Gittin 59a (נט.) — the Talmud in English

Rav said:

I was

[I was present]

among the count of the house of Rabbi,

in that same count—in the academy of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi—in which they counted and enacted that if a property had remained in the possession of a sikrikon for twelve months, whoever took possession of it first acquired it.

And

when they asked each person which way his opinion inclined, in order to count those who agreed with the enactment and those who did not agree,

they began the count with me

[the count began with me]; they asked me first, even though I was not the greatest among them.

And we raise an objection:

But

a

we learned

in Sanhedrin:

When they stand for a count, to determine in which direction the majority opinion inclines:

In

civil cases, and

in the laws of

ritual purity and impurity ,

they begin with the greatest,

because of his honor.

And

in

capital cases,

they do not begin with the greatest, lest he find liability, causing the others to submit to him and refrain from disagreeing with him. This is because it is stated [Exodus 23:2]: “You shall not answer in a dispute,” and we interpret it: “You shall not answer against the master.” This verse is expounded with regard to capital cases.

But in civil cases and in the laws of purity and impurity, we are not concerned about this, and therefore they begin with the greatest,

and therefore

they begin fro

m

the side,

that is, with the juniors.

But one may ask: In the count of the house of Rabbi, which concerned a civil case, why did they begin counting with Rav first, even though he was not the greatest among them!?

Said

he explained:

Rabba, son of Rava; and some say

[there are those who say]

Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles,

was the one who answered this difficulty:

The count of the house of Rabbi is different, for all their counts

[all the counts that they conducted there]

began from the side;

they held that “You shall not answer against the master” was stated even with regard to civil cases. And since one statement of Rabba—or, alternatively, Rabbi Hillel—had been mentioned, the Gemara cited another statement of theirs.

And Rabba, son of Rava, said—or, alternatively, Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Valles:

From the days of Moses

our master

until Rabbi, we have not found Torah and greatness

[wealth ] of Israel, that they should be

in one place.

So Rashi explained here. However, in Sanhedrin 36a Rashi explained that Moses was great in kingship, while Rabbi was great in the position of the Nasi. According to Rashi’s explanation here, it must be said that they had a tradition that these men were distinguished in wealth above all the members of their generation. See Chullin 134b, Rashi s.v. Ve’iba’it eima adam chashuv.

During the period between Moses our master and Rabbi, it never happened that one person was greater than all Israel both in Torah and in wealth—only Moses in his time and Rabbi in his time. In the period between them, there was always someone in his generation who was his equal or greater than he, either in Torah or in greatness.

And we wonder:

And

was

not

this so as well with someone else?

But Joshua existed,

who was greater in Torah and wealth than all Israel of his generation!?

And we answer:

Eleazar existed,

the son of Aaron, who was Joshua’s colleague in Torah; therefore Joshua was not the sole such person in his generation.

But we still ask:

But Eleazar existed

in his generation after Joshua died, and he was greater in Torah and wealth than all Israel!?

And we answer:

Phinehas existed,

his son, together with him.

But we still ask:

But Phinehas existed

after his father Eleazar died!?

And we answer:

There existed

the

elders

who had received the tradition from Joshua and lived many years after him. But we still ask:

But Saul existed,

the king, who was greater in Torah and wealth than all Israel!?

And we answer:

Samuel existed,

the prophet, together with King Saul.

And we wonder about this:

But Samuel died

in Saul’s lifetime, and no one as great as Saul remained!?

And we answer: When we said, “We have not found Torah and greatness in one place,”

throughout all the years

of his greatness,

we meant this.

For we are speaking only of those who, from the beginning of their rise to greatness, were greater than all Israel both in greatness and in Torah. Saul, however, had Samuel with him at the beginning of his greatness.

But we still ask:

But David existed,

who was greater than all Israel in Torah and greatness!?

And we answer:

Ira the Jairite existed,

great in Torah, together with him. And we wonder about this:

But he died

during David’s lifetime, and David remained the sole one among all Israel!?

And we answer: We have already said that

throughout all the years

of greatness,

we require that he be the sole one in Israel, whereas David had Ira the Jairite with him at the beginning of his greatness!

But we still ask:

But Solomon existed,

the king, who was greater in Torah and greatness than all Israel!?

And we answer:

His master,

Shimei son of Gera, existed,

with him.

And we wonder about this:

But he killed him

[Solomon killed Shimei son of Gera] for rebelling against the monarchy, and Solomon remained the sole one!?

And we answer:

We are speaking of all the years,

and at the beginning of Solomon’s greatness he was not the sole one because of Shimei son of Gera.

But we still ask:

But Hezekiah existed,

the king of Judah, who was greater in Torah and greatness than all Israel!?

And we answer:

Shebna existed

[the official appointed over Hezekiah’s household ] with him, and he was great in Torah.

And we wonder:

But he was killed

[Shebna was killed] by Sennacherib, and Hezekiah remained the sole one of his generation!?

And we answer:

We are speaking of all the years.

But we still ask:

But Ezra existed,

the scribe, who was High Priest and outstanding in Torah and greatness above all Israel!?

And we answer:

Nehemiah son of Hacaliah existed,

who was the governor in the land of Judah and was superior to Ezra in greatness, and even during Ezra’s time Torah and greatness were not in one place.

Thus the statement of Rabba—or, alternatively, Rabbi Hillel—has been clarified: “We have not found Torah and greatness in one place from the days of Moses our master until Rabbeinu HaKadosh.”

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said: I too say,

following the statement of Rabba—or, alternatively, Rabbi Hillel:

From the days of Rabbi until Rav Ashi, we have not found Torah and greatness in one place.

And we wonder:

Not,

that is: Was Rav Ashi greater than all Israel in Torah and greatness,

but Huna bar Natan existed

with him!?

And we answer:

Huna bar Natan is different, for he was subordinate to Rav Ashi,

[he was subordinate to his opinion], and Rav Ashi was therefore considered the sole one of his generation.

Mishna:

a. There are three whose purchase is not a valid purchase and whose sale is not a valid sale, by Torah law—

A deaf-mute, a mentally incompetent person, and a minor. But the Sages enacted that a deaf-mute and a minor may engage in buying and selling and that their transactions are valid, for the sake of their livelihood.

b. Although a deaf-mute cannot speak or hear what is said to him, and it is impossible to know his wishes with certainty, nevertheless it is possible to determine the deaf-mute’s understanding and wishes through his gestures—for example, by nodding his head, moving his hands, or pursing his lips.

A deaf-mute—

he gestures and is gestured to.

What he indicates is valid as though he had spoken. Likewise, what others indicate to him is valid when it is evident that he agrees to it.

But without gestures of the hands or head, rather through pursing the lips [literally, “jumping,” from the expression “her mouth was pursed”], his words are not valid, because this is not such a clear indication, and perhaps we have not ascertained his final decision through it.

And Ben Beteira says:

Even

when he purses

his lips

and they purse their lips

[they purse their lips before him], if he agrees to this, his wishes are upheld; and this

with

regard to the sale of

movable property

alone.

Minors

[the young, and the Gemara explains how old they are]

their purchases

[what they buy]

are purchases,

are,

and their sales

[what they sell]

are sales,

by enactment of the Sages.

And this was stated specifically

with regard to movable property,

not with regard to land.

And the Gemara explains that they enacted this for the sake of their livelihood:

Their purchases are valid purchases, so that food can be sold to them; and their sales are valid sales, so that they can sell objects and receive food in exchange for them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And Ben Beteira says: He purses his lips and they purse their lips with regard to movable property.

The Sages enacted that a deaf-mute can effect kiddushin, and he can betroth a woman through a gesture or by pursing his lips; and just as he can betroth, so can he divorce.

Rav Naḥman said: The dispute

between Ben Beteira and the Sages

with regard to movable property

was stated only in that context, and it is only with regard to movable property that Ben Beteira said that the deaf-mute purses his lips and they purse their lips.

But with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees

[even Ben Beteira] that he cannot divorce by pursing his lips, but only

through a gesture.

And we challenge this:

Is it obvious!?

What novel point did Rav Naḥman teach us!?

After all, “He purses his lips and they purse their lips

with regard to movable property”

we learned

explicitly in our Mishna!? It is clear that Ben Beteira said this only with regard to movable property!?

And we answer: Rav Naḥman needed to teach us this, because

one might have said

you could say and explain: What is the meaning of that which the Mishna teaches, “with movable property”? It means

even with movable property,

and all the more so with bills of divorce.

For had the tanna not said “with movable property,” I would have said that ben Betheira said that the deaf-mute can divorce by means of a leap only with regard to bills of divorce, because just as he betrothed by means of a leap, so he can divorce by means of a leap.

But with regard to movable property, where this reasoning does not apply, since a deaf-mute’s property comes to him by inheritance and, by Torah law, belongs to him, one could say that he may sell it only by means of gestures. Therefore, the tanna of the Mishna taught us: “even with movable property.”

This teaches us

Rav Naḥman’s ruling: It was only with regard to movable property that the Sages were lenient, for the sake of his basic needs, but not with regard to bills of divorce.

Some say: Rav Naḥman said: Just as there is a dispute with regard to movable property, so there is a dispute with regard to bills of divorce,

and according to ben Betheira, he may divorce by means of a leap.

And we challenge this:

But

is it not the case that

we learned it with regard to movable property,

which implies that it applies specifically to movable property!?

And we answer:

Say

and explain the intent of the Mishna

“even with movable property.”

We learned in the Mishna:

Minors’ purchases are valid purchases, and their sales are valid sales, with regard to movable property.

And we inquire about this:

And from what age?

From what age is their purchase considered a valid purchase?

Rav Yehuda gestured

with his hands

to Rav Yitzḥak, his son: From six, from seven

when he is six or seven years old.

Rav Kahana said: From seven, from eight

when he is approximately seven or approximately eight years old.

In a baraita

the following was taught:

From nine, from ten

when he is approximately nine or approximately ten years old.

And we conclude:

And they do not disagree

the tanna, Rav Yehuda, and Rav Kahana did not disagree; rather,

each one

each minor

according to his acumen

according to the sharpness of his understanding.

Rav Yehuda was speaking of a sharp minor. Therefore, when he is six or seven years old, he is already familiar with commercial dealings, and his purchase is valid.

Rav Kahana was speaking of a minor who is not so sharp.

And the baraita was speaking of one who is not sharp; therefore, only when he is nine or ten years old does he become familiar with commercial dealings.

And what is the reason

that the Sages instituted that minors’ purchases are valid purchases and their sales are valid sales?

Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: For the sake of their livelihood

their basic needs, as was explained in the Mishna.

Since the Gemara cited a statement in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara cites additional matters that he said in his name.

It is written [II Kings, chapter 10]: “

And he said to the one who was in charge of the wardrobe: Bring out garments for all the worshippers of the Baal.”

What is the meaning of

“wardrobe”?

Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

He would give each one a linen garment, and a linen garment is

something that is rolled

during its spinning, as one rolls the fibers between his fingers,

and

afterward the thread

is stretched.

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

There was an incident

and

sent

Bunyamin ben Nuniyamin

a wealthy man

to Rabbi: Sivani, Ḥomes, Salsela, and Malmela,

which are four types of fine and high-quality linen garments.

Sivani and Ḥomes

were so thin that the garment, which had been large for Rabbi’s measure, when folded, was

the size of a nut and half a nut,

that is, it was no larger than the size of one and a half nuts.

And Salsela and Malmela

were no larger than

a pistaka

the name of a fruit

and half a pistaka.

What is the meaning of Malmela?

Why was this garment called by this name? Because it is

something that is rolled and stretched.

The Gemara now returns to the laws governing minors.

When one sells an object to another and there was an error in the price, whether to the seller’s benefit or to the buyer’s benefit, if they erred by one-sixth, the sale stands, but he must return the amount of the overcharge to the other party. If they erred by less than one-sixth, he need not return the overcharge. And if they erred by more than one-sixth, the sale is entirely void.

And their error: How much?

That is, if minors purchased or sold and erred in the price, how great may their error be before the sale is void?

Is their law like that of adults, so that up to one-sixth the buyer acquires the item and the overcharge must be returned, or in this regard are they not like adults, and the sale is void?

Rabbi Yona said that Rabbi Zeira said: Up to one-sixth

the purchase is valid,

as with an adult,

except that the overcharge must be returned to him; and if it is more than one-sixth, the sale is void.

Abaye raised a question:

He asked:

What is the law with regard to his gift,

a minor’s

gift?

Did they also institute that gifts given by minors are valid, or did they institute this only with regard to buying and selling?

Rav Yeimar said: His gift is not a gift,

because the rationale of “for the sake of his livelihood” does not apply here.

Mar bar Rav Ashi said: His gift is a gift,

because sometimes he needs to give a gift to someone who does his bidding.

They reversed them

the names, inadvertently,

and sent it

the question concerning the law of a minor’s gift, together with the answers of Rav Yeimar and Mar bar Rav Ashi,

before Rav Mordekhai

a student of Rav Ashi; but they had inadvertently reversed the names, attributing Mar bar Rav Ashi’s answer to Rav Yeimar, and Rav Yeimar’s answer to Rav Ashi.

He said to them

Rav Mordekhai:

Go

and

tell it to Mar

he is Mar bar Rav Ashi, the son of my teacher and master.

And

was that not how the incident occurred

was the incident not as follows:

when Mar was standing

when Rav Ashi was standing,

with one foot on the ground and one foot on the ladder,

with one foot on the ground and one foot on the ladder leading to the upper story of the beit-midrash,

and we asked him

we asked him:

His gift

that of a minor

what is its status?

And he told us

Rav Ashi told us

that his gift is a gift!?

How, then, can you say that his gift is not a gift!?

And the Gemara concludes:

Whether it is a gift of a person on his deathbed or a gift of a healthy person; whether it is a substantial gift or a small gift,

in all cases, the minor’s gift is a valid gift.

Mishna:

These are the matters

that

the Sages said

the Sages

for the sake of the ways of peace:

a.

A koen is called

to the Torah

first, followed by a Levite, and followed by an Israelite, for the sake of the ways of peace,

so that people will not come to quarrel over the aliyot. Once the Sages instituted this order, it may no longer be changed, and they will not come to quarrel.

b.

The eruv is placed in an old house,

that is, the eruv ḥatzerot is placed in the house in which the residents have been accustomed to place it, and it is not changed to be placed in another house,

for the sake of the ways of peace,

as will be explained further in the Gemara.