ואין אני קורא בה אשת שני מתים¹—And I do not call her the wife of two dead men

OVERVIEW רב חסדא ruled regarding a woman who was half-slave and half free, and she received קידושין from ראובן and then she was freed completely and married שמעון (who is the brother of ראובן) and then ראובן ושמעון both died childless, this widow may receive יבום from לוי (the brother of ראובן ושמעון) and she is not considered a wife of two מתים (who is not eligible for יבום).

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והכא מאי נפקא מינה אם היא אשת שני מתים – And if you will say; but here why should I care if she is a wife of two מתים – הא אמרינן בפרק ד' אחין (יבמות דף לא,ב) דזיקת שני יבמין דרבנן – Since the גמרא states in פרק ד' אחין that the prohibition regarding a זיקה of two brothers is merely מדרבנן, [and the פסוק is (presumably) only an אסמכתא] – גזירה שמא יאמרו שתי יבמות הבאות מבית אחד² מתיבמות³ וזה לא שייך הכא⁴ – It is an injunction; for if you will allow יבום in this case perhaps people will say two יבמות who come from one house can be מתייבם, but this concern is not applicable here. תוספות answers:

And one can say; that there where the זיקת ב' יבמין was through a מאמר דרבנן, indeed the prohibition is only מדרבנן (because of the גזירה שמא יאמרו וכו'); however generally the prohibition for זיקת ב' יבמין is מה"ת.

SUMMARY זיקת ב' יבמין is אסור מדרבנן if she was מקודשת מדרבנן, however if it was קידושין מה"ת the איסור would be מה"ת.

THINKING IT OVER The rule by זיקת ב' יבמין is that לוי cannot be מייבם the בעלת המאמר even if שמעון (the one who gave the מאמר) has no other wife; where seemingly there cannot be the גזירה שמא יאמרו וכו' (since there is only one יבום).⁸ Seemingly here too even though we are discussing a יבום of only one person,⁹ nevertheless it should also be אסור, just like there where presumably we are גוזר one יבמה א' אטו ב' יבמות, the same should apply here!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ The תורה (in דברים [תצא] כה,ה) writes regarding the מצוה of יבום that כִּי יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם, we expound it to mean that יבום is only if she is a widow of one brother but not of two brothers. This excludes a case where there were three brothers, ראובן married רחל and died childless; שמעון (who was already married to שרה) made a מאמר in רחל (but was not מייבם her) and he also died childless; in this case לוי cannot be מייבם רחל since רחל is a wife from both ראובן (מדאורייתא) and שמעון (through the מאמר מדרבנן). ² This means if there are two brothers ראובן and שמעון, and ראובן married two wives but died childless, שמעון has a מצוה to be מייבם one of sראובן' wives but he is not allowed to be מייבם both. ³ In the case of footnote # 1, if לוי will be מייבם שרה (who is the real wife of שמעון) and then be מייבם רחל (the wife of ראובן, but she also received a מאמר from שמעון), who may mistakenly be assumed to be sשמעון' wife as well (since he gave her a מאמר), people will assume that one can be מייבם two wives (שרה ורחל) from one husband (שמעון). ⁴ This חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין who married ראובן and then (after she was freed) married שמעון is one person, there can be no concern that one may permit שתי יבמות הבאות מבית אחד, for here there is only one יבמה (not like the case in footnote #1, # 3), so why would we even think that there is a problem of זיקת ב' יבמין?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See footnote # 1. ⁶ This would be referring to our case where she conceivably could be married to both brothers מדאורייתא. See מהר"ם for another case of זיקת ב' יבמין מה"ת. Therefore we may have thought that she is אסורה because of זיקת ב' יבמין. ⁷ In this case the דרשה (in footnote # 1) is not an אסמכתא, but a דרשה דאורייתא. ⁸ See תוס' ד"ה מדרבנן יבמות לב,א (the ד"ה is on לא,ב). ⁹ See footnote # 4. ¹⁰ See מהר"ם and נחלת משה.

מה נפשך אי קידושי ראובן כולי—Either way; if the betrothal of Re’uvain, etc. Overview¹ רב חסדא explained that this חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין that married ראובן and then שמעון is fit to be מתייבם by לוי and she is not considered אשת שתי המתים, since it is a מה נפשך, for if the קידושין of ראובן are valid,² she is not מקודשת to שמעון, and if the קידושי ראובן are not valid, she is מקודשת only to שמעון. Our תוספות discusses why רב חסדא needed to resort to a מה נפשך.

פירש בקונטרס³ דמשום פלוגתא דאמוראי דלעיל⁴ מספקא ליה הי מינייהו הוו קידושין⁵ – רש"י explained that since previously there is a dispute between the אמוראים (whether קידושין are תופס by a חשוחב"ח) therefore רב חסדא was in doubt which קידושין of the two brothers is valid –**** תוספות asks: וקשה דרב חסדא גופיה פשיטא ליה דהוו קידושין – And there is a difficulty with פרש"י, since it is obvious to ר"ח himself (who is making this ruling and saying this מה נפשך) that it is a valid קידושין – ורבה בר רב הונא נמי חזר בו מכח דברי רב חסדא – And even רבה בר ר"ה retracted on account of sרב חסדא' argument, and agreed that she is מקודשת,**** so there is no ספק here at all, seemingly she is מקודשת לראובן! Why the מה נפשך?! תוספות offers his interpretation:

And it appears to תוספות that ר"ח was in doubt whether the first קידושין are completed or they are uprooted, when she was emancipated completely**.**

SUMMARY The ספק is either whether she was ever מקודשת לראשון (the view of רש"י), or whether the שחרור was מפקיע the קידושין לראשון (the view of תוספות).

THINKING IT OVER What are the relative advantages of פרש"י ותוס'?

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Overview’ for the previous תוס' ד"ה ואין. ² We assume that one can be מקדש a חשוחב"ח. ³ בד"ה ואין. ⁴ רב ששת and רבה בר רב הונא (initially) maintain that המקדש חשוחב"ח אינה מקודשת, while רב חסדא maintains that she is מקודשת. ⁵ If we maintain that קידושין of a חשוחב"ח are valid, she is מקודשת לראובן (the first brother) and if it is invalid, she is מקודשת לשמעון (the second brother) since she was already a complete בת חורין when שמעון was מקדש her. ⁶ See the גמרא shortly where there is a dispute regarding a חשוחב"ח who was מקודשת and then she was freed and married someone else. רב יוסף בר חמא maintains that the first קידושין become uprooted (and she is מקודשת לשני), while רב נחמן maintains that the first קידושין are completed (and he remains מקודשת לראשון). However before the שחרור she was certainly מקודשת לראובן, like ר"ח ruled previously.

גמרו קידושי ראשון—The betrothal of the first one is completed

OVERVIEW רב נחמן maintains in the case of a חצי שפחה וחצי בת חורין who was מקודשת and then freed completely that the initial קידושין are now completed and if she received קידושין from someone else it is not effective. תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דאמרינן בפרק קמא דקידושין (דף ז,א) בהמה של שני שותפין – And regarding this which ר' יוחנן stated in the first פרק of מסכת קידושין; ‘a cow which belonged to two partners – הקדיש חציה וחזר ולקחה והקדיש חציה כולי הא לא הקדישה לא גמרי¹ – One partner was מקדיש his half and then went and bought the other half from his partner, and was מקדיש the second half, etc.’ the rule is that it is הקדש (to a degree); ² however if he was not מקדיש**** the second half after he bought it, the initial half הקדש is not completed and extended to the other half automatically**,** by merely purchasing the other half, but he must be מקדיש it – תוספות responds: שאני התם דאפשר שתרעה ויהיו חציה דמיה הקדש וחציה חולין³ – There by a בהמה it is different, for it is possible that she should graze, and half her money will be הקדש and half will be חולין – אבל הכא דאי אפשר שתהא חציה מקודשת דכי יקח איש אשה כתיב⁴ לא חצי אשה – However here where it is impossible that only half of her should be מקודשת, for the תורה writes כי יקח איש אשה, but not a חצי אשה, so the current status cannot remain; therefore – מסתבר למימר או גמרי או פקעי – It is logical to say that either the קידושין are completed or they are uprooted – תוספות anticipates a difficulty: ואף על גב דהתם מדמי למקדש חצי אשה⁵ – And even though the גמרא there in מס' קידושין compared the case of one who was מקדיש half a בהמה to one who is מקדש half a woman – תוספות responds: לא קשה מידי דמייתי שפיר דהיכא דאיכא דעת אחרת לא פשטי בכולה⁶ – There is no difficulty at all; for there he brings a proper proof from מקדיש חציו that wherever there is ‘another mind’ the הקדש/קידושין does not extend to the whole⁷ – תוספות offers a alternate answer to the first question:⁸ אי נמי איכא למימר דבהמה של שני שותפין ששייר בקניינו קצת⁹ – Or it is also possible to say that by a בהמה of two partners, where he left something remaining in his acquiring of this animal for הקדש – שהרי בהמה היתה בת הקדש¹⁰ לפיכך לא גמרי – For the entire animal was capable of becoming הקדש, therefore since there was this שיור, the הקדש does not become complete, even when he bought his partner’s share – אבל הכא חציה שפחה¹¹ לא היתה בכלל קידושין: However here the half שפחה part was never included in the concept of קידושין, therefore it is possible that when she was completely freed, the קידושין expands and becomes complete.

SUMMARY The difference between חשוחב"ח (where the קידושין may expand) and בהמה של ב' שותפין (where it does not) is that a בהמה can be both half הקדש and half חולין, but a woman cannot be half מקודשת, or by a בהמה he was שייר, but not by the חשוחב"ח.

THINKING IT OVER Is the question (and answer) of 'ואע"ג וכו' לחצי אשה' on the first answer of תוספות only,¹² or is it on the א"נ as well?

footnotes: ¹ Why is there this difference that here we say that initially she was halfway מקודשת (since she is still a חצי שפחה), and when she is freed the קידושין extends automatically to her second half, without any additional action; however there by the בהמה when he bought the second half and it no longer belongs to his partner (rather it belongs to him) we do not say that the קדושה of the first half extends automatically to the second half, but rather he is required to make a new הקדש. ² It cannot be brought as a קרבן (since initially when he was מקדיש half, it was not fit to be brought as a קרבן). ³ When he bought the second half; we can say half the animal is הקדש and the other half is חולין; we will let it graze (until it receives a מום) and sell it so that half the money is הקדש and the other half he gets to keep for himself. If he is not מקדיש the second half we have an option of how to deal with this בהמה. ⁴ דברים (תצא) כד,א. ⁵ See following footnote # 6. תוספות just finished saying that we cannot compare being מקדיש half a בהמה (since we can divide the value of the בהמה into two parts; one הקדש and the other חולין) to being מקדש a woman (who cannot be half מקודשת), so why does the גמרא there compare קידושי אשה to מקדיש בהמה?! See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ רבא there ruled that if a man said to a woman חצייך מקודשת לי, she is not מקודשת. The גמרא asked, but why do we not say that the קידושין expands to the other half, just like if one is מקדיש half a בהמה we say the entire בהמה becomes הקדש because the קדושה of the first half expands into the second half. The גמרא answered that the two cases are different, by an אשה since she has a mind of her own (דעת אחרת) and since she agreed that merely half of her is מקודשת, we cannot expand it to her other half against her wishes. The גמרא then goes on to say that the case of חצייך מקודשת לי is similar to the case of ר' יוחנן that if there are two partners, when one is מקדיש his half, the קדושה cannot extend to the other half which belongs to his partner, since there is a דעת אחרת which prevents the קדושה from expanding (even if he later purchased the other half, unless he is מקדיש the second half). ⁷ The comparison was only in regard that the קידושין of a חצי אשה cannot extend to the other half, just as the הקדש of one partner cannot extend to the domain of the other partner; in both cases there is a דעת אחרת which prevents the התפשטות of the הקדש/קידושין. However here we are discussing the status of the קידושין after she was completely freed, in this regard we cannot compare it to the בהמה of two partners, since there it is conceivable that the animal be part הקדש and part חולין (moneywise); however a woman cannot be half מקודשת and half not מקודשת. ⁸ See footnote # 2. ⁹ The גמרא stated previously when one is משייר בקידושין (or הקדש); meaning he is not מקדש the total amount of which he is capable of being מקדש, the ensuing קידושין is lacking. ¹⁰ This בהמה was (theoretically) capable of being הקדש לגמרי (if both partners would agree), therefore when one partner was מקדיש only half, it is a weaker הקדש since he was שייר the other half, such a weak הקדש cannot be completed even after this partner owns the other half, for the הקדש was lacking initially. ¹¹ Here by the חשוחב"ח he was מקדש all that is possible to be מקדש (there is no קידושין for the צד שפחות); he was not שייר in the קידושין, therefore when she becomes completely free the strong קידושין (without שיור) can expand to the new צד חירות and complete the קידושין. ¹² See footnote # 5.

אבל אם כתב עליו אונו זהו שחרורו—But if he wrote a document for him; that is his emancipation

OVERVIEW The ברייתא states that if someone sells his עבד to a נכרי, the עבד is freed but requires a גט שחרור from his Jewish master, unless (according to רשב"ג) the master wrote his אונו, then no other שטר שחרור is required. תוספות reconciles our ברייתא with a seemingly contradictory ruling.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא דאמר אמימר לעיל (דף מ,א) המפקיר עבדו¹ אין לו תקנה – And if you will say; this which אמימר ruled previously, one who frees his slave, that slave has no recourse – דאיסורא דאיכא גביה לא מצי מקני ליה וכאן משמע דיש לו תקנה בשטר – For the איסור interest which the master has in this slave, he cannot grant him; however here it appears that he has recourse by receiving a שטר שחרור (or אונו) – ועל כרחך לא משחרר ליה עד שיברח² – And perforce you must say that he is not freeing him with this אונו until after he escapes – דאי לאלתר חייל השחרור היכי מזבין ליה ומסר ליה לעובד כוכבים להשתעבד בו³ – For if the שחרור is effective immediately (when he wrote the אונו), how can he sell him and deliver him to the נכרי to enslave him?! תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלא דמי למפקיר דעובד כוכבים לא קני ליה אלא למעשה ידיו – And one can say that the case of selling to a נכרי is not similar to one who is מפקיר the עבד, because the נכרי only acquires the עבד for his handiwork – ואכתי פש ליה גבי ישראל ממונא דקני ליה לקנס⁴ ולוולדות⁵ – But there still remains a monetary interest of the ישראל in the עבד regarding the law of קנס and for offspring – ולא הפקיעו ממנו חכמים עד אחר שיכתוב לו גט שחרור: Which the חכמים did not take away from him until after he writes a גט שחרור.

SUMMARY According to אמימר, if the master has no monetary interest in the עבד (when he is מפקיר him) a שטר שחרור will not be effective; nevertheless it is effective by המוכר עבדו לנכרי, since the owner retains the monetary rights of קנס and וולדות.

THINKING IT OVER It is apparent from תוספות that the contradiction to אמימר (who maintains המפקיר עבדו אין לו תקנה) is from the ruling of רשב"ג (regarding כתב עליו אונו);⁶ seemingly the same contradiction is from the חכמים as well, for they too maintain וצריך גט שחרור מרבו ראשון; why ask only from רשב"ג?!¹

footnotes: ¹ The הפקר accomplishes that the master had relinquished (to the עבד) the monetary interest which he had in this עבד. However he still is an עבד to this master in the sense that he is still forbidden from marrying a בת חורין. This interest, which the master has in this עבד is considered an interest of איסור, but not an interest of money. אמימר maintains that this right of איסור cannot be granted to the עבד unless the master also has a monetary interest in the עבד. ² The אונו reads; לכשתברח ממנו אין לי עסק בך. One may argue that the owner means that when you escape from the נכרי, it is considered as אין לי עסק בך retroactively (before I sold you). If that was the intention we can understand why the אונו is effective, since at that time (retroactively) he was a complete עבד (even regarding monetary issues). תוספות however rejects this notion. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ How can he allow the נכרי to enslave him, since he is now (retroactively) a בן חורין and is מחוייב במצות! Therefore we must conclude that the שחרור בשטר becomes effective later after he ran away from the נכרי, but at that point the ישראל had no monetary interest in the עבד, since he sold him to the נכרי. The question is that אמימר ruled that one cannot free a slave with a שטר if he only has an איסור interest in him, but not a ממון interest! ⁴ This means that if an animal killed this עבד (after being sold to the נכרי) the thirty שקלים of קנס will be paid to the ישראל, ⁵ See פורת יוסף, who explains this to mean that the master may give this עבד (even after he was sold to the נכרי) a שפחה כנענית to have children with her, which will belong to the master. These two monetary rights (קנס and וולדות) indicate that the master still retains a monetary interest in the עבד. Therefore he can free him with a שטר (אונו) (as opposed to המפקיר עבדו where he relinquishes totally any monetary interest in the עבד, so a שטר שחרור is not effective [according to אמימר]). ⁶ See footnote # 2. ¹ See מהר"ם, מהרש"א.

הא לגופא—This is for the body

OVERVIEW The ברייתא rules that if a Jew borrowed money from a נכרי and put up his slave as collateral, the slave goes free.¹ The גמרא found a contradictory ברייתא which states that if a נכרי put up his field as collateral for a loan he took from a Jew, that field is פטור from מעשר.² The גמרא answered that both cases are where the loan was not yet due, and the reason for the difference is because one is for the גוף (the body) and the other is for the פירות. There is a dispute between רש"י and תוספות as how to explain this answer.

פירש בקונטרס³ גבי עבד קבע לו זמן שאם לא יפדהו יהא גופו חלוט לעובד כוכבים – רש"י explained that regarding the עבד, the case was that the ישראל set a time limit that if the ישראל will not redeem the עבד (meaning pay up the loan) by this date, the body of the slave will belong completely to the נכרי, moreover – ומעכשיו משתעבד בו וכיון דמזלזל בתקנתא דרבנן⁴ קנסוה אף על גב דלא מטא זימניה – And starting from now (when he is receiving the loan) the נכרי can enslave the עבד (the עבד begins working for the נכרי immediately even before the due date of the loan), so since he was denigrating the enactment of the רבנן, they fined him that the עבד goes free now, even though the due date has not arrived yet – וגבי שדה איירי דקבע ליה זמן לפירי – However by a field we are discussing a case where the ישראל set a time limit for the loan regarding the fruits of the field only, meaning – שאם לא יפדהו עד הזמן יאכל הפירות משם ואילך עד שיפרע – That if the נכרי will not redeem (pay) the loan by the designated time the ישראל will eat the fruits from the designated time onwards until the loan will be paid – הלכך אפילו מטא זימניה אין לו אלא פירות – Therefore since even if the due date arrived the ישראל merely has only the פירות, so therefore before the due date it is obvious that this field still belongs to the נכרי and is therefore פטור from מעשרות. In summation; The terms of the collateral by the עבד is that he starts to work immediately for the נכרי and if the loan is not paid by the due date the גוף of the עבד belongs to the נכרי (therefore even before the due date the חכמים fined him that the עבד goes free as if he sold him). By the field the deal was that if the נכרי does not pay by the due date, the ישראל may eat the פירות until his loan is paid up; therefore if it is לא מטי זימני the field is פטור from מעשר. תוספות asks on פרש"י: ותימה כיון דעד דלא מטא זימניה אין לו פירות מה שייך לומר פטור מן המעשר⁵ – And it is astounding! Since that until the due date the ישראל has no פירות, what does it even mean to say that it is exempt from מעשר?! An additional question on פרש"י: ועוד דהוה ליה למימר אידי ואידי בין מטא זמניה בין לא מטא זמניה⁶ – And furthermore the גמרא should have said that both cases (עבד and שדה) apply whether the due date arrived or not – ומדנקט לא מטא זמניה משמע דלא מתוקמא ההיא דמעשר אלא בלא מטא זמניה – However since the גמרא mentioned לא מטא זמניה, this indicates that the ברייתא of מעשר cannot be established only by לא מטא זמניה; not like רש"י. תוספות offers his explanation: ונראה לפרש הא לגופא הא לפירא כמו הא גופא והא פירא⁷ – And it appears to תוספות that the explanation of הא לגופא הא לפירא means the same as if it were written הא גופא והא פירא – דגבי עבד אף על גב דלא מטא זמניה הגוף בבית העובד כוכבים⁸ ומפקיעו מן המצות – That by an עבד, even though it was לא מטא זמניה, nevertheless his גוף is in the house of the נכרי and it prevents him from observing the מצות (this is the meaning of הא גופא – his body is by the נכרי) ומשום הכי יוצא לחירות⁹ – And therefore he goes out free – אבל בשדה¹⁰ אין לו לישראל אלא פירות¹¹ והשדה ברשות העובד כוכבים ופטור: However by a field the ישראל only has the פירות, but the field is in the possession of the נכרי, therefore he is פטור from מעשר.

SUMMARY According to רש"י the term לגופא means that the עבד can eventually wind up by the נכרי completely and in the meantime he works for him, while לפירות means that eventually the ישראל will only have פירות, but currently he receives nothing. תוספות maintains that in both cases he receives the פירות now but the גוף of the עבד is by the נכרי, while the גוף of the שדה is still by the נכרי.

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות is the reason the עבד goes free now (before מטי זמניה), because he is working for the נכרי now,¹² or because eventually the נכרי may own him completely, or a combination of the two?¹³

footnotes: ¹ It is considered as if he sold the עבד to the נכרי, since if he does not pay him, the נכרי will keep the עבד for the loan. ² It is still considered the field of the נכרי and it is not considered as if the field was sold to the ישראל, even though it was put up as collateral, and may eventually wind up as the field of the ישראל. ³ בד"ה הא. ⁴ The תקנת חכמים is that a ישראל should not sell his slave to a נכרי (since an עבד is מחויב במצות כאשה and he will not be able to fulfill them by the נכרי). This ישראל was מזלזל by offering his slave as collateral so it is possible that the נכרי will own him (the same as selling) and additionally he is allowing the נכרי to enslave him even before the loan is due. ⁵ Before the due date the פירות belong to the נכרי not to the ישראל, so what does it mean that it is פטור from מעשר; obviously the נכרי is not giving מעשר and the ישראל does not have the פירות! ⁶ If the עבד is freed even before מטא זמניה (where he is merely working for the נכרי), he is certainly freed when מטא זימניה (even if the deal was that he did not work for the נכרי before) since by מטא זמניה the נכרי owns the עבד. Similarly by the field he will be פטור from מעשר even if מטא זמניה since the ישראל does not own the field; he only owns the פירות. ⁷ לגופא and לפירא indicate more like פרש"י that the collateral was either for the גוף (by an עבד) or just for the פירות (by the שדה); however תוספות interprets לוגפא ולפירא as if it were written גופא and פירא (without the introductory למ"ד), as תוספות continues to explain. ⁸ תוספות agrees with רש"י that the עבד begins work right away. ⁹ He is violating the intent of the תקנת חכמים not to sell an עבד to a נכרי because he is מפקיע מן המצות, here too he is (temporarily) being מפקיע the עבד מן המצות. See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁰ תוספות disagrees with רש"י regarding the שדה, for the ישראל receives the פירות immediately According to תוספות the cases of עבד and שדה are the same; the lender gets the פירות immediately (both by עבד [he works for the נכרי] and by שדה [the ישראל eats the פירות]). The difference is that by עבד the גוף is physically by the נכרי so it is considered a מכירה but by the שדה the גוף השדה is ברשות הנכרי. ¹¹ However when it is מטא זמניה the field is transferred to the ישראל (to service the debt); in that case he is מחויב במעשר. According to תוספות the case of שדה is only if לא מטא זמניה. ¹² See footnote # 9. ¹³ See נחלת משה.