Gittin 53b

גיטין נ״ג ע״ב

Learn Gittin 53b step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Gittin 53b in Gemara Clarity

Topic

היזק שאינו ניכר and fining an accidental doer: מי חטאת, the robber who returns a ruined item, and how רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה apply fines

Overview

The amud opens by settling a clash between a ברייתא, which says work with מי חטאת makes the water unfit, and רבא, who says water used in weighing stays fit. The גמרא's final answer is that both cases involve weighing against the water, and the water becomes unfit only if the person stopped paying attention to guarding it. רב פפא then brings a משנה: a robber whose stolen coin, תרומה or חמץ lost its value without any visible change may just return it. That refutes חזקיה's view that היזק שאינו ניכר counts as damage. The גמרא suggests that רבי מאיר and רבי יהודה argue about this same question, in the case of someone who makes another person's food impure, mixes תרומה into it, or pours his wine for an idol. רב נחמן בר יצחק answers that everyone agrees unseen damage is not real damage. In his view, the argument is about whether the חכמים fined an accidental doer because of a deliberate one. That raises contradictions from the ברייתא about cooking on שבת. The גמרא resolves them with a split between rabbinic and Torah laws, and treats עבודה זרה as a special case for each תנא. A final contradiction from planting a tree in שביעית is answered by רבי מאיר's own special reason, that people count years from שביעית, and his explanation continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (22)

1. Challengeרבא's ruling that weighed water stays fit
2. ResolutionWeighing with the water versus weighing against it
3. ChallengeReal use of the water should make him liable in human court
4. ResolutionBoth cases are weighing against the water; the difference is attention
5. Challengeרב פפא cites the case of a robber who returns a ruined item
6. ChallengeIf unseen damage counted, the robber would have to pay
7. ConclusionThe view that unseen damage counts is refuted
8. ProofA ברייתא that may show תנאים argue about unseen damage
9. ProofExplaining the argument as being about unseen damage
10. Rejectionרב נחמן בר יצחק: the argument is about fining accidents
11. ChallengeContradiction from food cooked on שבת
12. ChallengeThe last opinion in the Shabbat ברייתא, and the double contradiction
13. Resolutionרבי מאיר fines only for rabbinic laws
14. ChallengeBut pouring wine for idols is a Torah law
15. Resolutionעבודה זרה is a special case for רבי מאיר
16. Resolutionרבי יהודה fines only for Torah laws
17. ChallengeBut pouring wine for idols is a Torah law, and רבי יהודה does not fine
18. ResolutionPeople already stay far from עבודה זרה
19. Challengeרבי מאיר seems to fine an accidental planter in the seventh year
20. Statementרבי יהודה's opposite ruling in the same ברייתא
21. RejectionThe ברייתא itself treats two Torah laws differently
22. Resolutionרבי מאיר's own reason: people count years from the seventh year