Rif Gittin 26b {52b; 54b - 55a}

26b

{Gittin 52b}

איתמר אפוטרופא דאפסיד רב הונא אמר מסלקינן ליה
דבי ר' שילא אמרי לא מסלקינן ליה
והלכתא מסלקינן ליה
וקאמרי רבואתה מגו דמסלקינן ליה משבעינן ליה והאי דאיפסקא הלכתא דלא משבעינן ליה ה"מ דלא אישתכח עליה פסידא אבל היכא דאישתכח עליה פסידא מסלקינן ליה ומשבעינן ליה:

It was stated {by Amoraim}: A guardian who spoiled {the property} --
Rav Huna said: We remove him.
The academy of Rav Shila said: We do not remove him.

And the halacha is that we remove him.
And the {post-Talmudic} Rabbis say that since we can remove him, we can also impose an oath upon him. And this that we rule the halacha that we do not impose an oath upon him, these words are where we do not find {evidence} that he was spoiling, but where we found that he was spoiling, we may remove him and impose an oath upon him.

אפוטרופוס שמינהו אבי יתומים ישבע וכו':
אמר רב חנן בר אמי אמר שמואל הלכה כאבא שאול
והני מילי בטענת שמא אבל בטענת ברי משבעינן כגון דגדלי יתמי וטעני עליה בטענת ברי וכפר איהו כגון דא ודאי משתבע:

"A GUARDIAN WHO WAS APPOINTED BY THE FATHER OF THE ORPHANS IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AN OATH...":
Rav Chanan bar Ami cited Shmuel: The halacha is like Abba Shaul.

{Rif explains:} And these words are by a claim of "perhaps" {he took something he should not have}, but with a certain claim, we impose an oath. Such as where the orphans grew up and claimed against him, with a certain claim, and he denied. In such an instance, he certainly swears.

{Gittin 54b}

המטמא והמדמע וכו':
ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמי
א"ל ס"ת שכתבתי לפלוני אזכרות שבו אינן כתובין לשמן
א"ל ס"ת ביד מי
א"ל ביד לוקח
א"ל נאמן אתה להפסיד שכרך ואי אתה נאמן להפסיד ס"ת
א"ל ר' ירמיה נהי דאפסיד שכר אזכרות דכוליה ספר אמאי אפסיד
א"ל שאני אומר כל ס"ת שאין אזכרות שבו כתובין לשמן אינו שוה כלום

"ONE WHO RENDERS UNCLEAN [ANOTHER'S FOODSTUFFS] OR MIXES [TERUMAH WITH THEM]...":
There was one who came before Rabbi Ammi.
He said to him {Rabbi Ammi}: The sefer Torah I wrote for Ploni, the Divine Names within it were not written with proper intent {lishmah}.
He {=Rabbi Ammi} said to him: In whose possession is the sefer Torah?
He said to him: In the hand of the purchaser.
He {=Rabbi Ammi} said to him: You are believed to lose yourself your wages, but you are not believed to lose {spoil} a sefer Torah.
Rabbi Yirmeyah said to him {=Rabbi Ammi}: Granted that he loses the wages for the Names; Of the entire {rest of} the sefer, why does he lose?
He {=Rabbi Ammi} said to him {Rabbi Yirmeyah}: For I say that any sefer Torah whose Names are not written lishmah is not worth anything.

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אבהו
א"ל ס"ת שכתבתי לפלוני גוילים שבו לא עיבדתים לשמן
א"ל ס"ת ביד מי
א"ל ביד לוקח
א"ל מתוך שאתה נאמן להפסיד שכרך נאמן אתה להפסיד ס"ת
ומ"ש מדר' אמי התם איכא למימר טעי בדר' ירמיה הכא קא פסיד כוליה אגריה וקאתי ואמר ש"מ קושטא קאמר:

There was one who came before Rabbi Abahu.
He said to him {Rabbi Abahu}: The sefer Torah that I wrote from Ploni, the parchments for it were not made lishmah.
He said to him: In whose possession is the sefer Torah?
He said to him: In the hand of the purchaser.
He said to him: Since you are believed to lose your wages, your are believed to spoil the sefer Torah.

{Gittin 55a}
And why is this different from {the case of} Rabbi Ammi? There, it was possible to say that he {the scribe} erred in thinking like Rabbi Yirmeyah {that he would only lose the wages for the names}, whereas here, he is losing all of his wages, and yet he comes and says this. We can derive from this {seriousness, since he is willing to lose so much} that he is telling the truth.

Mishna:

העיד רבי יוחנן בן גודגדא על החרשת שהשיאה אביה שיוצאה בגט
ועל קטנה בת ישראל שנשאת לכהן שהיא אוכלת בתרומה
ואם מתה בעלה יורשה
ועל המריש הגזול שבנאו בבירה שיטול את דמיו
ועל החטאת הגזולה שלא נודעת לרבים שמכפרת מפני תקון המזבח:

RABBI YOCHANAN BEN GUDGADA TESTIFIED THAT A DEAF-MUTE GIRL WHO HAS BEEN GIVEN IN MARRIAGE BY HER FATHER CAN BE PUT AWAY WITH A GET, AND THAT A MINOR [ORPHAN] DAUGHTER OF A LAY ISRAELITE MARRIED TO A PRIEST CAN EAT OF THE TERUMAH, AND THAT IF SHE DIES HER HUSBAND INHERITS HER, AND THAT IF A BEAM WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY APPROPRIATED IS BUILT INTO A PALACE RESTITUTION FOR IT MAY BE MADE IN MONEY, SO AS NOT TO PUT OBSTACLES IN THE WAY OF PENITENTS, AND THAT A SIN-OFFERING WHICH HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY OBTAINED, SO LONG AS THIS IS NOT [KNOWN] TO MANY, MAKES EXPIATION, FOR THE GOOD ORDER OF THE ALTAR.