אין לי עסק בה לא אמר כלום—“I have no dealings with it”; he said nothing

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that when the משנה ruled that שותפים can testify for each other, it is (only) in a case where the partner stated, ‘I have no interest in this field’, for which he is testifying. The גמרא asked, citing a ברייתא that the statement of אין לי עסק בה is meaningless and he retains his interest, so how can he testify. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דבפרק השולח (גיטין דף מג,ב ושם) גבי מוכר עבדו לנכרי כולי¹ אמר – And if you will say that in פרק השולח regarding one who sells his slave (עבד כנעני) to a gentile, etc. the גמרא states – היכי דמי אונו² דכתב ליה לכשתברח ממנו אין לי עסק בך³ – What, for instance, is considered אונו (so that a גט שחרור is not required), where the Jewish master wrote to this עבד before he sold him to the נכרי, ‘that when you will escape from the נכרי, I have no dealings with you’. This concludes the citation from פרק השולח; תוספות continues with the question – אלמא אין לי עסק בך הוי לשון טוב – It is evident from that גמרא that the expression אין לי עסק בך is an effective expression to remove one’s ownership, so why does the ברייתא here rule that by אין לי עסק בה the rule is לא אמר כלום?! תוספות answers and distinguishes between the two cases: ואומר רבינו יצחק דאין לי עסק בך משמע אלא תהא לעצמך – And the ר"י states that the phrase אין לי עסק בך, indicates that I have no dealings with you, rather you should be on your own – וגבי עבד דמהני הרי את לעצמך⁴ מהני נמי אין לי עסק בך – So therefore regarding a slave where the phrase הרי את לעצמך is effective to free a slave, therefore אין לי עסק בך is also effective, since they are the equivalent of each other – אבל בשדה דלא שייך למימר הרי את לעצמך כי אמר נמי אין לי עסק בך לא אמר כלום – However regarding a field where it is not applicable to state, ‘you (the field) are on your own’, so too when he states אין לי עסק בך, he said nothing – דכיון⁵ דליכא לפרושי אין לי עסק בך אלא תהא לעצמך גבי שדה כמו גבי עבד – For since regarding a field, we cannot interpret אין לי עסק בך to mean, ‘rather be on your own’, as we can regarding a slave, therefore –

אין לי עסק בה by a field means nothing other than the removal of any monetary interest in the field as is evident in מסכת כריתות, and that is not effective.

SUMMARY אין לי עסק בה has the connotation of הרי את לעצמך, so by freeing a slave it is effective but not by disowning a field.

THINKING IT OVER After תוספות differentiated between עבד (where הרי את לעצמך is meaningful) and שדה (where הרי את לעצמך is meaningless), the contradiction has been resolved, why did תוספות need to continue⁸ with 'דכיון' until the end of the תוספות, what does that add?!

footnotes: ¹ The rule is that the עבד becomes freed. The ברייתא rules that nonetheless the original Jewish master is required to write a גט שחרור for this עבד. However רשב"ג states that if the master originally wrote for him 'אונו', it is sufficient. ² רש"י there interprets אונו to mean a שטר. It may also mean (his) strength like כחי וראשית אוני (in בראשית [ויחי] מט,ג), for this שטר gives strength to the עבד by making him free. ³ This אונו is considered his שטר שחרור and he does not require a שטר שחרור later. ⁴ See the משנה in גיטין פה,ב which states גופו של גט שחרור, הרי את בן חורין הרי את לעצמך. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ Merely stating that one gives up his interest in a property has no effect, and he still retains his entire monetary interest in the property, unless he grants it away to another person or makes it הפקר. ⁷ The גמרא there states, דאמר כי סליק נפשיה מדין ודברים מגופה דשדה לא סליק נפשיה. See רש"י there ד"ה מדין who writes, והכי קאמר לא אדין ולא אדבר על שדה זו עם שום אדם כי מוחזקת שלי היא. ⁸ See footnote # 5.

מפני שמעמידה בפני בעל חובו—Because he establishes it before his creditor

OVERVIEW שמואל ruled that one who sells a field to his friend (even) without a guarantee,¹ he may not testify on behalf of the buyer (that it is his field),² because the seller has a vested interest that the field remain by the buyer (and not by the one who claims it is his field), for if the field remains by the buyer, the seller’s creditor³ will have from where to collect the debt. תוספות explains why we require this reason, when a simpler reason would seemingly suffice.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מאי איריא מפני שמעמידה⁴ תיפוק ליה משום דלא ניחא ליה דתיהוי תרעומת עליו – And if you will say; why mention that the reason the seller cannot testify is because he is מעמידה [בפני ב"ח], we can derive it (that he may not testify) because he is not pleased that the buyer will have complaints against him?!⁵ תוספות proves that תרעומות is a valid concern: כדאמרינן בפרק קמא דבבא קמא (דף ח,ב) ראובן שמכר שדה לשמעון שלא באחריות⁶ – As the גמרא states in the first פרק of מסכת ב"ק, where ראובן sold a field to שמעון without a guarantee – ואתא בעל חובו וקטריף לה מיניה דינא הוא דאתי ראובן ומשתעי דינא בהדיה – And the creditor of ראובן came and took it away from שמעון, the rule is that ראובן may come and litigate against the בע"ח, and argue that there is no lien on this field – ולא מצי אמר ליה לאו בעל דברים דידי את⁷ – And the מלוה cannot say to ראובן, ‘you are not my litigant’ – דאמר ליה לא ניחא לי דתיהוי לשמעון תרעומת עילואי – For ראובן can answer to the בע"ח, ; it is not comfortable for me that שמעון should have complaints against me.⁸ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאין נפסל בשביל כך לעדות⁹ – And one can say that because of his interest that there should be no תערומות against him that is insufficient reason that he should be disqualified to testify – תוספות offers an alternate solution:

Or you may also say that here (by the ruling of שמואל) it is even in a case where the buyer is aware that it belongs to the seller, so there is no תערומות, for the buyer realizes its is not the seller’s fault that this third party is claiming fraudulently that it belongs to him.¹⁰ Therefore we require the reason of מפני שמעמידה בפני ב"ח.

SUMMARY The concern that there be no תערומות is insufficient to disqualify one from testifying. Alternately we require the reason מפני שמעמידה בפני ב"ח in a case where the buyer knows it belongs to the seller.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that the גמרא should have used the reason of תערומות to explain why the seller cannot testify (instead of the reason of מעמידה בפני ב"ח).¹¹ What would be gained by using the תערומות reason, as opposed to מעמידה וכו'?!

footnotes: ¹ This (usually) means that if the field is taken away from the buyer (either by the creditor of the seller, or it turned out that the field never belonged to the seller), the seller is not responsible to return the money to the buyer. ² This is in a case where a third party claims that this sold field is really his (and it was never the seller’s). ³ Let us assume that the seller borrowed money before he sold this field. The creditor now has a lien on this field and can collect it as payment for his loan even if the borrower sells it. However if the third party is successful in his claim that it was his field, there is no longer a lien on the field, so the lender cannot collect, and the borrower (the seller) will be in the position of a לוה רשע ולא ישלם, which is degrading for him. ⁴ The הגהות הב"ח amends this to read שמעמידה בפני בעל חובו תיפוק (instead of שמעמידה תיפוק). ⁵ The buyer bought a field from him and if it is taken away from him (by the third party), the buyer will be extremely upset with the seller, for selling him a stolen field. Therefore in order to avoid the תערומות, the seller has a vested interest and may testify falsely. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ Seemingly, the בע"ח should be able to claim that ראובן has no monetary stake in this דין תורה, it is only between the בע"ח and שמעון, for ראובן will not lose money no matter who wins the case, since ראובן took no אחריות on this sale. Therefore ראובן should not be allowed to argue in this די"ת since he is not a litigant. ⁸ The question is that just like there, the concern for תרעומות makes ראובן a litigant because this makes him an interested party in the litigation, similarly here too, he should not be allowed to testify; since he has in interest that the field remain by the buyer, he is not fit to testify if it is for his benefit! ⁹ תוספות distinguishes between being eligible to argue in a ד"ת (so that the litigant cannot claim לאו בע"ד דידי את), for which the claim of לא ניחא לי דתיהוי תרעומות עלי is sufficient, but it is not sufficient to say that he has a vested interest so that he should not be eligible to testify. It is highly unlikely that he will testify falsely just so there should be no תערומות. To disqualify someone from testifying we require a monetary interest. ¹⁰ Even if the מערער is successful in taking away the field from the buyer, the buyer will have no complaint to the seller, since it was not his fault. Therefore if this was the only reason (תערומות) the seller would be able to testify. ¹¹ See footnote # 5.

וליסלקו בי תרי מינייהו ולידיינו—So let two of them remove themselves from them and they will judge

OVERVIEW The גמרא taught that if a person with a vested interest in an asset, relinquishes his interest so he has no longer an interest in the asset, he may testify regarding this asset, since now he no longer has a vested interest. The גמרא cited a ברייתא which stated that if a ספר תורה was stolen from a city, the inhabitants of that city cannot testify nor can they be judges in this matter, since they have a vested interest in this ס"ת. The גמרא asked why two of the inhabitants cannot relinquish their interest in the ס"ת, so they will be able to testify. תוספות explains how relinquishing their interest makes them qualified witnesses.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא בעינן תחילתו וסופו בכשרות – And if you will say, how can the סילוק help, for we require from witnesses that by the beginning and the end, the witnesses must be qualified to testify¹ והכא הוי תחילה בפסול² והוי כמו קרוב ונתרחק³ – But here at the beginning they were disqualified, so it is like a relative who became distant, where his testimony is not accepted;**** the same should apply here – תוספות answers:

And the ר"י says that the rule of תחילתו בפסלות (which disqualifies a קרוב) is not applicable here regarding נוגע בעדות, since this פסלות is not dependent on the body of the עד (as it is by a קרוב), but rather this פסלות is only regarding a monetary interest, and as soon as this interest no longer exists, the עד is כשר.

SUMMARY The requirement of תחילתו וסופו בכשרות is only regarding a פסול הגוף (like קרוב), but not regarding פסול נוגע בעדות (which is a פסול ממון).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks his question that we require תחילתו בכשרות on the ברייתא of the ס"ת. Why did תוספות not ask the same question on שמואל who ruled that השותפין מעידין זה לזה, and we established it in a case where he relinquished his interest in the partnership; but it is not תחילתו בכשרות?!⁵

footnotes: ¹ See later קכח,א. The ‘beginning’ means when they saw the testimony, and the ‘end’ means when they are testifying. The must be עדים כשרים both when they see and when they deliver their testimony. However here they were not כשרים at the beginning when they observed the thief stealing the ס"ת, for they first relinquished their interest only later when the thief was found and is being tried in בי"ד. ² At the time when they saw, they did not as yet relinquish their interest in the ס"ת, so they are not qualified to testify, for they have a vested interest. ³ One who was related by marriage at the time of the incident, cannot testify regarding his relative, and even later when his wife died so he is no longer related, nevertheless he still cannot testify regarding this incident, since he was related at the time of the incident. We require תחילתו וסופו בכשרות regarding a קרוב, the same rule should apply regarding נוגע בעדות. ⁴ It is possible to explain תוספות answer that a פסול קרוב is an intrinsic פסול, not necessarily because we are concerned he will lie (as the example always given that משה ואהרן are פסול to testify together since they are related; there is no concern that they are lying) therefore if they were פסול בתחלה that means that there was no עד at the scene. However the פסול of נוגע בעדות is not that he is פסול בעצם, but rather we are afraid that he may lie, because of his vested interest; once that issue is resolved that he no longer has a vested interest, we can accept his testimony. The concern by a נוגע בעדות is (only) at the time of the testimony, not at the time of the incident, but by a קרוב the problem is (also) at the time of the incident. See נחלת משה for alternate explanations. ⁵ See חתם סופר and נחלת משה.

הכי גרסינן—This is how the text reads

OVERVIEW In our גמרות the text reads; ת"ש האומר תנו מנה לעניי וכו' אין דנין וכו' ואין מביאין וכו' העיר, ותסברא עניים וכו' אלא וכו' אותה העיר, ואמאי ליסתלקו וכו' ה"נ בספר תורה. See רשב"ם ד"ה ותסברא that the challenge of ותסברא is inserted (by the מקשן) even before the actual question of ליסתלקו. Our תוספות presents a different גירסא.

And do you really think that the poor take the money and the judges (who don’t receive the money) are disqualified?! Rather this case as well is regarding a ס"ת, and the reason they call it עניים, etc., is because all are considered poor if they are lacking a ס"ת.

SUMMARY The ‘ותסברא’, is the beginning of the answer and not part of the מקשן.

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of both גירסאות?²

footnotes: ¹ See מהרש"א ומהר"ם that according to תוספות the גמרא first asked, ואמאי ליסתלקו בי תרי נפשייהו ולדיינו, the מתרץ answered ותסברא וכו' (not like the רשב"ם [see ‘Overview’]). ² See נחלת משה.