## Gittin Daf 53a

###### Gittin 53a:1
[Gittin 53a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:1)

הַיְינוּ ״מְדַמֵּעַ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**is** the same as **mixing** *teruma* with non-sacred produce, as both involve intermingling that which is forbidden with that which is permitted, so that the entire mixture becomes forbidden. There is no difference between these actions, so there would be no need to mention both of them in the mishna.


###### Gittin 53a:2
[Gittin 53a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:2)

וְאִידָּךְ – קְנָסָא הוּא, וּמִקְּנָסָא לָא יָלְפִינַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** Sage, Shmuel, holds that one who mixes *teruma* with another person’s non-sacred produce **is** liable for **a fine. And we do not derive** a fine in one case **from a fine** stated in another case, even if the two cases are similar. Consequently, liability for the fine must be mentioned separately for each case.


###### Gittin 53a:3
[Gittin 53a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:3)

וּלְמַאן דְּיָלֵיף קְנָסָא מִקְּנָסָא – כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to the one who** says that we do **derive a fine** in one case **from a fine** in another case, **why do** I need **all these** cases mentioned in the mishna, i.e., one who renders another person’s food ritually impure, one who mixes *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce, and one who pours another person’s wine in a rite of idolatry?


###### Gittin 53a:4
[Gittin 53a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:4)

צְרִיכָא; דְּאִי תְּנָא מְטַמֵּא; אִי תְּרוּמָה – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַפְסֵיד לַהּ לִגְמָרֵי, וְאִי מְטַמֵּא חוּלִּין – מִשּׁוּם דְּאָסוּר לִגְרוֹם טוּמְאָה לְחוּלִּין שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; אֲבָל מְדַמֵּעַ – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: All three rulings are **necessary, as, had** the mishna **taught** only the case of one who **renders** another’s food **impure,** there are two possibilities: **If** it is referring to one who renders another’s ***teruma*** non-sacred, then **I would say** that they imposed a penalty **because he ruined it entirely,** as it can no longer be consumed by anyone, neither a priest nor an ordinary Israelite. **And if** it is referring to one who **renders** another’s **non-sacred** food **impure,** then I would say the fine is imposed **because it is prohibited to cause impurity to non-sacred** food **in Eretz Yisrael. But** in the case of one who **mixes** *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce, since he neither caused a substantial loss, as the mixture can still be sold to a priest, nor spread impurity in Eretz Yisrael, one might **say** that a fine is **not** imposed upon him.


###### Gittin 53a:5
[Gittin 53a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:5)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מְדַמֵּעַ – מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁכִיחַ, אֲבָל מְטַמֵּא, דְּלָא שְׁכִיחַ – אֵימָא לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the mishna **taught us** only the case of one who **mixes** *teruma* with another person’s non-sacred produce, I would say that a fine is imposed in that case, **because** mixing two different items together **is a common** occurrence. **But** concerning one who **renders** another person’s food **impure,** which **is uncommon,** one might **say** that a fine is **not** imposed, as the Sages did not impose penalties in uncommon cases.


###### Gittin 53a:6
[Gittin 53a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:6)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מְטַמֵּא וּמְדַמֵּעַ – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ בִּדְרַבָּה מִינֵּיהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the mishna **taught us** both the case of one who **renders** another person’s food **impure and** the case of one who **mixes** *teruma* with another person’s non-sacred produce, I would say that fines are imposed in both those cases, **because there** is **no** application of the principle that one who has committed two transgressions with a single act, each carrying its own punishment, **receives the greater** punishment of the two. Neither of these actions carries a punishment beyond paying the fine.


###### Gittin 53a:7
[Gittin 53a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:7)

אֲבָל מְנַסֵּךְ, דְּקִים לֵיהּ בִּדְרַבָּה מִינֵּיהּ – אֵימָא לָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – כִּדְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** concerning **one who pours** another person’s wine as a libation before an idol, **where** one does apply the principle that one who has committed two transgressions with a single act **receives the greater** punishment of the two for which he is liable, as he is liable to receive court imposed capital punishment for having transgressed the prohibition against idolatry, I would **say** that a fine is **not** imposed. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that he is in fact liable to pay the fine. And the reason for this is **in accordance with** the statement of **Rabbi Yirmeya,** that since he acquired the wine from the moment he lifted it, he became liable to pay the fine before he became liable to receive court imposed capital punishment, and therefore he is subject to both punishments.


###### Gittin 53a:8
[Gittin 53a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:8)

וּלְהָא דְּתָנֵי אֲבוּהּ דְּרַבִּי אָבִין: בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ, חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר אַף הַמְדַמֵּעַ, כֹּל הָנֵי לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to this** version of the *halakha* **that the father of Rabbi Avin taught** (*Tosefta* 4:5): **Initially** the Sages **would say** that **one who renders** another person’s food **impure and one who pours** another’s wine as a libation before an idol are subject to a fine, and later **they returned to say that even one who mixes** *teruma* with another person’s non-sacred produce is liable to pay a fine, **why do** I need **all these** cases? In this version, the *halakha* of one who mixes was added later. After the *halakhot* concerning one who renders another person’s food impure and one who pours another’s wine were taught, why could the *halakha* of one who mixes not be derived from those *halakhot*?


###### Gittin 53a:9
[Gittin 53a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:9)

צְרִיכָא; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מְטַמֵּא – מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ בִּדְרַבָּה מִינֵּיהּ; אֲבָל מְנַסֵּךְ, דְּקִים לֵיהּ בִּדְרַבָּה מִינֵּיהּ – אֵימָא לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: All three rulings are **necessary, as, had** the *baraita* in the *Tosefta* **taught us** only the case of one who **renders** another person’s food **impure,** I would say that a fine is imposed, **because there** is **no** application of the principle that one who has committed two transgressions with a single act, each carrying its own punishment, **receives the greater** punishment of the two. **But** with regard to one who **pours** another’s wine as a rite in idolatry, **where** one does apply the principle that one who has committed two transgressions with a single act **receives the greater** punishment of the two for which he is liable, one might **say** that a fine is **not** imposed.


###### Gittin 53a:10
[Gittin 53a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:10)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מְנַסֵּךְ – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַפְסֵיד לֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי; אֲבָל מְטַמֵּא, דְּלָא מַפְסֵיד לֵיהּ לִגְמָרֵי – אֵימָא לָא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the *baraita* **taught us** only the case of one who **pours** another’s wine as a libation before an idol, I would say that they imposed a penalty **because he ruined it entirely,** as it is now prohibited for one to derive any benefit from it whatsoever. **But** for **one who renders** another person’s food **impure,** which **does not ruin it entirely,** as one may derive benefit from it, e.g., by using it as fuel while it is being burned or by feeding it to his animal, one might **say** that a fine is **not** imposed.


###### Gittin 53a:11
[Gittin 53a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:11)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי – מִשּׁוּם דְּהֶפְסֵד מְרוּבֶּה; אֲבָל מְדַמֵּעַ, דְּהֶפְסֵד מוּעָט – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** the *baraita* **taught us** only **these two** cases, I would say that here they imposed fines **because** in each case there is **a substantial loss. But** with regard to one who **mixes** *teruma* with another person’s non-sacred produce, **where** the **loss** he causes **is minimal** because the owner can still sell the mixture to priests at the price of *teruma*, one might **say** that a penalty is **not** imposed. Therefore, all three rulings are **necessary.**


###### Gittin 53a:12
[Gittin 53a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:12)

אָמַר חִזְקִיָּה: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג, וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – חַיָּיב. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: If one unintentionally committed one of these offenses, either rendering another’s food impure, mixing *teruma* with another’s produce, or pouring another’s wine before an idol, he is exempt from paying for the damage. If he acted intentionally, he is liable to pay. **Ḥizkiyya says: By Torah law,** one who commits one of the offenses listed in the mishna, **whether** he did so **unintentionally or intentionally,** is **liable** to pay for the damage he caused, like any other person who causes damage. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is that even **damage that is not evident is categorized** as **damage.** One is liable for damage not only when the damage is evident, i.e., when he causes a change in the item’s physical state, but also when the damage is not evident, i.e., when he causes a reduction in the item’s value due to a change in its halakhic status, e.g., when he renders it impure.


###### Gittin 53a:13
[Gittin 53a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:13)

וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ בְּשׁוֹגֵג פָּטוּר – כְּדֵי שֶׁיּוֹדִיעוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the reason** that the Sages **said** that if he committed one of these acts **unintentionally** he is **exempt?** This is **so that** the one who caused the damage **will inform** the injured party about what happened. If a fine were imposed even in a case where the damage is caused unintentionally, there would be a concern that the guilty party might not report the damage so as to avoid the penalty. In such a situation the injured party will not know what happened, as the damage is not evident, and he will inadvertently use that which has become impure, mixed with *teruma*, or poured before an idol.


###### Gittin 53a:14
[Gittin 53a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:14)

אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּמֵזִיד נָמֵי! הַשְׁתָּא לְאוֹזוֹקֵי קָא מְכַוֵּין, אוֹדוֹעֵי לָא מוֹדַע לֵיהּ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** it is **so** that there is a concern about this, then he should be exempt from liability **even** if he committed one of these offenses **intentionally,** so that he will inform the owner of the item. The Gemara answers: **Now,** since **it was his intention to cause** him **damage, will he not inform him?** If he does not tell him, the other person will never know that he suffered damage. Consequently, he will certainly inform him of what he did and that his property is now subject to a prohibition, and there is no concern that the injured party will inadvertently come to transgress the prohibition. This is Ḥizkiyya’s opinion.


###### Gittin 53a:15
[Gittin 53a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:15)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה – אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג, וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – פָּטוּר. מַאי טַעְמָא? הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר – לָא שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק. וּמַה טַּעַם אָמְרוּ בְּמֵזִיד חַיָּיב – שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא כׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד הוֹלֵךְ וּמְטַמֵּא טׇהֳרוֹתָיו שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר ״פָּטוּר אֲנִי״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: By Torah law,** one who commits one of the offenses listed in the mishna, **whether** he did so **unintentionally or intentionally,** is **exempt** from liability for the damage he caused. **What is the reason** for this? The reason is that **damage that is not evident is not categorized** as **damage. And what is the reason** that the Sages **said** that if he committed one of these acts **intentionally** he is **liable?** This is so **that each and every person** who has a grievance with his neighbor and wishes to cause him harm **should not go and render impure the other person’s pure** foods, **and say: I am exempt** from liability.


###### Gittin 53a:16
[Gittin 53a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:16)

תְּנַן: הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּגְּלוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, מְזִידִים – חַיָּיבִין; וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Ḥizkiyya from what **we learned** in a mishna (54b): With regard to **priests who disqualified an offering through improper intention in the Temple,** by expressing, while sacrificing the offering, the intention of sprinkling the blood of the offering, burning its fats on the altar, or consuming it after its appointed time, if they did so **intentionally, they are liable** to pay the value of the offering to its owner, who must now bring another offering. **And it is taught with regard to** this mishna that the Sages instituted this obligation **for the betterment of the world,** so that priests should not act in this manner toward people to whom they wish to cause harm.


###### Gittin 53a:17
[Gittin 53a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:17)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק, הַאי ״שׁוֹגְגִין פְּטוּרִין מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **damage that is not evident is** nevertheless **categorized** as **damage, it should have** said **that** if they acted **unintentionally they are exempt due to the betterment of the world.** This is because according to Ḥizkiyya, if they acted intentionally they should be liable by Torah law for the damage they caused, and not by rabbinic ordinance instituted for the betterment of the world.


###### Gittin 53a:18
[Gittin 53a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:18)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: מְזִידִין – חַיָּיבִין; הָא שׁוֹגְגִין – פְּטוּרִין מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what** the *tanna* **is saying,** and the mishna should be understood as follows: If they acted **intentionally, they are liable, but** if they acted **unintentionally,** they are **exempt.** And the reason that they are exempt is **for the betterment of the world.**


###### Gittin 53a:19
[Gittin 53a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:19)

מֵתִיב רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הָעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּבְפָרַת חַטָּאת, פָּטוּר מִדִּינֵי אָדָם וְחַיָּיב בְּדִינֵי שָׁמַיִם. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק, בְּדִינֵי אָדָם נָמֵי לְחַיֵּיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Elazar raised an objection** based on what was taught: With regard to **one who performs a task with the water of purification,** i.e., water that is to be mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, which was used to purify people and objects that had contracted ritual impurity by contact with a corpse, **or** performed labor **with the** red **heifer of purification,** and by doing so he disqualifies it, he is **exempt according to human laws but** is **liable according to the laws of Heaven. And if you say** that **damage that is not evident is** nevertheless **categorized** as **damage,** then **according to human laws he should also be liable.**


###### Gittin 53a:20
[Gittin 53a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:20)

הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ – וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: פָּרָה – שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לְרִבְקָה עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּינַק וְתָדוּשׁ; מֵי חַטָּאת – שֶׁשָּׁקַל בָּהֶן מִשְׁקָלוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments that **he,** Rabbi Elazar, **raised the objection and** subsequently **he** himself **resolved it:** That which they said, that he performed labor with the red **heifer,** means **that he placed it in a pen [*lirvaka*] so that it would nurse** from its mother **and would** incidentally **thresh,** meaning that his action is not defined as having the heifer perform labor. And that which they said, that he performed a task with the **water of purification,** means **that he weighed weights with** the water, which is not an actual task performed with the water.


###### Gittin 53a:21
[Gittin 53a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/53a:21)

וְהָאָמַר רָבָא: מֵי חַטָּאת

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But doesn’t Rava say: Water of purification**