The Abbe B. Set edition presents an audio series of the Talmud Bavli. The study of Masechet Gittin has been generously sponsored by our esteemed friend and loyal student of Daf Yomi, Mr. Heimy Dana, and his beloved wife, may Hashem protect and sustain them. This Masechet is dedicated based on the principle that learning can avert negative occurrences. We engage in the study of Masechet Gittin so that its lessons remain theoretical and do not manifest in reality, thus blessing him, his wife, and all of Klal Yisrael with Shalom Bayit, success, and prosperity in all their endeavors, Amen. Today’s daf is Daf Nun Tet. We study today’s daf for the elevation of the souls of Rabbi Yosef ben Sara, Rabbi Avraham ben Ester, and Yaffa bat Sara. May their souls find rest in Gan Eden, Amen. We also study for a complete recovery for Shoshana bat Simcha, Moshe ben Sara, Moshe Medina ben Sara, Ruchama bat Rachel, and Mazal bat Rachel. May the Almighty heal them, Amen.>
We begin today’s daf on Nun Chet Amud Bet, starting from the bottom line. Amar Rav: "I was present in the assembly of Rabbi, and they began with my opinion." We learned in the Mishnah that Rabbi, specifically Yehuda HaNasi, established a Bet Din and enacted a takkana stating that if a Sikrikun, a non-Jew who threatened a Jew's life, took possession of the Jew's field, and the Jew said, 'Take my field, but spare my life,' and it remained with the Sikrikun for twelve months, then if someone else (whom we have referred to as Shimon) later purchased the field, it belongs to Shimon. The original owner, whom we have been calling Reuven, cannot claim the field back from Shimon after twelve months. Shimon can respond, 'Where were you for those twelve months? You had the opportunity to redeem the field,' and thus, Reuven is only required to pay Shimon a quarter of the field's value, as we discussed in the previous amud. The halacha follows Shmuel in this case.
Now, Rabbi states that there was a Bet Din established by him. Rav asserts, "I was in that Bet Din. They began their deliberations with me," meaning that they sought my opinion first when they were voting on whether to pass this twelve-month rule. Rashi explains that in that assembly, they would sit in a semi-circle, and when they asked for opinions, they would start with me. However, Rav was considered a middle-ranking scholar, neither the most esteemed nor the least. Rashi clarifies that he was not among the greatest nor among the least esteemed. He mentions that he heard there was even a lesser scholar among them. Yet the Gemara states that he was a Tanna, and in his generation, he had prominent scholars.
Thus, the Gemara asks how it can be that they began with him. We have a general rule in Bet Din protocols: in cases of monetary disputes, purity laws, and impurity laws, deliberations begin with the most esteemed scholar. However, in capital cases, deliberations begin with the least esteemed, as the verse states, "You shall not answer in a dispute," implying that one should not argue with a great rabbi in capital cases. Therefore, if the greatest rabbi gives his opinion first, others cannot voice their opinions. In capital cases, they always start with the lesser rabbi to allow him to express his views freely before moving to the higher-ranking scholars.
However, in monetary cases, the protocol is the opposite; one may express their opinion freely without deferring to the greatest scholar. The verse regarding "You shall not answer in a dispute" specifically refers to capital cases. Hence, Rav claims that in Rabbi’s Bet Din, they began with him. The Gemara responds that in Rabbi’s court, they would always start with the lesser judges, regardless of the type of case. Rashi explains that the reason for this is due to the verse about not arguing with a great rabbi, which was interpreted to apply universally, not just in capital cases.
Continuing, the Gemara states that from the times of Moshe Rabbeinu until Rabbi, we have never seen one person possess both greatness in Torah and authority or wealth in one place. Rashi elucidates that there has never been a single individual who was both a great scholar and wealthy simultaneously. In the time of Moshe Rabbeinu, he was unparalleled in both Torah and authority. Until Rabbi, who also stood unmatched in his time regarding scholarship and wealth.
The Gemara challenges this by mentioning Yehoshua ben Nun, who had authority and was second in Torah only to Moshe Rabbeinu. The Gemara then counters that Elazar, the son of Aharon, also had authority. Thus, the claim that one person cannot possess both is questioned. The Gemara continues this line of reasoning, examining various figures throughout Jewish history to determine if anyone ever possessed both qualities simultaneously.
Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that while there were instances of individuals possessing one or the other, the unique status of Moshe Rabbeinu and Rabbi remains unmatched in their lifetimes. Rav Aha adds that from the time of Rabbi until Rav Ashi, we have not found anyone who possessed both Torah and authority. The Gemara affirms this by discussing various prominent figures, ultimately concluding that true greatness in both respects was limited to these few exceptional leaders.
The Mishnah then discusses further takanot established by the Rabbis for the sake of societal order. One such ruling concerns a cheresh (deaf-mute) who can make a kinyan through gestures. The Mishnah states that a cheresh can signal his intent to acquire something, and this is valid even if he cannot speak.
Rabbi Ben Betheira asserts that not only can a cheresh signal with his hands, but he can also use facial gestures. This ruling applies specifically to movable items, which the Rabbis deemed acceptable for a cheresh to engage in transactions. The Gemara examines the implications of these rulings, emphasizing their significance in ensuring that even those with limitations can participate in trade.
The Gemara further discusses the stipulations regarding minors and their ability to engage in transactions. The Rabbis established that even young children could make valid purchases of movable items, despite lacking full understanding. The Gemara concludes by discussing the age at which children can be considered capable of making valid transactions, emphasizing the necessity of ensuring their well-being.
Finally, the Gemara reiterates the importance of societal harmony, demonstrating how the Rabbis instituted various takanot to maintain peace within the community. This theme of darchei shalom resonates throughout the discussions, illustrating the Rabbis’ commitment to fostering a harmonious society through their legal rulings and protocols. The teachings encapsulated in this daf serve as a reminder of the balance between halachic precision and the need for compassion and understanding in our interactions with others.