Gittin

THE PIT WHICH IS NEAREST THE [HEAD OF THE] WATERCOURSE  IS FILLED FROM IT FIRST,  IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. [THE TAKING OF] BEASTS, BIRDS AND FISHES FROM SNARES [SET BY OTHERS] IS RECKONED AS A KIND OF ROBBERY,  IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. R. JOSE SAYS THAT IT IS ACTUAL ROBBERY.  [TO TAKE AWAY] ANYTHING FOUND BY A DEAF-MUTE, AN IDIOT OR A MINOR IS RECKONED AS A KIND OF ROBBERY,  IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. R. JOSE SAYS: IT IS ACTUAL ROBBERY. IF A POOR MAN GLEANS ON THE TOP OF AN OLIVE TREE, [TO TAKE THE FRUIT] THAT IS BENEATH HIM  IS COUNTED AS A KIND OF ROBBERY.  R. JOSE SAYS IT IS ACTUAL ROBBERY. THE POOR OF THE HEATHEN MAY NOT BE PREVENTED FROM GATHERING GLEANINGS,  FORGOTTEN SHEAVES,  AND THE CORNER OF THE FIELD,  IN THE INTERESTS OF PEACE. GEMARA. [A PRIEST IS CALLED UP FIRST TO READ THE LAW]. What is the warrant for this? — R. Mattenah said: Because Scripture says, And Moses wrote this law and gave it to the priests the sons of Levi.  Now do we not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? What it means therefore is that the priests [are first] and then the sons of Levi. R. Isaac Nappaha said: We derive it from this verse, viz., And the priests the sons of Levi shall draw near.  Now do we not know that the priests are the sons of Levi? What it signifies therefore is that the priests are first and then the sons of Levi. R. Ashi derived it from this verse, The sons of Amram were Aaron and Moses, and Aaron was separated to sanctify him as most holy.  R. Hiyya b. Abba derived it from the following, And thou shalt sanctify him,  This implies, [Give him precedence] in every matter which involves sanctification. A Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael taught: 'And thou shalt sanctify him', to wit, [give him precedence] in every matter involving sanctification, to open proceedings, to say grace first, and to choose his portion first. Said Abaye to R. Joseph: Is this rule only [a Rabbinical one] in the interests of peace? It derives from the Torah? — He answered: It does derive from the Torah, but its object is to maintain peace. But the whole of the Law is also for the purpose of promoting peace, as it is written, Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace?  — No, said Abaye; we have to understand it in the light of what was said by the Master,  as it has been taught: Two persons wait for one another with the dish,  but if there are three they need not wait.  The one who breaks bread  helps himself to the dish  first, but if he wishes to pay respect to his teacher or to a superior he may do so.  Commenting on this, the Master said: This applies only to the table,  but not to the synagogue, since there such deference  might lead to quarrelling. R. Mattenah said: What you have said about the synagogue is true only on Sabbaths and Festivals, when there is a large congregation, but not on Mondays and Thursdays.  Is that so? Did not R. Huna read as kohen  even on Sabbaths and Festivals? — R. Huna was different, since even R. Ammi and R. Assi who were the most distinguished kohanim of Eretz Israel paid deference to him. Abaye said: We assume the rule to be that if there is no kohen there, the arrangement no longer holds.  Abaye further said: We have it on tradition that if there is no Levite there, a kohen reads in his place. Is that so? Has not R. Johanan said that one kohen should not read after another, because this might cast a suspicion on the first,  and one Levite should not read after another because this might cast a suspicion on both? — What we meant was that the same kohen [should read in the place of the Levite]. Why just in the case of the Levites should there be a reflection on both of them? Because, [you say,] people will say that one [or other] of them is not a Levite? If one kohen reads after another, they will also say that one of them is not a kohen? — We assume that it is known that the father of the second was a kohen.  But in the same way we may say that it is known that the father of the second [Levite] was a Levite?  — They might say that he [the father] married a bastard or a nethinah  and disqualified his offspring. In the same way they might say that [the father of the second priest] married a divorced woman or a haluzah  and disqualified his offspring? — In any case [if he were suspect] would he read as Levi?  And who would suspect him? Those who remain in the synagogue?  They see [that he counts as one of the seven]!  — It must be then, those who go out of synagogue. The Galileans sent to inquire of R. Helbo: After them [the kohen and levi,]