Gittin 59a

אֲנָא הֲוַאי בְּמִנְיָינָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, וּמִינַּאי דִּידִי מְנוֹ בְּרֵישָׁא.

I was present for the counting of the vote in the court set up in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi when they established this ordinance, and they would start with me first, asking for my opinion on the matter, although I was the youngest member of the court.

וְהָאֲנַן תְּנַן: דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְהַטְּהָרוֹת וְהַטְּמָאוֹת – מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצַּד!

The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna ( Sanhedrin 32a): In cases of monetary law and in cases involving ritual purities and impurities, the judges begin their deliberations with the opinion of the most learned member sitting on the bench, as a demonstration of honor to him. But in cases of capital law, they begin their deliberations with the opinion of the youngest member who sits on one of the side benches of the court, lest the junior members be unduly influenced by the opinion of their elders, and people come to be wrongfully executed as a result. The matter involving Rav was not a capital case. Why did they begin their deliberations with Rav, who was certainly not the most learned member of the court, as that designation clearly belonged to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

אָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי וָולָס: שָׁאנֵי מִנְיָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי, דְּכוּלְּהוּ מִנְיָנַיְיהוּ מִן הַצַּד הֲווֹ מַתְחִילִין.

And Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, who says: The counting of the vote in the court in the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was different, as all of their deliberations and countings of the vote would begin with the junior members sitting on the side. This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, nobody would be so brazen as to contradict him.

וְאָמַר רַבָּה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי הִילֵּל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי ווֹלֶס: מִימוֹת מֹשֶׁה וְעַד רַבִּי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד.

And apropos of the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say that it was Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, who says: From the days of Moses and until the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual.

וְלָא?! הָא הֲוָה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ! הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר. הָא הֲוָה אֶלְעָזָר! הֲוָה פִּנְחָס. וְהָא הֲוָה פִּנְחָס! הֲווֹ זְקֵנִים.

The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? Wasn’t there Joshua, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Elazar, who was Joshua’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there Elazar, who outlived Joshua? The Gemara answers: During his day, there was Pinehas, who was Elazar’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: Wasn’t there Pinehas, who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: There were the Elders, who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.

הָא הֲוָה שָׁאוּל! הֲוָה שְׁמוּאֵל. וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה דָּוִד! הֲוָה עִירָא הַיָּאִירִי.

The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Saul, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: There was Samuel, who was Saul’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Samuel pass away in Saul’s lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for all the years that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there David, who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: There was Ira the Jairite, who was David’s equal in Torah knowledge.

וְהָא נָח נַפְשֵׁיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי בָּעֵינַן. הָא הֲוָה שְׁלֹמֹה! הֲוָה שִׁמְעִי בֶּן גֵּרָא. וְהָא קַטְלֵיהּ! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן.

The Gemara objects: But didn’t Ira the Jairite pass away in David’s lifetime? The Gemara answers: In order to qualify for this designation, we require that he be the leading figure in both Torah and high office for all the years that he is the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t there Solomon, who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day there was Shimi ben Gera, who was Solomon’s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: But didn’t Solomon kill him at the beginning of his reign (see I Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness all of his years.

הָא הֲוָה חִזְקִיָּה! הֲוָה שֶׁבְנָא. הָא אִיקְּטִיל! כּוּלְּהוּ שְׁנֵי קָאָמְרִינַן. וְהָא הֲוָה עֶזְרָא! הֲוָה נְחֶמְיָה בֶּן חֲכַלְיָה.

The Gemara further objects: Wasn’t there Hezekiah, who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: There was Shebnah in that generation, who was Hezekiah’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: Wasn’t he killed in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: We meant to say that there was no similar individual who reigned supreme in both Torah and high office all of his years. The Gemara asks: But wasn’t there Ezra, who was the greatest Torah sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: There was Nehemiah ben Hacaliah who was his equal.

אָמַר רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: אַף אֲנִי אוֹמֵר, מִימוֹת רַבִּי וְעַד רַב אָשֵׁי לֹא מָצִינוּ תּוֹרָה וּגְדוּלָּה בְּמָקוֹם אֶחָד. וְלָא?! וְהָא הֲוָה הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן! שָׁאנֵי הוּנָא בַּר נָתָן, דְּמֵיכָף הֲוָה כַּיִיף לֵיהּ לְרַב אָשֵׁי.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: I also say something similar, that from the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and until the days of Rav Ashi, we do not find unparalleled greatness in Torah knowledge and unparalleled greatness in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined in one place, i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: But was there not such a person? But wasn’t there Huna bar Natan, who enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi? The Gemara answers: Huna bar Natan is different, as he himself was subordinate to Rav Ashi, who was his superior in both domains.

מַתְנִי׳ חֵרֵשׁ רוֹמֵז וְנִרְמָז. וּבֶן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: קוֹפֵץ וְנִקְפָּץ – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין.

MISHNA: The following enactments were also made for the betterment of the world: A deaf-mute may express his wishes through gestures [ romez ]; that is to say, he can signal that he wishes to buy or sell a certain item, and the purchase or sale is valid. And similarly he may respond to others through gestures; that is to say, he can signal that he agrees to a transaction initiated by another party, and the transaction is valid. And ben Beteira says: Signals are not necessary, as even if he expresses his wishes to buy or sell through lip movements [ kofetz ] or responds to others through lip movements, the transaction is valid. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. It was similarly enacted that a purchase made by young children [ paotot ] is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property.

גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין, אֲבָל בְּגִיטִּין – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל בִּרְמִיזָה.

GEMARA: Rav Naḥman says in clarification of the scope of the dispute between the first tanna and ben Beteira: The dispute is only with regard to the purchase or sale of movable property. But with regard to bills of divorce, all agree, even ben Beteira, that a deaf-mute can communicate only through gestures and not through lip movements.

פְּשִׁיטָא, ״בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״ תְּנַן! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא ״אַף בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that this is the case, as didn’t we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary, lest you say that the mishna means that these halakhot apply even to transactions involving movable property, and they similarly apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce. Therefore, Rav Naḥman teaches us that ben Beteira’s validation of lip movements applies only to transactions involving movable property, but not to bills of divorce.

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּגִיטִּין. וְהָאֲנַן ״בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״ תְּנַן! אֵימָא: ״אַף בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין״.

There are those who say an alternative version of the previous passage, that Rav Naḥman says as follows: Just as there is a dispute between the first tanna and ben Beteira with regard to transactions involving movable property, so too, there is a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. The Gemara objects: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property? The Gemara answers: Say that the mishna means as follows: These halakhot apply even to transactions involving movable property, and similarly they apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce.

הַפָּעוֹטוֹת מִקָּחָן מִקָּח וּמִמְכָּרָן מִמְכָּר – בְּמִטַּלְטְלִין. וְעַד כַּמָּה? מַחְוֵי רַב יְהוּדָה לְרַב יִצְחָק בְּרֵיהּ: כְּבַר שֵׁית – כְּבָר שַׁב. רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר: כְּבַר שַׁב – כְּבַר תַּמְנֵי. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: כְּבַר תֵּשַׁע – כְּבַר עֶשֶׂר.

§ The mishna teaches that a purchase made by young children is a valid purchase, and a sale made by them is a valid sale. These halakhot apply to transactions involving movable property. The Gemara asks: And from what age are children included in this enactment? Rav Yehuda pointed to Rav Yitzḥak, his son: From the age of about six or seven. Rav Kahana said: From the age of about seven or eight. It was taught in a baraita : From the age of about nine or ten.

וְלָא פְּלִיגִי; כֹּל חַד וְחַד לְפִי חוּרְפֵּיהּ. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִשּׁוּם כְּדֵי חַיָּיו.

The Gemara comments: And they do not disagree about the issue itself; rather, each child is evaluated according to his sharpness. Some children are gifted and understand the nature of business transactions from an earlier age, while others are slower and do not reach the requisite understanding until they are older. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the Sages instituted this enactment for young children? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: In order to provide for the child’s livelihood, as there may be times a child will have no other way to support himself but to engage in some type of business. If his transactions are not valid, he will go hungry.

״וַיֹּאמֶר לַאֲשֶׁר עַל הַמֶּלְתָּחָה, הוֹצֵא לְבוּשׁ לְכֹל עוֹבְדֵי הַבָּעַל״ – מַאי ״מֶלְתָּחָה״? אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבַר הַנִּמְלָל וְנִמְתָּח.

Having cited a tradition reported by Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov, the Gemara cites another such statement with regard to a different matter: The verse states: “And he said to him who was over the wardrobe [ meltaḥa ]: Bring forth garments for all the worshippers of the Ba’al” (II Kings 10:22). What is the meaning of the word “ meltaḥa ”? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It is something that can be compressed and then stretched [ nimlal venimtaḥ ] back to its former size; i.e., a certain type of garment that can be folded up so that it is very small, and afterward unfolded so that it is very large.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שִׁיגֵּר לוֹ בּוּנְיָים בֶּן נוּנְיָים לְרַבִּי – סִיבְנִי, וְחוֹמֶס, סַלְסָלָה, וּמַלְמָלָא. סִיבְנִי וְחוֹמֶס – כְּאַמְגּוּזָא וּפַלְגֵיהּ דְּאַמְגּוּזָא. סַלְסָלָה וּמַלְמָלָא – כְּפִיסְתְּקָא וּפַלְגוּ דְּפִיסְתְּקָא. מַאי מַלְמָלָא? דָּבָר הַנִּמְלָל וְנִמְתָּח.

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A wealthy man named Bonyam ben Nunyam once sent Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: Sivni and ḥoms , salsela and malmala , which were all special types of linen. The Gemara explains what was unique about each of these fabrics: When folded, the sivni and ḥoms could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a nut and half a nut. When the salsela and malmala were folded, they could be compressed to the size, respectively, of a pistachio nut and half a pistachio nut. These fabrics were so thin that they could be compressed to a small size, but when they were unfolded they were large enough to cover Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s body. The Gemara explains further: What is the meaning of the term malmala ? It is something that can be compressed and stretched.

וְטָעוּתָן עַד כַּמָּה? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: עַד שְׁתוּת כְּגָדוֹל.

The Gemara returns to examine the matter of the transactions of young children and asks: And up to how much is their mistake? What is the maximum amount a child can underpay or overcharge without the mistake canceling the sale? Rabbi Yona says that Rabbi Zeira says: Up to one-sixth of the article’s value, like the mistake of an adult. If the buyer or seller underpaid or overcharged up to one-sixth of the article’s true value, the wronged party can demand reimbursement. If the error in price was greater than one-sixth, the transaction is annulled.

בָּעֵי אַבָּיֵי: מַתְּנָתוֹ, מַאי? רַב יֵימַר אֲמַר: אֵין מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה; מָר בַּר רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה.

Abaye raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to a young child’s gift? Rav Yeimar says: His gift is not a valid gift. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: His gift is a valid gift.

אַפְכוּהָ וְשַׁדְּרוּהָ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב מׇרְדֳּכַי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זִילוּ אֱמַרוּ לְבַר מָר, לָאו הָכִי הֲוָה עוֹבָדָא? כִּי הֲוָה קָאֵי מָר – חַד כַּרְעֵיהּ אַאַרְעָא וְחַד כַּרְעֵיהּ אַדַּרְגָּא, וַאֲמַרְנָא לֵיהּ: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַאי? וַאֲמַר לַן: מַתְּנָתוֹ מַתָּנָה – אַחַת מַתְּנַת שְׁכִיב מְרַע וְאַחַת מַתְּנַת בָּרִיא, אַחַת מַתָּנָה מְרוּבָּה וְאַחַת מַתָּנָה מוּעֶטֶת.

The Sages reversed the attributions of these two statements and sent word of this dispute to Rav Mordekhai, leading him to understand that it was Mar bar Rav Ashi who said that the child’s gift is not valid. Rav Mordekhai said to them: Go say to Mar son of my Master, Rav Ashi: Wasn’t the incident as follows? When the Master, Rav Ashi, was standing with one foot on the ground and one foot on the step, we said to him: What is the halakha with regard to a young child’s gift? And he said to us: His gift is a valid gift, whether it is the gift of a person on his deathbed, who gives instructions before his death concerning the disposal of his property, or it is the gift of a healthy person, whether it is a large gift or it is a small gift. In all cases the gift is valid.

מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים אָמְרוּ מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם: כֹּהֵן קוֹרֵא רִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחֲרָיו לֵוִי וְאַחֲרָיו יִשְׂרָאֵל – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם. מְעָרְבִין בְּבַיִת יָשָׁן – מִפְּנֵי דַּרְכֵי שָׁלוֹם.

MISHNA: Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. The Sages instituted this order on account of the ways of peace, so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that a joining of courtyards is placed in an old house where it had regularly been placed on account of the ways of peace, as will be explained in the Gemara.