him; and since her betrothal is only rabbinic, she is forbidden to eat “teruma by Torah law.”

And we ask:

Let them eat

in all these cases

rabbinic

teruma!?

And we answer:

A decree lest he come to feed her

[lest he come to feed her]

teruma by Torah law,

and since her betrothal is only rabbinic, it follows that by Torah law she is a “non-priest” and forbidden to eat teruma of Torah law.

But a minor daughter of Israel who married a priest eats rabbinic teruma, for there is no concern lest he feed a minor to an adult woman, since a minor’s betrothal is not betrothal at all.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And concerning the stolen beam that he built”

in a mansion, that he should take its value, because of the enactment for penitents.

The Sages taught: If one stole a beam and built it into a mansion:

The House of Shammai say: He demolishes

[cuts and breaks] even

the entire mansion, and returns the beam to its owners

, as Torah law requires, as it is stated [Leviticus 5:23]: “And he shall return the stolen object that he stole.”

And the House of Hillel say: He has nothing

[the victim]

except the value of the beam, because of the enactment for penitents.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And concerning the stolen sin-offering”

whose theft was not known to the public, that it effects atonement, because of the betterment of the altar:

Ulla said: By Torah law

[by Torah law],

both

if

the theft became known

to the public,

and whether it did not become known, it does not effect atonement

, even if the owners despaired of recovering it.

What is the reason?

For

despair alone

[alone], without a “change of ownership” [ownership] or a “change of name” after the despair,

does not acquire

[does not enable acquisition].

And even though through consecration the name of the stolen object changed, for initially it was “ordinary property” and now it is “consecrated property,” nevertheless it does not effect atonement, because it was not his before the consecration, and I cannot apply to it the verse: “If his offering is a burnt-offering” [Leviticus 1:3], which implies: his offering—but not a stolen one.

And for what reason did they say

the Sages: A sin-offering that

was not known effects atonement?

It is a rabbinic enactment, in order

that the priests should not be distressed

because they ate ordinary meat slaughtered in the Temple courtyard, which is forbidden to eat.

The Sages said to Ulla: But

we

“because of the betterment of the altar”

learned

, whereas according to your words, it is an enactment for the priests and not an enactment for the altar?!

He said to them: Since the priests are distressed

because they ate ordinary property in the Temple courtyard, the priests will refrain from offering offerings, and

the altar will thereby remain idle.

And this is what we learned: It effects atonement “because of the betterment of the altar.”

And even though by Torah law atonement was not effected for him, and he is obligated to bring another offering, the Sages exempted him from offering another offering, because of the betterment of the altar.

And Rav Yehuda said: By Torah law, both

if

it became known

to the public,

and

if

it did not become known, it effects atonement

, if the owners despaired of recovering it.

What is the reason?

For

despair alone acquires

, and it follows that it was his at the time of consecration; therefore it is fit to be offered by Torah law.