**כי קתני מילתא דליתא בקידושין כולי—**The ברייתא teaches us only something that does not apply to laws of betrothal etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא questioned why the ברייתא limited the similarities between גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים, only to those stated in the ברייתא, when in fact there are more similarities. The final answer the גמרא gives is that the תנא mentions these similarities that exist by ג"נ וש"ע only, but do not exist by a שטר קידושין. This תוספות will explain how the three similarities namely, saying בפ"נ, the היתר of an עד כותי and the פסול of ערכאות are not found by שטרי קידושין.

כל הני ליתנהו בקידושין – All these (three [or four¹] items) that were mentioned in the ברייתא as applying equally to גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים do not apply by קידושין. תוספות enumerates: The requirement to say בפ"נ – דמוליך ומביא בגט משום עיגונא – when one sends or brings a גט is limited to גיטין only, because of our concern that the woman will become an עיגונא if the גט is not validated, therefore we require and believe the שליח to say בפ"נ to enable the woman and the עבד to marry – אבל כאן אם תרצה לא תקבל הנך קידושין – However, here by קידושין there is no concern² to validate the שטר קידושין, for if she so desires she need not accept these קידושין. She can choose to be מקבל a שטר קידושין only if she knows it can be validated (immediately). If she chose to receive the שטר קידושין regardless, and a problem arose she only has herself to blame. By ג"נ וש"ע however, the אשה ועבד have no choice, they must accept the גט ושטר שחרור. In their situation they may find themselves עגונות if the שטרות are not validated.

ועד כותי לא שייך בקידושין – And the דין permitting an עד כותי to sign by ג"נ וש"ע is not applicable by קידושין; that we should permit an עד כותי to sign on a שטר קידושין. תוספות explains the difference between גיטין and קידושין. דבגט הוא דמכשרינן כדלקמן משום דעדי הגט אין חותמין זה בלא זה – For only by a גט do we say that an עד כותי is כשר, as the גמרא states later on³ because the witnesses of a גט cannot sign one without the other. An עד כותי is כשר provided the כותי signed on the שטר before the ישראל. The reason a גט is כשר if the כותי signed first, is because the עדי הגט must sign in the presence of each other⁴. Therefore when the כותי signs first, we have a certain proof that the כותי is a reliable עד – דאי לאו דכותי חבר⁵ הוה לא הוה מיחתם ליה מקמיה – For if the כותי were not a 'חבר', the ישראל would not have allowed the כותי to sign before himself. The ישראל and the כותי were both present simultaneously at the signing of the גט. The fact that the כותי signed first indicates his status as a חבר, otherwise the ישראל would have insisted that the ישראל sign first. We know then for sure that this כותי is an עד כשר. All this is predicated on the rule that עדי הגט must sign in each other’s presence. אבל בקידושין חותמין זה בלא זה – However by a שטר קידושין the עדים may sign one without the other. They need not sign in each other’s presence. Therefore even if the כותי signed before the ישראל there is no indication that he is a חבר. The reason the כותי signed first was because he came first and the other עד ישראל was not there yet. We cannot rely on this כותי. תוספות will now explain why by גיטין there is a requirement that the עדים must sign in each other’s presence, but not by קידושין דלא שייך למיגזר משום כולכם – Because by קידושין the decree, that the עדים must sign in each other’s presence (by a גט), out of concern that the בעל may say 'כולכם' – ‘all of you’ sign the שטר; is not applicable. תוספות will explain the גזירה of כולכם by גיטין. דגבי גט גזרינן שמא יאמר כולכם חתומו – For only by גט are we גוזר to sign זה בפני זה for perhaps the בעל will say ‘all of you sign’. The בעל may say this to many people (more than two) that his wishes are that they should all sign this גט. He will have said it to them perhaps even before the גט was written. ואם יחתמו זה בלא זה לאחר שחתמו בו שנים ויתנוהו לאשה ותסבור שהיא מגורשת – And if they will sign one without another; all the עדים will not be there simultaneously, then after two עדים will have signed the גט and they will give the גט to the woman; thinking that since two עדים signed the גט it is a גט כשר, regardless that the בעל explicitly said כולכם and the woman will assume that she is divorced. She received a גט signed by two עדים – ותלך ותנשא ובעל קפיד – and she will go and marry another man; the husband, however, is particular that all the עדים sign. The fact that they did not all sign, invalidates the גט. The**** woman is still an אשת איש, when she remarries the new husband. This is the reason that אין עדי הגט חותמין זה שלא בפני זה. When they are all present each one realizes that all must sign the גט. אבל בקידושין אין לחוש אם תסבור שהיא מקודשת ⁶-** However by** קידושין there is no concern if she assumes that she is מקודשת**. תוספות** anticipates a possible problem if a woman mistakenly assumes she is מקודשת and ignores it – והא לא שכיחא שתקבל קידושין מאחר ⁷-** And this is not common that she will accept** קידושין from another man – תוספות replies that this is of no real concern to us. It is highly unlikely that she will accept קידושין from another person – כיון שסבורה להיות מקודשת – since she is under the assumption that she is מקודשת. A woman who is מקודשת does not seriously accept offers of קידושין from other men. תוספות concludes with the פסול of ערכאות: וכן ערכאות כיון דאיכא עדי מסירה ישראל כשר בקידושין – And similarly the פסול of ערכאות which is found by ג"נ וש"ע will not apply to קידושין; since there are present at the giving of the שטר קידושין Jewish עדי מסירה it is כשר by קידושין – אף על פי שחותמין עובדי כוכבים – Even though that gentiles signed on the שטר קידושין. There is no פסול of מזוייף מתוכו as there is by ג"נ וש"ע – דליכא למיחש דילמא אתי למיסמך עלייהו – for there is no concern that perhaps we will come to depend on them⁸ דלא אתי לידי תקלה במה שסבורה להיות מקודשת כדפירשנו – for it will not come to any harm, even if we will rely on the testimony of the ערכאות in assuming that she is מקודשת, as we just explained⁹. Even if we validate her שטר קידושין based on the testimony of the ערכאות it will raise no problems. No relevant illegal action is being taken here based on their testimony. By ג"נ וש"ע, however, we are allowing them to marry based on the testimony of ערכאות. תוספות poses a question: ואם תאמר והאיכא זמן ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים – And if you will say; but there is the requirement to date the document in which ג"נ וש"ע are similar that they both require dating their documents as opposed to a שטר קידושין that does not require ¹⁰זמן. תוספות will now quote a source that a שטר שחרור requires זמן.¹¹ כדאמרינן בפרק ד' אחין (יבמות דף לא,ב) – As the גמרא says in פרק ד' אחין in response to a previous statement there that זמן is not required for those transactions (i.e. קדושין) that may be carried out either by שטר or money, the גמרא asks – והא עבדא איכא דקני בכספא ואיכא דקני בשטרא ותקון רבנן זמן – ‘But by an עבד where the acquisition¹² may be either through a שטר or through money and nevertheless the רבנן instituted the requirement to date the שטר of the עבד’. This concludes the quote from the גמרא. ובשחרורי עבדים איירי – And the גמרא there is discussing the שטר of freeing the slaves; a שטר שחרור. This concludes the proof that a שטר שחרור requires זמן, providing we interpret that the גמרא there is referring to שטר שחרור. תוספות will now present a differing opinion as to what type of שטר the גמרא in יבמות is discussing and refute it. ולא כמו שפירש שם בקונטרס שטר מכירת עבד – And not the way רש"י there interprets the phrase of ואיכא דקני בשטרא to mean the שטר of buying a slave; only a שטר מכירת עבד requires זמן according to רש"י; not a ¹³שטר שחרור. This is not so maintains תוספות – דאם כן הוה מצי למפרך מקרקעות וכל שטרות – For if this is so that the גמרא when it states: 'דאיכא דקני בכספא ואיכא דקני בשטרא is referring to a שטר מכירת עבד, the גמרא could have argued from the שטרות used in the sale of properties and indeed from all documents in general. Why then does the גמרא limit its argument to a שטר מכירת עבד only, which may be something infrequent? In all these transactions the rule of 'איכא דקני בכספא ואיכא דקני בשטרא' apply, just as they apply to שטר מכירת עבד. ועוד דאותו אינו נפסל בשאין בו זמן – And furthermore, that שטר מכירת עבד in not פסול if it is not dated¹⁴. אלא בשטר שחרור איירי**** שנפסל בלא זמן כמו גיטי נשים – Therefore we must say that the גמרא is discussing a שטר שחרור which is פסול if there is no זמן, just as גיטי נשים are פסול if there is no זמן. תוספות replies**:** ויש לומר דכיון שרגילין לעשות זמן בכל שטרות לא תניא הכא:** We can answer that since it is customary to include the date in all documents,¹⁵ the תנא** of the ברייתא did not teach this similarity here. The תנא lists the similarities that are unique to ג"נ וש"ע; dating a שטר is common to all שטרות, even though it may not be required.

SUMMARY There is no דין of בפ"נ by קידושין, since there is no חשש of עיגונא by קידושין. The woman has the option of not accepting the שטר קידושין An עד כותי is פסול in a שטר קידושין, even if the כותי signed first. There is no requirement that the עדי שטר קידושין sign in the presence of each other. By שטר קידושין even if he would say כולכם, and all did not sign, no dire consequences would result. ערכאות are כשר by שטר קידושין if it was given בעדי מסירה ישראל. There is no problem of מזוייף מתוכו, since we are not really acting on the testimony of the ערכאות. The ברייתא does not mention the similarity of זמן, since it is common to write the זמן in all שטרות.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות explains that we are not concerned for ערכאות by קידושין since דלא אתי לידי תקלה.¹⁶ However תוספות previously taught that אע"פ שהדבר אמת, nevertheless אין לעשות אלא בעדות כשר, so why here do we rely on **ערכאות?!**¹⁷
2. תוספות concludes¹⁸ that זמן is not mentioned since it is commonly inserted by all שטרות. Seemingly we are not interested in all שטרות, but rather only what applies by קידושין¹⁹ and by שטר קידושין there seemingly is no זמן?²⁰
3. Is there a difference between sרש"י' explanation²¹ why מוליך ומביא is ליתא בקידושין and תוספות explanation?²²

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא subsequently discusses how the fourth item does not apply by קידושין. ² תוספות anticipates the following question. Seemingly by קידושין there may also be a problem of עגונה. Once the woman accepts the שטר קידושין, she is deemed married to the person who sent her this שטר. However if he does not appear after a while and she cannot validate the שטר, she will find herself in a dilemma whether she is מקודשת to this person or not. She will not be able to marry anyone else, in case she is indeed married to the בעל השטר. Our תוספות rejects this concern. ³ See end of this עמוד and י,ב. ⁴ This will be shortly explained. ⁵ A 'חבר' was a status conferred upon individuals who were very scrupulous in their observance of מצות including and especially in the זהירות from טומאה. ⁶ Even if the (future) husband said כולכם, and not all signed, and therefore it is not a valid קידושין; nevertheless no harm will follow. Generally no איסור will be transgressed if a woman mistakenly assumes that she is מקודשת, when in fact she is not. Therefore there is no rule by עדי קידושין that they must sign in each other’s presence. Subsequently even if the כותי signed first, there is no proof that he is a חבר. ⁷ After she received the שטר קידושין, another person will be מקדש her, and for whatever reason she will accept this קידושין, The woman since she is under the mistaken impression that she is מקודשת to the first man will ignore these later קידושין; when in fact she is מקודשת to the second person. Therefore perhaps we should enact the גזירה משום כולכם by קידושין as well. The עדי קידושין should have to sign זה בפני זה in order to avoid this consequence. ⁸ See תוספות ד,א ד"ה מודה that the פסול of מזוייף מתוכו is because we are concerned that we will rely on the testimony of the invalid עדי חתימה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁹ A woman who mistakenly assumes that she is married does not (generally) carry any risks of איסורים. ¹⁰ The גמרא in יבמות quoted immediately explains why there is no זמן by שטר קידושין. ¹¹ גט אשה requires זמן as the גמרא states clearly on דף יז,א the two reasons for תקנת זמן בגיטין either because of פירי or שמא יחפה על בת אחותו. See also משנה on פו,א quoted earlier on דף ג,ב. ¹² This will be referring to the עבד acquiring himself as a free man. רש"י (see further) will disagree. ¹³ According to sרש"י' interpretation there is no proof from this גמרא that a שטר שחרור requires זמן. ¹⁴ The same is with the other שטרות they are not פסול if there is no זמן. ¹⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁶ See footnote # 8. ¹⁷ See נח"מ. ¹⁸ See footnote # 15. ¹⁹ See previous תוספות ט,ב ד"ה מילתא. ²⁰ See מהרש"א. ²¹ See רש"י ד"ה הכי גרסינן. ²² See מהר"ם שי"ף.

בשליחות בעל כורחיה כולי—By a שליחות against one’s will, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains that the fourth similarity (according to ר"מ) between גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים, which is not found by קידושין, is by שליחות בע"כ. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as to what the גמרא is referring to.

פירש בקונטרס והכי קתני בזו שוו גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים – רש"י explained: and this is what the ברייתא taught, there is this similarity between גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים exclusively that does not apply to קידושין. The ברייתא is discussing a case – ששליח זה נעשה שליח אצלו בעל כרחו ואם רצה הבעל חוזר – where the שליח was appointed against the will of both the אשה and the עבד.¹**.** In such a situation if the master desired he may reconsider and retract the גט and the שטר שחרור. This according to ר"מ who maintains that it is a חוב for the עבד to be free (and obviously by the אשה it is a חוב for her to be מגורשת), therefore the שליח could not be זוכה the שטר שחרור for the עבד – מה שאין כן בקדושין דאף על גב דחוזר לאו דומיא דהני הוא – This is not the case by קידושין which is (also) בע"כ of the אשה; even though that here too by קידושין the prospective בעל may retract the שטר קידושין before it reaches the woman, nevertheless it is not similar to these (ג"נ וש"ע). In the case of ג"נ וש"ע the reason the בעל may be חוזר is because it is a חוב for them² and the שליח cannot be זוכה the שטר for them until it comes into their possession literally. Once however it does come to their possession the שטר takes effect; to divorce the אשה and to be משחרר the עבד.**** By שטר קידושין however since it is בעל כורחה, against her will, the שטר never takes effect even after it reaches the woman’s ‘hand’. A person cannot be מקדש a woman בע"כ (as opposed to גירושין ושחרור which may take place בע"כ of the אשה ועבד). Therefore the reason the בעל can be חוזר from the קידושין has nothing in common with ג"נ וש"ע. By קידושין the בעל can be חוזר because since it is בע"כ, there is no meaningful שטר קידושין. תוספות disagrees with רש"י. ואין נראה דאי מיירי בשליחות בעל כורחייהו רבנן נמי מודו דחוזר בעבד – and it does not appear that this is the interpretation of the גמרא, for if we are discussing a שליחות which is known to be against their wills (of the women and the עבד), the רבנן will also admit to ר"מ that the אדון may retract the שטר שחרור from the עבד (if it did not reach him as of yet) – ואין זכין לו בעל כורחו – And one may not acquire the שטר שחרור on behalf of the עבד against his will. The argument between ר"מ ורבנן, is only when we do not know the wishes of the עבד. Then the רבנן maintain that generally it is a זכות for the עבד to be freed. Therefore one may be זוכה the שטר שחרור for the עבד, since זכין לאדם שלא בפניו. However when we specifically know that the עבד does not want the שחרור, the רבנן will agree that חוזר בעבד since it is a חוב for him in this specific case. תוספות offers an alternate explanation ונראה כפירוש רבינו חננאל דכיון דבעבד ואשה איכא שליחות בעל כורחייהו – And the explanation of the ר"ח is more appropriate, that since by עבד and the אשה (who is being divorced), the שליחות there is against their will; the עבד and אשה need not be consulted by the בעל to send them their respective שטרות – הוה אמינא דאין יכול לחזור דכיון דבא ליד השליח כאילו בא לידה דמי – I might have thought that the בעל cannot retract for since it came into the ‘hand’ of the שליח, it is as if it came to the woman’s hand who is being divorced (similarly it is as if came into the hand of the עבד) – כיון שאין יכולים לעכב – Since the עבד ואשה cannot prevent the שליח from giving them the שטר. The שטר is effective without their consent. Therefore as soon as the בעל gave the שליח the שטר, it seems inevitable that the שטר will ultimately become effective, for the אשה ועבד cannot prevent it. There seems no reason why the בעל should be able to be חוזר. All that is required on his behalf was done; there is no stopping this process. אבל קידושין דאין בעל כורחה פשיטא דחוזר – However by קידושין where the transaction cannot take place against her will; קידושין must be with the woman’s consent, it is obvious that he may retract his offer of קידושין. When the שטר קידושין left the master, it was in no way inevitable that the קידושין process will be culminated. It depends on the consent of the woman. Therefore since the sending of the שטר קידושין is only the beginning of a process, the prospective בעל may retract, as long as the woman did not willingly accept the שטר קידושין. Therefore the חזרה by ג"נ וש"ע is different than the חזרה by קידושין. תוספות anticipates a certain difficulty with this interpretation. According to the ר"ח by קידושין the בעל can also be חוזר. The reason why it is not similar to ג"נ וש"ע is because by קידושין it is obvious that he may be חוזר. Why did not the גמרא say so? Why does the גמרא say that it is ליתא בקידושין, meaning that it does not exist by קידושין when in fact by קידושין the בעל may also be חוזר? תוספות responds: ומילתא דליתא בקדושין היינו דליתא חידוש בקדושין – And the expression ‘an item that does not apply by קידושין’, means that there is no novelty that by קידושין he may retract. In the case of קידושין it is obvious that the בעל may retract, since it depends on her consent as well, as previously explained. תוספות asks a question: וקשה ליתני דשוו לבעל כורחיה והוו ארבע אפילו לרבנן – And there is a difficulty; let the תנא teach us that there is an additional similarity between ג"נ וש"ע in a case of בע"כ; where it is permitted to send them a גט אשה and a שטר שחרור even against their will, and there will be four similarities between ג"נ וש"ע even according to the רבנן³. It will also be a מילתא דליתא בקידושין since an אשה can be מקודשת only with her consent. תוספות does not answer this question.

SUMMARY According to רש"י the term שליחות בע"כ refers to the fact that it was known that the שליחות was against their wills. In all three cases the בעל can be חוזר. There is a difference however. By ג"נ וש"ע he can be חוזר because it is a חוב for them. By קידושין he is חוזר because there was no real שטר קידושין. תוספות argues that if it was known that the שטר שחרור was בע"כ of the עבד the רבנן would agree that חוזר בעבד. תוספות follows the explanation of the ר"ח. By ג"נ וש"ע there is a חידוש that the בעל can be חוזר, since they cannot be מעכב. By קידושין however where it must be מדעתה, so obviously the בעל can be חוזר. There is no חידוש that he can be חוזר. A question remains, however, why did not the חכמים also say that there is a fourth similarity, namely that by ג"נ וש"ע it is בע"כ; however by קידושין it must be מדעתה.

THINKING IT OVER Is תוספות last question connected to the פירוש ר"ח or is the same question applicable to פירש"י?⁴

footnotes: ¹ It is assumed that the אשה and the עבד do not wish to be divorced or freed respectively. (From תוספות subsequent question on רש"י, it appears that this is how תוספות understood רש"י.) ² In general it is a חוב for them, and particularly in this case where it is known that they oppose it. ³ The difference between תוספות question on רש"י and his question on the ר"ח is: According to רש"י the fourth similarity is equally valid for the רבנן as it is for ר"מ. The question on the ר"ח is; why indeed did not the ברייתא list a fourth similarity according to the רבנן as well? See מהר"ם שי"ף. ⁴ See מהר"ם שי"ף.

מצת כותי¹ מותרת—The מצה of a כותי is permitted

OVERVIEW The ברייתא states that one is permitted to eat the מצה of a כותי on פסח (we are not concerned that it is חמץ) and furthermore one fulfills his obligation to eat מצה (on the first night of פסח) with the מצת כותי. Our תוספות discusses why indeed this is so.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הלא גזרו על פתן כדאמרינן בפירקי דרבי אליעזר² (פרק לח) – And if you will say; but the חכמים decreed on the bread of כותים, that it is forbidden to eat it as is stated in פרקי דרבי אליעזר; the reason for this גזירה is – לפי שהיו מבטלין בנין בית המקדש בימי עזרא – Because they were disrupting the building of the בית המקדש in the days of עזרא – וקתני התם³ מכאן אמר רבי אליעזר כל האוכל פת כותי כאילו אוכל בשר חזיר – And it is written there (in פרקי דר"א), ‘from this ר"א ruled that whoever eats bread from a כותי is considered as if he eats the flesh of swine’ – ותניא נמי בפרק קמא דחולין (דף יג,א.) גבי מין⁴ פתו פת כותי – And we also learnt in a ברייתא in the first פרק of מסכת חולין regarding a מין that his bread is forbidden just like the bread of a כותי; indicating that the bread of a כותי is forbidden. How can the מצה of the כותי be permitted to be eaten?! תוספות answers:** ואומר רבינו תם דמיירי בעיסת ישראל שעשה כותי מצה ממנה⁵ –** And the ר"ת says that the ברייתא is discussing a case where the כותי made מצה from the dough of a Jew; this is not considered פת כותי. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר⁶ אמאי יוצא בה ידי חובה⁷ דילמא לא שמרה לשם מצה – And if you will say; why does the ישראל fulfill his obligation of eating מצה (on the first night of פסח), perhaps the כותי did not ‘guard’ it for the sake of מצה⁸ – דחשידי אלפני עור וגומר⁹ – For the כותים are suspect of transgressing the לאו of לפני עור, etc. תוספות answers: ויש לומר כגון דקים לן דאין לכותי מצה אחרת שיוכל לצאת בה ידי חובתו – And one can say that a ישראל is יוצא with מצת כותי in a case where for instance we have established that the כותי has no other מצה for himself with which he can fulfill his obligation to eat מצה, except for this מצה (which the ישראל is also eating), therefore we are sure that it was ‘guarded’ לשם מצה, since the כותי ate it to be יוצא מצות מצוה which they observe properly. תוספות proves his point: כדמשמע בריש חולין (דף ד,א) קוטע ראשו של אחד מהן ונותנו לו¹⁰ – As is indicated in the beginning of מסכת חולין; he chops the head of one of the birds and gives it to the כותי –

If the כותי eats it, it is permitted to eat from his שחיטה. This proves that we can rely on the כותי that if he eats it, it means that it meets all the qualifications; the same applies for אכילת מצת מצוה.

SUMMARY מצת כותי is permitted if the dough was made by a ישראל; otherwise פת כותי is אסור. One can trust a כותי (for כשרות) if the כותי himself partakes of it.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות asks that perhaps the כותי did not guard it לשם מצה.¹¹ Why does not תוספות ask that perhaps it is חמץ?!¹²
2. תוספות states that when a כותי eats, it is proof that it is permissible to eat it. תוספות proves it from the ברייתא of קוטע ראשו של אחד מהן.¹³ In the same ברייתא immediately preceding the rule of קוטע ראשו it mentions another case, that if a כותי was שוחט an animal, and he eats it you are permitted to eat from it. Why did not תוספות bring his proof from the first case of the ברייתא?!¹⁴
3. What is the connection between the answer on תוספות first question (that we are discussing עיסת ישראל) and the following question¹⁵ (that perhaps it was not guarded לשם מצה)?¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ The כותים were a nation which סנחריב (who exiled the עשרת השבטים) brought from כותא and settled them in שומרון. They were מגייר later when they were attacked by lions (see מלכים ב, יז,כד-כח). It is questionable whether the כותים were גרי אמת (and are considered as Jews), or whether they were גרי אריות (they converted only because the lions were killing them and are considered גוים). ² This is a חבור from the תנא ר' אליעזר בן הורקנוס (the רבי of ר"ע), know as ר"א הגדול. ³ This is found in פרקי דר"א דפוס ויניציה ש"ד (reprinted ירושלים תשל"ב) it is not found however in דפוס וורשא תרי"ב. See also שביעית פ"ח מ"י, where this is quoted in the name of ר"א בן הורקנוס. ⁴ The ברייתא there states 'מין לעכו"ם', meaning that he worships idols. ⁵ The prohibition against פת כותי is only when the כותי mixed and kneaded the dough. Alternately if the flour belongs to a ישראל there is no איסור even if the כותי kneaded it (see בל"י אות רכח). [Here we may be discussing where the כותי baked the מצה in the house of the ישראל (after the ישראל kneaded the dough).] ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁷ See מהרש"א [הארוך] that תוספות was not concerned that perhaps it may be חמץ, since it was an עיסת ישראל, the ישראל saw that it was baked before it could become חמץ. The מהר"ם שי"ף explains that it is מותר because the כותי ate it (עיי"ש his question on the מהרש"א). See also נח"מ בד"ה והנה הקשה and אמ"ה # 75. ⁸ The גמרא in פסחים לח,ב derives from the פסוק of ושמרתם את המצות (שמות [בא] יב,יז) that there is a requirement that the מצות be guarded (from becoming חמץ) for the sake of (מצות) מצה. See בל"י אות רכז. ⁹ The כותים followed only תורה שבכתב; they did not follow the דרשות of the רבנן. The כותים interpreted לפני עור to mean literally, not to place a stumbling block before a blind person, however there is no prohibition (according to the כותים) to mislead a person regarding איסורים (which is how the רבנן interpret לפני עור). Therefore even though the כותים may be scrupulous in keeping the מצוה of eating מצה and ‘guarding’ it, nevertheless they do not mind misleading others regarding the מצה. See ‘Thinking it over’# 1. ¹⁰ The case there is where a כותי brought a basket of slaughtered birds, but we are not certain whether there was a proper שחיטה. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹¹ See footnote # 9. ¹² See מהרש"א (הארוך), מהרש"ל, מהר"ם שי"ף and נח"מ. ¹³ See footnote # 10. ¹⁴ See תפארת יעקב (בד"ה אמנם). ¹⁵ See footnote # 6. ¹⁶ See סוכ"ד אות טז.

ואדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו—And a person fulfills his obligation with it

OVERVIEW The ברייתא teaches us two rules; first that מצת כותי is permitted and second that one may fulfill his obligation of eating מצה with מצת כותי. Seemingly if we were taught the second rule that one is יוצא מצות מצה with מצת כותי, we would obviously know that it is permitted to be eaten. תוספות addresses this duplicity.

The ברייתא teaches these two rules (that you may eat it, and you fulfill your obligation) in a manner of (not only) ‘this (eating the מצת כותי) is permitted, but even this’ (fulfilling your obligation)**** is also permitted. And the ברייתא informs us that the כותים are proficient in guarding it for the sake of מצה.

SUMMARY The ברייתא is written in a זו אף זו manner and teaches us the כותים are בקיאין in שימור לשם מצה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Once we are taught that one may eat מצת כותי (that it is not חמץ), for which there is an איסור כרת, then obviously one can be יוצא the מצוה of אכילת מצה, which is merely an עשה. Why the need for the סיפא of the ברייתא?!³
2. Why cannot we say that the רישא teaches us that מצת כותי is מותר even לכתחלה, something which cannot be derived from the סיפא?⁴

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’. תוספות explains that it is a common practice to teach two consecutive laws in a manner that the second law subsumes the first. Usually this is referred to as לא זו אף זו (not only this, but even this), however here תוספות writes זו אף זו. A case of לא זו אף זו would be when the first rule is self understood, and only the second rule needs to be taught. However here, even the first rule (מצת כותי מותרת) is not obvious and needs to be taught, however it is obviously subsumed in the second law. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ² The novelty here may be that even though it is not written explicitly in the תורה that there is a requirement for שימור לשם מצה (it merely states that the מצות be guarded [from becoming חמץ]), nevertheless the כותים observe this (for themselves). See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ³ See תפארת יעקב (and חת"ס). ⁴ See מהר"ם שי"ף.

אי תנא קמא אפילו שאר שטרות נמי—If it is the תנא קמא; even by other שטרות it should also be כשר

OVERVIEW Our משנה ruled that an עד כותי is פסול for all שטרות except גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים. The גמרא cites a ברייתא regarding eating the מצה of a כותי. The ת"ק maintains that it is מותר, ר"א maintains that it is אסור, while רשב"ג states that any מצוה which the כותים accepted (החזיקו בה), they are more careful in its observance than a ישראל. Initially the גמרא has a difficulty reconciling the ברייתא with our משנה. According to the ת"ק all שטרות should be כשר¹, according to ר"א even גט אשה should be פסול, and according to רשב"ג it should depend on whether they were החזיקו (to testify truthfully) or not. תוספות discusses what are the views of the ת"ק ורשב"ג in cases where it is only כתיבה (in the תורה) or only אחזוק (by the כותים), .

אומר רבינו יצחק דמשמע דלתנא קמא מהניא כתיבה לחודיה אף על גב דלא אחזוק – The ר"י says that it seems from this גמרא that according to the ת"ק if a particular law is written in the תורה, that alone (even if it was not established that they observe it), is sufficient to assume that the כותים observe it. תוספות explains how he arrived at this conclusion: מדלא קאמר אתנא קמא אי דאחזוק כולי² כדקאמר ארבן שמעון בן גמליאל – Since the גמרא did not ask regarding the ת"ק (as it asked regarding רשב"ג); ‘let us see, if it is אחזוק, etc. that the כותים are scrupulous in not testifying falsely then they should be believed by all שטרות. The גמרא did not ask that, because according to the ת"ק there is no requirement for the כותים to be אחזוק – ואם כן פשיטא ליה לש"ס דמצה לא אחזוק – And therefore (since the גמרא did not bring up the issue of אחזוק, for it is irrelevant according to the ת"ק), it is obvious to the גמרא that the כותים were not אחזוק in the observance of מצה. תוספות immediately explains himself – פירוש אין ידוע אי אחזוק – The meaning³ of לא אחזוק is that it is not known to us whether the כותים are אחזוק in regards to מצה – תוספות explains how he concluded that the גמרא assumes that מצה is לא אחזוק: דאי מצה כתיבה ואחזוק מנא ליה לש"ס דכתיבה לחודיה מהניא לתנא קמא⁴ – For if מצה is כתיבה ואחזוק, how did the גמרא derive that כתיבה alone is sufficient according to the ת"ק. תוספות brings an additional proof that it is obvious to the גמרא that מצה is לא אחזוק: וכן משמע בפרק קמא דחולין (דף ד,א) דמעיקרא מוקי פלוגתייהו⁵ בכתיבה ולא אחזוק – And so it also⁶ seems from the גמרא in the first פרק of מסכת חולין, where initially the גמרא established the dispute between the ת"ק and רשב"ג in a case of כתיבה (in the תורה) and לא אחזוק (by the כותים) – דלתנא קמא מהניא ולרבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא מהניא⁷ – that according to the ת"ק it is sufficient and according to רשב"ג it is insufficient. The גמרא there continues – ופריך האי כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה אם החזיקו בה מיבעי ליה⁸ – And asks; ‘what is this statement by רשב"ג that “every מצוה which the כותים were מחזיק” they are very scrupulous in its observance’; instead רשב"ג should have said, “if the כותים were מחזיק”, etc’. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in חולין. תוספות continues with his proof – משמע דלא ידיע לן אי אחזוק בה מדקאמר אם אחזוק בה מיבעי ליה – It seems from this question that it is unknown to us whether the כותים were מחזיק in מצות מצה, since the גמרא stated that רשב"ג should have said אם אחזוק. ⁹ In conclusion: תוספות maintains that regarding מצה it is inconclusive whether the כותים were החזיקו במצות מצה or not. [This is referred to as לא החזיקו.] תוספות asks: וקשה דלמאי דמסיק התם דאחזוק בלא כתיבה איכא בינייהו – And there is a difficulty; for according to the conclusion of the גמרא there (in מסכת חולין) that the difference between the ת"ק and רשב"ג is in a case where it is אחזוק (by the כותים) but not written (in the תורה) – דלתנא קמא לא מהני ורבן שמעון בן גמליאל לטפויי אתא למימר דמהני – Where according to the ת"ק it is not מהני (since it is not כתיבה), but רשב"ג comes to add and be more lenient saying that אחזוק בלא כתיבה is מהני. This concludes the citation from the גמרא. תוספות continues with his question – מנא ליה דלא מהני לתנא קמא– From where does the גמרא derive that אחזוק בלא כתיבה is לא מהני according to the ת"ק; for¹⁰ – כיון דכתיבה לחודיה מהני אף על גב דלא מהני לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל כדמשמע הכא – Since כתיבה alone is מהני (according to the ת"ק), ¹¹ even though כתיבה alone is not מהני according to רשב"ג, as it seems from the גמרא here¹², therefore it is – כל שכן דמהני חזקה לחודה דעדיפא דמהני אף לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – Certain that חזקה alone is מהני according to the ת"ק, since חזקה is superior to כתיבה for חזקה alone is מהני even according to רשב"ג who maintains that כתיבה alone is not מהני (so according to the ת"ק who maintains כתיבה alone is מהני, so certainly חזקה alone is מהני).¹³ תוספות rejects an anticipated solution to this question: ודוחק לומר אף על גב דממילתא דתנא קמא אין להוכיח דלא מהני חזקה לחודיה – And it is awkward to answer, even though that we cannot prove from the words of the ת"ק that חזקה alone is not מהני (as תוספות just showed) – מכל מקום יש לדקדק מרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דאתא לטפויי חזקה לחודה – Nevertheless we can infer from רשב"ג who is coming to add that חזקה alone is sufficient – מכלל דלתנא קמא לא מהני¹⁴ – This implies that according to the ת"ק, חזקה alone is לא מהני. This answer is a דוחק.¹⁵ The question remains from where did the גמרא derive according to the ת"ק that חזקה לחודיה לא מהני! תוספות answers: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דלמסקנא דהתם מצה כתיבה והחזיקו בה¹⁶ – And it is the view of the ר"י that according to the conclusion of the גמרא there (in חולין), מצה is כתיבה and also the כותים were החזיקו בה¹⁷ – והשתא יש להוכיח מתנא קמא גופיה דחזקה לחודה לא מהניא – So now we can prove from the ת"ק himself that חזקה alone is לא מהניא – מדנקט מצה דכתיבה ואחזוק – Since the ת"ק mentioned his view by מצה which is כתיבה ואחזוק, this proves that אחזוק לחודה is לא מהניא – דאי חזקה לחודה מהניא הוה ליה למינקט שחיטה¹⁸ דליכא אלא חזקה לחודה – For if the ת"ק maintains that חזקה לחודה מהניא, then the ת"ק should have mentioned that כותים can be trusted for שחיטה where there is only חזקה and no כתיבה. The reason they did not mention שחיטה is because by שחיטה even though it is אחזוק, but since it is not כתיבה, the ת"ק will maintain that it is לא מהניא. We have now concluded that אחזוק בלי כתיבה is מהני according to רשב"ג but not according to the ת"ק, and that מצה is כתיבה ואחזוק. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אם כן¹⁹ מנא ליה דכתיבה לחודה מהני לתנא קמא²⁰ – And if you will say; if this is indeed so that מצה is כתיבה ואחזוק, how did the גמרא derive that כתיבה לחודה is מהני according to the ת"ק – כיון דמצה כתיבה ואחזוק – Since מצה is כתיבה and אחזוק. תוספות answers: ויש לומר מדלא מפרש בהדיא מצת כותי מותרת הואיל והחזיקו בה – And one can say; that since the ת"ק did not explicitly state that מצת כותי is permitted because they were אחזוק in מצה, rather they gave no reason – משמע דלא הוי טעמא אלא משום דכתיבה שהוא טעם הידוע לכל בלא שום פירוש – This indicates that the only reason מצת כותי is מותרת is only because it is כתיבה, for כתיבה is a known reason to all without requiring an explanation.²¹ תוספות asks: ואם תאמר כיון דלתנא קמא חזקה לחודה לא מהניא²² – And if you will say; since חזקה alone is not מהניא according to the ת"ק – מנא לן דכתיבה לחודיה לא מהניא לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – From where does the גמרא derive that כתיבה לחודיה is not מהניא according to רשב"ג. תוספות shows where the גמרא assumes that כתיבה לחודיה לא מהניא לרשב"ג – דפריך אי אחזוק כולי²³ – For the גמרא asks according to the רשב"ג regarding שטרות, if it is אחזוק, etc. – דילמא כתיבה עדיפא דמהני אפילו לתנא קמא וכל שכן דמהני לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – Perhaps כתיבה is superior to חזקה, for כתיבה is מהני even according to the ת"ק (who maintain that חזקה לחודיה לא מהני), so כתיבה is certainly מהני according to רשב"ג (who maintains that even חזקה לחודיה מהני)?²⁴ תוספות asks an additional question based on the assumption of our גמרא that כתיבה לחודיה לא מהני according to רשב"ג. ועוד במסקנא דחולין הוה ליה למימר אחזוק בדלא כתיבה נמי איכא בינייהו – And furthermore in the conclusion of the גמרא in חולין, the גמרא should have said that by אחזוק בלא כתיבה there is also a difference between the ת"ק and רשב"ג instead of saying אחזוק בלא כתיבה איכא בינייהו without saying נמי. For there is an additional difference between the ת"ק and רשב"ג (besides אחזוק בלא כתיבה), which is כתיבה לחודיה. And – מדלא קאמר נמי משמע כתיבא לחודה מהניא לכולי עלמא²⁵ – Since the גמרא did not insert the word נמי, this indicates that כתיבה לחודיה is מהני according to everyone including רשב"ג. This contradicts our גמרא which maintains that כתיבה לחודיה לא מהני לרשב"ג. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמספקא ליה להש"ס – And one can say; that the גמרא is in doubt – אי פליג רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אתנא קמא בכתיבה ולא אחזוק – Whether רשב"ג argues with the ת"ק in a case of כתיבה ולא אחזוק. תוספות explains the reason for this doubt is – מדלא קאמר כל מצוה שכתובה או שהוחזקו בה – Since רשב"ג did not state, ‘every מצוה which is כתובה or that the כותים were הוחזקה in it, etc. Rather רשב"ג omitted the concept of כתובה. This indicates that כתובה is irrelevant, or perhaps רשב"ג assumed that it was not necessary to mention it since we may assume ourselves that כתיבה is מהניא since it is מהניא לת"ק. This is the reason for the doubt as to the view of רשב"ג whether כתיבה לחודיה מהניא or not. תוספות responds to an anticipated question: אף על גב דאיכא למימר דמכל שכן שמעינן ליה – Even though one can argue that we know with a כ"ש that כתיבה לחודיה is מהניא לרשב"ג. ²⁶ תוספות explains the כ"ש – דהא לתנא קמא כתיבה מהניא ולא חזקה – Because since according to the ת"ק we know that כתיבה is מהניא but not חזקה, so therefore according to רשב"ג that חזקה לחודיה מהניא it goes without saying that כתיבה לחודיה מהניא. So why is there a doubt? אפילו הכי מספקא ליה להש"ס – Nevertheless the גמרא is in doubt at to what is the view of רשב"ג regarding כתיבה לחודיה, because – דילמא לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל גריעא כתיבה מחזקה²⁷ מדלא פירש בהדיא – Perhaps כתיבה is inferior to חזקה according to רשב"ג, since he did not clearly state that כתיבה לחודיה is (also) מהניא – ולהכי לא קאמר התם אחזוק בדלא כתיבה נמי איכא בינייהו – And therefore it is understood why the גמרא there (in חולין) did not state אחזוק בלא כתיבה נמי איכא בינייהו, which would indicate**** that (according to רשב"ג) כתיבה לחודיה לא מהניא (as it seems from our גמרא) –

Because as we explained, the גמרא is in doubt regarding כתיבה ולא אחזוק whether רשב"ג argues with the ת"ק and maintains לא מהניא or not.

SUMMARY מצה is כתיבה ואחזוק. The ת"ק maintains that כתיבה לחודיה מהני, and אחזוק לחודיה לא מהני, while רשב"ג maintains that אחזוק לחודיה מהני but we are uncertain regarding כתיבה לחודיה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות proves that אחזוק לחודיה is not מהני לת"ק since he did not mention שחיטה (which is אחזוק לחודיה).²⁸ תוספות proves that כתיבה לחודיה is מהני לת"ק since he did not mention that מצת כותי מותרת because it was אחזוק.²⁹ Seemingly the second proof cancels the first proof. The reason the ת"ק did not mention שחיטה instead of מצה (is not because אחזוק לחודיה is לא מהני, but rather) in order to teach us that כתיבה לחודיה מהני?!³⁰
2. What is the סברת המחלוקת³¹ whether כתיבה is superior (the opinion of the ת"ק), or whether אחזוק is superior (the view of רשב"ג)?

footnotes: ¹ There should be no difference between מצה (which is written in the תורה) and bearing false witness (which is also written in the תורה). The כותים should be trusted in both cases. ² When the גמרא was attempting to reconcile the ת"ק of מצה with our משנה of עד כותי it merely stated that according to the ת"ק a כותי should be כשר. It did not ask however that the כשרות of a כותי for an עד should depend on whether the כותים were אחזוק to testify truthfully. The reason the גמרא did not mention this is because it is irrelevant; since עדות (שטרות) is כתיבה that is sufficient to believe the עד כותי. ³ When תוספות stated that פשיטא ליה להש"ס that מצה לא אחזוק he certainly did not mean that we are sure that לא אחזוק (meaning we know they are not observant), for then how can the ת"ק rule that מצת כותי is מותרת. ⁴ We know that כתיבה לחודיה מהניא since the גמרא did not ask according to the ת"ק, ‘let us see whether testifying falsely is אחזוק or not’; proving that אחזוק is irrelevant (otherwise the גמרא would have asked it). The fact the גמרא did not ask it proves to us that that גמרא assumed that מצה was not אחזוק, and nevertheless מצת כותי is permitted. Therefore an עד כותי (which is also כתיבה) should be כשר regardless if it is אחזוק. ⁵ The גמרא there asked that (seemingly) both the ת"ק and רשב"ג agree that מצת כותי is מותרת, so what is their מחלוקת. The גמרא answered that their מחלוקת is by [other] cases where it is כתיבה ולא אחזוק. ⁶ תוספות offers an additional proof that מצה is לא אחזוק, because later (see [תוספות on] footnote # 20) תוספות will reject the previous proof (נח"מ). ⁷ According to this answer, רשב"ג is stricter than the ת"ק. According to the ת"ק even כתיבה alone is sufficient (we do not require אחזוק), however according to רשב"ג it is necessary that it is אחזוק. ⁸ The expression כל מצוה שהחזיקו וכו' indicates that רשב"ג is more lenient that the ת"ק, by saying that as long as it is אחזוק that is sufficient (even if it is not כתיבה). However, according to the answer the גמרא gave previously (that כתיבה ולא אחזוק איכא בינייהו), then רשב"ג is stricter than the ת"ק. Therefore the גמרא asks that if we assume that רשב"ג is stricter, the expression of רשב"ג should have been that if החזיקו then it is מהני however if it is not החזיקו then it is not מהני (even if it is כתיבה). This would show the strictness of רשב"ג, as opposed to the expression of כל מצוה וכו' which indicates that רשב"ג is more lenient. This is the thrust of the sגמרא' question there. ⁹ תוספות derives this from the expression which the גמרא prefers, namely אם החזיקו (regarding מצה); this indicates that concerning מצה it is doubtful whether החזיקו or not, for if it were certain that מצה is אחזוק then the question should have been הואיל והחזיקו בה מבעי ליה, but not אם החזיקו בה מבעי ליה. ¹⁰ תוספות will now explain that the assumption should be that אחזוק לחודיה is מהני according to the ת"ק. ¹¹ תוספות premise is that מצה is לא אחזוק and nevertheless it is מותר according to the ת"ק, indicating that כתיבה alone is מהני. This forms the basis of תוספות question. ¹² The גמרא states here (according to רשב"ג) regarding שטרות (which is כתיבה that one may not testify falsely) that if it is לא אחזוק then an עד כותי should be פסול by all שטרות. ¹³ If we would maintain however that מצה is (also) אחזוק, then תוספות has no question, because there is no proof that the ת"ק maintains that כתיבה לחודיה מהני. This undermines the entire כ"ש. ¹⁴ If אחזוק alone is מהני according to the ת"ק then רשב"ג should have just stated that כתיבה לחודיה לא מהני. ¹⁵ It is a דוחק because the כ"ש mentioned previously indicates that the ת"ק maintains אחזוק לחודיה מהני. Alternately (see footnote # 14.) רשב"ג could not have just said כתיבה לא מהני for then we would not have known that חזקה לחודיה מהני, therefore he said כל מצוה שהחזיקו which reaches אחזוק לחודיה מהני and כתיבה לא מהני. [This alternate answer applies even according to the מסקנא of תוספות (see footnote # 27) that the מחלוקת between רשב"ג and the ת"ק is whether כתיבה or אחזוק is greater; thereby invalidating the various כ"ש.] ¹⁶ Even though initially (when the גמרא stated that כתיבה בלא אחזוק איכא בינייהו, which was followed by the question of אם החזיקו מיבעי ליה), the גמרא assumed that מצה was לא החזיקו; however, according to the מסקנא that החזיק בלא כתיבה איכא בינייהו then מצה is כתיבה ואחזוק. This explains the statement of רשב"ג that since מצה is אחזוק there is no need for כתיבה. ¹⁷ It will be necessary to say that our גמרא which assumes that כתיבה לחודיה מהני (see תוספות previously [footnote # 4]); it is not because מצה is כתיבה ולא אחזוק but rather as תוספות will shortly explain. ¹⁸ The laws of שחיטה are not explicitly written in the תורה (as opposed to מצה). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁹ See the previous answer of the ר"י (and footnote # 16). ²⁰ Our גמרא asks that according to the ת"ק an עד כותי should be כשר by all שטרות since it is כתיבה. We have no indication however that שטרות is אחזוק (as the גמרא asks later regarding רשב"ג that אי אחזוק וכו'). This question of the גמרא is valid only if assume that the ת"ק maintains that כתיבה לחודה מהני. However why did the גמרא assume that כתיבה לחודיה מהני according to the ת"ק (since מצה is כתיבה ואחזוק)?! [See footnote # 6.] ²¹ Everyone is aware that מצה is כתיבה. No one is aware whether מצה is אחזוק or not (as evidenced by the different views in the גמרא in חולין mentioned by תוספות previously). The חכמים did not explain why מצת כותי מותרת; they assumed that we would understand that it is because it is כתיבה which is known to all. This proves that all that is relevant is only that it is כתיבה. However, אחזוק is irrelevant. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ²² This is the conclusion of the גמרא in חולין that אחזוק בלי כתיבה א"ב. See תוספות previously. ²³ שטרות (testifying truthfully) is כתיבה (in the תורה). If רשב"ג would maintain that כתיבה לחודיה מהני how can the גמרא say regarding שטרות that if לא אחזוק it should be פסול, but it is כתיבה! This proves that our גמרא maintains that כתיבה לחדיה לא מהני according to רשב"ג. ²⁴ This question is based on the premise that חזקה לחודיה is לא מהני לת"ק. However if חזקה לחודיה is מהני לת"ק, then there is no כ"ש that כתיבה should surely be מהני לרשב"ג. ²⁵ The question is why our גמרא assumes that כתיבה לחודיה לא מהני לרשב"ג. ²⁶ Therefore we cannot derive anything from the fact the רשב"ג did not mention כתיבה לחודיה since it is unnecessary for we can derive it with a כ"ש from the ת"ק. ²⁷ תוספות is introducing a new concept here. Even though the ת"ק assumes that כתיבה is superior to חזקה (for כתיבה לחודיה מהני but חזקה לחודיה לא מהני), nevertheless it is possible that רשב"ג disagrees with this premise and maintains that חזקה is superior to כתיבה and therefore we cannot infer from the ת"ק as to the view of רשב"ג. See (footnote # 15 and) ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ²⁸ See footnote # 18. ²⁹ See footnote # 21. ³⁰ See מהרש"א (הארוך), נח"מ and אמ"ה # 103. ³¹ See footnote # 27.