## Gittin Daf 54b

###### Gittin 54b:1
[Gittin 54b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:1)

נָפְלוּ וְנִתְפַּצְּעוּ; אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג, וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד – לֹא יַעֲלוּ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמְרִים: בְּשׁוֹגֵג – יַעֲלוּ, בְּמֵזִיד – לֹא יַעֲלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If there are nuts from Perekh that are *orla*, and **they fell** into other nuts and became intermingled with them, the entire mixture is forbidden, even if the nuts that are *orla* are few in number. This is because they are deemed significant when they are whole and they are not nullified in a mixture. If the nuts **were broken** afterward, **whether** they were broken **unintentionally or** they were broken **intentionally, they are not nullified** in the mixture, despite the fact that they are no longer regarded as significant and should therefore be subject to nullification; this is **the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon** disagree and **say:** If they were broken **unintentionally, they are nullified,** but if they were broken **intentionally, they are not nullified.**


###### Gittin 54b:2
[Gittin 54b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:2)

וְהָא הָכָא, דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא חַד בִּתְרֵי בָּטֵל, וְרַבָּנַן הוּא דִּגְזוּר, וְקָא קָנֵיס רַבִּי יְהוּדָה! הָתָם הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּאָתֵי לְאִיעָרוֹמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But here, by Torah law** the forbidden substance **is nullified** if its ratio in the mixture is not more than **one in two,** i.e., when the majority of the mixture is permitted, **and** it was **the Sages who decreed** that significant items are not subject to nullification. **And** nevertheless, **Rabbi Yehuda penalizes** an unintentional offender due to an intentional offender. This seems to contradict what was stated previously, that Rabbi Yehuda does not impose a penalty for an unintentional offense if the transgression involves the violation of a rabbinic law. The Gemara answers: **There, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda,** that a penalty was imposed in the case where he unintentionally broke the nuts **due to** the concern **that** without a penalty **he will come to employ artifice** and intentionally break the nuts in order to effect nullification of the Perekh nuts.


###### Gittin 54b:3
[Gittin 54b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:3)

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי – דִּתְנַן: נְטִיעָה שֶׁל עׇרְלָה וְשֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בִּנְטִיעוֹת אֲחֵרוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יְלַקֵּט. וְאִם לִיקֵּט – יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִתְכַּוֵּין לְלַקֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara discusses the previous *baraita*: **And they raised a contradiction between** one statement **of Rabbi Yosei and** another statement **of Rabbi Yosei, as we learned** in a mishna (*Orla* 1:6): If **a sapling** that has the status **of *orla* or** a grapevine sapling has the status **of diverse kinds in a vineyard,** e.g., one vine in a vineyard had grain planted near it and become prohibited, and the grain was then uprooted, **became intermingled with other** saplings, and one does not know which is the forbidden sapling, **he may not gather** the produce of any of the saplings. **And if he gathered** the produce, the forbidden produce **is nullified** if its ratio in the mixture is not more than **one** part forbidden produce **in two hundred** parts permitted produce, **provided that he did not intend to gather** the produce in order that the forbidden produce will become nullified.


###### Gittin 54b:4
[Gittin 54b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:4)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמִּתְכַּוֵּין לְלַקֵּט – יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he intentionally gathered** the produce in order that the forbidden produce would become nullified, the forbidden produce **is nullified** if its ratio in the mixture is not more than **one** part forbidden produce **in two hundred** parts permitted produce. This seems to contradict what Rabbi Yosei said in the *baraita* cited previously with regard to nuts, that if the nuts were broken intentionally, they are not nullified.


###### Gittin 54b:5
[Gittin 54b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:5)

הָא אִתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רָבָא: חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר אֶת כַּרְמוֹ בִּנְטִיעָה אַחַת. וְכֵן כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חֲזָקָה אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר אֶת כַּרְמוֹ בִּנְטִיעָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Wasn’t it** already **stated with regard to** that mishna in explanation of Rabbi Yosei’s opinion that **Rava says:** There is **a presumption** that **a person does not render his entire vineyard forbidden for the sake of one sapling.** Therefore, it can be assumed that one does not intentionally plant a sapling that has the status of *orla* or of diverse kinds in a vineyard among other saplings without properly marking it. If he did so, it is uncommon, and the Sages did not impose a penalty in an uncommon case. **And similarly, when Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** There is **a presumption** that **a person does not render his vineyard forbidden for the sake of one sapling,** and therefore the Sages did not impose a penalty.


###### Gittin 54b:6
[Gittin 54b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:6)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַכֹּהֲנִים שֶׁפִּגְּלוּ בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, מְזִידִין – חַיָּיבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **priests disqualified an offering with 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, and they did so **intentionally, they are liable** to pay the value of the offering to its owner, who must now bring another offering.


###### Gittin 54b:7
[Gittin 54b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:7)

**גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ בִּטְהָרוֹת, וְאָמַר לוֹ: טְהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ, נִטְמְאוּ; הָיָה עוֹשֶׂה עִמּוֹ בִּזְבָחִים, וְאָמַר לוֹ: זְבָחִים שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ, נִתְפַּגְּלוּ – נֶאֱמָן. אֲבָל אָמַר לוֹ: טְהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי נִטְמְאוּ, וּזְבָחִים שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי נִתְפַּגְּלוּ – אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Terumot* 2:2): If one **was preparing ritually pure** food **with** another, **and he said to him: The ritually pure** food **that I prepared with you became ritually impure,** or if **he was preparing sacrifices with** another person, **and he said to him: The sacrifices that I prepared with you became disqualified due to improper intention,** he is **deemed credible** with regard to these claims. **But** if **he said to** the other: **The ritually pure** food **that I prepared with you on such and such a day became ritually impure,** or **the sacrifices that I prepared with you on such and such a day became disqualified due to improper intention, he is not deemed credible.**


###### Gittin 54b:8
[Gittin 54b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:8)

מַאי שְׁנָא רֵישָׁא, וּמַאי שְׁנָא סֵיפָא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּל שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ – נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is different** in **the first clause** of the *baraita* **and what is different** in **the latter clause,** that in the first clause he is deemed credible, whereas in the latter clause he is not? **Abaye says** that the principle is as follows: **As long as it is** still **in his power** to do what he said he had done, he is **deemed credible.** Therefore, while he is involved in the preparation of the ritually pure food or the sacrifices, and consequently he is still able to disqualify them, he is deemed credible when he says that they already became disqualified. But once he makes a statement about actions he performed in the past and he is no longer able to disqualify the objects of those actions, he is not deemed credible.


###### Gittin 54b:9
[Gittin 54b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:9)

רָבָא אָמַר: כְּגוֹן דְּאַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ וְלָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָא מִידֵּי, וּלְבָתַר הָכִי אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Both the first clause and the latter clause deal with testimony about the past. The difference is that the latter clause is referring to a case **where he found him** a first time **and told him nothing** about disqualification, **and** then **afterward he found him** a second time **and told him** what had purportedly happened. In such a case he is suspected of lying, as, if it were true that the pure food had become impure or the offering had become disqualified, he would have imparted that information earlier. Since he had said nothing at the time, and he spoke up only later, it is assumed that he was lying and that his intention was merely to annoy the other.


###### Gittin 54b:10
[Gittin 54b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:10)

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לֵיהּ לְחַבְרֵיהּ: טְהָרוֹת שֶׁעָשִׂיתִי עִמְּךָ בְּיוֹם פְּלוֹנִי – נִטְמְאוּ, אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שׁוּרַת הַדִּין אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. אָמַר לְפָנָיו רַבִּי אַסִּי: רַבִּי, אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן? הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הֶאֱמִינַתּוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is related that there was **a certain** person **who said to another: The ritually pure** food **that I prepared with you on such and such a day became ritually impure.** The owner of the food **came before Rabbi Ami,** asking him what to do. Rabbi Ami **said to him:** You may continue to treat the food as ritually pure, as **in principle,** the other person **is not deemed credible. Rabbi Asi said before him: My teacher, do you say this? So said Rabbi Yoḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yosei: What can I do** when I see **that the Torah deemed him credible** in such a case?


###### Gittin 54b:11
[Gittin 54b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:11)

הֵיכָן הֶאֱמִינַתּוּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר בִּיסְנָא: כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים יוֹכִיחַ, דְּכִי אָמַר פִּגּוּל – מְהֵימַן; וּמְנָא יָדְעִינַן? וְהָכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״! אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם דִּמְהֵימַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Where** does it **deem him credible? Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna says: The High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove** this point, **as when** he **says** that he had **improper intent,** he is **deemed credible. And from where do we know** that he had improper intent? **But isn’t it written: “And no man shall be in the Tent of Meeting** when he goes in to make atonement for the holy place” (Leviticus 16:17)? **Rather, is it not because** he is **deemed credible** in his testimony even after he performed the service, and it is no longer in his power to disqualify the offering?


###### Gittin 54b:12
[Gittin 54b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:12)

וְדִלְמָא דִּשְׁמַעְנֵיהּ דְּפַגֵּיל! אִי לָאו דִּמְהֵימַן, אַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁמַעְנֵיהּ נָמֵי לָא מְהֵימַן, דְּדִלְמָא לְבָתַר הָכִי קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **But perhaps we heard that he disqualified** the offering **with improper intention,** i.e., maybe he stated his intention out loud while performing the service and it was heard outside. The Gemara answers: **Were** he **not deemed credible** about the matter, then **even if we heard him** voice his intention, he **would also not be deemed credible.** Why? The reason is **that perhaps** he actually sprinkled the blood with the proper intention, and it was only **afterward** that **he said** what he said, and at that time he could no longer disqualify the offering. Rather, he is certainly deemed credible when he says that he disqualified the offering with improper intention.


###### Gittin 54b:13
[Gittin 54b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:13)

וְדִלְמָא דַּחֲזֵינֵיהּ בְּפִישְׁפָּשׁ? קַשְׁיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another objection: **But perhaps we saw** what the High Priest was doing **through a small door,** through which it was possible to monitor his actions, and we saw that he sprinkled the blood with improper intention. The Gemara says: This is **difficult** for Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Bisna, as his proof can be refuted.


###### Gittin 54b:14
[Gittin 54b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:14)

הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לִפְלוֹנִי, אַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא כְּתַבְתִּים לִשְׁמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּיַד מִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: נֶאֱמָן אַתָּה לְהַפְסִיד שְׂכָרְךָ, וְאִי אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is similarly related that there was **a certain** person **who came before Rabbi Ami** and **said to him:** In **the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not write the mentions** of God’s name **with the proper intention** that is required when writing a holy name, and therefore the scroll is not valid. Rabbi Ami **said to him:** This **Torah scroll** is currently **in whose possession?** The scribe **said to him:** It is now **in the buyer’s possession.** Rabbi Ami **said to him: You are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage,** as you admit that you wrote the Torah scroll in a faulty manner, and therefore the buyer can refuse to pay you. **But you are not deemed credible to cause a loss** to, i.e., to invalidate, **the Torah scroll.**


###### Gittin 54b:15
[Gittin 54b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:15)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: נְהִי דְּהִפְסִיד שְׂכַר אַזְכָּרוֹת, שְׂכַר דְּסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה כּוּלֵּיהּ מִי הִפְסִיד?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין, שֶׁכׇּל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁאֵין אַזְכָּרוֹת שֶׁלּוֹ כְּתוּבוֹת לִשְׁמָן – אֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said to him: Although he lost** his **wage** with regard **to the mentions** of God’s name that he wrote in a faulty manner, **did he lose his wage** with regard **to the entire Torah scroll,** which he wrote correctly? Rabbi Ami **said to him: Yes,** he lost his wage for the entire Torah scroll, **as any Torah scroll in which the mentions** of God’s name **have not been written with the proper intention is not worth anything.**


###### Gittin 54b:16
[Gittin 54b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:16)

וְלִיעַבַּר עֲלַיְיהוּ קוּלְמוֹס, וְלִיקַדְּשֵׁיהּ! כְּמַאן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let** the scribe **pass a reed** pen **[*kulemos*]** with additional ink over instances of God’s name **and sanctify them,** going over the names with the proper intention. And since there is no option to correct the Torah scroll in this manner, **in accordance with whose** opinion was this ruling issued? **Shall we say** that it is **not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda?**


###### Gittin 54b:17
[Gittin 54b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:17)

דִּתְנַן: הֲרֵי שֶׁהָיָה צָרִיךְ לִכְתּוֹב אֶת הַשֵּׁם; וְנִתְכַּוֵּון לִכְתּוֹב ״יְהוּדָה״, וְטָעָה וְלֹא הֵטִיל בּוֹ דָּלֶת; מַעֲבִיר עָלָיו קוּלְמוֹס, וּמְקַדְּשׁוֹ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין הַשֵּׁם מִן הַמּוּבְחָר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as we learned** in a *baraita*: If a scribe writing a Torah scroll was at a point in the text **that he needed to write the name** of God, spelled *yod*, *heh*, *vav*, *heh*; and he erred **and intended to write Yehuda,** spelled *yod*, *heh*, *vav*, *dalet*, *heh*, **but he made a mistake** when writing Yehuda **and did not place a *dalet* in** the word, thereby unintentionally writing the name of God in the correct place, then **he should pass over it with a reed** pen. He writes over what was written **and sanctifies it** with the intention that he is writing the name of God. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say:** Even if he adds a second layer of ink, **the name** has **not** been written **in the optimal manner.** The fact that Rabbi Ami did not offer the option to rewrite the mentions of God’s name to correct the scroll indicates that the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and not in accordance with that of Rabbi Yehuda.


###### Gittin 54b:18
[Gittin 54b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:18)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אֶלָּא בַּחֲדָא אַזְכָּרָה, אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה – לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כִּמְנוּמָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this argument: **You** can **even say** that in general the *halakha* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** but there is a distinction between the cases. **Rabbi Yehuda states** his opinion **only with regard to a single mention** of God’s name that was initially written without the proper intention. In such a case, it is possible to pass over the name with additional ink and thereby sanctify it. **But** passing over all of the holy names found in an **entire Torah scroll** is **not** possible. Why not? **Because** if the scribe would pass his pen over all the names of God found in a Torah scroll, **it would look speckled,** as the instances of the Divine Name would be written with a thicker layer of ink and stand out.


###### Gittin 54b:19
[Gittin 54b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/54b:19)

הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁכָּתַבְתִּי לִפְלוֹנִי, גְּוִילִין שֶׁלּוֹ לֹא עִיבַּדְתִּים לִשְׁמָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה בְּיַד מִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּיַד לוֹקֵחַ. אָמַר לוֹ: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִיד שְׂכָרְךָ, אַתָּה נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִיד סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is further related that there was **a certain** person **who came before Rabbi Abbahu** and **said to him:** With regard to **the Torah scroll that I wrote for so-and-so, I did not process its parchment with the proper intention.** Rabbi Abbahu **said to him: The Torah scroll is** currently **in whose possession?** The scribe **said to him:** It is **in the possession of the buyer.** Rabbi Abbahu **said to him: Since you are deemed credible to cause the loss of your wage,** as you have admitted that the parchment upon which the Torah scroll was written is invalid, **you are deemed credible to cause a loss** to, i.e., disqualify, **the Torah scroll.**