## Gittin Daf 55a

###### Gittin 55a:1
[Gittin 55a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:1)

וּמַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי? הָתָם, אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר טָעֵי בִּדְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה. הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָא מַפְסֵיד כּוּלֵּיהּ אַגְרֵיהּ – וַאֲתָא וַאֲמַר, אֵימוֹר קוּשְׁטָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** in **what** way **is** this case **different from** the case in which **Rabbi Ami** said that the scribe is not deemed credible to disqualify the Torah scroll? The Gemara answers: **There it can be said** that the scribe was lying and merely wished to distress the purchaser of the Torah scroll. He claimed that he had written God’s names without the proper intention because **he made the mistake of Rabbi Yirmeya.** He thought, as Rabbi Yirmeya did, that as a result of his purported admission he would lose only his wage for writing the holy names, but he would still receive payment for the rest of the scroll. **Here,** by contrast, **since** the scribe knows **that** by claiming that he did not process the parchment with the proper intention, **he causes the loss of his entire wage, and** he nevertheless **comes and says** this, you should **say** that **he speaks** the **truth** and should be deemed credible. Since he is deemed credible and there is no concern that he merely wished to distress the purchaser, the Torah scroll is disqualified.


###### Gittin 55a:2
[Gittin 55a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הֵעִיד רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא עַל הַחֵרֶשֶׁת שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, שֶׁהִיא יוֹצְאָה בְּגֵט;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified** before the Sages **about** the case of **a deaf-mute woman who was married** off **by her father** when she was a minor, so that her marriage took effect by Torah law. He said **that she can be released** from her marriage **through a bill of divorce,** whether as a minor or after she reaches adulthood. Although as a deaf-mute woman she is not legally competent to give her consent, the divorce is effective because divorce does not require the woman’s consent.


###### Gittin 55a:3
[Gittin 55a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:3)

וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת לְכֹהֵן, שֶׁאוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאִם מֵתָה – בַּעְלָהּ יוֹרְשָׁהּ;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** similarly, he testified **about** the case of the **minor daughter of a non-priest who** was orphaned from her father and then **married** off to **a priest** by her mother or brother, so that her marriage took effect by rabbinic law. He said **that** nevertheless **she may partake of *teruma*,** although by Torah law it is prohibited for one who is not in a priestly household to partake of *teruma*. **And** furthermore **if** this girl **dies,** then **her husband inherits her** estate. It is not said that because the validity of the marriage is by rabbinic law and not Torah law he is not entitled to inherit from her.


###### Gittin 55a:4
[Gittin 55a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:4)

וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ בְּבִירָה, שֶׁיִּטּוֹל אֶת דָּמָיו, מִפְּנֵי תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda further testified **about a stolen beam that was** already **built into a large building [*bira*],** that the victim of the robbery **receives** only **the value** of the beam but not the beam itself, **due to an ordinance** instituted **for the penitent.** By Torah law, a robber is obligated to return any stolen item in his possession, provided that its form has not been altered. If one stole a beam and incorporated it into a building, then by Torah law he would have to destroy the building and return the beam. In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and allowed a robber to return the value of the beam.


###### Gittin 55a:5
[Gittin 55a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:5)

וְעַל חַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לְרַבִּים – שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** lastly, Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified **about a sin-offering that** was obtained **through robbery** but **that was not publicly known** to have been obtained in that manner. He said **that it effects atonement** for the robber who sacrifices it, **for the benefit of the altar,** as will be explained in the Gemara.


###### Gittin 55a:6
[Gittin 55a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רָבָא: מֵעֵדוּתוֹ שֶׁל רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא – אָמַר לְעֵדִים: רָאוּ גֵּט זֶה שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹתֵן לָהּ, וְחָזַר וְאָמַר לָהּ: כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה – הֲרֵי זוֹ מְגוֹרֶשֶׁת. מִי לָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גּוּדְגְּדָא לָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעְתַּהּ? הָכָא נָמֵי לָא בָּעֵינַן דַּעְתַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rava says:** Learn **from the testimony of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda** in the mishna that if the husband secretly **says to witnesses: See this bill of divorce that I** am about to **give to** my wife, **and then he says** to his wife: **Take this promissory note,** then **she is divorced** even when she herself does not know that the document in her hand is a bill of divorce. **Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda say** that **we do not require** the woman’s **consent** for a bill of divorce, as the divorce takes effect even when she is a deaf-mute, who is not legally competent to give her consent? **Here too,** one should say that **we do not require** the woman’s **consent.**


###### Gittin 55a:7
[Gittin 55a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:7)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר: ״כִּנְסִי שְׁטַר חוֹב זֶה״, בַּטּוֹלֵי בַּטְּלֵיהּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, אִם אִיתָא דְּבַטְּלֵיהּ – לְעֵדִים הֲוָה אָמַר לְהוּ. וְהַאי דְּקָאָמַר הָכִי – מִשּׁוּם כִּיסּוּפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Isn’t** this **obvious?** Why would the divorce not be valid? The Gemara explains: **Lest you say: Since he said** to his wife: **Take this promissory note,** after talking to the witnesses, he meant to **cancel** the bill of divorce with these words, Rava therefore **teaches us: If it is so that** he meant to **cancel** the bill of divorce, **he would have told** the **witnesses** that this was his intention. The fact that he did not do so indicates that he had no intention of canceling it. **And the reason he said** to his wife that he was handing her a promissory note is **due to embarrassment,** as he was ashamed to tell her that he was giving her a bill of divorce. Consequently, he gave it to her in such a way that she did not immediately know that it was a bill of divorce that she received.


###### Gittin 55a:8
[Gittin 55a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:8)

וְעַל קְטַנָּה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל: וְאִילּוּ חֵרֶשֶׁת – לָא אָכְלָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִיל חֵרֵשׁ בְּחֵרֶשֶׁת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified **about the** case of **a minor daughter of a non-priest** who was married to a priest, and said that she may partake of *teruma*. The Gemara comments: This indicates that only the minor daughter can partake of *teruma*, **while** one can infer from this that **a deaf-mute woman** who was married to a priest **may not partake** of *teruma*. The Gemara explains: **What is the reason** for this? The Sages **decreed** that a deaf-mute woman married to a priest may not partake of *teruma* **lest a deaf-mute** priest come to **feed *teruma* to** his **deaf-mute** wife, as it is common for deaf-mute men to marry deaf-mute women, but their marriage is not effective by Torah law.


###### Gittin 55a:9
[Gittin 55a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:9)

וְלֹיכֵול – קָטָן אוֹכֵל נְבֵלוֹת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Why does this matter? **And let him feed** her *teruma*. Isn’t she like **a minor** who **eats** forbidden **animal carcasses?** Since the deaf-mute woman is not considered to be legally competent, she is not subject to the prohibition against partaking of *teruma*. As in the case of a minor who is eating forbidden food, there is no requirement to prevent her from doing so.


###### Gittin 55a:10
[Gittin 55a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:10)

גְּזֵרָה שֶׁמָּא יַאֲכִיל חֵרֵשׁ בְּפִיקַּחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rather, the Sages **decreed** that a deaf-mute woman married to a priest may not partake of *teruma* **lest a deaf-mute** priest come to **feed *teruma* to** his halakhically **competent** wife. Since the validity of their marriage is by rabbinic law, it is therefore prohibited for the woman to partake of *teruma*, as by Torah law, she is not the wife of a priest. There is a concern that a distinction will not be made between the marriage of a halakhically competent man and deaf-mute woman, in which case the woman is permitted to partake of *teruma*, and the marriage of a deaf-mute man and a halakhically competent woman, in which case the woman is prohibited from partaking of *teruma*. Owing to this error, a deaf-mute man might come to feed his wife something that is forbidden to her.


###### Gittin 55a:11
[Gittin 55a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:11)

וְלֹאכֵול בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן! גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא אָתֵי לְאוֹכוֹלֵי בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let her partake of *teruma*** that is defined as such **by rabbinic law,** as marriage that is valid by rabbinic law should suffice to permit partaking of such *teruma*. The Gemara answers: The Sages **decreed** that he may not feed her *teruma* even by rabbinic law, **lest he come to feed her *teruma* by Torah law.**


###### Gittin 55a:12
[Gittin 55a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:12)

וְעַל הַמָּרִישׁ הַגָּזוּל שֶׁבְּנָאוֹ: תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: גָּזַל מָרִישׁ וּבְנָאוֹ בְּבִירָה – בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: מְקַעְקֵעַ כׇּל הַבִּירָה כּוּלָּהּ וּמַחְזִיר מָרִישׁ לִבְעָלָיו; וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי מָרִישׁ בִּלְבַד, מִשּׁוּם תַּקָּנַת הַשָּׁבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda further testified **about a stolen beam that was** already **built** into a building and said that the injured party receives the value of the beam but not the beam itself. With regard to this, **the Sages taught** in a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Bava Kamma* 10:5): If **one robbed** another of **a beam and built it into a building, Beit Shammai say:** He must **destroy the entire building and return the beam to its owners. And Beit Hillel say:** The injured party receives **only the value of the beam** but not the beam itself, **due to an ordinance instituted for the sake of the penitent.** In order to encourage repentance, the Sages were lenient and required the robber to return only the value of the beam. The mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.


###### Gittin 55a:13
[Gittin 55a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:13)

וְעַל חַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה כּוּ׳: אָמַר עוּלָּא: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, בֵּין נוֹדְעָה וּבֵין לֹא נוֹדְעָה – אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified **about a sin-offering** that was obtained **through robbery,** and said that provided that it was not publicly known to have been obtained in that manner, it effects atonement for the robber. **Ulla says: By Torah law,** the *halakha* is as follows: **Whether it is known or** whether **it is not known** that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, **it does not effect atonement** for the robber who sacrifices it.


###### Gittin 55a:14
[Gittin 55a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:14)

מַאי טַעְמָא? יֵאוּשׁ כְּדִי לָא קָנֵי; וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ: לֹא נוֹדְעָה מְכַפֶּרֶת? שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים עֲצֵבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is the reason** for this? The owner’s **despair** of recovering an article that was stolen from him **does not by itself** enable the robber to **acquire** the stolen item. Since the stolen animal was not altered in any way, it does not belong to the robber, and he cannot sacrifice it as an offering and achieve atonement through it. **And what is the reason** that the Sages **said** that if **it was not** publicly **known** that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery **it effects atonement?** It is **so that the priests not be distraught** about having sacrificed an animal unfit for the altar.


###### Gittin 55a:15
[Gittin 55a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:15)

אָמְרִי לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לְעוּלָּא: וְהָאֲנַן – ״מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ תְּנַן? אָמַר לָהֶם: כֵּיוָן דְּכֹהֲנִים עֲצֵבִין, נִמְצָא מִזְבֵּחַ בָּטֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Rabbis said to Ulla:** How can you explain the issue in this manner? **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna: It effects atonement **for the benefit of the altar,** which indicates that the *halakha* was enacted for the benefit of the altar, not for the benefit of the priests? Ulla **said to them: When the priests are distraught, the altar is found idle.** The priests will not sacrifice all of the offerings when they are distraught.


###### Gittin 55a:16
[Gittin 55a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55a:16)

וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר: דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, בֵּין נוֹדְעָה בֵּין לֹא נוֹדְעָה – מְכַפֶּרֶת; מַאי טַעְמָא? יֵאוּשׁ כְּדִי קָנֵי;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is one explanation, **but Rav Yehuda says: By Torah law, whether it is known or it is not known** that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, **it effects atonement** for the robber who sacrifices it. **What is the reason** for this? The owner’s **despair** of recovering an article that was stolen from him **by itself** enables the robber to **acquire** the stolen item. Once the owner despairs of regaining possession, the stolen item becomes the robber’s property and he can consecrate it. Therefore, the offering was sacrificed in a fitting manner, and it effects atonement for the robber.