## Gittin Daf 55b

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

וּמָה טַעַם אָמְרוּ נוֹדְעָה אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת? שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹכֵל גְּזֵילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And what is the reason** that the Sages **said** that if **it is known** that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, **it does not effect atonement?** It is so that people **not say** that **the altar consumes stolen property.**


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

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא – הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי חַטָּאת. אֶלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה – מַאי אִירְיָא חַטָּאת, אֲפִילּוּ עוֹלָה נָמֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to clarify the two explanations. **Granted,** according to the opinion of **Ulla,** that the concern stems from the fact that the priests will be distraught, **this is the reason that** the *tanna* **teaches** the *halakha* with regard to **a sin-offering:** The priests partake of the meat of a sin-offering. If they find out that they ate an animal that was forbidden to them, i.e., an offering slaughtered counter to *halakha*, they are likely to become distraught. **But according to** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda,** that the concern is about the honor of the altar, **why** does the mishna mention **specifically** the case of **a sin-offering;** shouldn’t the same concern apply to **a burnt-offering, as well,** as it too is burned on the altar?


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

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר – לָא מִיבַּעְיָא עוֹלָה, דְּכָלִיל הִיא; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ חַטָּאת נָמֵי, דְּחֵלֶב וָדָם הוּא דְּסָלֵיק לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאִידַּךְ כֹּהֲנִים אָכְלִי לֵיהּ; אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי גְּזוּר, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמְרוּ מִזְבֵּחַ אוֹכֵל גְּזֵילוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The mishna **is speaking** utilizing the style of: **It is not necessary,** and the mishna should be understood as follows: **It is not necessary** to teach the *halakha* in the case of **a burnt-offering, which is entirely** consumed on the altar. In that case, people will certainly say that the altar consumes stolen property. **But even** in the case of **a sin-offering, where** only **the fat and the blood go up** to be consumed **on the altar and the rest is consumed by the priests, even so they issued a decree** and said that the stolen sin-offering does not effect atonement, **so** that people **should not say** that **the altar consumes stolen property.**


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

תְּנַן: עַל חַטָּאת הַגְּזוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא נוֹדְעָה לְרַבִּים, שֶׁהִיא מְכַפֶּרֶת – מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא – נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה – אִיפְּכָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara further clarifies the two understandings: **We learned** in the mishna: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Gudgeda testified **about a sin-offering that** had been obtained **through robbery** but **that is not publicly known** to have been obtained in that manner, and said **that it effects atonement** for the robber who sacrifices it, **for the benefit of the altar. Granted, according to** the opinion of **Ulla,** it **works out well,** as he understands that the Sages instituted that if it was not publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does effect atonement. **But according to** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda, it should have** stated just **the opposite,** namely, that if it was publicly known that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, it does not effect atonement.


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

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: לָא נוֹדְעָה – מְכַפֶּרֶת, נוֹדְעָה – אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת, מִפְּנֵי תִּיקּוּן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what** the mishna **is saying:** If **it is not known** that the sin-offering was obtained through robbery, **it effects atonement,** but if this **is known, it does not effect atonement, for the benefit of the altar.**


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

מֵתִיב רָבָא: גָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל, וְאֵינוֹ מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: בַּחוּץ כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא – עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ יֵאוּשׁ כְּדִי לָא קָנֵי, כָּרֵת מַאי עֲבִידְתֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises an objection** from what was learned in a mishna (*Bava Kamma* 74a): If **one stole** an animal **and consecrated** it, **and afterward he slaughtered or sold** it, **he pays double payment** like a thief (see Exodus 22:3), **but he does not pay fourfold or fivefold payment,** as one must ordinarily pay when he slaughters or sells an ox or a sheep that he stole from another person (Exodus 21:37). **And it is taught** in a *baraita* **with regard to** this mishna: If one slaughtered an animal **outside** the Temple **in a case like this,** he is **punishable by *karet*** for having sacrificed an offering outside the Temple. **And if you say** that the owner’s **despair** of recovering an item that was stolen from him **does not by itself** enable the thief to **acquire** the stolen item, **what is the relevance of** mentioning ***karet*?** The punishment of *karet* should not apply, as the thief cannot consecrate an animal that does not belong to him.


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

אָמַר רַב שֵׁיזְבִי: כָּרֵת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. אַחִיכוּ עֲלֵיהּ – כָּרֵת מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם מִי אִיכָּא?! אֲמַר לְהוּ רָבָא: גַּבְרָא רַבָּה אָמַר מִילְּתָא, לָא תְּחוּכוּ עֲלַהּ; כָּרֵת שֶׁעַל יְדֵי דִּבְרֵיהֶן בָּאתָה לוֹ – אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלִיחַיַּיב עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Sheizevi said:** This means that he is liable to receive ***karet* by rabbinic law.** Those who heard this **laughed at him. Is there** such a thing as ***karet* by rabbinic law? Rava said to them: A great man has spoken, do not laugh at him.** What Rav Sheizevi means is ***karet* that comes to him through the words** of the Sages, who declared that the thief’s consecration is valid. It is **the Sages** who **placed** the animal **in his possession, so that he would become liable for it.**


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

אָמַר רָבָא: הָא וַודַּאי קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי – כִּי אוֹקְמוּהָ רַבָּנַן בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ, מִשְּׁעַת גְּנֵיבָה אוֹ מִשְּׁעַת הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ? לְמַאי נָפְקָא מִינַּהּ? לְגִיזּוֹתֶיהָ וּוַלְדוֹתֶיהָ. מַאי? הֲדַר אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִשְּׁעַת הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** Although I agree with Rav Sheizevi, **this** matter **is certainly a dilemma for me. When the Sages placed** the animal **in his possession,** did they do so **from the time of the theft or from the time of the consecration? What is the difference** between these possibilities? There is a difference **with regard to its wool and with regard to its offspring.** If the animal was placed in his possession from the time of the theft, the wool that it grows and the offspring that it births are his, and he is not required to return them to the animal’s owner. But if the animal becomes his only when he consecrates it, he is required to return them. **What** is the *halakha*? **Rava then said,** in answer to his own question: **It stands to reason** that the Sages placed the animal in his possession **from the time of the consecration.** This is **so that the sinner not profit** from his crime. Otherwise, the thief would benefit from the rabbinic decree that was instituted to increase his liability.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** לֹא הָיָה סִיקָרִיקוֹן בִּיהוּדָה בַּהֲרוּגֵי מִלְחָמָה. מֵהֲרוּגֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה וְאֵילָךְ, יֵשׁ בָּהּ סִיקָרִיקוֹן. כֵּיצַד? לָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל. מִבַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן – מִקָּחוֹ קַיָּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The law of **Sicarii [*Sikarikon*] did not** apply **in Judea in the** time that **people were being killed in the war. From** the time that **people were being killed in the war and onward,** the law of **Sicarii did** apply **there. What** is this law of Sicarii? If **one** first **purchased** land **from a Sicarius,** who extorted the field from its prior owners with threats, **and** afterward the buyer **returned and purchased** the same field a second time **from the** prior **landowner, his purchase is void.** The prior owner of the field can say that he did not actually mean to sell him the field. By contrast, if he first acquired the field **from the** prior **owner and** afterward **he returned and purchased** the same field **from a Sicarius, his purchase stands.**


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

לָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִשָּׁה – מִקָּחוֹ בָּטֵל. מִן הָאִשָּׁה וְחָזַר וְלָקַח מִן הָאִישׁ – מִקָּחוֹ קַיָּים. זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if **one** first **purchased from the husband** the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, **and** afterward **he returned and purchased** the same field **from the wife,** so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, **his purchase is void.** The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field **from the wife, and** afterward **he returned and purchased** the same field **from the husband, his purchase stands. This** is the **initial** version of this **mishna.**


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

בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶם אָמְרוּ: הַלּוֹקֵחַ מִסִּיקָרִיקוֹן, נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ. אֵימָתַי – בִּזְמַן שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדָן לִיקַּח, אֲבָל יֵשׁ בְּיָדָן לִיקַּח – הֵן קוֹדְמִין לְכׇל אָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Later, **the court of those** who came **after** the Sages who composed that mishna **said:** With regard to **one who purchased** a field **from a Sicarius, he must give the** prior **owner one-fourth** of the field’s value. **When** does this apply? **At a time when** the prior owner **is unable to purchase** the field himself. **But if he is able to purchase** it himself, **he precedes anyone** else.


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

רַבִּי הוֹשִׁיב בֵּית דִּין וְנִמְנוּ, שֶׁאִם שָׁהֲתָה בִּפְנֵי סִיקָרִיקוֹן שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, כׇּל הַקּוֹדֵם לִיקַּח – זָכָה; אֲבָל נוֹתֵן לַבְּעָלִים רְבִיעַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi later **convened a court, and they counted** their votes and determined **that if** the field **remained before,** i.e., in the possession of, **the Sicarius** for **twelve months, whoever first purchases** the field **acquires possession** of it, **but he must give the** prior **owner one-fourth** of the field’s value.


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

**גְּמָ׳** הַשְׁתָּא בַּהֲרוּגֵי הַמִּלְחָמָה לֹא הָיָה בָּהּ סִיקָרִיקוֹן, מֵהֲרוּגֵי מִלְחָמָה וְאֵילָךְ, יֵשׁ בָּהּ סִיקָרִיקוֹן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara challenges the mishna’s assertion that the law of Sicarii did not apply in Judea in the time that people were being killed in the war: **Now** if **in** the time that **people were being killed in the war, there were no Sicarii** stealing land, is it possible that **from** the time that **people were being killed in the war and onward there were Sicarii?**


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: ״לֹא דָּנוּ בָּהּ דִּין סִיקָרִיקוֹן״ קָאָמַר. דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: שָׁלֹשׁ גְּזֵירוֹת גָּזְרוּ. גְּזֵרְתָּא קַמַּיְיתָא: כֹּל דְּלָא קָטֵיל – לִיקְטְלוּהּ. מְצִיעֲתָא: כֹּל דְּקָטֵיל – לַיְיתֵי אַרְבַּע זוּזֵי. בָּתְרָיְיתָא: כֹּל דְּקָטֵיל – לִיקְטְלוּהּ. הִלְכָּךְ, קַמַּיְיתָא וּמְצִיעֲתָא, כֵּיוָן דְּקָטְלִי – אַגַּב אוּנְסֵיהּ גָּמַר וּמַקְנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yehuda said:** The mishna **is saying** that in the time that people were being killed in the war **they did not apply the law of Sicarii,** but rather they would confirm the purchases of land made from the Sicarii. The reason for this is in accordance with what **Rabbi Asi said:** The gentile authorities **issued three decrees** during and in the aftermath of the war that ended in the destruction of the Temple. The **first decree** was that **anyone who does not kill** a Jew **should** himself **be killed.** The **second** decree was that **anyone who kills** a Jew **should pay four dinars** as a fine. The **last** decree was that **anyone who kills** a Jew **should** himself **be killed. Therefore,** during the time of the **first and second** decrees, the time when people were being killed in the war, **since** the gentile **would kill** Jews, then the owner of the field, **owing to the danger** posed to his life, **would fully transfer ownership** of his field to the Sicarius.


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

בָּתְרָיְיתָא אָמְרִי: הָאִידָּנָא לִישְׁקוֹל, לִמְחַר תָּבַעְנָא לֵיהּ בְּדִינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Then, during the time of **the last** decree, after the time when people were being killed in the war, anybody whose field was stolen by a Sicarius would **say** to himself: **Now let him take** the field; **tomorrow I will claim it from him in court.** Although the gentile had the advantage and could force the owner to give him the field, the assumption is that the owner did not fully transfer possession of the field to him, as he thought that he would still be able to recover it in court.


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

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״אַשְׁרֵי אָדָם מְפַחֵד תָּמִיד וּמַקְשֶׁה לִבּוֹ יִפּוֹל בְּרָעָה״? אַקַּמְצָא וּבַר קַמְצָא חֲרוּב יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, אַתַּרְנְגוֹלָא וְתַרְנְגוֹלְתָּא חֲרוּב טוּר מַלְכָּא, אַשָּׁקָא דְרִיסְפַּק חֲרוּב בֵּיתֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the war that led to the destruction of the Second Temple, the Gemara examines several aspects of the destruction of that Temple in greater detail: **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What** is the meaning of that **which is written: “Happy is the man who fears always, but he who hardens his heart shall fall into mischief”** (Proverbs 28:14)? **Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza.** The place known as **the King’s Mountain was destroyed on account of a rooster and a hen.** The city of **Beitar was destroyed on account of a shaft from a chariot [*rispak*].**


###### Gittin 55b:17
[Gittin 55b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55b:17)

אַקַּמְצָא וּבַר קַמְצָא חֲרוּב יְרוּשָׁלַיִם – דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּרָחֲמֵיהּ קַמְצָא, וּבְעֵל דְּבָבֵיהּ בַּר קַמְצָא. עֲבַד סְעוֹדְתָּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לְשַׁמָּעֵיהּ: זִיל אַיְיתִי לִי קַמְצָא. אֲזַל אַיְיתִי לֵיהּ בַּר קַמְצָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Jerusalem was destroyed on account of Kamtza and bar Kamtza.** This is **as** there was **a certain man whose friend** was named **Kamtza and whose enemy** was named **bar Kamtza. He** once **made** a large **feast** and **said to his servant: Go bring me** my friend **Kamtza.** The servant **went** and mistakenly **brought him** his enemy **bar Kamtza.**


###### Gittin 55b:18
[Gittin 55b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/55b:18)

אֲתָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דַּהֲוָה יָתֵיב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִכְּדֵי הָהוּא גַּבְרָא בְּעֵל דְּבָבֵאּ דְּהָהוּא גַּבְרָא הוּא, מַאי בָּעֵית הָכָא? קוּם פּוֹק! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הוֹאִיל וַאֲתַאי, שִׁבְקַן וְיָהֵיבְנָא לָךְ דְּמֵי מָה דְּאָכֵילְנָא וְשָׁתֵינָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The man who was hosting the feast **came and found** bar Kamtza **sitting** at the feast. The host **said to** bar Kamtza. **That man is the enemy [*ba’al devava*] of that man,** that is, you are my enemy. **What** then **do you want here? Arise** and **leave.** Bar Kamtza **said to him: Since I have** already **come, let me stay and I will give you money** for **whatever I eat and drink.** Just do not embarrass me by sending me out.