Gittin 59a — the Talmud in English

Rav said: ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

I was

[I was]

among the count at Rabbi’s academy,

in that same count—in the academy of Rabbi Judah the Nasi—in which they counted and instituted that if it had remained twelve months before a sikrikon, whoever comes first acquires it.

And

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

from me, my count, they began

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

And we object:

But

we learned

in Sanhedrin:

When they stand for a count, to see toward which side the opinion of the majority inclines:

In

monetary cases, and

in the laws of

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, and the rest submit before him and not wish to disagree with him. Because it is stated [Exodus 23:2]: “And you shall not answer concerning a dispute,” and we expound: “You shall not answer against a master”; and this verse is expounded with regard to capital cases.

But in monetary 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 from

m

the side,

that is, from the lesser ones.

And one should object: In the count at Rabbi’s academy, which was in monetary cases, why did they begin counting from Rav first, even though he was not the greatest among all of them!? And one should object: In the count at Rabbi’s academy, which was in monetary cases, why did they begin counting from Rav first, even though he was not the greatest among all of them!?

He said

he answered:

Rabbah son of Rava; and some say

[there are those who say]

Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Voles

was the one who answered this objection:

The count at Rabbi’s academy was different, for all their counts

[all the counts that they made there]

began from the side;

and they held: “You shall not answer against a master” was stated even with regard to monetary cases. And since one statement of Rabbah—and, some say, of Rabbi Hillel—was mentioned, the Gemara brought another statement of theirs.

And Rabbah son of Rava said, and some say, Rabbi Hillel son of Rabbi Voles:

From the days of Moses

our master,

until Rabbi, we did not find Torah and greatness

[wealth ] of Israel, that they should be

in one place.

It did not occur during the period between Moses our master and Rabbi that there should be one person who was greater than all Israel both in Torah and in wealth—except Moses our master in his time, and Rabbi in his time. For during the period between them, there was always in his generation someone who was his equal, or greater than he, in Torah or in greatness.

And we are astonished:

And

was it

not

so? And

there was Joshua,

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

And we answer: Behold,

there was Eleazar

son of Aaron, his companion in Torah, and Joshua was not alone in his generation.

And we still object:

But there was Eleazar

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

And we answer: Behold,

there was Phinehas

his son with him.

And we still object:

But there was Phinehas

after Eleazar his father died!?

And we answer: Behold,

there were

the Elders

who received [the Torah] from Joshua, and lived many years after him. And we still object:

But there was Saul,

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

And we answer: Behold,

there was Samuel

the prophet with Saul the king.

And we are astonished concerning this:

But Samuel died

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

And we answer: This that we said, “We did not find Torah and greatness in one place,”

through all the years

of his greatness

is what we are saying.

For we are dealing only with those who, from the beginning of their rise to greatness, possessed greatness and Torah more than all Israel; whereas Saul had Samuel with him at the beginning of his greatness.

And we still object:

But there was David,

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

And we answer: Behold,

there was Ira the Jairite,

great in Torah, with him. And we are astonished concerning this:

But Ira died

during David’s lifetime, and David remained alone among all Israel!?

And we answer: Behold, we have already said that

through all the years

of greatness

we require

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

And we still object:

But there was Solomon,

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

And we answer: Behold,

there was Shimei son of Gera,

his master, with him.

And we are astonished concerning this:

But he killed him

[Solomon killed] Shimei son of Gera, because he rebelled against the kingship, and Solomon remained alone!?

And we answer: Behold,

we are saying “through all the years”,

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

And we still object:

But there was Hezekiah,

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

And we answer: Behold,

there was Shebna

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

And we are astonished:

But he was killed

[Shebna was killed] by Sennacherib, and Hezekiah remained alone in his generation!?

And we answer:

We are saying “through all the years.”

And we still object:

But there was Ezra,

the scribe, who was High Priest and more distinguished in Torah and in greatness than all Israel!?

And we answer: There

was Nehemiah son of Hacaliah,

who was governor [ruler] in the land of Judah, and he was superior to Ezra in greatness, and even in the days of Ezra there was not Torah and greatness in one place.

And the words of Rabbah—and, some say, of Rabbi Hillel—were clarified: “We did not find Torah and greatness in one place, from the days of Moses our master until our holy Rabbi.”

Rav Aḥa son of Rava said: I too say,

in the manner in which Rabbah—and, some say, Rabbi Hillel—said:

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

And we are astonished:

And not,

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

but there was Huna son of Natan

with him!?

And we answer:

Huna son of Natan was different, for he was completely submissive to Rav Ashi

[he was submissive to his opinion], and Rav Ashi was considered alone in his generation.

Mishna:

a. Three persons do not have a valid purchase, nor is their sale a valid sale, by Torah law—

the deaf-mute, the mentally incompetent and the minor. But the Sages instituted that the deaf-mute and the minor may buy and sell and their actions are valid, for the sake of their livelihood].

b. Although the deaf-mute cannot speak, nor hear what they say to him, and it is impossible to know his will clearly, nevertheless it is possible to know the opinion and will of the deaf-mute through his gestures, such as nodding his head and moving his hands, or by his twisting his lips.

A deaf-mute—

gestures and is gestured to.

What he indicates is valid as though he had spoken. And likewise, what they indicate to him, and it is recognizable that he is pleased with it, is valid.

But without gestures of the hands and head, rather by a leap [twisting his lips, from the expression “her mouth leaped”], his words are not valid, because this is not such a recognizable sign, and perhaps we do not ascertain his fully settled intention through it.

And ben Beteira says:

also

if the deaf-mute twists

his lips [twists his lips]

and they twist theirs

[they twist their lips before him], and he is pleased with this, they fulfill his will; and this is

with

the sale of

movable property

alone.

The young children

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

their purchase

[what they buy]

is a purchase

is,

and their sale

[what they sell]

is a sale

by enactment of the Sages.

Specifically

with movable property

did they say this, and not with land.

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

Their purchase is a purchase, so that they may sell them food; and their sale is a sale, so that they may sell objects and receive food in exchange for them.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And ben Beteira says: He leaps and is leaped to with movable property:

The Sages instituted kiddushin for a deaf-mute, and he can betroth a woman by a gesture or by twisting his lips; and just as he can betroth, so can he divorce.

Rav Naḥman said: The dispute

between ben Beteira and the Sages

with movable property

was stated only, and only concerning this did ben Beteira say that the deaf-mute twists his lips and they twist theirs.

But with regard to bills of divorce, according to everyone

[even according to ben Beteira] he does not divorce by twisting his lips, but

by a gesture.

And we refute:

It is obvious!?

For what novelty did Rav Naḥman teach us!?

For “he leaps and is leaped to

with movable property”

we learned

explicitly in our Mishna!? Behold, explicitly, ben Beteira said this only with movable property!?

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

it might enter your mind to say

you could say and interpret: What is taught by “with movable property”? This 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 Beteira said that the deaf-mute can effect a transaction by jumping only with bills of divorce, because just as he entered [into marriage] by jumping, so he can divorce by jumping.

But with movable property, where it is not applicable to say this, because the deaf-mute’s property comes to him by inheritance, and according to Torah law it is his, one might say that he can sell it only by gestures. Therefore the tanna of the Mishna taught us: “even with movable property.”

This teaches us

Rav Naḥman that specifically with movable property they were lenient, because of his life’s needs, but not with bills of divorce.

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

and according to Ben Beteira he can divorce by jumping.

And we refute this:

But

is it not the case that

we learned with regard to movable property

and it implies specifically with regard to movable property!?

And we explain:

Say

and interpret the intention of the Mishna:

even with movable property.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

And we inquire about it:

And up to what age?

From what age is his purchase a purchase?

Rav Yehuda indicated

with his hands:

Already six, already seven

when he is six or seven years old.

Rav Kahana said: Already seven, already eight

as one who is seven, as one who is eight.

In a baraita

a baraita

taught: Already nine, already ten

as one who is nine, as one who is ten.

And we conclude:

And they do not disagree

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

each and every one

each minor

according to his sharpness

according to the sharpness of his understanding.

Rav Yehuda spoke of a sharp minor, and therefore, when he is six or seven, he is already proficient in business dealings, and his purchase is a purchase.

Rav Kahana spoke of a minor who is not so sharp.

And the baraita spoke of one who is not sharp, and therefore only when he is nine or ten does he become proficient in business dealings.

And what is the reason

did the Sages enact that minors’ purchases are purchases and their sales are sales?

Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Because of their life’s needs

their life’s requirements, as was explained in the Mishna.

Since the Gemara brought a statement in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov, who said it in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, the Gemara brings 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 a garment for all the worshippers of the Baal.”

What is a “

wardrobe”?

Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

There was a linen garment that he gave to each one, and a linen garment is

something that is rolled

at the time of its spinning, when one rolls the fibers with his fingers,

and

afterward the thread

is stretched.

When Rav Dimi came, he said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

An incident occurred, and

he sent

sent

Bunyan ben Nunyun

the name of a wealthy man

to Rabbi: Sibani, ḥomes, salsela, and malmala,

which are four types of fine and good linen garments.

Sibani and ḥomes

were so fine that the cloak which had been large for Rabbi’s measure, when they folded it, was

like a nut and half a nut,

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

And salsela and malmala

were no larger than

like a pistaka

the name of a fruit

and half a pistaka.

What is malmala?

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

something that is rolled and stretched.

Now the Gemara returns to the laws of minors.

One who sells an object to his fellow, and there was an error in the price, whether to the benefit of the seller or to the benefit of the buyer: if they erred by a sixth, the sale remains valid, but he must return the overcharge to him. And if they erred by less than a sixth, he need not return the overcharge. And if they erred by more than a sixth, the sale is entirely void.

And their error, up to what point?

That is, if minors purchased or sold and erred in the price, up to what extent may they err before the sale is void?

Are their laws like those of adults, so that up to a sixth the buyer acquires and the overcharge is returned, or with regard to this are they not like adults, and the sale is void?

Rabbi Yona said in the name of Rabbi Zeira: Up to a sixth

he acquires,

and like an adult,

except that the overcharge is returned to him, and with more than a sixth the sale is void.

He inquired

asked

Abaye: His gift

of a minor

what is it?

Did they also enact [that] a gift is [valid] for them, or only purchase and sale?

Rav Yeimar said: His gift is not a gift,

because “for his life’s needs” does not apply here.

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

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

They reversed them

they reversed the names

and sent them,

the Sages sent 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, except that they had mistakenly reversed the names and attributed Mar bar Rav Ashi’s answer to Rav Yeimar, and Rav Yeimar’s answer to Rav Ashi.

He said to them

Rav Mordekhai:

Go

go

and tell it to Mar

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

And

was the incident not like this

was the incident not so,

when Mar was standing

when Rav Ashi was standing

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

when one of his feet was on the ground and one of his feet was on the ladder of the upper level of the beit-midrash,

and we said to him

we asked him:

His gift

of a minor

what is it?

And he said to us

Rav Ashi

that his gift is a gift!?

And how can you say that his gift is not a gift!?

And the Gemara rules:

Both the gift of a person dangerously ill and the gift of a healthy person, both a large gift and a small gift.

In all of them, the minor’s gift is a gift.

Mishna:

These are matters

that

the Sages said

the Sages

because of the ways of peace:

1.

A priest reads

from the Torah

first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite, because of the ways of peace,

so that they will not come to quarrel over the aliyot, because once the Sages enacted this order, it is no longer possible to change it, and they will not come to discord.

2.

They establish an eruv in an old house,

that is: They place the “eruv of courtyards” [which is placed in a house in the courtyard] in the same house in which they were accustomed to place it, and they do not change by placing it in another house,

because of the ways of peace,

and this will be explained further in the Gemara.