## Gittin Daf 53b

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

שֶׁשָּׁקַל בָּהֶן מִשְׁקָלוֹת, כְּשֵׁרָה! לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּגוּפָן, הָא בִּכְנֶגְדָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**with which he weighed weights** is **fit?** The Gemara answers: It is **not difficult: This** *baraita* is referring to a case where he weighs an object **with** the water **itself,** and therefore the water is disqualified. And **this** statement of Rava’s, that the water is fit, is referring to a case where he weighs an object **against** the water.


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

בְּגוּפָן – מַעֲשֶׂה קָא עָבֵיד בְּהוּ; וְאִי הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק, בְּדִינֵי אָדָם נָמֵי לְחַיֵּיב! אֶלָּא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי בִּכְנֶגְדָּן; וְלָא קַשְׁיָא – הָא דְּאַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ. הָא דְּלָא אַסַּח דַּעְתֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If he weighs an object **with** the water **itself,** then **he performs** a real **task with it, and if damage that is not evident is** nevertheless **categorized** as **damage,** then **he should also be liable according to human laws** to pay for performing a task with the water. **Rather,** it is necessary to say that both **this and that** refer to a case where he weighed an object **against** the water, **and** still it is **not difficult: This** *baraita* is referring to a case **where** in the course of the weighing the object **his attention was diverted** from guarding the water, and owing to this lapse in attention the water became disqualified. And **that** statement of Rava’s is referring to a case **where his attention was not diverted,** and therefore the water did not become disqualified.


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

מֵתִיב רַב פָּפָּא: גָּזַל מַטְבֵּעַ, וְנִפְסַל; תְּרוּמָה, וְנִטְמֵאת; חָמֵץ, וְעָבַר עָלָיו הַפֶּסַח; אוֹמֵר לוֹ: ״הֲרֵי שֶׁלְּךָ לְפָנֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa raises an objection** against Ḥizkiyya’s opinion from that which is taught in a *baraita*: If **one robbed** another **of a coin and** afterward the coin **was rendered invalid** by the government, or if he robbed another of ***teruma* and it became** ritually **impure,** or if he robbed another of **leavened bread and Passover** then **elapsed over it,** rendering it forbidden, in each of these cases the robber **can** return the item and **say to** the robbery victim: **That which is yours is before you.** Since the robber returned the stolen item, he is not required to compensate the victim of the robbery for his monetary loss, although the stolen items are currently of minimal or no value.


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

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק, הַאי גַּזְלָן הוּא, מָמוֹנָא מְעַלְּיָא בָּעֵי שַׁלּוֹמֵי! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **damage that is not evident is categorized** as **damage,** then **this** man **is a robber,** and **he should be required to pay full compensation** for the damage he caused. The Gemara concludes: This is **a conclusive refutation,** and the opinion of Ḥizkiyya is rejected.


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

לֵימָא כְּתַנָּאֵי: הַמְטַמֵּא וְהַמְדַמֵּעַ וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ, אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – חַיָּיב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – פָּטוּר, בְּמֵזִיד – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that this amoraic dispute is **parallel to** a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it was taught in a *baraita*: With regard to **one who renders** another’s food ritually **impure, or one who mixes** *teruma* with another’s non-sacred produce, **or one who pours** another’s wine as a libation before an idol, **whether** he did so **unintentionally or intentionally,** he is **liable** to pay for the damage he caused; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** If he acted **unintentionally,** he is **exempt;** if he acted **intentionally,** he is **liable** to pay.


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

מַאי, לָאו בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **What, is it not** that **they disagree about this** very issue? **As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, **holds** that **damage that is not evident is** nevertheless **categorized** as **damage.** Consequently, one is liable to pay even if he caused the damage unintentionally. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, **holds** that such damage **is not categorized** as **damage,** and consequently one is liable to pay only if he caused the damage intentionally, as this is a rabbinically instituted fine.


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

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא הֶיזֵּק שֶׁאֵינוֹ נִיכָּר לָא שְׁמֵיהּ הֶיזֵּק; וְהָכָא בְּקָנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג אַטּוּ מֵזִיד קָא מִיפַּלְגִי – דְּמָר סָבַר: קָנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג אַטּוּ מֵזִיד; וּמָר סָבַר: לֹא קָנְסוּ שׁוֹגֵג אַטּוּ מֵזִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said** that it is possible to say that **everyone,** including Rabbi Meir, **agrees that damage that is not evident is not categorized** as **damage. And here, they disagree with regard to** this question: Did the Sages **penalize an unintentional** offender **due to an intentional** offender? **As** one **Sage,** Rabbi Meir, who states that the one who caused the damage is liable even if he acted unintentionally, **holds** that the Sages **penalized an unintentional** offender **due to an intentional** offender. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehuda, who states that one is liable only if he acted intentionally, **holds** that **they did not penalize an unintentional** offender **due to an intentional** offender.


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

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – דְּתַנְיָא: הַמְבַשֵּׁל בְּשַׁבָּת; בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But** then it is possible to **raise a contradiction between** this statement **of Rabbi Meir and** another statement **of Rabbi Meir; and** it is also possible to **raise a contradiction between** this statement **of Rabbi Yehuda and** another statement **of Rabbi Yehuda.** The other statements are **as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Shabbat* 2:5): With regard to **one who cooks on Shabbat,** if he did so **unintentionally, he may eat** what he cooked. If he acted **intentionally, he may not eat** what he cooked; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:** If he cooked the food **unintentionally, he may eat** what he cooked, but only **at the conclusion of Shabbat.** If he cooked it **intentionally, he may never eat** what he cooked.


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

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הַסַּנְדְּלָר אוֹמֵר: בְּשׁוֹגֵג, יֵאָכֵל לְמוֹצָאֵי שַׁבָּת – לַאֲחֵרִים, וְלֹא לוֹ; בְּמֵזִיד, לֹא יֵאָכֵל עוֹלָמִית – לֹא לוֹ, וְלֹא לַאֲחֵרִים. קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, קַשְׁיָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says:** If he acted **unintentionally,** what he cooked **may be eaten at the conclusion of Shabbat by others, but not by him,** as the food is forbidden to him forever. If he cooked the food **intentionally,** what he cooked **may never be eaten, neither by him nor by others.** Consequently, there is **a contradiction between** one statement **of Rabbi Meir and** the other statement **of Rabbi Meir,** and there is also **a contradiction between** one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda and** the other statement **of Rabbi Yehuda.**


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

דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קַשְׁיָא – כִּי קָנֵיס, בִּדְרַבָּנַן; בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא קָנֵיס.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: There is no contradiction **between** one statement **of Rabbi Meir and** the other statement **of Rabbi Meir,** because one can draw a distinction between them. **When** Rabbi Meir **penalizes** an offender for even an unintentional offense, it is where the offender violated **a rabbinic law,** e.g., he rendered food impure. But where he violated **a Torah law,** e.g., he cooked on Shabbat, **he does not penalize** him. The reason for this distinction is that people treat Torah prohibitions more seriously, and consequently there is no need to impose a fine for unintentional transgression in order to distance people from the transgression.


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

וְהָא מְנַסֵּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הוּא, וְקָא קָנֵיס! מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, קָנֵס לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But isn’t pouring** wine as a libation before an idol prohibited **by Torah law, and** even so Rabbi Meir **penalizes** the offender, even if his transgression is unintentional? The Gemara answers: This is an exception to the principle. **Due to the severity** of the prohibition against **idol worship,** Rabbi Meir **penalizes** the offender even if he acts unintentionally.


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

דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא – כִּי לָא קָנֵיס, בִּדְרַבָּנַן; בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – קָנֵיס. וְהָא מְנַסֵּךְ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, וְלָא קָנֵיס! מִשּׁוּם חוּמְרָא דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. מִיבְדָּל בְּדִילִי מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: And there is also **no contradiction** between one statement **of Rabbi Yehuda and** the other statement **of Rabbi Yehuda. When** Rabbi Yehuda **does not penalize** an offender for an unintentional offense, it is where he violated **a rabbinic law.** But where he violated **a Torah law,** he **penalizes** him even if he transgressed unintentionally, owing to the severity of the transgression. The Gemara asks: **But isn’t pouring** wine as a libation before an idol prohibited **by Torah law, and** even so Rabbi Yehuda **does not penalize** the offender if he acted unintentionally? The Gemara answers: The argument raised previously can be reversed: **Due to the** exceptional **severity** of the prohibition against **idol worship** people **avoid it** on their own, and so there is no need to impose a fine for unintentional transgression in order to distance people from it.


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

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר אַדְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא – דְּתַנְיָא: הַנּוֹטֵעַ בַּשַּׁבָּת, בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יְקַיֵּים; בְּמֵזִיד – יַעֲקֹר; וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית – בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקֹר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **But** then it is possible to **raise a contradiction between** one statement of **Rabbi Meir and** another statement of **Rabbi Meir** even with respect to matters that are prohibited **by Torah law, as it is taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Shabbat* 2:11): With regard to **one who plants** a tree **on Shabbat,** if he does so **unintentionally, he may keep** the tree. If he acted **intentionally, it must be uprooted. And** if he planted the tree **during the Sabbatical** Year, then **whether** he did so **unintentionally or intentionally, it must be uprooted;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir.**


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

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בַּשְּׁבִיעִית – בְּשׁוֹגֵג יְקַיֵּים, בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקֹר; וּבַשַּׁבָּת – בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד, יַעֲקֹר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says:** With regard to planting a tree **in the Sabbatical** Year, if one does so **unintentionally, he may keep** the tree. If he acted **intentionally, it must be uprooted. And** if he planted the tree **on Shabbat,** then **whether** he did so **unintentionally or intentionally, it must be uprooted.** Although it is prohibited by Torah law to plant a tree in the Sabbatical Year, Rabbi Meir penalizes the offender and requires that the tree be uprooted, even if he acted unintentionally. This seems to contradict Rabbi Meir’s ruling in the previously mentioned *baraita*, that one who unintentionally cooked on Shabbat is not penalized.


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

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ, תִּקָּשֶׁה לָךְ הִיא גּוּפַהּ – מִכְּדֵי הָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא וְהָא דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, מַאי שְׁנָא שַׁבָּת וּמַאי שְׁנָא שְׁבִיעִית?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to your reasoning,** that you raise such a contradiction, **raise a contradiction** in **this** *baraita* **itself. Since this** prohibition of planting on Shabbat **is by Torah law and this** prohibition of planting in the Sabbatical Year **is by Torah law, what is different about Shabbat and what is different about the Sabbatical** Year, that both Sages distinguish between the two *halakhot*.


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

אֶלָּא הָתָם, כִּדְקָתָנֵי טַעְמָא – אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: מִפְּנֵי מָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר בַּשַּׁבָּת – בְּשׁוֹגֵג יְקַיֵּים, בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקֹר; וּבַשְּׁבִיעִית – בֵּין בְּשׁוֹגֵג בֵּין בְּמֵזִיד יַעֲקֹר? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל מוֹנִין לַשְּׁבִיעִית,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, there the reason** is **as is taught** explicitly: **Rabbi Meir said: For what** reason **do I say:** If one planted a tree **on Shabbat unintentionally, he may keep** the tree, but if he did so **intentionally, it must be uprooted; but in the Sabbatical** Year, **whether** the tree was planted **unintentionally or intentionally, it must be uprooted?** It is **because Jews count** the years of the tree, with regard to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [*orla*] and with regard to the *halakha* of fourth-year produce, **from the Sabbatical** Year. Therefore, if the tree was planted in the Sabbatical Year, people will remember, and they might come to think planting a tree in the Sabbatical Year is permitted. For this reason, Rabbi Meir imposed a fine and required that the tree be uprooted.