לא שנא כתוב בלשון דיינים וחתימי עדים—It does not matter whether it was written in a judicial language and witnesses signed etc**.**

OVERVIEW The משנה (in שביעית) teaches us that in a פרוזבול either the דיינים or עדים may sign. The גמרא explains that the novelty of this דין is that it does not matter whether it was written in a judicial way and signed as a testimony or vice versa. In all cases it is a valid פרוזבול. תוספות and רש"י disagree as to what the גמרא means when it says 'בלשון דיינים וחתימי עדים וכו''.

כמו שכתוב בפרוזבול בי דינא הוינא אנא פלוני בר פלוני – For instance, that it is written in the פרוזבול: ‘we (the דיינים) were in בי"ד; I, someone¹ the son of someone’ who was one of the דיינים etc**.–** ונזכרין שם הדינים בתוך התורף² – And subsequently the names of all the judges are mentioned within the תורף – ולמטה חותמים עדים להעיד על הפרוזבול שהוא אמת – And (other) witnesses sign beneath the document to testify that the פרוזבול is valid – וקמשמע לן דחשיב פרוזבול אף על פי שלא חתמו בו הדיינים בעצמם – And the משנה teaches us that it is considered a valid פרוזבול even though the דיינים themselves did no sign the פרוזבול. Seemingly the דיינים should have signed, since it was written as a judicial document and only their names were mentioned in the פרוזבול. The משנה teaches us that, nevertheless, if only the עדים signed, it is כשר. תוספות continues to quote (and explain) our גמרא: לא שנא כתוב בלשון עדים שאין דיינין נזכרים בתוך התורף של פרוזבול – It does not matter if it was written in a testimonial language; meaning that judges are not mentioned within the תורף of the פרוזבול. תוספות goes on to explain what is the meaning of בלשון עדים – דכתיב ביה הכי בי דינא הוינא – that it was written in the פרוזבול, *thus: ‘we were in בי"ד; [referring (seemingly) to the דיינים without mentioning their names] – ואתא פלוני ואמר לנא מוסרני לכם כל חוב שיש לי ביד פלוני – And someone came and said to us (to the דיינים), ‘I am delivering to you all the debts that someoneowes me’ – ופלוני ופלוני עדים וחתומים למטה הדיינים – And* someoneand *someone ***are witnesses’ ****to this fact. The particular names of these witnesses were enumerated in the פרוזבול, and the דיינים signed below the document; even though their names never appeared in the פרוזבול itself³. This is considered a valid פרוזבול.

and רש"י explained it in a different manner⁴.

SUMMARY 'לשון דיינים וחתמי עדים' means that the language of the פרוזבל was the one that דיינים use when they issue a document which they sign. The names of the דיינים appear in the פרוזבול. However, other witnesses signed, not the דיינים. 'לשון עדים וחתמי דיינים' means that דיינים were not mentioned at all in the פרוזבול. Only names of עדים were mentioned. These עדים did not sign, other דיינים signed.

THINKING IT OVER Why is תוספות not satisfied with sרש"י' interpretation?⁵

footnotes: ¹ An actual name is inserted in place of ‘someone’. ² The תורף is the pertinent part of the document (besides the standardized text). ³ The novelty of this דין may be that perhaps the פרוזבול may be misconstrued that he never presented this to the דיינים; he only spoke to the עדים, וצ"ע. ⁴ According to רש"י the same people whose names were written in the פרוזבול, they signed the פרוזבול. However they gave themselves a different title from what appeared in the פרוזבול. עי' מהר"ם שי"ף. ⁵ See מהר"ם שי"ף.

ובי תרי לית להו קלא—And by two there is no publicity

OVERVIEW רבי יוחנן maintains that the reason ר"ג הזקן discontinued the ביטול בפני בי"ד is because there is a חשש ממזרות. The ביטול בפני בי"ד was valid even בפני שנים. There is not sufficient publicity בפני שנים to assure us that the woman will not remarry.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ולתקנו שיבטל בפני ג' – And if you will say; let them institute that he may be מבטל the גט in the presence of three. Why was ר"ג הזקן מתקן that ביטול בפני בי"ד is invalid? He could have been מתקן that it must be בפני שלשה. If it is בפני שלשה there is a sufficient קול to prevent her from remarrying. There will be no חשש ממזרות. תוספות answers: ויש לומר מפני תקנת עגונות – And one can say; ר"ג did not want to allow ביטול בפני בי"ד at all even if there are three, and there is no concern of ממזרות. He was concerned on account of the עגונות. If ביטול בפני בי"ד would be allowed, the husbands can easily be מבטל the גיטין and not allow their wives to remarry.

SUMMARY רבי יוחנן who maintains that ר"ג discontinued ביטול בפני בי"ד on account of תקנת ממזרים, agrees that the ביטול בפני בי"ד could not have been maintained even בפני שלשה, since there still is the חשש of תקנת עגונות.

THINKING IT OVER

1. If ר"י agrees that we are concerned about עגונות, why is it necessary for him to mention תקנת ממזרים at all?¹
2. Does ריש לקיש agree that there is a תקנת ממזרות?

footnotes: ¹ See מהרש"א.

ובי תלתא אית להו קלא—And by three there is publicity

OVERVIEW A lender may collect his debt from the borrowers ‘real’ property, even if the borrower sold them. The lender may collect from the buyers, provided there is a written note signed by witnesses testifying to the loan. If there is no note, however, then he cannot collect his debt from the buyers, only from the borrower himself. The difference is that when there is a note with witnesses, then presumably people know about the loan and the lien on the properties, and they can take the proper precautions before buying from the borrower. If however there is no note then the consumers do not know that there is a lien on the properties. The חכמים chose to protect the consumers from being unwittingly deprived of their purchases. This law applies even if there were witnesses to this oral loan. In our גמרא we are taught that if the husband is מבטל the גט in the presence of three people there is sufficient publicity. These two laws seem to contradict each other. תוספות will resolve this apparent contradiction.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואף על גב דמלוה על פה לא גבי ממשעבדי אפילו הלוהו בפני כמה עדים – And even though that an unwritten loan cannot be collected from encumbered¹ properties even if he lent him the money in the presence of many witnesses. We do not say that since there were three or more witnesses then there is sufficient publicity that the buyers of the borrower’s properties are aware of the lien. This seems to contradict what the גמרא states here that if three people witness the ביטול then there is sufficient publicity to alert the woman. תוספות responds that there is a difference between ביטול הגט and a loan – דמאן דיזיף בצנעא יזיף – כדאמרינן בחזקת הבתים (בבא בתרא מב,א( – For he who borrows, borrows stealthily, as the גמרא says in פרק חזקת הבתים ואין רגילות להודות לבני אדם אלא כופר לכל השואלים ממנו – And it is not usual that the לוה should admit to people that he owes money, rather he denies everything to all that ask him if he borrowed money.**** The לוה does not want anyone knowing that he is in debt. Therefore even if many witnesses saw the loan he will continually deny it and discredit them. However, by ביטול הגט no one, neither the husband not others, have any cause to deny that the husband was מבטל the גט. Therefore three people produce a קול. תוספות poses another question: והא דאמר הכא דבי תרי לית להו קלא – And concerning that which the גמרא says here that by two there is no publicity – וגבי מוכר שדהו בעדים אמרינן בחזקת הבית (שם דף מא,ב) דגובה מנכסים משעובדים – However, concerning one who sells his field² with witnesses, but without a note, the גמרא says in פרק חזקת הבתים that if the field was taken away from the buyer (on account of the seller), the buyer can collect his due even from נכסים משועבדים of the seller**.** This is true even if there were only two witnesses testifying that he purchased the field, nevertheless there is a sufficient קול notifying all later purchasers that this seller’s properties have a lien on them. Why by ביטול הגט is there no קול if there were only two עדים?³**** תוספות answers:

Here by ביטול הגט we require that there be a greater notification of the incident. By ביטול הגט there is a serious concern of ממזרות, therefore the usual publicity is not sufficient for us to allow the ביטול to continue. By monetary issues a usual and customary amount of publicity is sufficient⁴.

SUMMARY By מלוה ע"פ three witnesses do not provide a sufficient קול because the לוה attempts to deny the loan. By ביטול הגט however no one is trying to deny the ביטול. By המוכר שדה two witnesses are sufficient to create a קול. However by ביטול הגט we want to be certain that there is an abundance of publicity.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why by a written loan can the מלוה collect ממשעבדי? The לוה will deny this loan just as he denies the unwritten loan?
2. Why did not תוספות ask the contradiction between מוכר שדהו and בי תרי לית ליה קלא in the previous תוספות ד"ה ובי תרי where it seemingly belongs?⁵
3. Explain why תוספות perhaps demurs from offering the distinction mentioned in footnote # 4.

footnotes: ¹ Real properties that the borrower sold after the loan are indentured to the lender, if the loan was secured by a note. An oral loan can be collected only from unencumbered properties. ² The seller of the field (generally) has the responsibility of standing behind his sale. The buyer has recourse to collect from the seller and his (other/later) sold properties for any damage he incurred by this purchase. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ In addition, by monetary issues, the customer that is buying usually makes an intensive inquiry (title search) to assure himself that there are no liens on the property (for it is very common that people have liens on their properties). When a woman receives a גט, however, there is no reason for her to suspect that the husband will be מבטל the גט. Therefore she makes no inquiries and a greater גילוי מילתא is required. See however, ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁵ See footnote # 3. See מהר"ם שי"ף.

ושמעה וידעה ולא מינסבא ותקנת עגונות הוא דאיכא—And she will hear and know about the ביטול and she will not remarry, so there is the benefit of preventing עגונות.

OVERVIEW The term עגונה generally applies to a woman that was married; however the husband’s whereabouts are unknown. There is a possibility that he died. She cannot remarry for her husband may still be alive. However she has no married life, since she is not together with her husband.

תוספות anticipates the following difficulty: אף על גב דבדין לא מינסבא – Even though that in this case it is lawfully justified that she not remarry; since he was מבטל the גט she is still married to her original husband. How can this be called ¹תקנת עגונות? תוספות responds, that even in this situation – חשיב עיגון – It is considered an עיגון. She was expecting to be divorced and be able to remarry. Maintaining her old status as a married woman to a man who chose to divorce her is a form of עיגון. תוספות brings a support that this type of restriction is considered עיגון דהכי נמי אמרינן בפרק כל הגט (לעיל כו,ב) – For we also same the same idea in פרק כל הגט; that even if lawfully she cannot remarry, nevertheless she is considered an עגונה.**** The גמרא there is discussing that we do allow the סופרים to write ²טופסי גיטין because of תקנת עיגונות. For – ובדין הוא אפילו טופס לא לכתוב – The lawful way would be that the סופר should not write even the text of the גט³ אלא דזימנין דבעי למיזל למדינת הים ולא אשכח ספרא – But the reason the חכמים permitted the סופרים to write the טופס is because that sometimes the husband may need to go overseas and he will not find a סופר who can write a גט for him immediately, since he will have to write the טופס as well – שביק לה ואזיל ומיעגנה ויתיב – He will therefore leave his wife without a גט and will go overseas and she will remain (sitting) as an עגונה. We see that even though she lawfully cannot remarry nevertheless she is considered an עגונה. Notwithstanding that there is no concern that the husband died, nevertheless she is an עגונה, since she is not together with a husband.

SUMMARY The term עגונה is sometimes used to define the status of a woman who is definitely married, but not living together with her husband.

THINKING IT OVER Can we distinguish between the situation here and the situation in פרק כל הגט? Is it possible to argue that here she is less likely to be considered an עגונה than the case there?⁴

footnotes: ¹ Nothing changed in her status from before the גט was written and subsequently נתבטל by the בעל. She is the same אשת איש as before. In a usual case of עיגונה, we are concerned that perhaps the husband is dead and ע"פ דין, she is permitted to remarry. Here there is no such concern. ² The טופס of the גט is the universal text of the גט without the particulars; i.e. the names etc. ³ If we allow him to write the טופס he may mistakenly write the תורף as well. Then it would be פסול מדאורייתא. ⁴ See תפארת יעקב.

כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש—Whoever betroths intends that the betrothal be with the consent of the Rabbis

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains that the reason the חכמים have the power to nullify the ביטול and validate the גט, thereby allowing the woman to remarry, is because originally the קידושין were based on the consent of the חכמים. In this case since he did not listen to the חכמים and was מבטל the גט בפני בי"ד, the חכמים invalidated the original קידושין, thereby making her a פנויה. תוספות will explain where do we see that his קידושין is contingent on the consent of the חכמים.

ולכך אומר בשעת קידושין כדת משה וישראל – And therefore the groom says at the time of betrothal when he is being מקדש the כלה, ‘in the lawful manner prescribed by משה and the Jewish people’.¹**** This indicates his willingness to accept the guidelines set out by the חכמים.

SUMMARY The חתן expresses his agreement that this קידושין is contingent on the consent of the חכמים, when he states by the קידושין that it will be כדת משה וישראל.

THINKING IT OVER What will the דין be if the person who was מבטל the גט בפני בי"ד, omitted originally by his קידושין the phrase כדת משה וישראל?

footnotes: ¹ See נחלת משה who explains that משה refers to the דיני דאורייתא and ישראל refers to the תקנות חכמים.

ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה—And the רבנן retracted the קידושין from him.

OVERVIEW Our גמרא teaches us that every קידושין is contingent on the consent of the חכמים. When a person is מבטל a גט בפני בי"ד the חכמים utilize this contingency and retract the entire marriage. It is as if the woman was never married. תוספות will discuss that this may cause some rather severe difficulties.

תוספות asks a question: והקשה הרב רבי שמואל אם כן יחפה על בת אחותו – And ר"ש asked if this is so, that when a person is מבטל a גט בפני בי"ד, the חכמים revoke his original קידושין; it is considered as if he never formally married this woman, then there is a concern that he will conspire to cover up for his sister’s daughter¹. If a person marries his niece for whom he has a special fondness he will be able to (deviously) protect her in a case where she was unfaithful – וכשיבואו עדים שזינתה ישלח לה גט ויבטל שלא בפני השליח – And when the witnesses will come to testify that she was an adulteress and therefore liable for the death penalty; the husband who may desire to protect her from such a fate will send this wife a גט after the infidelity and subsequently will be מבטל this גט not in the presence of the שליח or the wife, but rather בפני בי"ד – ופקעי קידושין ונמצא שהיא פנויה – And therefore the קידושין will be cancelled retroactively as if they were never married and it will emerge that she is an unmarried woman at the time of the alleged adultery. She will be spared the death penalty in a deceptive manner². תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דלא קשה דאין לחוש אלא כשמחפה עליה שלא כדין³ – The ר"י says that this presents no difficulty for there is no concern unless he conspires on her behalf illegally – אבל הכא כדין מחפה ומן התורה פטורה – However, here the protection is legal and she is exempt מן התורה from the death penalty since the חכמים retroactively invalidated the marriage. תוספות poses an additional question: ועוד הקשה רבי שמואל דהיכי מחייבינן לעולם מיתה אשת איש שזינתה – And the ר"ש posed an additional difficulty how can we ever mete out the death penalty by an אשת איש who was מזנה. Even if there were witnesses who warned her in advance that if she commits adultery she will be liable for the death penalty, nevertheless she should be exempt from it – והא התראת ספק היא⁴ דשמא ישלח לה גט ויבטלנו – for this is a doubtful warning. The case of (any) woman שזינתה it is always a התראת ספק for he may, subsequently after the adultery, send her a גט and then be מבטל the גט בפני בי"ד. This will cause that אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה, which in turn will retroactively make his wife a פנויה. The עדים cannot warn her that if she proceeds with her intentions that she will be מחוייב מיתה, because it is possible that even after this זנות she will not be מחוייב מיתה, if her husband sends her a גט and is subsequently מבטל it בפני בי"ד.**** The question is how can there ever be חיוב מיתה by an אשת איש שזינתה. תוספות adds an additional question: ועוד יכולים ממזרים ליטהר – And furthermore ממזרים can be purified and reinstated into the Jewish community. The husband of the אשת איש שזינתה (the mother of the ממזרים), will send her a גט and be מבטל it בפני בי"ד which renders her a פנויה retroactively. The children she bore from the illegal relationship will no longer be ממזרים since למפרע she is not an אשת איש. These two scenarios seem unacceptable to ר"ש. תוספות answers the first question concerning חיוב מיתה: ואומר רבינו תם דכי האי גוונא לא הוי התראת ספק – And the ר"ת says that in such a situation it is not called a התראת ספק, that perhaps the בעל will send her a גט and be מבטל it בפני בי"ד. The reason is – דאזלינן בתר רובא ורוב אין מגרשין נשותיהן וכששולחין גט אין מבטלין – For we follow the majority and most people do not divorce their wives, and when they sent a גט they are not מבטל it. A התראת ספק is when there is a reasonable probability that the offender will not be מחוייב מיתה. In this case it is highly unlikely that she will be spared the death penalty, for the probability of her receiving a גט and the husband also subsequently nullifying it, go against the majority rule. תוספות offers another explanation why it is not a התראת ספק: ועוד דאוקמינן אחזקתה שהיא עכשיו נשואה – And furthermore we assume her to be in her present status that she is presently married. A married woman who is מזנה is מחוייב מיתה; the possibility that she may retroactively become a פנויה is merely a ספק. The חזקת נשואה presently, resolves that ספק.**** Therefore she is considered a ודאי נשואה and there is no התראת ספק. תוספות offers a proof that a חזקה דהשתא can resolve the ספק status into a ודאי. דאם לא כן נזיר⁵ שהיה שותה יין או מטמא למתים אמאי לוקה – For if what was said previously is not so; but rather a חזקה cannot resolve a ספק, then a נזיר who was drinking wine, which he is forbidden to do, or he was defiling himself by coming in contact with dead bodies; which he is prohibited from doing why does he receive מלקות, even if he transgressed despite the warning of witnesses; as we have learnt – דאם אמרו לו אל תשתה אל תשתה חייב על כל אחת ואחת (נזיר דף מב,א) – That if the witnesses warned him: ‘do not drink wine, do not drink wine, and he drank, the דין is that he is liable for מלקות for each time⁶ that he drank⁷. The question is: why is he חייב מלקות – והא התראת ספק היא שמא ישאל על נזירותו – For it is a התראת ספק, because perhaps he may recant on his vow of נזירות. The דין by all vows is, that one may recant his vow by going to a ת"ח and finding a reason why he cannot keep this vow. Once the חכם accepts the reason and nullifies the vow it is as if he never made the vow in the first place. נזיר is a special case of a vow, wherein this loophole is also available that he may be מתיר his נזירות. When the עדים are warning him not to drink wine, for if he does he will be מחוייב מלקות that is a התראת ספק. The עדים cannot be sure that he will receive מלקות for he always has the option of being מתיר נדר. Nevertheless the משנה tells us that he is חייב מלקות (על כאו"א). The reason must be as follows: whether he will be מתיר נדר is a ספק, presently he is בחזקת נזיר, the חזקה of נזיר resolves the ספק that we consider him a ודאי נזיר and it is not a התראת ספק. We will say the same thing concerning אזהרת זנות by an אשת איש. The חזקה דהשתא resolves the ספק.**** תוספות now returns to the very first question of שמא יחפה and the last question concerning ממזרים יכולים ליטהר: ומה שהקשה אם כן יחפה על בת אחותו ויכולין ממזרים ליטהר – And concerning that which ר"ש asked that if so (that אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה) then he will be מחפה על בת אחותו and also that ממזרים will be able to become טהור and be admitted to the קהל ישראל, which according to ר"ש is inappropriate. The answer is: אי ידעינן שלכך מתכוין⁸ לא מפקעינן קדושין מיניה – If we know that this is the husband’s intent for being מבטל a גט, we will not retract the קידושין from him. The קידושין will remain valid and the גט will be בטל. דלתקנה עשו חכמים ולא לתקלה שמתוך כך יהיו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות – For the חכמים instituted this אפקעינהו for constructive purposes but not to be destructive for on account of this; if we will follow this rule of אפקעינהו even in the abovementioned situations it will certainly be destructive, the daughters of Israel will be promiscuous with the illicit relationships. They will not be concerned. They will depend on their husbands to bail them out by giving them a גט and being מבטל it בפני בי"ד. Now however that we will not allow this אפקיעינהו in these situations they will retain the modesty of בנות ישראל. תוספות concludes:

However, if בי"ד is certain that this was not his intention; neither to be מחפה על בת אחותו, nor to be מטהר ממזרים, we are not concerned if the ממזרים can become טהור and admitted to כלל ישראל; since it will not lead to any פריצות.****

SUMMARY תוספות has three concerns if we say אפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מיניה by ביטול הגט בפני בי"ד: 1) שמא יחפה, 2) התראת ספק concerning מיתת בי"ד, 3) יכולים ממזרים ליטהר. Concerning the חשש of שמא יחפה the ר"י maintains that we are not concerned since it is ע"פ דין. The ר"ת argues with the ר"י and maintains that אפקעינהו applies only when we are certain that his intent is not for יחפה על בת אחותו or to be מטהר ממזרים. Concerning התראת ספק the ר"י offers two reasons why it is not התראת ספק; either a) that the רוב tells us that he will not sent her a גט and be מבטל it, or b) the חזקת נישואה of now resolves the ספק of the future. We find the same idea by נזיר that the חזקת נזיר resolves the ספק of שמא ישאל על נזרו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Is תוספות proof from ¹¹נזיר regarding חזקה or רוב¹² (or both) Why, also, is proof required that חזקה or רבו can resolve a ספק?
2. What is the דין if we are not sure what the intention of the בעל is when he is מבטל the גט בבי"ד;¹³ do we say אפקעינהו or not?
3. What would seem to be stronger (based on this תוספות) רוב or חזקה?

footnotes: ¹ It does not necessarily mean only his niece; however there is usually a special fondness for one’s niece. ² We find that in order to prevent a (seemingly) similar fraud that the חכמים instituted זמן in גיטין. Otherwise after an adulterous affair the husband could give her an undated גט, with which she can claim that she was divorced at the time of the alleged infidelity. Why are we not concerned about this issue in this case? ³ In the aforementioned case of זמן, the woman was מזנה while she was an אשת איש. The גט was given to her after the זנות. It is only that on account that there is no זמן, that she can claim that she was divorced at the time. The truth is that she was not divorced then; only later. Therefore there is a valid concern that she is illegally and wrongfully being spared the death penalty. ⁴ A person is not liable for the death penalty unless the witnesses warn him in advance that if he commits this act he will receive the death penalty. If however even if he does the act there is a possibility that he will not be liable for the death penalty, for whatever reason, then this warning is considered a התראת ספק a doubtful warning, and consequently the person is not liable for the death penalty regardless of the situation. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁶ The idea that he is חייב על כאו"א, is really irrelevant to our discussion here. תוספות quotes this משנה because it states clearly that a נזיר is חייב מלקות. See מהרש"א הארוך. ⁷ If they told him אל תשתה before each time that he drank. ⁸ For instance his wife is being accused in בי"ד of זנות or a ממזר was born on account of an illicit relationship and he sends her a גט and is מבטל it בפני בי"ד. ⁹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁰ For instance he had no idea that his wife had an affair, etc. ¹¹ See footnote # 5. ¹² Seemingly רוב נזירים are not שואל on their נזירות. ¹³ See footnote # 9.

רבי סבר עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה—רבי maintains that regarding witnesses, where some were disqualified, all are not disqualified

OVERVIEW There are two מחלוקות between רבי ורשב"ג. One מחלוקת is concerning ביטלו בפני בי"ד and the second is concerning אמר לעשרה. In both מחלוקות, רבי maintains that the ביטול is valid. The גמרא infers from the מחלוקת concerning אמר לעשרה, that רבי maintains עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה. That would justify why יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה by אמר לעשרה. If we were to maintain that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, we cannot maintain that you may be מבטל זה שלא בפני זה לכתחילה. There is a חשש ממזרות, since the other עדים may not have heard about the ביטול and may write an invalid גט. תוספות questions this presumption. רבי can maintain עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה and nevertheless maintain that בדיעבד יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה. This is sרבי' position that ביטול helps בדיעבד even when there is a חשש ממזרות.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מנא ליה להש"ס דסבר לא בטלה כולה ויכול לבטל היינו אפילו לכתחילה – And if you will say; why does the גמרא presume that רבי maintains that even if some of the witnesses are disqualified nevertheless not all are disqualified and therefore when רבי says in the ברייתא, and ‘he is able to nullify’ the גט, in the case where he told ten people ‘write a גט for my wife’, that means even initially he may do that. If we maintain that this is what רבי meant, then it is understood how the גמרא infers that עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה.¹ There is however, another way of interpreting what רבי meant when he said that יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה, which is that – דלמא סבר בטלה כולה ואפילו הכי יכול לבטל בדיעבד – Perhaps רבי maintains that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, and indeed לכתחילה you may not be מבטל זה שלא בפני זה and nonetheless he can be מבטל the גט בדיעבד. If he was מבטל זה שלא בפני זה it will be מבוטל. Indeed there is a concern that perhaps the others will not hear the ביטול and will write the גט. If we maintain that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה the גט will therefore be invalid. That concern would prevent the בעל from being מבטל לכתחילה זה שלא בפני זה; however it is not sufficient to nullify the ביטול בדיעבד. תוספות brings support to this interpretation that even though לכתחילה you may not be מבטל זה שלא בפני זה, however בדיעבד it is a valid ביטול: דהא לעיל אית ליה בטלו מבוטל – For previously in the case of ביטלו בבי"ד, there רבי maintains that if he was מבטל the גט בבי"ד it is בטל. The concern that perhaps the woman will not hear of the ביטול does not deter us from accepting the ביטול as valid; even though רבי agrees that לכתחילה he may not be מבטל the גט בפני בי"ד because of a חשש ממזרות. Here too, by אמר לעשרה, there is the concern that the other עדים will not hear of the ביטול. They may continue to write and deliver an invalid גט, since עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה. Therefore רבי agrees that לכתחילה he may not be מבטל זה שלא בפני זה, nonetheless רבי will maintain that בדיעבד the ביטול is valid, and none may write the גט.**** The concern that the woman may remarry with an invalid גט does not seem reason enough to prevent a ביטול, which essentially is valid, from being accepted בדיעבד. This דין of יכול לבטלו זה שלא בפני זה follows the previous דין of בטלו בבי"ד. תוספות will offer a possible explanation why the גמרא may have assumed that רבי maintains that he may by מבטל זה שלא בפני זה even לכתחילה,² and reject it. דמלשון יכול לא מצי למידק שיהא מותר לבטלו לכתחילה – because from the expression ‘he may’, the גמרא cannot infer that it would be permissible to be מבטל the גט initially זה שלא בפני זה.³ תוספות rejects this inference; we cannot make that inference from the word יכול. The word יכול may be used even when it connotes something that is valid only בדיעבד – כדמוכח בפרק הזהב (בבא מציעא דף מט,א) דאמר האומר לחבירו מתנה אני נותן לך – As is evidenced in פרק הזהב where the גמרא there says: he who says to his friend I am giving you a gift – יכול לחזור בו – The giver can retract and not give the present. ופריך יכול פשיטא – And the גמרא there wonders; ‘he can retract’, that is obvious! There is nothing binding on him that he must keep his word, since no קנין was made. To which the גמרא replies we should rephrase the ruling. Instead of saying 'יכול', that he can retract – אלא אימא מותר לחזור בו – Rather say that he is permitted to retract. There is nothing to stop him from retracting even לכתחילה⁴. This concludes the quote from that גמרא. We see clearly that the term יכול does not mean solely that he may. If יכול meant that he may, what is the difference between יכול and מותר? Obviously from that גמרא we derive that יכול may mean that he can, even if he should not. Here too the term יכול means he can be מבטל, even if he should not. The original question remains; since we have no way of knowing that רבי maintains that he may be מבטל לכתחילה זה שלא בפני זה, how do we infer that רבי is of the opinion that עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמשמע לו מילתא דרבי דיכול לבטל אפילו בפני אחד – And one can say; that it seemed to the גמרא that sרבי' statement meant that the בעל can nullify זה שלא בפני זה; even in the presence of only one of the witnesses. תוספות has not yet concluded the answer, however תוספות anticipates a difficulty with such an assumption – אף על גב דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים – Even though anything connected to a דבר שבערוה cannot be accomplished with less than two witnesses. How can the גמרא have assumed that רבי maintains that יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה means even in the presence of one עד?!⁵ תוספות responds: כיון שלשליח עצמו אומר שהוא מבטלו הוא מבוטל⁶ – Since he is saying to the שליח himself that he is being מבטל his שליחות, therefore his שליחות is בטל. When we are מבטל בפני השליח there is no requirement of any עדים. The שליח knows that he is no more שליח. תוספות is not yet ready to continue with the answer. תוספות is offering an additional option, if the previous option, that רבי maintains that he may be מבטל the שליחות in the presence of only the עד himself, is not acceptable. אי נמי אפילו לא מהני בלא שנים מכל מקום יכול לבטל בפני ב' זה שלא בפני זה – Or you may also say**; even if** the ביטול will not be valid unless there are two people who hear the ביטול; since אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים⁷, nonetheless the גמרא assumed that רבי maintains that he can be מבטל in the presence of two to satisfy the requirement of אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים, however the ביטול בפני שנים will be in the presence of one, but not in the presence of the other. He will be מבטל in front of two individual עדים separately⁸. Now that the גמרא assumes that רבי was referring to either of these options⁹ we will understand why the גמרא presumed that רבי must maintain עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה. ואי בטלה כולה אפילו רבי מודה דאינו מבוטל אפילו בדיעבד – For if רבי would maintain that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, which would mean that once he was מבטל either one or two of the שלוחים, the entire עדות is בטלה, and the גט is invalid, then even רבי would admit that in either of these aforementioned options that it would not be בטל even בדיעבד – כדפרישית לעיל דדוקא בפני ג' לרב ששת או בפני שנים ביחד לרב נחמן הוא דמבוטל – As I explained previously¹⁰ that only if the ביטול was conducted in the presence of three according to רב ששת or only in the presence of two together¹¹ according to רב נחמן; only then will רבי maintain that it is מבוטל. However if he was מבטל in the presence of one or two individually (according to ר"נ, or even two together according to ר"ש) it will not be מבוטל.¹² תוספות offers another explanation:¹³ אי נמי אף על גב דביטלו בב"ד אומר [רבי] דמבוטל – Or you may also say that even though when he was מבטל בבי"ד, there רבי maintains that it is מבוטל, nevertheless it is not comparable to אמר לעשרה – היינו משום דהתם ליכא למיחש כולי האי לממזרות – The reason is because there in the case of ביטלו בבי"ד there is no great concern for ממזרות – שאם יוודע לשליח קדום הנתינה לא יתננה לה – For if the שליח becomes aware of the ביטול before the delivery of the גט he will not give it to her; to the wife – או לאשה קודם שתנשא לא תנשא – Or if the woman becomes aware of the ביטול הגט בבי"ד (even if the שליח was not aware and delivered the גט to her) before she remarries; she will not remarry. There is sufficient protection built in that the חשש of ממזרות is greatly diminished – אבל כאן אפילו כשידעו כולם וגם האשה שביטל הבעל מקצת מן העשרה – However here in the case of אמר לעשרה כתבו and he was מבטל some of the עדים, even if all the other עדים are aware of the ביטול of the few, and also even if the woman is aware that the husband was מבטל part of the original ten – פעמים יטעו ויהיו סבורים שאחרים לא נתבטלו ותנשא על יד גיטה – Oftentimes they may err; both the remaining עדים and the wife and they will mistakenly maintain that the others (the remainder whom he was not מבטל) are not בטל and she will remarry based on her גט that she received from the remaining עדים – ולכך אם היה סובר בטלה כולה היה מודה דאינו מבוטל – And therefore the גמרא concludes that if רבי would maintain that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, even רבי would agree that the גט is not מבוטל. The danger here is too great that she may mistakenly remarry. [There are no safeguards. Even if they are aware of the ביטול, they may be mistaken concerning the דין. As opposed to בטלו בבי"ד; there as long as they are aware of the ביטול she will not remarry.] However if we maintain לא בטלה כולה, then there is no concern at all, and he may be מבטל some of the עדים (even לכתחילה). ולפי זה¹⁴ אתי שפיר מה שמסתפק הש"ס הי כרבי והי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – And according to what was just explained, that we cannot compare the case of בטלו בבי"ד to the case of אמר לעשרה (as תוספות has just taught us) it is properly understood what the גמרא is doubtful in which case the הלכה is like רבי and in which case the הלכה is like רשב"ג – אפילו למאי דמוקמינן פלגותייהו בעדות שבטלה מקצתה – Even according to that which we established that their argument is based on whether עדות שבטלה מקצתה is בטלה כולה or not¹⁵. תוספות explains how the ספק is justified: דאפילו קיימא לן כרבי בביטלו מבוטל – For even if we accept the view of רבי concerning ביטלו בבי"ד that ביטלו מבוטל, nevertheless – בזה שלא בפני זה מצי שפיר לפסוק כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – In the case of אמר לעשרה where he was מבטל זה שלא בפני זה, the גמרא can properly rule as רשב"ג that אינו יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה – דאפילו רבי אי הוה סבר בטלה כולה הוה מודה באומר לעשרה שאינו מבוטל – because even רבי himself who maintains בטלו מבוטל by בפני בי"ד, if he would have maintained that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, he would have agreed that in the case of אמר לעשרה that it is not בטל; because the חשש ממזרות is too great. This is true whether he was מבטל in the presence of a בי"ד, since the עדים and the אשה may mistakenly think that the גט is valid even after they heard of the ביטול (according to the last תירוץ); or whether he is מבטל in the presence of one (or even two [separately]) which is not considered a בי"ד (according to the first תירוצים), in either case רבי would agree that it is not a ביטול if עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה. תוספות will now bring sרש"י' interpretation: אבל מתוך פירוש הקונטרס משמע דלרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דבטלה כולה – However, from רש"י it seems that רשב"ג when he maintains בטלה כולה by אמר לעשרה it is not a separate הלכה but rather – אף זה מתקנת רבן גמליאל – That this also was part of the תקנת ר"ג. ר"ג was מתקן that ביטול בפני בי"ד is invalid. That תקנה includes, that by אמר לעשרה the ביטול is invalid as well.¹⁶ תוספות poses one difficulty with this interpretation: ועל כרחך למאן דאמר מפני תקנת עגונות לא דמו אהדדי – And רש"י will be forced to say that according to the one who said that ר"ג made his תקנה that a ביטול בבי"ד is not valid was for the benefit of עגונות; that the תקנה of בפני בי"ד and the תקנה of אמר לעשרה are not similar to each other. The תקנה of בפני בי"ד is a תקנת עגונות, not תקנת ממזרים; however, the תקנה of אמר לעשרה is a תקנת אשת איש וממזרות as the גמרא clearly states¹⁷. תוספות has an additional comment to make concerning פירש"י: ולפירושו שמשוה אותם מה שמסתפק הש"ס הי כרבי והי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – And according to sרש"י' interpretation that he equates the two דינים of בפני בי"ד and אמר לעשרה that they both stem from תקנת ר"ג,¹⁸ it will be necessary to say, that which the גמרא is doubtful where do we follow רבי and where do we follow רשב"ג, this question is valid – היינו דוקא לפי מה דמוקי פלגותיהו בצריכי בי עשרה למישלפיה – Only specifically according to the view in which their argument regarding אמר לעשה was based on whether it is necessary for ten to uproot the original commitment or it is not necessary. If this is their argument concerning אמר לעשרה, then we can understand that even if the הלכה is like רבי concerning בטלו בפני בי"ד, nevertheless by אמר לעשרה we can maintain that it is not מבוטל since צריכי בי עשרה למישלפיה. אבל למאי דמוקי פלוגתייהו בעדות שבטלה מקצתה אין להסתפק – However, according to those who establish that their argument regarding אמר לעשרה**** is contingent on whether עדות שבטלה מקצה is בטלה כולה or not there is no room for doubt – דאי קיימא לן בביטלו מבוטל כרבי – For if we maintain that בפני בי"ד it is ביטלו מבוטל like רבי תו לא מצי למיפסק באומר לעשרה לגמרי כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל – it is no more possible to rule in the case of אומר לעשרה entirely¹⁹ like רשב"ג – דאפילו קיימא לן כוותיה דבטלה כולה – For even if we were to rule like רשב"ג concerning that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, and therefore there is the חשש that perhaps the other עדים will not hear of the ביטול and write the גט שלא כדין, nevertheless – במאי דקאמר שאין הביטול מועיל אפילו ביעבד לא קיימא לן כוותיה – In that which רשב"ג says that the ביטול will not be valid even בדיעבד by אמר לעשרה we will not rule like רשב"ג. Rather we have to rule like רבי that ביטלו מבוטל. According to רש"י the reason why רשב"ג maintains by אמר לעשרה that אינו יכול לבטל, for it is an extension of תקנת ר"ג, and even בדיעבד it is not valid since אין כח בי"ד יפה. However if we maintain like רבי concerning בטלו בפני בי"ד it is מבוטל and we are not concerned about תקנת ר"ג and מה כח בי"ד יפה, then the same should apply to אמר לעשרה, since they both stem from the same תקנה according to רש"י.²⁰ The חשש of ממזרות does not invalidate the ביטול בדיעבד. תוספות offers a possible solution to the previous difficulty on רש"י. ומיהו אם משמעות דאינו יכול דקאמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל לא משמע דיעבד²¹ – However, if the meaning of the phrase אינו יכול ‘he cannot’, which רשב"ג stated that he cannot be מבטל; if that phrase were to be understood that it does not mean that even בדיעבד it is not a ביטול – אלא דאתא לאפוקי מרבי דשרי אף לכתחילה אתי שפיר – But rather the expression אינו יכול is meant to argue on רבי, that he [רבי] permits the ביטול באמר לעשרה even initially and רשב"ג argues and maintains that even if you²² (רבי) maintain that בדיעבד it is a ביטול, but לכתחילה you should not be מבטל because of חשש ממזרים, since עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, then it will be properly understood – דמסתפק אפילו ללישנא דפליגי בעדות שבטלה מקצתה – That the גמרא is doubtful even according to the view that they argue regarding אמר לעשרה, whether עדות שבטלה מקצתה is בטלה כולה or not. We could then maintain that בפני בי"ד the הלכה is like רבי that בטלו מבוטל בדיעבד, however concerning אמר לעשרה, since we maintain that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה then לכתחילה one should not be מבטל זה שלא בפני זה, just as one should not be מבטל לכתחילה בפני בי"ד. In both cases there is a חשש ממזרות. If however one was מבטל then in both cases by בפני בי"ד and אמר לעשרה it will be a valid ביטול בדיעבד. This is how we could possibly reconcile the גמרא with פירוש רש"י. ומכל מקום לרבן שמען בן גמליאל אפילו בדיעבד אינו מבוטל כדפירש בקונטרס – But nevertheless according to רשב"ג himself even בדיעבד it is not ²³מבוטל, as רש"י explains that it will not be בטל even בדיעבד –

On account of what was said **previously for the גמרא said if so (**that the ביטול will be valid בדיעבד) then what is the power of בי"ד worth.

SUMMARY There are two explanations why the גמרא presumes that רבי can maintain that יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה by אמר לעשרה, only if he maintains עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה: A. The expression יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה indicates that he is being מבטל in the presence of only the עד himself, or at most, שלא בפני זה, in the presence of two separate individual עדים. [The issue whether he can be מבטל בפני העד alone or if it requires two עדים זה שלא בפני זה, depends whether the rule of אין דבר שבערוה applies here.] In either case this is not a ביטול בבי"ד. Even רבי agrees that a ביטול שלא בבי"ד is an invalid ביטול even בדיעבד. Therefore the only way it can be בטל (even בדיעבד) is if רבי maintains לא בטלה כולה, for then there is no חשש at all and the ביטול may be performed even לכתחילה. B. The case of אמר לעשרה is more complex than ביטלו בבי"ד. Even רבי would agree that by אמר לעשרה it is not מבוטל even בדיעבד (unless he maintains לא בטלה כולה). In the case of בטלו בבי"ד, once we are aware of the ביטול there is no חשש. However in the case of אמר לעשרה even if we are aware of the ביטול of some of the עדים, nevertheless we may mistakenly think that the others may still write the גט. It is an unacceptable risk of חשש ממזרות. This also explains that even if we maintain that בטלו בבי"ד מבוטל like רבי, nevertheless if we were to maintain בטלה כולה, we would have to maintain that אינו יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה like רשב"ג. רש"י however maintains that the two מחלוקת stem from the same source; Whether מה כח בי"ד יפה can invalidate the ביטול. We would be able to disentangle the two מחלוקות if: a) we were to maintain that the second מחלוקת is concerning צריכי בי עשרה למישלפי; or b) if the second מחלוקת would be regarding whether the ביטול may be done לכתחילה.

THINKING IT OVER Why cannot רש"י answer²⁴ like תוספות that even though the הלכה is כרבי that בטלו בבי"ד מבוטל, however by אמר לעשרה, the דין is that it is not בטל, since there is a greater חשש of ממזרות? How can תוספות state²⁵ that the לשון of יכול that רשב"ג says means only לכתחילה and then say²⁶ that according to רשב"ג it means even בדיעבד?

footnotes: ¹ There is no concern in the case of אמר לעשרה כתבו גט לאשתי, if he was מבטל some of the עדים. Those that he was מבטל will not participate in the גט and the others, since לא בטלה כולה will carry out his שליחות of writing a גט. However if רבי would maintain לא בטלה כולה, then there would be a concern that the remaining עדים may inadvertently write an invalid גט. רבי would not permit this לכתחילה. תוספות however is questioning this presumption. ² If יכול לבטל means לכתחילה, then it is obvious that רבי maintains לא בטלה כולה. If he would maintain בטלה כולה, he would not have permitted the ביטול לכתחילה, for there is a חשש ממזרות, if the other עדים did not hear of the ביטול. ³ If we were able to infer (from the word 'יכול') that רבי maintains that he may be מבטל the גט לכתחילה, then it is understood why the גמרא presumes that רבי maintains עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה, for if רבי were to maintain that בטלה כולה, he would not permit that לכתחילה one may be מבטל the גט זה שלא בפני זה, since there is a concern that the others will not have heard of the ביטול and will write an invalid גט. ⁴ It is not considered at all that he is untrustworthy (since it was merely a gift). ⁵ It would seem that if he is מבטל in the presence of a regular שליח or if he is מבטל in the presence of his wife then two עדים are not required. However in this case since this עד is only one of many, and the others are still presumably writing the גט, it should be compared to a ביטול שלא בפני השליח where at least two עדים are required, since it is a דבר שבערוה. We need the two עדים to inform us that a ביטול took place to prevent the other עדים from writing and delivering the גט. ⁶ See פני יהושע who explains that אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים, is only when we wish to change a previous חזקה status; either from a פנויה to an אשת איש (by קידושין) or from an אשת איש to a גרושה (by גירושין). In our case she is בחזקת אשת איש and the ביטול is maintaining that חזקה, therefore אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים is not applicable. Concerning how the other עדים will be aware of the ביטול is another issue. This is obviously resolved, since רבי maintains לא בטלה כולה. ⁷ See פני יהושע that this א"נ may be following the opinion of those who maintain that אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים is even in a case where לא אתחזק איסורא. See תוספות ב,ב ד"ה הוי. It is not clear whether this requirement applies to all ביטול שליחות or only to the case of אמר לעשרה .See footnote # 5. ⁸ This seemingly follows the view of ריב"ק (see עמוד ב'). By the actual גיטין וקידושין all will agree that there must be two עדים present at the גיטין וקדושין, and זה שלא בפני זה will not suffice, because the עדים create the גיטין וקדושין, and הודאת בעל דין is insufficient. In our case we need two עדים to testify that the בעל was indeed מבטל the גט to prevent the other עדים from writing and delivering the גט (especially since we are now assuming עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה). This is a question of נאמנות not of קיום, therefore two עדים are believed even if it is זה שלא בפני זה. See פנ"י ונח"מ. ⁹ The גמרא assumes that רבי meant either of these two options, since רבי said יכול לבטל זה שלא בפני זה; indicating either in front of only one 'זה' or at most in front of two, as individuals, not as a pair since he said 'זה שלא בפני זה'. ¹⁰ תוספות לב,ב ד"ה ורב נחמן. ¹¹ Two people together comprise a בי"ד (in limited circumstances). However two individuals separately are not considered a בי"ד. The original תקנת חכמים (before תקנת ר"ג הזקן) was that a ביטול שלא בפני השליח והאשה must be performed only בפני בי"ד. The קול of a בי"ד (even of two), is greater than the קול of זה שלא בפני זה. ¹² תוספות explained before that in such a case the חשש ממזרות is so great that even רבי admits that בטלו אינו מבוטל. Here also since the ביטול was not in the presence of three and not even in the presence of two together, therefore there would be no ביטול, if רבי would maintain that עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה. In this case there is the חשש ממזרות, since there remain other עדים who may not be aware of this ביטול. There is no sufficient קול. It is just like he was מבטל it שלא בפני בי"ד and שלא בפני האשה והשליח, where even רבי agrees that the חשש ממזרות is so great that בטלו אינו מבוטל. If however רבי maintains עדות שבטלה מקצתה לא בטלה כולה, it is well understood why יכול לבטל (even לכתחילה) since there is no חשש at all. The other שלוחים may לכתחילה write the גט since לא בטלה כולה, they are still valid עדים. ¹³ There is a distinction between the ביטול in the case of אמר לעשרה to the ביטול בפני בי"ד. Even though רבי maintains that ביטלו בפני בי"ד it is מבוטל בדיעבד, nevertheless in the case of אמר לעשרה, if רבי would maintain עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה, he could not agree that בטלו מבוטל (even if he were מבטל the עד בפני בי"ד). ¹⁴ There are two מחלוקות between רבי ורשב"ג. One מחלוקת is concerning ביטלו בפני בי"ד, and the second is concerning אמר לעשרה. The גמרא later states: it was taught that in one מחלוקת the הלכה is like רבי and in the other the הלכה is like רשב"ג. However we are not sure which is which. If we were to assume – as תוספות maintained in his question – that the reason why רבי maintains in the case of אמר לעשרה that יכול לבטל is because רבי maintains בטלו מבוטל (by ביטול בפני בי"ד), then what is the doubt of the גמרא later. If the הלכה is like רבי that ביטלו מבוטל by בפני בי"ד then the הלכה should be like רבי also by אמר לעשרה. If we assume that the two cases are identical, as תוספות proposed in his question, there is no difference between בטלו בבי"ד and אמר לעשרה. ¹⁵ The גמרא offers another option of how to interpret the מחלוקת between רבי ורשב"ג by אמר לעשרה. Their מחלוקת hinges on whether מלתא דמתאמר באפי עשרה צריכא עשרה למישלפיה or not (see עמוד ב'). According to this interpretation then even if we maintain that the הלכה is כרבי by בטלו בפני בי"ד that בטלו מבוטל, nevertheless if we maintain that צריכא עשרה then in the case of אמר לעשרה we can agree with רשב"ג. ¹⁶ תוספות derives this from רש"י ד"ה אינו יכול where רש"י says: שאף זו מן התקנה וכו'. רש"י also maintains that when רבי said יכול לבטל it is self understood to mean מותר לבטל לכתחילה. See רש"י ד"ה יכול לבטל. ¹⁷ It cannot be תקנת עגונות (also), for he exerted himself to go to the עד himself. ¹⁸ There is no greater חשש of ממזרות by one more than the other. ¹⁹ תוספות will shortly remark that we may agree with רשב"ג partially. ²⁰ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ²¹ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ²² רשב"ג will obviously maintain that even בדיעבד it is not a ביטול as תוספות will shortly point out. ²³ See ‘Thinking it over’ #2. ²⁴ See footnote # 20. ²⁵ See footnote # 21. ²⁶ See footnote # 23.