Gittin 59b (נט:) — the Talmud in English

A cistern

for storing water

that is close to the

outlet of the

aqueduct

that carries water from the river

fills first

before the other cisterns that are farther away.

That is, their practice was to fill the cisterns from the aqueduct. When one filled his cistern from the aqueduct, he would block the aqueduct so that the water would enter his cistern. The Sages therefore instituted that the cistern closest to the outlet of the aqueduct should be filled first,

for the sake of the ways of peace,

so that there would be no dispute between them over who should block the aqueduct first.

3.

Traps for animals, birds, and fish

in which the creatures have been caught

are subject to robbery

if someone takes from the traps

for the sake of the ways of peace.

But according to strict law, there is no robbery here, because we are dealing with traps that have no interior, and his utensils do not acquire the animals for him.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is outright robbery

according to rabbinic law.

4.

With regard to the lost object of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, it is subject to robbery, for the sake of the ways of peace.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is outright robbery

according to rabbinic law.

5.

A poor person who cuts [

plucks ]

olives from the top of an olive tree

that is ownerless, and the olives fall before he has acquired them,

what is beneath it

—those olives that he cut and that fell beneath the olive tree—are subject to

robbery for the sake of the ways of peace.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is outright robbery

according to rabbinic law.

6.

One may not prevent [

protest against ]

the poor of the gentiles from taking gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field

in the fields of Jews

for the sake of the ways of peace.

Gemara:

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

From where are these matters derived,

from where do we learn this?

Rav Mattana said,

because

the verse says: “

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

and why did the Torah need to say “the priests, the sons of Levi”?

Do I not know that the priests are the sons of Levi

and is it not known that the priests are descendants of Levi?

Rather,

this teaches that Moses gave it to

a kohen [

the priests ]

first

and

afterward

he had

a Levite

the sons of Levi read from it.

Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa said: From here

one can derive the law of our Mishna, because it is stated [in the passage concerning the heifer whose neck is broken]: “

And the priests, the sons of Levi, shall approach.”

Why did the Torah need to say “the priests, the sons of Levi”?

Do we not know that the priests are the sons of Levi

and is it not known that the priests are descendants of Levi?

Rather,

this teaches that

a kohen approaches 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 stated: “

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

who was a kohen, while Moses was a Levite

to sanctify him as most holy,”

thus indicating that a kohen precedes a Levite.

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: From here:

Because it is stated with regard to a kohen: “

And you shall sanctify him

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

to every matter of sanctity,

including being called first to read from the Torah.

The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael: “

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 arrangements: 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 something between them: after they divide it, the Israelite says to the kohen, “Take whichever you wish.”

He said,

Abaye wondered

to Rav Yosef

about what we learned in our Mishna: “A kohen reads first, followed by a Levite, and followed by an Israelite, for the sake of the ways of peace”:

Is it

for the sake of the ways of peace

that this is so? But the law that

it is a matter of Torah law

as was explained, it is derived from the verses!?

He said,

Rav Yosef answered

him

Abaye:

Indeed,

according to Torah law

it is so,

and for the sake of the ways of peace

the Torah said this.

And we raise a difficulty: But

the entire Torah is also for the sake of the ways of peace;

why, then, is it specifically mentioned with regard to this law that it is for the sake 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 statement in our Mishna, that the kohen reads first and the Levite afterward for the sake of the ways of peace,

c

teaches

as the Master [

Rabba ] taught:

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

meaning that when one removes his hand from the common bowl from which they are eating, in order to drink or for some other purpose, his companion stops eating until the first one finishes drinking.

But

three do not wait [

they need not wait ] for one another; that is, the two do not wait for the third.

The one who breaks bread [

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

he extends his hand first

to the bowl, in order to dip his piece of bread into it.

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

by having that person extend his hand first,

he has the authority

to do so, despite being the one who breaks bread.

And the Master said [

Rabba ]

about it:

They taught

that he may honor his teacher

only at a meal.

But in

the reading of the Torah in

the synagogue, no

will the kohen honor a Levite or an Israelite, even if that person is his teacher, because

if

so

they will come to quarrel [

they will come to dispute ].

And this is what we learned: “A kohen reads first, followed by a Levite, and followed by an Israelite,” as required by Torah law; he may not honor his teacher and alter this order for the sake of the ways of peace.

Rav Mattana said: That which you said,

with regard to reading

in the synagogue, no

may he honor his teacher,

we said only with regard to

the Torah reading on

Shabbat and Festivals, when many people are present

in the synagogue and there is concern that a dispute may arise.

But

with regard to the Torah reading

on Mondays and Thursdays, we did not

say this; if the kohen wishes to honor his Israelite teacher, he has the authority to do so. And we raise a difficulty against this:

Is that so?

But this is not the case; if he wishes, he may honor his teacher even on Shabbat and Festivals!?

But Rav Huna—

who was an Israelite—

would read in the place of

the

kohanim [

he would be called to the Torah first in 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, because even Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi

who were

important kohanim of Eretz Yisrael [

the most important kohanim in Eretz Yisrael ],

were completely

subservient to him [

they were subordinate to Rav Huna ]; that is, he was more important than all the kohanim of Eretz Yisrael.

Abaye said: We have received [

a tradition from our ancestors, a practice from our teachers ]:

If

there is no kohen

in the synagogue,

the bundle

has

come apart

entirely [the connection has been severed, and the Levite has lost the honor associated with his separate status], 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 place of the Levite.

And we raise a difficulty against this:

Is that so?

But this is not the case!?

For

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

One kohen after another may not read

from the Torah

because of the blemish it would imply concerning the first,

as people might say that the first is not a kohen, and that is why this one ascended in his place.

And likewise,

one Levite after another may not read, because of the blemish it would imply concerning both,

as perhaps people will say that the first is not a Levite, or that the second is not a Levite but an Israelite.

It is thus clear that one kohen may not read after another kohen. How, then, did Abaye say that a kohen reads in place of a Levite after the first kohen has ascended!?

And we answer:

When we said this, we meant the same kohen

that is, Abaye did not say that if there is no Levite, another kohen should ascend in place of the Levite; rather, the first kohen ascends a second time in place of the Levite.

Here the Gemara returns to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: One kohen may not read after another kohen because of the blemish it would imply concerning the first; one Levite may not read after another Levite because of the blemish it would imply concerning both:

We raise a difficulty:

What is different about one Levite after another Levite, such that there is

reason for concern because of

the blemish concerning both,

because

they say: One of them is not a Levite

—what distinguishes one Levite after another Levite, concerning which Rabbi Yoḥanan said that this implies a blemish concerning both, because there is reason to fear that people will say of each one that he is not a Levite—

one kohen after another kohen also

should likewise be subject to concern that it implies a blemish concerning both, since

they say: One of them is not a kohen:

either the first is not a kohen, which is why the second ascended in his place, or they will say that the second is not a kohen but a Levite, and that is why he ascended after the kohen.

Why, then, did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that one kohen may not ascend after another kohen only because of the blemish concerning the first, and not because of a blemish concerning both!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yoḥanan mentioned only the blemish concerning the first because he was speaking

of a case where we know that the father of this second person is a kohen

and there is no concern that people will say that he is not a kohen.

We raise a difficulty against this:

Here

with regard to one Levite after another Levite,

also, the case must necessarily be analogous to that of the first clause, namely,

that Rabbi Yoḥanan is speaking of a case

where we know that the father of this second person is a Levite.

If so, what blemish could there be concerning him, such that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “Because of the blemish concerning both”!?

Rather,

it must be that, nevertheless, he may not be called to the Torah, because

people say,

those people

married a mamzeret or a netina [

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

and disqualified his descendants [

so that his descendants do not have the status of Levites ].

If so,

here too, with regard to one kohen after another kohen, there should be concern even for a blemish concerning the second, despite the fact that his father is established as a kohen, because

people say

they say,

people

a divorced woman

or a ḥalutza married

his father married a divorced woman or a ḥalutza

and profaned his descendants

so that his descendants are not kohanim.

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

ultimately [

even if his father married a divorced woman ], would he have been called to the Torah in place of a Levite on that account?

Would he be a Levite

and is he a Levite? If he was profaned from the sanctity of the priesthood, he is like an Israelite!?

If so, we need be concerned only lest people say that the first is not a kohen and that is why another was called in his place. There is no concern that they will say of the second that he is not a kohen, since that would not be a reason to call him in place of a Levite.

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

And for whom

is there concern that they will say that these people are not kohanim or Levites?

If it is for those sitting

in the synagogue until the end of the reading,

they see him

for they see both men who ascended as part of the number of those called to the Torah, and necessarily neither one is disqualified!?

Rather,

we are concerned about

the

blemish in the eyes of those who

leave

the synagogue between one person called to the Torah and the next, before they realize that both men are included among those called to the Torah.

The people of the Galilee sent

a messenger

to Rabbi Ḥelbo

to ask him: