מפני תיקון עולם; מפני דרכי שלום Chazal's Efforts to Engineer Society

MISHNA: If a man sends a Get to his wife with an agent, and the man later meets the agent, or he sent a second agent after him and he said to him: The Get that I gave you is void, the Get is void. Similarly, if the man reached his wife before the Get reached her, or his second agent reached her and said the Get that I sent to you is void, then the Get is void. Once the Get reaches the wife, it can no longer be made void. .

GEMARA: The language used by the Mishna is not "He reached" the agent but: "He met" the agent, meaning even if he reached him incidentally. In such a case, we do not assume that the husband's intent is to vex his wife. ...The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to add the case in which a husband reached his wife before the bill of divorce reached her? Is not obvious that a husband can render void the bill of divorce before it reaches his wife. The Gemara answers: This principle was stated to teach that we do not limit the assumption that his intention is NOT to vex her to the case in which he sends an agent to tell her that the Get is void; however, if he said that to her directly, he certainly intends to vex her. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to add the case: 'Or where he sent an agent to her'? The Gemara answers: It is necessary to teach that we do not limit the assumption that his intention is not to vex her to a situation in whihc he is taking the personal effort to reach her and void the Get, but not to the case where the effort is not his but the agent's.

MISHNA: At first, a husband who wished to render the bill of divorce void would convene a court wherever he chose and render the bill of divorce void in the presence of the court before it reached his wife. Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that one should not do this, for the betterment of the world. [Rashi: The agent, not knowing the Get is nullified, will deliver it; the wife will then assume she received a valid Get and remarry.]

GEMARA: What is meant by "For the betterment of the world"? R. Yochanan said: for the betterment of Mamzeirim; Rish Lakish said: for the betterment of Agunot.

MISHNA: The captives are not redeemed for more than their actual monetary value, for the betterment of the world...

GEMARA: A question was asked: Does 'For the betterment of the world', refer to the financial pressure that a high ransom would place on the community or to the future captives who will be taken because of the high ransom being paid for them?

MISHNA: One may not aid captives in their attempt to escape for the betterment of the world. [RASHI: so that captives will not be treated harshly to prevent them from escaping]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the betterment of the captives. [RASHI: so that kidnappers will not avenge the escape of the captives by treating other captives with cruelty].

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the practical distinction between the two reasons? The Gemara answers: There distinction is in the case where is only one captive. If this ordinance was instituted for the benefit of the other captives, so that the kidnappers should not avenge a captive’s escape by treating the others with cruelty, then if there is only one captive he may be helped to escape.

MISHNA: Hillel the Elder instituted Prosbol.

GEMARA: We learned (Shevi’it 10:3): If one writes a prosbol, the Sabbatical Year does not abrogate debt. This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that the people of the nation were refraining from lending to one another around the time of the Sabbatical Year and un doing so, they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, (Deuteronomy 15:9). He arose and instituted the prosbol so that it would be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans. ... The Gemara asks: But is there anything like this, where by Torah law the Sabbatical Year cancels the debt but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel the debt? Abaye said: The baraita is referring to the Sabbatical Year in the present time, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. As it is taught that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” (Deuteronomy 15:2). The verse speaks of two types of abrogation: One is the release of land and one is the abrogation of monetary debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn that at a time when you release land, [when the Jubilee Year is practiced] you abrogate monetary debts; at a time when you do not release land, [when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced], you also do not abrogate monetary debts. Since the land is no longer released on the Jubilee Year, Torah Law no longer requires that Debts be abrogated on the Sabbatical Year. Nonetheless, The Rabbis ordained that monetary debts should be abrogated as a memorial to the institution of the Sabbatical Year. Hillel saw that as a result, the people refrained from giving loans to one another, arose and instituted Prusbol, overruling the prior rabbinical ordinance..

"When you approach a city to do battle against it, first call out to it in Shalom" (Deut. 20,10). The Halacha states, 'These are items said for the path of Shalom'. Thus the sages taught, 'These items are said for the ways of peace: a Kohen is called first... '. The Rabbis said, 'Know how great is the power of Shalom, HKB"H says that even war, into which Man descends only with swords and spears, should be opened only with ​​​​​​​Shalom.

(8) These are the matters that the Sages instituted on account of the ways of peace:

At public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite, on account of the ways of peace. [Rashi: so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community].

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that at public readings of the Torah, a priest reads first, and after him a Levite. ... Abaye said to Rav Yosef: why does the mishna teach that the priest reads first from the Torah on account of the ways of peace, indicating that this is a rabbinic enactment? Is it not by Torah law that he reads first? Rav Yosef said to Abaye: Indeed, it is by Torah law, but the reason that the priest reads first is on account of the ways of peace. Abaye objected: Aren’t the halakhot of the entire Torah also given on account of the ways of peace, as it is written: “Her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace” (Proverbs 3:17)? Rather, Abaye said: The mishna’s statement that a priest reads first from the Torah on account of the ways of peace is in accordance with what was said by my master, Rabba. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Berakhot 5:3): When two people are eating together from a single dish, they must wait for each other, but if there are three, each eats when he wishes and they do not need to wait for each other. Generally, the one who breaks bread extends his hand to take food first, but if he wishes to show respect to his teacher or to one who is greater than he and allow him to take first, he has permission to do so. And the Master, Rabba, said with regard to this baraita: They taught this with regard to a meal, that one may show honor to a person of greater stature and allow him to take food first. But in the synagogue, one may not show another honor, because the congregants are liable to come to quarrel about who is the most distinguished among them.

MISHNA: The Eiruv Chatzeirot is placed in an house where it had regularly been placed before, on account of the ways of peace.

GEMARA: What is the reason? If we say that it is to show respect to the owner of that house, wasn’t it related about a certain charity box, which was fashioned for the benefit of the community and brought honor to the person in whose house it was placed, that initially it was placed in Rav Yehuda’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rabba’s house, and afterward it was transferred to Rav Yosef’s house, and afterward it was moved to Abaye’s house, and afterward it was moved to Rava’s house. Rather, say instead that the Sages instituted this enactment to avoid arousing suspicion.

[RASHI: Visitors to the house who are used to seeing the bread of the Eiruv and who now see it missing will believe the residents had been carrying without the benefit of an eiruv.]

[TOSEFOT: Since the eiruv had regularly been placed in a particular house, were it to be moved, people might think that the residents of the alleyway suspected that the owner of the house was stealing from them, and therefore they put it somewhere else].

R. Yehoshua said: Why do we make Eruvei Chatzeirot? For the sake of the "Paths of Peace". There was an incident involving a woman who was antagonistic to her neighbor and sent her her son to the neighbor with their share of the Eiruv Chateirot. The neighbor hugged and kissed the son, who then related this back to his mother. She said to her self, 'how warmly my neighbor feels about me and I never knew. Through this, they made Shalom. Thus it is written (Prov. 3:17), 'Its ways are ways of pleasantness and all its paths are to peace".

MISHNA: A woman may lend utensils to her friend who is suspect with regard to eating produce that grew in the Sabbatical Year. Utensils that may be lended include: A winnow, a sieve, a mill, and an oven. But she may not separate the grain from the chaff or grind wheat with her, [note: acts assist her in the performance of a sin]. The wife of a ḥaver may lend the wife of an am ha’aretz, a winnow and a sieve, and she may even select, grind, and sift with her. But once the wife of the am ha’aretz pours water into the flour, thereby rendering it susceptible to ritual impurity, the wife of the ḥaver may not touch anything with her, because one may not assist those who commit transgressions. All of the allowances mentioned in the mishna were stated only on account of the ways of peace.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is difference between selecting and grinding grain with a woman who is suspect regarding the Sabbatical Year, which is prohibited in the first clause of the MIshna, and the wife of a ḥaver assisting the wife of an am ha’aretz in her selecting and grinding. which is permitted in the second clause? Abaye said: Most amei ha’aretz tithe their produce, and therefore there is no reason to render it prohibited to assist the wife of an am ha’aretz in her work, as she is probably preparing a permitted food. Although there may be concern that the food was not tithed due to the minority of amei ha’aretz who do not separate tithes, this concern is ignored on account of the ways of peace. Rava said: Here the mishna speaks about the am ha’aretz as defined by Rabbi Meir and the issue of ritual impurity and purity by rabbinic law. It does not speak about the matter of separating teruma and tithes. As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Avoda Zara 3:10): Who is an am ha’aretz? Anyone who does not eat his non-sacred produce in a state of ritual purity; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

MISHNA: If one who is not trustworthy in matters of tithing made a Neder, determined that his friend should dine with him, his friend may dine with him on the "First Shabbat" [Note: the celebratory meal on the first Shabbat after his wedding at which Sheva Berachot are recited], even though he is not trusted regarding tithes, as long as he tells him that the food was tithed. For the second Shabbat, The friend may not dine with him even if he had taken a Neder, until he takes tithes.

GEMARA: R. Yanai of the House of R. Yishmael said in the name of R. Yochanan, we allowed him to dine on the Shabbat of פרוטגמייא for the sake of avoiding hostility.

MISHNA: One does not protest against poor gentiles who come to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the produce in the corner of the field, which is given to the poor [pe’a], although they are meant exclusively for the Jewish poor, on account of the ways of peace.

GEMARA: the Sages taught in a baraita (Tosefta 5:4): One sustains poor gentiles along with poor Jews, and one visits sick gentiles along with sick Jews, and one buries dead gentiles along with dead Jews. All this is done on account of the ways of peace.

Rav Huna said that Rav said: A woman may say to her husband: I will not be sustained by you and, in turn, I will not work for you [i.e. you will not keep my earnings]. He reasons that when the Sages instituted the obligations and rights of a husband and wife, the husband’s obligation to provide for the wife’s sustenance was the primary one, and his right to take her earnings is only in order to prevent animosity. Since her right to sustenance is primary, she may say: I will not be sustained by you you will not keep my earnings.

Rabbi Abba said: the reason for the ruling of the mishna is that the intention of anyone who consecrates his property is not upon the clothing of his wife and his children, i.e., he does not intend to consecrate those items. Rabbi Zeira objects to Rabbi Abba’s explanation: And is it the intention of a person who consecrates his property to do so upon his phylacteries? Presumably not. And we learned in a mishna (Arakhin 23b) that with regard to one who consecrates all of his property, his phylacteries are evaluated for him and consecrated. Apparently, lack of intent to consecrate a particular item does not prevent its consecration. Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Yes, the intention of a person who consecrates his property is upon his phylacteries, because one who consecrates his property thinks to himself: I am performing a mitzva, and he therefore intends to include his phylacteries; but the intention of a person is not upon the clothing of his wife and his children, due to the enmity that would be engendered if he consecrated their clothing.

GEMARA: What is the reason that a broken loaf of bread, may not be used for an eiruv? Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The reason is due to potential enmity(איבה) between neighbors.

[Rashi: To avoid a situation where one person says to the other: You contributed a mere slice of bread, while I donated an entire loaf, the Sages instituted that each person should provide a whole loaf.]

The Sages taught: If a disqualification befalls the High Priest and they appointed another in his stead. In the event the impurity is resolved, the original High Priest - returns to his service; the second, acting High Priest - all the mitzvot of the High Priesthood are incumbent upon him, according to R. Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: The original priest - returns to his service; the second - is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. Rabbi Yosei supported his opinion with a story involving the priest Yosef ben Elem of Tzippori, who, when a High Priest disqualified, the priests appointed him in his stead. After the impurity was resolved, the Sages said: The original High Priest returns to his service, while the second is fit to serve neither as High Priest nor as a common priest. The Gemara explains: Neither as a High Priest, due to the enmity that would arise if there were two High Priests with equal standing in the Temple; nor as a common priest, because the principle is: One elevates to a higher level in matters of sanctity and one does not downgrade.