וכל שום שיש לו—And any name which he has

OVERVIEW The משנה states that ר"ג instituted to write in the גט; the names 'וכל שום שיש לו'. תוספות cites a dispute as to what the משנה means with 'וכל שום שיש לו'.

בטופסי גיטין של הלכות גדולות כתוב שצריך לכתוב בגט וכל שום וחניכה דאית לי ולאתראי – In the standardized גיטין forms of the ה"ג it is written that it is necessary to write in the גט (the words), 'וכל שום וחניכה דאית לי ולאתראי' (and any [other] name or moniker that I have or my place of residence has) – משמע שלשון זה היו כותבין בגט – It seems that they would write these actual words in the גט. תוספות disagree with the ה"ג: ואין נראה לרבינו תם דזימנין דאתי לידי תקלה – And the ר"ת does not agree to write in every גט the phrase וכל שום וכו', for occasionally it can be damaging, for instance**** in a case – כשאין לו אלא אותו שם הכתוב בגט ואין לו חניכה¹ – Where he only has the name that is written in the גט and he has no חניכה – וכשכותב בגט וכל שום וחניכה נראה זה הגט של אדם אחר שיש לו שם וחניכה – So when they will write in the גט the words, 'וכל שום וחניכה', it would appear that this is someone else’s גט, one who has a name and a חניכה, but not to the intended person, since he has no חניכה. תוספות offers his view as to what it means that we write וכל שום שיש לו: לכך נראה לרבינו תם וכל שום שיש לו דקתני במתניתין היינו כל שמותיו בפירוש² – Therefore it is the view of the ר"ת that when the משנה teaches we should write, וכל שום שיש לו, this means to write explicitly all his names (even those names that are not used that often (but it does not mean to write the phrase וכל שום שיש לו). ותיקן רבינו תם לכתוב בגט אני פלוני דמיתקרי כך וכך – **And the ר"ת instituted to write in the גט; ‘I so and so (**the proper name) who is called so an so (the name by which people call him) – כדאמרינן בגמרא שרה דמיתקריא מרים³ אחא⁴ בר הדיא דמיתקרי איה מרי – As the גמרא states; 'שרה who was called מרים’, and 'בר הדיא who was called איה מרי – תוספות offers support to the view of the ר"ת:

And from this which the גמרא cites a ברייתא that he should divorce her by writing his name in יהודה, and, together with it, his name in גליל; this supports somewhat the explanation of the ר"ת.

SUMMARY According to the ה"ג in every גט one must write וכל שום שיש לו. The ר"ת maintains that (only) if a person has more the one name all his names must be written in the גט.

THINKING IT OVER The ר"ת asked on the ה"ג that if we must always write וכל שום, then there will be a תקלה in case a person has only one name (exclusively). Seemingly on account of this question it was not necessary to reject the sה"ג' ruling.⁷ We will write 'וכל שום' only where it is אתחזק בתרי שמי, and there will be no תקלה!⁸ 2. Why does תוספות write that the proof from שמו שביהודה ושם דגליל עמו is [only] משמע קצת⁹ like the פירוש ר"ת?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ It appears that the ר"ת understood the ruling of the ה"ג (to write וכל שום וכו') even in a case where it was not established that the husband/wife had two names. See מהרש"א ומהר"ם שי"ף that it will be necessary to explain רב אשי who states that וכל שום needs to be written only when אתחזק בתרי שמי, that he means that it will be פסול בדיעבד if וכל שום was not written, only in a case of אתחזק בתרי שמי, however לכתחלה one must always write וכל שום. ² See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ³ See shortly before the following משנה. In our text it reads: מרים וכל שום שיש לה. See following תוס' ד"ה והוא. See אמ"ה # 60. ⁴ דף לה,א בסופו. See מהר"ם שי"ף who questions this proof since there we are discussing a verification of a גט, but not what was written in the גט. ⁵ The ברייתא is discussing a person who lived both in יהודה and גליל; and was called by different names in יהודה וגליל. ⁶ The גמרא did not say he should write שמו שביהודה וכל שום שיש לו, but was rather explicit that he should write שמו שביהודה and ושם דגליל עמו. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ See footnote # 2. ⁸ See מהר"ם שי"ף and אמ"ה # 49. ⁹ See footnote # 6. ¹⁰ See אמ"ה # 62.

והוא דאתחזק בתרי שמי—And that is only when he was established with two names

OVERVIEW The משנה taught us that it is necessary to write in the גט his/her name and וכל שום שיש לו\לה. This ruling was qualified by רב אשי that it applies only in a case where the person was איתחזק with two names. תוספות will discuss when it is necessary to write all the names (and in which order), and when not.

שאלו לרבינו תם¹ על מומר לעבודת כוכבים שגירש את אשתו – They asked the ר"ת regarding a Jewish apostate for idol worship, who divorced his Jewish wife – ולא נכתב בגט אלא שם של יהדות ולא שם של עובד כוכבים – And only his Jewish name was written in the גט but not his gentile name; is the גט valid? והשיב רבינו תם חלילה להזכיר שם עובד כוכבים² בתורת משה וישראל³ – And the ר"ת responded: It is disgraceful to mention the name of idolatry in the תורה of משה וישראל; therefore the גט is כשר – והביא ראיה מדאמר בתוספתא (פרק ו'⁴) גר ששינה שמו לשם עובדי כוכבים וגרש בו כשר⁵ – And the ר"ת brought proof to his ruling from that which is stated in the תוספתא, a גר who changed his name to a gentile name and he divorced with that gentile name, the גט is כשר; indicating that initially he should use his Jewish name – והוא הדין במומר דשם יהדות כשר אף לכתחלה⁶ – And the same rule applies by a מומר that his Jewish name is כשר even לכתחלה. תוספות will prove that it is not necessary to write all the names and certainly not the שם עכו"ם: וכתב חניכתו וחניכתה אמרינן לקמן (דף פז,ב) דכשר – And the משנה states later, if he wrote his moniker and her moniker it is כשר – ופירש בערוך (ערך חנך א) אף על פי שלא נכתב שם מובהק – And the ערוך explained that חניכתו וחניכתה is כשר, even though the proper name was not written in the גט – וכה"ג (ובה"ג⁷) [וכהאי גוונא] מפרש מתניתין דבפרק בתרא (לקמן דף פז,ב) – And (the בה"ג) [the ר"ת] interprets in a similar manner the (same) משנה of the last פרק of מסכת גיטין where it states – וכך היו נקיי הדעת⁸ שבירושלים עושים כן⁹ היינו שהיו כותבין חניכתו וחניכתה – ‘And this is how the נקיי הדעת of ירושלים would do so’; תוספות explains this phrase to mean, that the נקיי הדעת would only write חניכתו וחניכתה in the גט – תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: והא דקתני בברייתא דבסמוך דאינה מגורשת עד שיכתוב שם דיהודה ושם דגליל עמו¹⁰ – And that which the ברייתא states shortly, that she is not divorced unless he writes the name which he uses in יהודה together with the name he uses in גליל – תוספות responds, that writing all names is necessary – היינו דוקא דאיתחזק בשני שמות בב' המקומות חד במקום הכתיבה וחד במקום הנתינה – That is only where two names are established in two places; meaning, one name is used in the place where the גט was written, and one name was used in the place where the גט was delivered. תוספות proves that this is the case there – דהא לא קתני היו לו שני שמות ביהודה או שני שמות סתם שיגרש בשני שמותיו – For the ברייתא did not state, ‘that he should divorce using both names if he had two names in יהודה or he had two names generally’ – אלא כשיש לו שני שמות אחד ביהודה ואחד בגליל – But rather the ברייתא stated that ‘when he has two names, one in יהודה and one in גליל – דאז צריך לכתוב שניהם מקום הכתיבה ומקום הנתינה – That then he is required to write both names; the name he uses in the place where the גט is written and the name he uses in the place where the גט is given; the reason that in this case it is necessary to write both names; for otherwise – דאותן שבגליל לא יכירו שם דיהודה ויאמרו שלא גירש ויוציאו לעז על בניה מן השני – Those people in גליל will not recognize the name of יהודה (if that would be the only name he writes in the גט), and they will say he did not divorce his wife and they will foment gossip regarding her children from her second husband; the one she married after receiving this גט with only שם שביהודה – אבל בהוחזק בשני שמות במקום אחד כשר בדיעבד אפילו באחד מהן ואפילו בחניכה – However in a place where he was established with two names in one place, the גט is כשר בדיעבד even with one name and even if it is the חניכה name and not the שם מובהק – ומיהו לכתחילה צריך לכתוב שניהם¹¹ אפילו כתיבה ונתינה במקום אחד – However, initially it is necessary to write both names, even if the writing and the delivery of the גט is in the same place – כדאמר בסמוך רובא מרים ומיעוט שרה מרים וכל שום שיש לה¹² – As the גמרא shortly states regarding a woman who was called מרים by a majority of the people and a minority called her שרה, that in the גט we are to write, מרים וכל שום שיש לה, and – משמע¹³ דבחד מקום קרו לה הכי והכי¹⁴ – It seems that they called her with both names in one place, and nevertheless it is necessary לכתחלה to write both names. תוספות finds support from a ירושלמי that initially all names should be included: וכן משמע בירושלמי¹⁵ על הך ברייתא דהכא – And it seems so also from תלמוד ירושלמי on the ברייתא cited here, where the ירושלמי states – מתניתין כשהיה ביהודה וכתב לגרש את אשתו שבגליל – Our ברייתא (which states that he is to write both names of יהודה וגליל) is when he was in יהודה and wrote a גט to divorce his wife who was in the גליל – או שהיה בגליל וכתב לגרש את אשתו שביהודה – Or he was in גליל and wrote to divorce his wife in יהודה; then it is necessary to write both names – אבל אם היה ביהודה וכתב לגרש אשתו שביהודה כולי הרי זו מגורשת – However if he was in יהודה and wrote a גט to divorce his wife in יהודה, she is divorced (even if he only wrote the name of יהודה) – אמר רבי יוסי הדא דתימא בדיעבד אבל לכתחלה צריך לכתוב שניהם¹⁶ – ר"י stated; this you can say בדיעבד, however initially he must write both names (even in a case where he and his wife were both in יהודה). In summation: If there are two names in the same place, לכתחלה both (Jewish) names should be written, however if only one name (even the חניכה) is written it is כשר בדיעבד. If one has two different names in two different places it is פסול even בדיעבד unless both names are written. תוספות discusses a different issue: והכא עושה שם מקום הנתינה עיקר ושל מקום הכתיבה טפל – And here the ברייתא declares the name he has in the place where the גט will be given as the main (name) and the name he has in the place of writing the גט as secondary – כדקתני עד שיגרש אשתו שבגליל בשמו שבגליל ושם דיהודה עמו כולי – As the ברייתא states, unless he divorces his wife in גליל with his גליל name, and his יהודה name with it, etc. The first and main name is the גליל name which is the place of נתינה (where the wife is) and then the name of יהודה (the מקום הכתיבה) – אבל בתוספתא (פ"ו¹⁷) עושה מקום כתיבת הגט עיקר – However in the תוספתא he makes the place of writing the גט, the main name – וכן איתא התם יש לו ב' נשים אחת בגליל ואחת ביהודה – And this is what it states there: ‘he had two wives one in גליל and one in יהודה – גירש אשתו שביהודה בשם שבגליל ואשתו שבגליל בשם שביהודה פסול – He divorced his wife in יהודה with his גליל name, or his wife in גליל with his יהודה name; it is a גט פסול – ואם אמר אני פלוני שביהודה עם השם שיש לי בגליל¹⁸ – However, if he said, ‘I so and so of יהודה with the name which I have in גליל’ – או שהיה במקום אחר וכתב אחד מהן כשר – Or he was in another place (neither יהודה nor גליל) and he wrote one of his names it is a גט כשר – רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אפילו כתב שם דיהודה בגליל ושם דגליל ביהודה כשר – רשב"ג maintains, even if he wrote the יהודה name in גליל and the גליל name in יהודה, it is כשר. This concludes the תוספתא. ומהתם נמי משמע דבמגרש בגליל אותה שביהודה מיירי¹⁹ – And it is also apparent from there that he is discussing a case when he was divorcing in גליל the wife he has in יהודה. In summation: from our גמרא it appears that the מקום הנתינה is primary and that name should be written first; however from the תוספתא it is apparent that the מקום הכתיבה is primary and that name should be written first. תוספות explains our משנה based on the foregoing: והשתא²⁰ בראשונה היה משנה שמו ושמה²¹ – And now we are to understand that when the משנה states, ‘he would change his name and her name’; the משנה – קורא שינוי מה שאינו כותב אלא שם אחד משני המקומות – Calls ‘changing’ that he only wrote one name from the two places (in which he resides and has different names), and they disallowed this – לפי שאין מכירין בו במקום אחר ודומה להם שינוי שמו ושמה – Because in the other place they do not recognize this name, and it appears to them as changing his and her names – וכן יש לפרש שם עירו ושם עירה – And we can similarly interpret that what the משנה states regarding changing the name of his city and her city (that they dwelt in two cities and wrote the name of only one city). תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דקאמר בהמגרש (לקמן דף פז,ב) כתב חניכתו וחניכתה כשר – And that which the משנה states in פרק המגרש; ‘he wrote חניכתו וחניכתה it is כשר – וכך היו נקיי הדעת שבירושלים עושים כן – And that is also how the נקיי הדעת of ירושלים would do it’²² – משמע אפילו לכתחלה אין צריך לכתוב שניהם – This seems that even לכתחלה it is not necessary to write both names, תוספות concludes with the difficulty – אף על גב דגבי מרים שבסמוך ובירושלמי אמרינן דדוקא בדיעבד כשר – Even though regarding מרים, shortly in our גמרא, and in תלמוד ירושלמי we say that it is only כשר בדיעבד if only one of two names are written, so how is it that the נקיי הדעת שבירושלים wrote only חניכתו וחניכתה – תוספות responds: צריך לומר דנקיי הדעת שבירושלים היו שמותיהן ידועים וליכא לעז – It is necessary to say that the חניכה names of the נקיי הדעת שבירושלים were known, and there could be no gossip that she was not divorced by her husband – תוספות offers an alternate solution:

Or you may also say; when the various names are similar to each other; that the כינוי is similar to the name, then it is כשר initially even with the כינוי (only).

SUMMARY Different names in different places is more reason to write all the names. Initially one should always write all the names unless the כינוי is well known or similar to the שם מובהק.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות proves from the תוספתא which states אני פלוני שביהודה עם השם שיש לי בגליל that the מקום הכתיבה is עיקר.²³ Seemingly the תוספתא may mean that it is כשר בדיעבד,²⁴ but not that it is done לכתחלה in this manner!²⁵

footnotes: ¹ See ספר הישר לר"ת חלק התשובות סי' כו. ² It is preferable that we only write his Jewish name and not mention at all his gentile name. ³ The תורה refers to the גט as a ספר (כריתות) (see תוס' ב,א ד"ה המביא) in which it is written כדת משה וישראל. ⁴ ה"ו. ⁵ The term כשר (usually) indicates that it is כשר בדיעבד, but not לכתחלה. ⁶ In the case of the גר he used his original gentile name and (nevertheless even though it is a gentile name) it is כשר (בדיעבד, since it is a gentile name); the same should apply to a ישראל מומר that his original name (which is a Jewish name) should be כשר (לכתחילה since it is a Jewish name). ⁷ The מהרש"א and מהר"ם שי"ף read בה"ג instead of וכה"ג. See however later פח,א תוד"ה וכך where it seems that the correct גירסא is וכה"ג (this is a continuation of the ר"ת). ⁸ Literally; those of clean minds. See רש"י there ד"ה וכך that שלשונן קצרה (their syntax was precise and short). Generally it refers to more refined and sensitive people. ⁹ This is how the end of the משנה there reads: איש פלוני בן איש פלוני ולא כתב עד כשר וכך היו נקיי הדעת שבירושלים עושין כתב חניכתו וחניכתה כשר. The simple reading indicates (as רש"י explains there בד"ה וכך) that the נקיי הדעת would sign only פלוני בן פלוני. However the בה"ג\ר"ת maintains that נקיי הדעת applies to the following statement of חניכתו וחניכתה. See תוספות פח,ב ד"ה וכך that the גירסא is כתב חניכתו וכו' וכך היו נקיים הדעת וכו'. This proves that it is not necessary to write all the names in a גט (even the חניכה is sufficient; see [however] later in this תוספות). ¹⁰ This seems to indicate that he must write all of his names (even if he writes his שם מובהק), but it is certainly not sufficient to merely write חניכתו וחניכתה (and how did the ר"ת permit to omit the שם עכו"ם). ¹¹ This applies if both names are Jewish; however if one is a gentile name then חלילה להזכיר שם עכו"ם וכו'. ¹² See previous תוספות ד"ה וכל footnote # 3. ¹³ Presumably the phrase דהוו קרו לה וכו' ופורתא וכו', indicates that it was in the same place otherwise it would say ביהודה קרו לה ובגליל קרו לה or something similar. ¹⁴ Otherwise if they called her with different names in different places then it would be פסול בדיעבד if both names were not written. ¹⁵ גיטין פ"ד ה"ב (in our ירושלמי on כ,ב). See אמ"ה # 134-6. ¹⁶ It is evident from the ירושלמי that לכתחלה both names are to be written. ¹⁷ ה"ז. ¹⁸ This would seem to indicate that he is in יהודה (for he writes אני פלוני שביהודה), and his wife is in גליל (for that is the case mentioned immediately prior), and the ברייתא mentions first the name in יהודה (which is מקום הכתיבה) and then שם שבגליל (which is מקום הנתינה). See ‘Thinking it over’. See following footnote # 19. ¹⁹ תוספות wants to prove that we are discussing a case where the מקום הכתיבה והנתינה are different in order to support what he mentioned previously that the תוספותא maintains that the מקום הכתיבה is עיקר. It would be difficult to understand the view of רשב"ג (that שם דיהודה בגליל is כשר) if the כתיבה ונתינה were both in גליל. However if the כתיבה was in יהודה and the נתינה in גליל, then it would be understood why רשב"ג maintains it is a גט כשר, since he is called by this name in one of the places, so we know the right husband gave the גט. ²⁰ This means, now that we understand that if he has two names in one place, one name is sufficient; both names are necessary only if he has two names in two different places. ²¹ It is obvious that משנה שמו cannot mean that he wrote an entirely different name. It would seem that he only wrote one of his names (when he had two names in the same place). However, תוספות taught us that it is כשר בדיעבד (even now after the תקנה) with only one name. The only option is that he only wrote the local name; why should this be called שינה שמו, since this is the name by which he is known (במקום הכתיבה, which is the main name)?! ²² See footnote # 9. ²³ See footnote # 18. ²⁴ See footnote # 5. ²⁵ See מהרש"א [הארוך].

אין אלמנה נפרעת מנכסי יתומין אלא בשבועה—A widow cannot collect from the assets of the orphans without an oath

OVERVIEW The משנה states that an אלמנה cannot collect her כתובה from the יתומים of her husband, unless she first takes an oath that she received no payment during her husband’s lifetime. תוספות will explain the reason and the simplicity of this ruling

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא לא ניתנה כתובה ליגבות מחיים (כתובות פא,א) – And if you will say; but a כתובה was not intended that it be collected while the husband is alive – ואמר ריש לקיש בפרק קמא דבבא בתרא (דף ה,א) חזקה אין אדם פורע בתוך זמנו¹ – And ר"ל ruled in the first פרק of ב"ב; there is a presumption that a person does not pay his debt within the time allotted to him; he pays only when the debt is due – ואמרינן התם הלכתא כוותיה ואפילו מיתמי ליפרע בלא שבועה² – And the גמרא stated there; the ruling is like ר"ל and one may even collect from orphans without an oath; why does the אלמנה require an oath to collect from the יתומים?!³ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהני מילי בעל חוב אבל אלמנה דאית לה בתנאי בית דין⁴ – And one can say; that when does this apply (that תוך זמנו does not require an oath to collect מיתמי) only by a creditor of a loan; however regarding a widow which she is owed because of stipulation of בי"ד (and not on account of a loan) the rule is different, for we are concerned that the husband – מתפיס לה צררי אפילו בתוך זמנה כדאשכחן בפרק הנושא (כתובות דף קב,ב) – Placed in her possession a bundle of money to pay off her כתובה even תוך זמנה, as we find in פרק הנושא⁵ – דחיישינן בבנותיו טפי לצררי⁶ מבנות אשתו⁷ – That we are more concerned for צררי regarding his daughters than his wife’s daughters; the reason for this is – משום דכיון דאיתנהו בתנאי בית דין אתפסינהו צררי – Since his daughters are owed because of a תנאי בי"ד, he will deposit צררי by them (as opposed to בנות אשתו where he owes them money because of an agreement but not תנאי בי"ד). תוספות asks (based on the conclusion that by אלמנה even תוך זמנו requires a שבועה): ואם תאמר הא דפריך בגמרא מאי איריא אלמנה כולי – And if you will say; regarding this which the גמרא asks, why does the משנה teach the rule by אלמנה, etc. that she cannot collect from the יתומים without a שבועה, when it is a universal law that no creditor can collect from יתומים without a שבועה – לימא דנקט אלמנה אף על פי שהוא תוך זמנה – Let the גמרא answer that the משנה mentions אלמנה, because even though it is תוך זמנה where usually one can collect from the יתומים without a שבועה, nevertheless there is a novelty by אלמנה that even though it is תוך זמנה, she cannot collect from the יתומים without a שבועה! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דטפי הוה ליה לאשמועינן בדבר שאינו תנאי בית דין – And one can say; [the גמרא asks that]**** the משנה should have rather taught us that אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה regarding something which is not תנאי בי"ד – כגון בבעל חוב לאחר זמנו – For instance a creditor after the due date; that would have been a greater novelty, than teaching us regarding – מבאלמנה אף על גב שהיא תוך זמנה – An אלמנה even though that by her it is תוך זמנה; nevertheless it is not such a great novelty that she requires a שבועה. The reason it is not such a great novelty is –

Since she is owed the כתובה by a תנאי בי"ד.⁸

SUMMARY There is a greater possibility of a תנאי בי"ד being paid even תוך זמנו, than a loan being paid (even) לאחר זמנו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. There is seemingly another reason why by כתובה we should not be at all concerned that he paid while he is alive, since there is the distinct possibility that his wife will predecease him and he will not owe her anything. Why does not תוספות mention this?⁹
2. Why is it that a person is more likely to pay off a תנאי בי"ד (even תוך זמנו) than a regular debt (even לאחר זמנו)?¹⁰
3. תוספות explains the sגמרא' question מאי איריא אלמנה that there is a greater חידוש for בע"ח לאח"ז than by אלמנה בתו"ז.¹¹ Would it not be sufficient to say that the חידוש is the same for both; therefore the גמרא asks why is it necessary to mention merely a specific case when the rule applies universally?¹²

footnotes: ¹ In a case where we know that the לוה borrowed money for a specific time, and the מלוה asked for payment during this time, and the לוה claimed that he paid it, the לוה is not believed and is obligated to repay the loan. See תוס' ד"ה ובא in ב"ב ה,א. ² The (general) rule is that a creditor cannot collect from the assets of the יתומים of his debtor unless he first takes an oath that the money is still owed to him (for we are concerned that perhaps the deceased paid him). However if the note is תוך זמנו (it was not due and payable at the time of the debtor’s demise), then the creditor may collect from the יתומים without a שבועה, because we are certain that the debt was not paid (before it was due). ³ The debt of the כתובה was not due for collection until after the husband passed on, why is a שבועה necessary?! ⁴ The husband does not owe his wife the כתובה money because she lent him money, but rather this is a stipulation of בי"ד that whoever marries a woman owes her a כתובה which includes a sum of money to be paid to her at his death (or if he divorces her). This obligation weighs heavily on the husband that oftentimes he will pay off her כתובה to her while he is alive in order to be freed from this burden and not saddle his heirs with it. ⁵ The case there is where a person married a woman who had a daughter and agreed to support the daughter for five years. The husband had other daughters. If the husband dies (within the five years), his (minor) daughters can collect for their sustenance only from נכסים בני חורין; however his wife’s daughter can collect (within the five years) even from נכסים משעובדים. This גמרא can also be found in גיטין נא,א. ⁶ Therefore his daughters cannot collect from נכסים משועבדים since it is possible that he may have paid them while he was alive (even though he was not obligated to pay their future expenses). ⁷ He is obligated to pay for his wife’s daughter’s sustenance only because he agreed to do it; he is not obligated to so because of a תנאי בי"ד; he is only obligated בתנאי בי"ד to sustain his biological daughters. ⁸ The sense of obligation for paying a תנאי בי"ד (even תוך זמנו) is greater than the sense of obligation for paying a debt (even אחר זמנו). Therefore there is more chance of צררי אתפסי by an אלמנה than by repaying a debt (לאחר זמנו) by a בע"ח. See ‘Thinking it over” # 3. ⁹ See אמ"ה #19. ¹⁰ See נח"מ. ¹¹ See footnote # 3. תוספות writes 'טפי'. ¹² See אמ"ה # 33 (see also following תוס' ד"ה מאי).

מאי איריא אלמנה אפילו כולי עלמא נמי—Why mention אלמנה; it applies also even to everyone else

OVERVIEW The previous תוספות taught¹ that there is a greater חידוש in that a regular creditor (who is not owed בתנאי בי"ד) has to swear in order to collect from יתומים, than there is by אלמנה since she is owed בתנאי בי"ד (even though there is a חידוש [also] by אלמנה for it is a case of תוך זמנו). This explains the question מאי אריא אלמנה וכו'.

תוספות anticipates a possible answer to the sגמרא' question and rejects it: ואי משום דבעי למיתני סיפא דנמנעו מלהשביעה² – And if you will answer that he mentions אלמנה specifically, instead of making a general statement because since he wanted to teach in the סיפא that בי"ד refrained from administering an oath to the אלמנה, therefore he mentions אלמנה also in the רישא; this is not a sufficient explanation for – הוה ליה למיתני אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה ונמנעו מלהשביע את אלמנה³ – The משנה should have taught אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה in a general sense, and conclude that בי"ד refrained from making the אלמנה swear. תוספות continues to explain the sגמרא' answer:⁴ ומשני אלמנה איצטריכא ליה והוי חידוש באלמנה טפי מבבעל חוב – And the גמרא answered; it was necessary to mention אלמנה, for there is a greater novelty by an אלמנה, than there is by a creditor – ולכך נקט רישא נמי⁵ באלמנה: And therefore the משנה mentions אלמנה also in the רישא.⁶

SUMMARY The חידוש of אלמנה is sufficiently greater than בע"ח, which warrants that it be mentioned specifically also in the רישא (and not just merely תנא רישא אטו סיפא).

THINKING IT OVER

1. If the משנה would not have mentioned אלמנה (in the רישא), would we have assumed that (initially) an אלמנה is not required to swear in order to collect מנכסי יתומים? If so, would that be because of חינא or because of תוך זמנו?
2. The גמרא answers that the משנה mentions אלמנה (in the רישא) because of חינא; seemingly indicating that if the משנה would not write אלמנה in the רישא, we may have assumed that אלמנה does not swear. However since the משנה could have written אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה ונמנעו מלהשביע את אלמנה, this would assure us that initially the אלמנה was obligated to swear. Why is it necessary to write אלמנה specifically in the רישא instead of making a general statement?⁷

footnotes: ¹ ד"ה אין. ² The proposed answer is that even though אלמנה may be a lesser חידוש than בע"ח, nevertheless since אלמנה is mentioned in the סיפא that should compensate to allow us to mention אלמנה specifically in the רישא (even though it is a lesser חידוש). ³ The fact that the משנה mentions אלמנה in the סיפא is not sufficient cause to mention the particular case of אלמנה in the רישא (since it is the lesser חידוש) instead of the more general rule that no one collects מנכסי יתומים without a שבועה. In addition אלמנה would anyways be mentioned (specifically) by the משנה stating ונמנעו מלהשביע את אלמנה, indicating that initially an אלמנה was required to swear. ⁴ תוספות perhaps assumed initially that the answer of the גמרא merely means that there is also a חידוש by אלמנה (regarding חינא). This would not be a sufficient answer; for there is a (great) חידוש by a בע"ח as well (see ‘Overview’), why therefore should we write אלמנה instead of בע"ח since it seems they are equal (a חידוש by each one). In addition, the משנה is mentioning (the חידוש of) אלמנה by stating in the סיפא that ונמנעו מלהשביע (את האלמנה) (see previous footnote # 3). Why is it that necessary to mention it (again) specifically in the רישא? Therefore תוספות responds that when the גמרא answers אלמנה איצטריכא ליה it means that the חידוש by אלמנה (חינא and תוך זמנו together) is greater than the חידוש of בע"ח (that it is not a תנאי בי"ד). This greater חידוש warrants that it should be mentioned (again [this may be the meaning of נמי]) specifically in the רישא. See the מהרש"א (for a different explanation), and (the comment of) the מהר"ם שי"ף (that ודו"ק דאין זה מחוור). ⁵ See previous footnote # 4 (in the bracketed parenthesis). ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ See יד דוד.

אלמנה איצטריכא ליה—It was necessary for him to mention אלמנה

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that it was necessary for the תנא to teach us that an אלמנה cannot collect from the יתומים without a שבועה, for otherwise we may have mistakenly assumed that on account of חינא she is not obligated to swear. תוספות explains why we could not derive this from another משנה.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר אלמנה נמי תנינא בהכותב (כתובות דף פז,א) – And if you will say; it was already taught in a משנה in פרק הכותב regarding an אלמנה, for the משנה states there – הנפרעת מנכסי יתומים לא תפרע אלא בשבועה – ‘When she collects from the assets of the orphans, she cannot collect without an oath’; seemingly referring to an אלמנה.¹ Why is it necessary to repeat it again in this משנה?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דאיכא לאוקמא בגרושה² – And one can say that we can establish that משנה in הכותב by a divorcee, but not by a widow – תוספות responds to the anticipated difficulty: אף על גב דבכתובות פרק אלמנה (דף צז,ב) אמרינן דגרושה נמי בעי חן – Even though the גמרא in מסכת כתובות פרק אלמנה states that a גרושה also requires חן, so seemingly an אלמנה and גרושה are equal and if a גרושה requires a שבועה (even though she also requires חן), so too an אלמנה should require a שבועה – תוספות replies that – מכל מקום לא שמעינן מינה אלמנה – Nevertheless we could not derive אלמנה from גרושה – דגרושה נהי דאיכא חינא הויא אחר זמנה³ – For by גרושה, granted that there is the reason of חינא (which would indicate an exemption from שבועה), but nevertheless it is after the time that the כתובה was due (which is sufficient reason to obligate her to swear) – אבל אלמנה אית בה תרתי דתוך זמנה⁴ ואיכא נמי חינא – However an אלמנה has two reasons why she should not be obligated to swear, for it is תוך זמנה and there is also the reason of חינא. תוספות offers an alternate answer:⁵ ועוד דדרך תנא להשמיענו כשאין צריך להאריך בשביל כך יותר⁶ – And furthermore, there is no difficulty why the משנה repeats this rule regarding אלמנה, for it is customary for the תנא to inform us (something which we already know), when it is not necessary to elaborate extra to do this – אף על פי שכבר השמיענו במקום אחר כדאשכחן בריש ברכות⁷ (דף ב,א) ובשאר דוכתי⁸: Even though the תנא already informed us elsewhere regarding this ruling, as we find this in the beginning of מסכת ברכות and elsewhere.

SUMMARY We would not know that an אלמנה is required to swear when she collects from יתומים, from the fact that a גרושה is required to swear, since by אלמנה it is תוך זמנו. Occasional a תנא may repeat his ruling if no elaboration is required.

THINKING IT OVER What is the main reason we may have assumed that an אלמנה is not required to swear (when she collects from נכסי יתומים); is it משום חינא or because it is תוך זמנו?

footnotes: ¹ It is an אלמנה who collects (only) from the יתומים; a גרושה collects from her husband. ² The משנה is teaching us that if a divorcee did not manage to collect her כתובה from her husband until he died, she can collect from the יתומים only with a שבועה. However we may still have thought that an אלמנה may collect from the יתומים without a שבועה (because of חינא?). תוספות will immediately explain this. ³ The כתובה was due when her husband divorced her. There could have been ample time for the husband to pay her before he died. Therefore if she demands payment from the יתומים, she has to swear, because there is the concern that her husband paid her before he died. ⁴ The כתובה is not due until the husband dies. It is seemingly unlikely that he paid the כתובה before it was due. ⁵ This answer assumes that the משנה in הכותב is discussing an אלמנה (as the simple reading of the משנה would indicate; see footnote # 1). ⁶ The משנה could have said אין נפרעין מנכסי יתומים וכו' ונמנעו מלהשביע את האלמנה (this is the question); the משנה states אין אלמנה נפרעת וכו' נמנעו מלהשביעה; there is not much of a difference (the word אלמנה which is added in the (actual) רישא is omitted in the סיפא). ⁷ See תוספות there ד"ה והא. ⁸ See תוספות זבחים כח,א ד"ה אמר and תוספות מנחות צג,א ד"ה הכל.