Gittin 59b — the Talmud in English

A pit

for storing water

that is close to

the outlet of the

channel

of water that conveys water from the river, it

fills first

before the other pits that are farther from there.

That is to say, their practice was to fill the pits from the water channel, and when one fills the pit from the channel, he closes the channel so that the water will enter the pit; and the Sages instituted that the one closer to the outlet of the water channel fills first,

because of the ways of peace,

so that there should not be a dispute between them over who closes [the channel] first.

c.

Traps for animals, birds, and fish

in which the living creatures were caught,

involve theft

for one who takes [the creatures] from the traps,

because of the ways of peace.

But according to the law, there is no theft here, because we are dealing with traps that have no interior, and his vessels do not acquire [the creatures] for him.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is complete theft

it is.

d.

The found objects of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor involve theft, because of the ways of peace.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is complete theft

it is.

e.

A poor person who knocks

[plucks] olives

at the top of an olive tree

of ownerless property, and they fall before he acquires them,

what is beneath him,

those olives that he knocked down and that fell beneath the olive tree, involve

theft because of the ways of peace.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is complete theft

it is.

f.

One may not protest

[object]

against the gentile poor with regard to gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field

that they take in the fields of Jews,

because of the ways of peace.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: A kohen reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite:

From where are these matters derived,

from where do we learn this?

Rav Mattana said,

because of

as the verse says:

“And Moses wrote this Torah and gave it to the kohanim, the sons of Levi”,

and why did the Torah need to say “the kohanim, the sons of Levi”? Is it so that

I do not know that kohanim are the sons of Levi

[and is it not known that kohanim are of the sons of Levi]?!

Rather,

to teach that Moses gave it to read to a

kohen

[to kohanim]

first

[at the beginning],

and afterward

[after him] he read from it to a

Levite

[the sons of Levi].

Rabbi Yitzhak Nappaḥa said: From here

the law of our Mishna is to be learned: because it is said [in the passage of the heifer whose neck is broken]:

“And the kohanim, the sons of Levi, shall draw near”,

and why did the Torah need to say “the kohanim, the sons of Levi”? Is it so that

we do not know that kohanim are the sons of Levi

[and is it not known that kohanim are of the sons of Levi]?

Rather,

to teach that

a kohen draws near first, and afterward a Levite.

. See the Responsa of the Hatam Sofer for an explanation of the derivation from this verse.

Rav Ashi said: From here:

As it is said:

“The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses; and Aaron was separated”

[for he was a kohen, while Moses was a Levite]

“to sanctify him as the holy of holies”,

thus a kohen precedes a Levite.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: From here:

Because it is said concerning a kohen:

“And you shall sanctify him”

“for he offers the bread of your God,” and this sanctification shall be

for every matter of sanctity,

including reading from the Torah first.

The tanna of the house of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

“And you shall sanctify him”—

for every matter of sanctity:

To open first

in every matter of honor, whether in reading from the Torah or in seating; the kohen speaks first.

And to bless first

at a meal.

And to take a fine portion first,

when a kohen and an Israelite divide some matter between them, after they have divided it, the Israelite says to the kohen: Take whichever you wish.

He said

Abaye raised the difficulty

to Rav Yosef,

concerning what we learned in our Mishna: “A kohen reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite, because of the ways of peace”:

But is it

because of the ways of peace? Yet this is a law

of

Torah law,

as has been explained, that it is learned from the verses?!

He said

he answered

to him

Rav Yosef to Abaye:

Indeed,

according to Torah law

it is,

and because of the ways of peace

the Torah said so.

And we raise a difficulty: Yet

the entire Torah as well is because of the ways of peace,

and what reason is there to mention specifically concerning this halakha that it is because of the ways of peace?!

As it is written:

“Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace.”

Rather, Abaye said:

This that we learned in our Mishna, that the kohen reads and after him the Levite because of the ways of peace,

to

teach

as the Master

[Rabba] came to teach:

As it was taught: Two wait for one another at a bowl,

for when one removes his hand from the common bowl from which they are eating, in order to drink or for another matter, his fellow stops eating until the former finishes drinking.

But

three do not wait

[they do not need to wait] for one another; that is to say, the two do not wait on behalf of the one.

The one who breaks bread

[he is the one who recites “Who brings forth bread”],

he extends his hand first,

to the bowl in order to dip his portion of the bread over which “Who brings forth bread” was recited.

And if he wishes to accord honor to his teacher, or to one who is greater than he,

so that he extends his hand first, then

the authority is in his hands

of the one who breaks bread.

And the Master said

[Rabba]

concerning it:

They taught

that he accords honor to his teacher

only at a meal.

But at

reading the Torah in the

synagogue, not

will the kohen accord honor to a Levite or to an Israelite, even if he is his teacher, because

if

so

they will come to quarrel

[they will come to a dispute].

And this is what we learned: “A kohen reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite,” as Torah law; and he does not accord honor to his teacher and alter this order because of the ways of peace.

Rav Mattana said: This that you said,

that in reading

in the synagogue, not

will he accord honor to his teacher,

we said it only concerning

the reading of

Shabbat and Festivals, when many people are present

in the synagogue, and there is concern for a dispute.

But

in the reading of the Torah

on Mondays and Thursdays, not

did we say [this]; and if the kohen wishes to accord honor to his Israelite teacher, the authority is in his hands. And we raise a difficulty against it:

Is that so?

Yet this is not so; rather, if he wishes, he accords honor to his teacher even on Shabbat and Festivals?!

But Rav Huna—

who was an Israelite—

read in the place of

the

kohen

[he went up first to the Torah in the place of the kohanim who were there]

on Shabbat and Festivals.

[the most important priests in the Land of Israel] were subordinate to him

And we answer:

Rav Huna was different, for even Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi,

who were

important kohanim of the Land of Israel

[the important kohanim of the Land of Israel],

were

subjugated to him

[were subordinate to Rav Huna]; that is to say, he was more important than all the kohanim of the Land of Israel.

Abaye said: We have received

[a tradition from our fathers, a practice from our teachers]:

If

there is no kohen

in the synagogue,

the bundle

the

bundle

has entirely come apart [the connection was severed, and the Levite lost his honor because of his separate bundle], and the Levite does not read at all.

And

further

Abaye said: We have received:

And one Levite after another may not read, because of the discrediting of both

If

there is no Levite

in the synagogue,

a kohen reads

in the place of a Levite.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

Is that so?

Yet this is not so?!

For

did Rabbi Yoḥanan not say:

A kohen after a kohen may not read

from the Torah,

because of the defect of the first,

so that people should not say that the first is not a kohen, and therefore this one went up in his place.

And likewise,

a Levite after a Levite may not read, because of the defect of both,

lest they say that the first is not a Levite, or that the second is not a Levite but an Israelite.

It is therefore clear that a kohen may not read after a kohen; and how did Abaye say that a kohen reads in the place of a Levite after the first kohen who went up?!

And we answer:

When we said [this], it was with the same kohen,

that is to say, Abaye did not say that if there is no Levite, another kohen is to be called in the place of the Levite; rather, the first kohen goes up a second time in the place of the Levite.

Here the Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words, who said: A kohen after a kohen may not read, because of the defect of the first; a Levite after a Levite may not read, because of the defect of both:

And we raise a difficulty:

What is different about a Levite after a Levite, that there is

concern because of

the defect of both,

and because

they say: One of them is not a Levite

[what is the difference between a Levite after a Levite, concerning which Rabbi Yoḥanan said that there is a defect in both, because concerning each one there is concern that they will say that he is not a Levite]—

A kohen after a kohen also

should be subject, for the same reason, to the defect of both, since

they say: One of them is not a kohen,

either the first is not a kohen and therefore this one went up in his place, or they will say: the second is not a kohen but a Levite, and therefore another went up after the kohen.

And why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that a kohen may not go up after a kohen only because of the defect of the first, and not because of the defect of both?!

And we answer: Rabbi Yoḥanan mentioned only the defect of the first because he is dealing with

a case where it is established for us concerning the father of this second one that he is a kohen

[it is known to us concerning the father of the second that he is a kohen], and there is no concern that they will say: He is not a kohen.

And we raise a difficulty against it:

Here—

concerning a Levite after a Levite—

also,

surely Rabbi Yoḥanan must be dealing in the same manner as in the first clause, namely:

it is established for us concerning the father of this second one that he is a Levite,

and if so, what defect can there be in him, such that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “because of the defect of both”?!

Rather,

it is necessarily the case that even so he may not be called, because

people say

:

He married a mamzeret or a netina

[the father of the second Levite married a mamzeret or a netina]

and disqualified his offspring

[and disqualified his offspring], so that he is not considered a Levite.

And if so,

here too

concerning a kohen after a kohen, there should also be concern for the defect of the second, even though his father is established as a kohen, because

people say

:

He married a divorced woman

or a woman released by ḥalitza

[his father married a divorced woman or a woman released by ḥalitza]

and profaned his offspring

[and profaned his offspring, so that he is not a kohen].

And we answer: There is no concern for this, since

in the end

[even if his father married a divorced woman], would he therefore have called him in the place of a Levite? Yet

is he in fact a Levite

[is he a Levite]? For if he was profaned from the sanctity of the priesthood, he is like an Israelite?!

And if so, we need be concerned only lest they say: The first is not a kohen, and therefore another was called in his place; but there is no concern that they will say concerning the second that he is not a kohen, since this is not a reason to allow him to go up in the place of a Levite.

The Gemara raises another difficulty against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words:

And for whom

[for whom is there concern that they will say concerning them that they are not kohanim or Levites]?

If for those sitting

in the synagogue until the end of the reading,

they see him

[they see the two who went up] as included in the number of those called, and necessarily there is no disqualified person here?!

Rather,

we are concerned

for

the defect in the eyes of those who

leave

the synagogue between one person called to the Torah and another, before they realize that both are included in the number of those called.

The people of Galilee sent

a messenger

to Rabbi Ḥelbo

to ask him: