מגורשת ואינה מגורשת¹ בעלה חייב במזונותיה—She is divorced and not divorced; her husband is liable for her sustenance

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that the novelty that a divorced woman has a חזקה (in her husband’s assets) is in a case where her divorce is in doubt (מגורשת ואינה מגורשת), and since in this case her husband is liable for her מזונות, we may have thought that she has no חזקה בנכסי בעלה; the ברייתא teaches us that she does. תוספות clarifies the case, where she has a חזקה.

וכגון שייחד לה ארעא אחריתי² – And for instance where he designated for her needs another land (not the contested land, which she claims as hers), from where she can receive her מזונות –

For if it were not so (that the husband did not designate another property for her מזונונת), she has no חזקה בנכסי בעלה, for since she is entitled to מזונות, we can say that the reason the husband did not protest her occupying the field is because the husband can claim she was eating her מזונות, therefore I did not protest, as the גמרא states later.

SUMMARY The woman who is a ספק מגורשת has a חזקה בנכסי בעליה, only if he designated another property for her מזונות.

THINKING IT OVER What is the ruling by a regular wife, if he was מייחד לה ארעא אחריתי, does she have a חזקה בנכסי בעלה? Why?⁵

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה מגורשת that this refers to a woman whose divorce is in doubt; for instance where her husband threw the גט to her and we are unsure whether it was closer to her (where she is מגורשת) or whether it was closer to him (where she is not מגורשת). For further clarification see גיטין עח,א וב'. ² This would seem to be in disagreement with the רשב"ם בד"ה מגורשת, עיי"ש. See מהרש"א. ³ A marginal note amends this to לה (instead of לו). ⁴ נא,א. ⁵ See מהרש"א.

ראייתן ראיה ומעמידין שדה בידן—Their proof is a proof and we place the field in their possession

OVERVIEW רב הונא taught that all those who do not have a חזקה, nevertheless if they bought proof that the field is theirs, their proof is valid and we place the field in their possession, except for a robber that his proof is no proof, and we do not place the field in his possession. תוספות discusses the need for the duplication; ראייתן ראיה and מעמידין שדה בידן. They seemingly mean the same thing; the field is theirs.

נראה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהפ דנקט תרוייהו – It appears to the רשב"א that the reason ר"ה mentions both of them, ראייתו ראיה, and מעמידין שדה בידן, is – איידי דבעי למיתני גבי גזלן אין ראייתו ראיה ואין מעמידין שדה בידו¹ – Since he wanted to teach (in the סיפא) regarding a robber that אין ראייתו ראיה and אין מעמידין שדה בידו, therefore in the רישא he also mentioned both of them even though it was not necessary – תוספות explains why by גזלן it was necessary to mention both: דהתם איצטריך תרוייהו דאי לא תנא אלא אין ראייתו ראייה – For there by גזלן it was necessary to mention both; אין ראייתו ראיה and אין מעמידין שדה בידו, for if ר"ה would have taught only אין ראייתו ראיה, and not mention אין מעמידין שדה בידו – הוה אמינא דאין ראייתו ראיה לגבי הא שאין מעמידין שדה² בידו אבל מעות יש לו³ – I would have said that the ruling of אין ראייתו ראיה is only regarding that we do not place the field in his possession however, he has the money – The reason we would assume that we are [also] discussing a case where we know there was a transfer of money is because – דלא היינו אומרים טעמא אי לאו דאודי ליה הוה ממטי ליה ולחמריה לשחוור – That we would not have assumed the reason אין ראייתו ראיה (that the sale is invalid) is because that if he would not admit to the גזלן that he sold him the field, the גזלן would have brought him and his donkey to the official (as רב כהנא explained) – אלא הוה מפרשינן טעמא משום דתליוהו וזבין לא הוו זביניה זביני⁴ אפילו מנה לו מעות – Rather we would have explained the reason why the sale is invalid is because the rule is תליוהו וזבין לא הוו זביניה זביני,⁵ even when the robber counted the money to the נגזל in the presence of עדים. This is how we may have understood the ruling of ר"ה, had he only said אין ראייתו ראיה – הלכך קאמרי תרוייהו דאין ראייתו ראיה כלל דאפילו מעות אין לו⁶ – Therefore ר"ה said both; אין ראייתו ראיה and אין מעמידין שדה בידו, so now we understand that אין ראייתו ראיה at all, that he even does not receive the money – דטעמא הוא משום דאי לאו דאודי ליה כולי – For the reason of this ruling by a גזלן is because we assume that if the seller would not have admitted to the גזלן, etc. הוה ממטי ליה ולחמריה לשחוור. The admission is coerced and therefore meaningless. In summation; had ר"ה just said one (either אין ראייתו ראיה or אין מעמידין), we could have mistakenly assumed that we are [also] discussing a case where money was transferred in the presence of עדים, however since (we are mistakenly assuming that) the rule is תליוהו וזבין לאו זביניה זביני, therefore the rule will be that the גזלן does not receive the field but he receives his money back (even if לא מנה לו המעות בפני עדים). Therefore ר"ה mentioned both rules, so now we know (from אין מעמידין השדה בידו) that the גזלן does not receive the field, and therefore אין ראייתו ראיה teaches us that the does not receive the money back (in a case where לא מנה המעות בפני עדים), the reason is that we assume that he did not pay money, and the reason why the נגזל admits that he received money is like רב כהנא (that דאי לאו דאודי לי' וכו'). However if מנה המעות בפני עדים the גזלן will retain the field, since תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני. תוספות continues: והאי כולן נראה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם דקאי נמי אבן שלא חלק ואשה שלא נתגרשה – And it appears to the רשב"א that this word כולן which ר"ה stated (וכולן שהביאו ראיה) it also refers to the son who did not separate from being supported by his father, and a woman who was not divorced⁷ that by them too ראייתן ראיה וכו'. ואף על גב דאמר לקמן⁸ [גבי אשה בנכסי בעלה⁹] דלגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי¹⁰ – And even though the גמרא later states regarding [a woman in her husband’s assets] that she has no ראיה**** for we say, he wanted to reveal her money – תוספות responds: כיון דאוקימנא בהודאה¹¹ לא שייך בה גלויי זוזי – Since we have just established the ruling of ר"ה that ראייתו ראיה is (only) in a case of admission (however it does not apply in a case where מנה לו המעות), therefore the concept of גלויי זוזי is not applicable – Another approach why ראייתו ראייה even by אשה שלא נתגרשה:

And additionally, it seems later that ר"ה and ר"נ maintain that we do not say that he sold it because of לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי, but rather it is a good proof, therefore we can maintain here that ראייתן ראייה applies also to an אשה שלא נתגרשה.

SUMMARY The double ruling that אין ראייתו ראיה and אין מעמידין שדה בידו teaches us that not only does the גזלן not receive the field, but he also does not get back any money (where it was merely אודי ליה).

THINKING IT OVER It seems from תוספות that the way we know that not only does the גזלן not receive the field, but also that he does not receive his money back, is from the fact the רב הונא said two things; אין מעמידין שדה בידו (he does not get the field), and אין ראייתו ראיה (he does not get the money back).¹² According to this, ר"ה should have stated it in the reverse אין מעמידין שדה בידו ואין ראייתו ראייה, why does he actually state אין ראייתו ראייה (first, and then) אין מעמידין שדה בידו?!¹³

footnotes: ¹ See רשב"ם ד"ה ראייתן that the entire רישא is superfluous; it was taught only as an introduction to the סיפא, and since in the סיפא it was necessary to mention both; regarding אין ראייתו ראיה and ואין מעמידין שדה בידו (as תוספות will explain immediately), therefore he mentions them both in the רישא even though it was not necessary. ² We may have certainly assumed that, if ר"ה would only say אין מעמידין השדה בידו; but we could have assumed that even if he would say just אין ראייתו ראיה. ³ This means (as תוספות continues to explain) that the case of גזלן is [even] where the עדים saw the actual transfer of money (from the גזלן to the נגזל) and nevertheless אין ראייתו ראיה; we will not allow the גזלן to keep the field (for we will assume that it was a forced sale), however the גזלן is entitled to get his money back (even if לא מנה לו מעות בפני עדים), for either there is proof that he gave it to the נגזל, or the נגזל admitted that he was paid. This is what we would assume if all ר"ה stated was אין ראייתו ראיה. ⁴ This means, ‘he (the buyer) hung him (the seller) up on a tree, and (because of this coercion) he sold the property, the rule is the sale is not valid. We will assume that this was a coerced sale, since the buyer is a גזלן and therefore it is never a valid sale (regardless if money was seen transferred, or not). However the גזלן receives his money back (regardless if money was seen transferred or not, since the נגזל admitted that he received money). ⁵ However this is incorrect, for as the גמרא states shortly that ר"ה maintains that תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני. ⁶ When ר"ה stated אין מעמידין השדה בידו, we know that the גזלן does not get the field, the addition of אין ראייתו ראיה is that even though there are witnesses (or a שטר) that the נגזל admitted to receiving payment (however no one saw the actual transfer of funds), the גזלן cannot even receive this money back, for we say this admission was coerced as רב כהנא said; אי לאו דאודי ליה וכו'. However a coerced sale with payment is a valid sale. We can therefore not be discussing a case where עדים saw the transfer of money. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ The ברייתא on מז,א states, בן שחלק ואשה שנתגרשה הרי הן כשאר כל אדם; indicating that a בן שלא חלק and an אשה שלא נתגרשה do not have a חזקה, like an אומן ואריס. Therefore when ר"ה stated that כולן שהביאו ראיה וכו', he meant not only the אומן ואריס but also the בן ואשה. ⁸ נא,א. ⁹ A married woman cannot have a חזקה in her husband’s assets, for he can say, ‘I let you use it for your support’ (מזונות, etc.). Furthermore even if she has a שטר which states that her husband sold her this field for this amount of money, that does not prove anything, for we can say that the husband was suspicious that she had money hidden away from him (to which he is entitled to), therefore he made as if he is selling her this field so she will reveal this money. ¹⁰ The question is how can the רשב"א state that the ruling of ר"ה applies to an אשה שלא נתגרשה, that יש לה ראיה, when the גמרא later states that she has no ראיה since we say לגלויי זוזי הוא דבעי?! ¹¹ תוספות just explained that the rulings of ר"ה is only in a case where the ראיה was that the נגזל admitted that he sold the field (and that he received payment) and the same is by the אומן ואריס that we are only discussing a case of where they admitted that the אומן ואריס bought the item (but not that there is proof that there was a transfer of funds [no one saw any transfer]), therefore we can include a woman שלא נתגרשה, meaning that if the husband admitted that he sold her the field, she gets to keep it, for since we do not know of any money which exchanged hands, the reason of גלויי זוזי does not apply (there was no reason for the husband to admit to the sale) and the ראייה is valid. ¹² See footnote # 6. ¹³ See נחלת משה.

ומעמידין שדה בידן—And we place the field in their possession

OVERVIEW רב הונא taught that 'וכולן'; if all of them (those who do not have a חזקה), bring proof that they bought it, we place the field in their possession; we accept the proof as valid. The issue here is that one of those who have no חזקה is an אומן, a craftsman; a tailor, a launderer, etc. what does it mean that we place the field in his possession. A tailor always has a חזקה in a field; he does not need a ראייה.

Regarding an אומן we can also apply the case of a field, for instance if he is a building contractor.

SUMMARY Some אומנים are involved with fields as their אומנות.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות previously stated² that when רב הונא said 'וכולן' he included a בן בנכסי אביו and an אשה בנכסי בעלה. Therefore the 'וכולן' of ר"ה can be referring to an אריס and these two, Perhaps ר"ה was not discussing an אומן. Why did תוספות find it necessary to include אומן in the 'וכולן'?

footnotes: ¹ The owner of the field contracted him to build or repair something on the field. Therefore normally the contractor cannot claim a חזקה on those buildings that he built and/or the field, because the owner can say, ‘I hired you to take care of those buildings, therefore I did not protest your being there’. However, if the contractor shows a שטר that he bought this field with the buildings, it is a valid proof. ² בד"ה ראייתן.

אבל בשטר קנה—However he acquires it with a note

OVERVIEW The משנה in גיטין taught¹ that if a person bought a property from a סיקריקון,² and he then bought it back (again) from the (original) owner, the buyer does not acquire the property.³ רב qualified this ruling that it applies only if the original owner merely told the buyer, לך חזק וקני, however if he wrote a שטר that he is selling him the field, the buyer acquires the field. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

אלקח מן האיש וחזר ולקח מן האשה⁴ נמי קאי⁵ כדמוכח במתניתין⁶ בהניזקין (גיטין דף נח,ב ושם) – This ruling of רב applies also to the case of, ‘he bought from the man, and he went back and also bought from the woman’, as is evident (from the משנה) in פרק הניזקין. תוספות asks: וקשה דתניא בסוף מי שהיה נשוי (כתובות דף צה,א ושם דיבור המתחיל וכתבה) – And there is a difficulty for the ברייתא taught in פרק מי שהיה נשוי – כתב לראשון⁷ ולא חתמה לו לשני וחתמה לו איבדה כתובתה⁸ – The husband wrote a שטר to a first buyer, but she (the wife) did not sign it for him, the husband then sold it to a second buyer and she signed the שטר for him; the rule is she forfeited her כתובה. This concludes the ברייתא. We can infer – דוקא משום דלא חתמה לראשון אבל אי חתמה לראשון לא איבדה כתובתה⁹ כדמוכח התם – That it is only because she did not sign for the first buyer, that is why she forfeits her כתובה, however if she signed for the first buyer she did not forfeit her כתובה, as it is evident there; this is true – אף על פי שכתבה שטר¹⁰ – Even though she wrote a שטר, however רב ruled that if she wrote a שטר to the buyer (after he bought it from her husband) it is a valid sale, and from the גמרא there it is apparent that even if she signed on a שטר, it is not a valid sale! תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דהא דקאמר רב בשטר קנה יש להעמיד בשטר הראיה שאחר הקנין¹¹ – And it appears to the ר"י that this which רב ruled that when a שטר is given, he acquires the property, we can establish this ruling by a שטר that is used for proof of ownership, which is presented after the קנין – דכיון שאחר הקנין עשתה שטר שייפתה כחו כל כך קנה – For since she made the שטר after the קנין, so she empowered him so much, therefore he acquires the field – וההיא דכתובות מיירי בשטר מתנה בלא קנין אחר אלא שטר¹² – And that גמרא in כתובות is discussing a case of a שטר מתנה without any other קנין except for the שטר, therefor he is not קונה**.** תופות offers an alternate solution: אי נמי חתמה דהתם לשון גמר כמו חתמו גבי תורף דגיטין – Or you may also say that the word חתמה there (in כתובות) is an expression of completion, like the word חתמו regarding the תורף of a divorce – וכמו תורה חתומה ניתנה בהניזקין (גיטין דף ס,א) כלומר שגמרה מקח ונתרצתה בעל פה¹³ – And like the phrase in פרק הניזקין, ‘the תורה was given complete’; the חתמה in כתובות means she completed the sale and agreed orally to the sale, but not that she signed a שטר – A third and final answer: אי נמי חתמה ממש ובשטר של בעל – Or you may also say, she actually signed the שטר,**** however she signed her husband’s שטר, therefore the sale is not valid – והא דאמר רב בשטר קנה שעשתה שטר מכירה בשמה – And this which רב ruled בשטר קנה, is where she made a separate bill of sale with her name (not part of her husband’s שטר). תוספות continues to explain the dispute between רב and שמואל: ומסתבר דטעמא דרב כטעמא דשמואל¹⁴ דאמר בהניזקין (שם דף נח,א ושם דיבר המתחיל אבל) – And it is logical that the reason of רב, who maintains that if there was a שטר, he is קונה, is like the reasoning of שמואל, who rules in פרק הניזקין that – אף בשטר לא קנה עד שתכתוב לו אחריות¹⁵ – He is not קונה even with a שטר unless the wife writes for the customer a guarantee – ושמואל לטעמיה דאמר בפרק קמא דבבא מציעא (דף יד,א ושם) – For שמואל follows his view which he stated in the first פרק of מסכת ב"מ – אחריות לאו טעות סופר בשטרי מקח וממכר ורב סבר אחריות טעות סופר הוא¹⁶ – The lack of a guarantee in a שטר of buying and selling, is not to be attributed to a mistake of the scribe, however רב maintains that the lack of אחריות is considered a mistake of the scribe. תוספות presents a difficulty with this view that טעמא דרב כטעמא דשמואל: אבל קצת קשה דלקמן¹⁷ פריך לרב הונא דאמר¹⁸ תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני – However there is a slight difficulty for later רב המנונא challenges רב הונא who maintains that a forced sale is a valid sale; the question was – מהא דאמר שמואל¹⁹ אף בשטר לא קנה – From this which שמואל ruled that the buyer is not קונה even if the sale was made with a שטר – ואי תלוי הדבר באחריות מאי קשה ליה משמואל²⁰ טפי מרב: However if the validity of the sale depends only if there was אחריות, so why is there a difficulty from שמואל more than from רב?! תוספות does not answer this question.

SUMMARY In the case of לקח מן האיש ואח"כ לקח מן האשה it is a valid sale if the שטר was only לראיה and another קנין was made previously, or a שטר is always valid, or a שטר is valid if it is a separate שטר from her husband’s. The dispute between רב ושמואל is regarding whether אחריות טעות סופר (רב), or not (שמואל).

THINKING IT OVER How can we understand that when תוספות writes טעמא דרב כטעמא דשמואל,²¹ that it is the intent of תוספות to offer an additional answer to his original question²² from פרק מי שהיה נשוי?²³

footnotes: ¹ גיטין נה,ב. ² A סיקריקון is a violent gentile who extorted the property from the ישראל with the threat of killing him. ³ The reason is because the owner agreed to this sale only under duress. He was concerned that if he does not validate this sale, the סיקריקון will come after him again. ⁴ The case there is when someone bought the נכסי מלוג property of a wife, from her husband (who does not own them but has the rights of eating the פירות of the נכסי מלוג), and then he went and bought the same נכסי מלוג from the wife (who actually owns them). The rule is that the buyer does not acquire the נכסי מלוג, since the husband does not own them, and the wife can claim, ‘I agreed to the sale only because 'נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי'. ⁵ The qualification of רב applies to the case of לקח מן האיש וכו' as well. The buyer is not קונה if all the wife told him was לך חזק וקני, however if she gave him a שטר, the buyer is קונה. ⁶ Others omit the word במתניתין, for it is not evident from the משנה, but rather from the גמרא. The גמרא there brings this case of לקח מן האיש וכו' as a proof to שמואל and a refutation of רב regarding סיקריקון; indicating that the two cases are intertwined. ⁷ The husband sold a property which was designated for his wife’s כתובה. He cannot sell it without his wife’s consent. ⁸ In this case she cannot claim that she signed it because נחת רוח עשיתי לבעלי (see footnote # 4), since we see that she had the courage not to sign for the first buyer, this shows that she really agreed to the sale of the second buyer. ⁹ The reason is she can claim נח"ר עשיתי לבעלי. ¹⁰ The ברייתא states חתמה, which means signing on a שטר. ¹¹ A שטר can have two functions; it may be a שטר קנין that with the transfer of the שטר from the seller to the buyer, the buyer acquires the field. Alternately the field may be acquired through another type of קנין, like חליפין or כסף or חזקה, and the שטר is ‘merely’ proof that a transfer of ownership took place. תוספות is saying that the ruling of רב that בשטר קנה is (only) by a שטר ראיה; meaning that the קנין was accomplished before the giving of the שטר. ¹² The גמרא in כתובות (where there is no קנין for she can claim נח"ר עשיתי לבעלי) is where the שטר was a שטר קנין (and there was no other קנין), however the ruling of רב is where it was a שטר ראיה; given after the קנין. ¹³ Therefore in כתובות there was no שטר, so the sale is not valid, but רב is discussing where there was a שטר, therefore the sale is valid (even if was [just] a שטר קנין). ¹⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁵ This is referring to the case of לקח מן האיש ואח"כ לקח מן האשה (see footnote # 4). According to שמואל the buyer acquires the field only if the woman guaranteed the sale, meaning that if the property were to be taken away from the לוקח (for any legal reason), she will reimburse him the money he paid. The reason the sale is valid, for in this instance where the woman is prepared to shell out money, she cannot claim נח"ר עשיתי לבעלי. ¹⁶ רב maintains that in any שטר we assume that there is a guarantee (for the sale, or the loan), and the fact that it does not state so explicitly in the שטר is merely an oversight of the סופר, who forgot to write it. However שמואל maintains that in order there should be a guarantee for the sale, it must be explicitly included, otherwise there is no guarantee. Therefore in the case of לקח מן האיש וכו', according to שמואל there is no sale unless a guarantee was written (for then we know that she is serious [see footnote # 15]), however according to רב that אחריות טעות סופר so if she wrote a שטר even without אחריות, the sale is valid since the אחריות is automatically included in the שטר. It turns out therefore that רב and שמואל basically agree that when there is אחריות the sale is valid (they only argue what is considered that there is אחריות; according to רב any שטר, and according to שמואל a שטר with explicit אחריות). ¹⁷ מח,א. ¹⁸ On the bottom of this עמוד מז,ב. ¹⁹ The challenge was actually from the case of סיקריקון (see ‘Overview’), which is a forced sale. שמואל ruled that even if the owner wrote a שטר to the buyer (from the סיקריקון), the buyer is not קונה. The question is, according to רב הונא he should be קונה since תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני. [The גמרא there said that according to רב there is no question since he agrees that if there was a שטר he is קונה; the question is only according to שמואל.] ²⁰ The גמרא there said that there is no difficulty from רב since he agrees that the sale is valid because there is a שטר (meaning there is אחריות), the same answer can be applied to שמואל that if there is a שטר with אחריות the sale is valid. There is no real dispute between רב ושמואל regarding a forced sale both agree that when there is אחריות it is valid and when there is no אחריות it is not valid. ²¹ See footnote # 14. ²² See footnotes #7-10. ²³ See מהר"ם ומהרש"א.

*ורב ביבי מסיים בה כולי—And Rav Bibi***concluded it, etc.

OVERVIEW רב נחמן related from the name of רב הונא that even if the גזלן brought proof that he bought the field (a שטר), nevertheless the proof is insufficient and he does not get to retain the field. The גמרא stated that רב ביבי concluded in the name of ר"נ that (even though) the גזלן does not receive the field, but he receives back the money¹ which he paid for the field.²

קצת קשה הלשון³ דהא רב ביבי פליג כדאמרינן לקמן⁴ – The language is somewhat difficult to accept, for ר"ב argues with ר"ה as the גמרא states later – ורב הונא לא מיירי בהכי⁵ אלא בהודה ולא במנה: Since ר"ה is not discussing this case but rather only a case where the owner admitted to receiving money, but not a case where the money was counted in the presence of עדים; in that case it is a valid sale

SUMMARY Seemingly רב ביבי and ר"ה disagree; so how can we say ור"ב מסיים בה?!

THINKING IT OVER Why does תוספות write קצת קשה; it seems to be a very strong קשיא?!

footnotes: ¹ The fact that he receives his money back, indicates that witnesses saw the גזלן pay the owner; otherwise he would not receive the money back, for how are we sure that he paid the owner. ² This seemingly indicates that רב ביבי heard from ר"נ this ruling in the name of ר"ה. ³ The גמרא states ורב ביבי מסיים בה משמיה דר"נ; indicating that he added something to what ר"נ taught from רב הונא. This indicates that ר"ה ascribes to this statement of קרקע אין לו אבל מעות יש לו. ⁴ מח,א. The גמרא clearly states there that רב ביבי מימרא הוא, ומימרא לרב הונא לא סבירא ליה. ⁵ See footnote # 1. רב ביבי is discussing a case where the money was counted בפני עדים therefore he gets it back; however ר"ה is only discussing a case where the owner (only) admitted to receiving payment that is when we say אין ראייתו ראיה (but he does not get any money back), however in a case where מנה בפני עדים, the rule is that the גזלן is קונה, since תליוהו וזבין זביניה זביני.