Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

רב אסי אמר נבעלה — נבעלה maintains that it means רב אסי

OVERVIEW רב אסי maintains that when the משנה states that if ראוה מדברת כו׳, she is not נאמנת according to ר׳ יהושע; the term מדברת means that there were עדים שנבעלה. Otherwise if there are no עדים שנבעלה, only עדים שנסתרה, the woman is נאמנת. It is not clear what is meant by נאמנת if there are עדים שנסתרה. Does it mean she is נאמנת (only) if she claims לא נבעלתי; or is she נאמנת (even) if she claims לכשר נבעלתי? תוספות will address this issue. -------------------–

אבל נסתרה מודה רבי יהושע דנאמנת לומר לכשר נבעלתי במגו דאי בעיא אמרה לא נבעלתי – However if she (merely) secluded herself with this person; there were only עדי סתירה, not עדי בעילה, then ר״י would agree that she is believed to say I was נבעלה to a כשר for she has a מיגו, that she could have said, I was not נבעלה’.¹

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא רבי יהושע לית ליה מגו גבי משארסתני נאנסתי – And if you will say; but ר״י does not utilize a מגו concerning **the case where the woman claims ‘**I was forced after I was betrothed’. In the case² where the woman claims משארסתני נאנסתי and the husband claims עד שלא ארסתיך נאנסת, the ruling according to ר״י is that she is not believed and cannot collect her (full) כתובה. Seemingly she has a מגו there, for she could have claimed מוכת עץ אני.³ It is on the basis of this מגו, that ר״ג ור״א maintain that she is נאמנת and collects her כתובה.⁴ The fact that ר״י disagrees proves that he maintains that a מגו is insufficient, to believe her. Why is it that here ר״י maintains that if she was (only) נסתרה, she is believed to claim לכשר נבעלתי based on the מגו, that she could have claimed לא נבעלתי? Why is this מגו effective and the מגו of מו״ע not effective?!⁵

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם לא הוי מגו גמור דהא אפילו אי אמרה מוכת עץ אני – And one can say that there in the case of משארסתני נאנסתי, the claim of מוכת עץ is not an ideal מגו for even if she claimed that she is a מוכ״ע, nevertheless –

אינה נאמנת לרבי יהושע כדתנן במתניתין⁶ – She is not believed according to ר״י to collect her כתובה as we learnt in the משנה; that ר״י maintains that even if she claims מוכ״ע אני she cannot collect her כתובה.

תוספות anticipates a question; If מוכ״ע is not a believable claim why does the גמרא refer to it as a מיגו?! תוספות responds: ולא קרי ליה מגו אלא לפי שהיא טענה מעולה ביותר⁷: And the claim of מוכ״ע is not called a מגו,like other מגו, where if the מגו claim were used it would be accepted; this is not the case by the claim of מוכ״ע, rather it is called a מגו only because it is a better claim**; but not that it is a believable claim.** The claim of לא נבעלתי however is a believable claim; therefore it is an effective מיגו.

SUMMARY According to ר״י in a case of נסתרה, she is believed to claim לכשר נבעלתי with a מגו of לא נבעלתי. This מגו is a believable claim as opposed to the מגו of מוכ״ע, which is merely a better (but not a [more] believable) claim.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות maintains that according to רב אסי in a case of נסתרה she is believed to claim לכשר נבעלתי.⁸ It is seemingly not clear, from where תוספות derives this.⁹ Perhaps רב אסי merely maintains that by נסתרה, she is believed to claim לא נבעלתי; but not לכשר נבעלתי (because this מיגו is not effective)?
2. תוספות asks what is the difference between the מגו of מוכ״ע אני and the מגו of לא נבעלתי.¹⁰ Seemingly there is a distinct difference; the מגו of מוכ״ע אני is being used to extract money from the בעל, therefore ר״י maintains that a מגו להוציא לא אמרינן. However the מגו of לא נבעלתי is concerning (only) איסור (לכהונה), therefore ר״י maintains that it is an effective מיגו.¹¹
3. תוספות maintains that the claim of מוכ״ע is not a believable claim (according to ר״י) and the reason the גמרא refers to it as a מיגו is because it is a טענה מעולה ביותר.¹² Seemingly when the גמרא refers to מוכ״ע as a מיגו,¹³ it is discussing the opinions of ר״ג ור״א. However, they maintain that מוכ״ע is believed!¹⁴ תוספות should have (merely) said that according to ר״י the מוכ״ע claim is not believable.

footnotes: ¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² משנה יב,ב. ³ תוספות will shortly explain what the מגו is. ⁴ See גמרא on דף טז,א and רש״י יב,ב ד״ה אלא. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁶ דף יג,א, in the first משנה. ⁷ See רש״י יב,ב ד״ה אלא, that when a woman claims משארסתני נאנסתי she becomes פסולה לכהונה; however if she claims מוכ״ע אני, then she remains כשרה לכהונה. A כהן is אסור to marry an אנוסה (באיסור), but not a מוכ״ע. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁸ See footnote # 1. ⁹ See מהרש״א. ¹⁰ See footnote # 5. ¹¹ See מהר״ם שי״ף, רש״ש and סוכ״ד אות כ״ד. ¹² See footnote # 7. ¹³ דף טז,א. ¹⁴ משנה (הא׳) יג,א.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

חדא להכשיר בה וחדא להכשיר בבתה — One case to approve her and one case to approve her daughter (to marry כהנים).

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked that according to רב אסי who maintains that ראוה מדברת means שנבעלה, then seemingly the case of ראוה מדברת is the same as ראוה מעוברת, in both cases we know she was נבעלה, why is it necessary to mention both cases. The גמרא answers that it is necessary to mention both cases to teach us that not only is the woman herself כשרה (according to ר״ג ור״א) but even her daughter (who has no¹חזקת כשרות) is also כשרה לכהונה. The obvious question is; the משנה could have just taught us that (even) the daughter is כשרה (in the case of ראוה מעוברת),² and I would know that the mother (who has a חזקת כשרות) is certainly כשרה. Our תוספות answers this question. --------------------–

וצריכי תרווייהו חדא להודיעך כחו דרבן גמליאל וחדא להודיעך כחו דרבי יהושע – And it is necessary to inform us of both these cases; the case where we are concerned about her status as well as the case where we are discussing the daughter’s status; one case of ראוה מעוברת, concerning her daughter, is necessary to let us know the ‘strength’ of ר״ג; that even though the daughter has no חזקת כשרות, nevertheless the mother is believed, and the daughter is כשרה לכהונה and one case of ראוה מדברת, concerning her, is necessary to let us know the ‘strength’ of ר״י; that even though she has a חזקת כשרות, nevertheless she is not believed and is פסולה לכהונה.

SUMMARY The רישא of ראוה מדברת (נבעלה) teaches us that even the mother is פסולה לכהונה (according to ר״י); and the סיפא of ראוה מעוברת teaches us that even the daughter is כשרה לכהונה (according to ר״ג ור״א).

THINKING IT OVER According to תוספות explanation, the גמרא should have answered חדא להודיעך כחו דר״ג וחדא להודיעך כחו דר״י; why does the גמרא answer חדא להכשיר בה וחדא להכשיר בבתה?!³

footnotes: ¹ The mother has a חזקת כשרות, because before this incident she was כשרה לכהונה. The daughter however is born under the suspicion that her father may have been a נתין וממזר, which disqualifies her לכהונה. ² The משנה does not actually state that the daughter is כשרה; it merely states that by ראוה מעוברת she is נאמנת. However תוספות maintains that the term מעוברת and (especially) the phrase מה טיבו של עובר זה, indicates that we are discussing the status of the עובר (the daughter). See מהרש״א. See following תוספות ד״ה לדברי. ³ עי׳ (בש״מ ו]בסוכ״ד אות כה.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

לדברי המכשיר בה פוסל בבתה — According to the opinion that approves her, nevertheless he disqualifies her daughter from marrying into כהונה.

OVERVIEW The גמרא mentions that there is an opinion that even ר״ג ור״א are מכשיר only the mother; however the daughter is always פסולה לכהונה. The question arises; if the daughter is פסולה לכהונה why mention מעוברת (which indicates we are discussing the¹עובר) at all? The משנה should have merely said ראוה שנבעלה. Our תוספות will resolve this issue. -----------------------–

ומעוברת דנקט משום לישנא מעליא: And the reason the משנה states the term מעוברת**, when it is not relevant; since the עובר or daughter is פסולה לכהונה according to everyone (even ר״ג ור״א), the משנה should have merely said ראוה שנבעלה. תוספות answers** because the משנה wanted to use a superior expression; therefore it chose מעוברת, which is more refined, rather than נבעלה. However the משנה (according to this מ״ד) is only discussing the status of the mother. The עובר is פסולה לכהונה לכו״ע.

SUMMARY The term מעוברת is used in the משנה (according to the מ״ד that פוסל בבתה) only as a לישנא מעליא; however we are not discussing the עובר in the משנה.

THINKING IT OVER Can רב אסי agree that מעוברת דנקט is משום לישנא מעליא?

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד״ה חדא footnote # 2.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ואין אוסרין על היחוד לימא דלא כרבי יהושע — And we do not prohibit a woman on account of seclusion; should we say that this ruling is not according to ר״י.

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites the opinion of רב; if a married woman secludes herself with a stranger, she is permitted to return to her husband.¹ We do not assume that she was נבעלה [ברצון] (which would have prohibited her from returning to her husband). We derive from the ruling of רב that a יחוד does not presume a ביאה. The גמרא claims that this ruling is incompatible with the ruling of ר״י according to זעירי who maintains that מדברת means (only) נסתרה – יחוד, and not נבעלה. In this case of יחוד it is the opinion of ר״י that an unmarried woman becomes אסורה לכהונה because we assume that נבעלה (לנתין ולממזר). It is apparent that ר״י maintains that by a יחוד there is a presumption of ביאה; not like רב.²

תוספות asks: תימה לרבי שמשון בן אברהם דלזעירי (נמי) דאמר נסתרה – The רשב״א is perplexedby the sגמרא׳ assumption that the דין of אין אוסרין על היחוד is incompatible with the view of ר״י according to זעירי, for (even) according to זעירי who maintains that מדברת means נסתרה; there were no עדים שנבעלה, nevertheless the משנה –

איירי כגון דמודה היא שנבעלה – is discussing a case where for instance she admits that she was נבעלה (as תוספות will immediately prove). Therefore there is no comparison to the דין of רב. רב maintains that אין אוסרין על היחוד, in a case where (the [married] woman maintains that) there was no ביאה, merely יחוד; and זעירי will agree (even according to ר״י) that אין אוסרין על היחוד. The משנה is discussing a case where the (unmarried) woman claims לכשר נבעלתי; it is (only) then that ר״י maintains that she is not believed.³ The משנה is not discussing a case of יחוד, but rather a case of ביאה.

תוספות will now prove that (even according to זעירי) when ר״י states הרי זו בחזקת בעולה וכו׳, it is only in a case where she claims לכשר נבעלתי, but not in a case where she claims לא נבעלתי: דאי אמרה לא נבעלתי אם כן הוי ספק ספיקא –⁴ For if she claimed לא נבעלתי,she would be believed for then, this claim of לא נבעלתי makes it a doubt within a doubt; one doubt is if she was נבעלה at all (then she is certainly כשרה לכהונה), and even if she was נבעלה, there still remains a doubt that perhaps she was נבעלה to a כשר (and she is still כשרה לכהונה). In the case of a ספק ספיקא we know –

דמכשיר רבי יהושע כדאמר לקמן⁵ התם ספק ספיקא – that ר״י would approve her marrying into כהונה as the גמרא states later ‘there it is a ספק ספיקא’ and therefore ר״י is מכשיר. It is evident from that גמרא that in the case of נסתרה the woman claims נבעלתי לכשר (otherwise it would be a ספק ספיקא and she would be כשרה). The question remains; there is no contradiction between ר״י and רב. רב maintains אין אוסרין על היחוד in a case of יחוד only. However ר״י is discussing a case where we know there was ביאה, by her admission that נבעלתי (לכשר). It is not merely a case of יחוד.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דלעולם איירי דקאמרה לא נבעלה⁶ – And one can say that really the משנה is discussing a case where she claims that she was not נבעלה, and the reason she is not believed (according to ר״י) even though it is (seemingly) a ספק ספיקא is because –

וחשיב ליה חדא ספיקא דאין אפוטרופוס לעריות – It is considered as one ספק**; not a ספק ספיקא. It is assumed that she was נבעלה. The only ספק is if it was לכשר or לנתין ולממזר. The reason we consider her as נבעלה is** for there is no ‘guardianin regards to illicit relationships’; we assume that if she was נסתרה, there was a ביאה. The only ספק is if it was לכשר or לנתין ולממזר. The contradiction between רב and ר״י is now apparent; רב maintains that אין אוסרין על היחוד, that יחוד does not presume ביאה. However ר״י maintains that if she was נסתרה it is assumed that she was also נבעלה.

תוספות has a difficulty with this explanation: אבל קשה דבהדיא משמע בריש פרק שני (לקמן טז,א) דאיירי בנבעלת – However there is a difficulty for it is clearly indicated in the beginning of the second פרק that according to זעירי the משנה is discussing a case where it is known (through her admission) that she was נבעלה –

דקאמר⁷ הניחא לזעירי דאמר מאי מדברת נסתרה – For the גמרא there states: ‘according to זעירי it is understoodthat there is a מיגו (issue) for זעירי maintains that the meaning of מדברת is נסתרה; therefore there is a מיגו in the case of מדברת –

דמגו דאי בעיא אמרה לא נבעלתי מהימנא⁸ כולי – For ‘since’ if she would have claimed, ‘I was not נבעלה she would have been believed, etc.; therefore she is believed when she claims לכשר נבעלתי. It is evident from that גמרא that in the case of מדברת she is claiming לכשר נבעלתי, and not לא נבעלתי. If she would have claimed לא נבעלתי she would be נאמנת. The original question of תוספות returns. There is no contradiction between רב (who is discussing a case of יחוד) and the case of ר״י where there was ביאה; as the woman claims נבעלתי (לכשר).

תוספות answers: לכך נראה דפריך לזעירי דבספיקא חדא אסרינן לה – Therefore it seems that the challenge of the גמרא is that according to זעירי, ר״י forbids her to marry into כהונה (even) onthe basis of one ספק (whether she was נבעלה to a כשר or to a נתין וממזר); this is incompatible with רב –

והא יחוד דאשת איש דספיקא חדא היא ואין אוסרין על היחוד – For the יחוד of an אשת איש with a stranger, which is also (only) one ספק;whether or not there was ביאה, and we do not forbid her to her husband because of the יחוד. The contradiction between רב and ר״י is that ר״י invokes an איסור on the basis of a ספק; while רב invokes no איסור on the basis of a ספק.⁹

תוספות remains somewhat dissatisfied with this answer: וקצת קשה דלכאורה נראה דיחוד איחוד פריך – And it is somewhat difficult to accept this interpretation for it seemingly appears from the גמרא (as תוספות will shortly prove) that the challenge was from one case of יחוד on another case of יחוד; from the case of יחוד by רב (where אין אוסרין וכו׳) to the case of יחוד by זעירי (of ראוה מדברת) where ר״י is אוסר על היחוד. However, since we have proven that (even) in the case of נסתרה she is claiming (לכשר) נבעלתי; it is not a situation of (merely) יחוד by זעירי, but rather a case of a ספק to whom she was נבעלה.

תוספות will now explain why it is assumed that the גמרא asked מיחוד איחוד and not מספק אספק. מדפריך לזעירי ולא לרב אסי: since the גמרא challenges (only) זעירי and not רב אסי. If the question is מספק אספק (as תוספות [reluctantly] concluded), then the same question could be asked according to רב אסי. According to רב אסי, in a case where ראוה שנבעלה and there is a ספק as to whom, ר״י maintains that she is אסורה מספק. This would seemingly contradict the statement of רב that אין אוסרין על היחוד; that we are not אוסר on the basis of a ספק. The same question that is asked on זעירי can be asked on רב אסי, if the question is מספק אספק. If, however, the question would be מיחוד איחוד, then it is understood that the question cannot be on רב אסי, because רב אסי maintains that מדברת means נבעלה, which is certainly not יחוד. The question would be only on זעירי who interprets מדברת to mean נסתרה. It could have meant (only) יחוד, were it not for the גמרא in פרק שני which indicates that she is claiming לכשר נבעלתי and not לא נבעלתי.

SUMMARY Originally תוספות assumes that (according to זעירי) in the case of ראוה מדברת, the woman claims לא נבעלתי. The conclusion (based on the second פרק) is that she claims לכשר נבעלתי. תוספות concludes that the contradiction between ר״י (according to זעירי) and רב is in regards how to deal with a ספק (איסור). רב maintains אין אוסרין על היחוד, that a ספק (ביאה) is מותר, while ר״י maintains that a ספק ביאה לנתין ולממזר is אסורה. It is not clear why the same question does not apply to (ר״י according to) רב אסי.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Is there any difference whether we are גורס like תוספות that ׳דאי אמרה לא נבעלתי מהימנא׳; or as our גירסא, which is, that כי אמרה (לכשר) נבעלתי מהימנא?¹⁰
2. Originally תוספות maintained that she is claiming לא נבעלתי.¹¹ How can we reconcile this with our משנה, where she states ׳איש פלוני וכהן הוא׳; she does not say לא נבעלתי?!¹²
3. In the הוה אמינא of תוספות that the question (on זעירי) was יחוד איחוד; why indeed did not the גמרא ask a similar question of ספק אספק (even) according to רב אסי?¹³
4. Initially תוספות assumed that she must be saying לכשר נבעלתי, for if she claimed לא נבעלתי she would be מותר, since it is a ספק ספיקא.¹⁴ However if she is believed to claim לא נבעלתי then she should also be believed that לכשר נבעלתי for she has a מגו to claim לא נבעלתי!¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ See following תוספות ד״ה מעלה, that רב is discussing a case of an אשת איש. ² The contradiction is (even) somewhat magnified. ר״י maintains that not only is there a presumption of ביאה by יחוד, but also a presumption of נבעלה לנתין ולממזר. ³ תוספות maintains (originally) that the contradiction between רב and ר״י is concerning יחוד. תוספות does not want to interpret that the contradiction is concerning how we rule by a ספק; that רב is lenient by a ספק (יחוד) and ר״י is strict by a ספק (ביאה). תוספות asserts later that there is a difficulty in assuming that this is the contradiction. One reason may be that we cannot compare the ספק of ביאה by יחוד to the ספק of נתין וממזר by a ודאי ביאה. It should be borne in mind however, that in either case there is only one ספק. If there was ביאה in the case of רב (no matter with whom) she is אסורה לבעלה. See later in this תוספות (footnote # 9) and ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 4. ⁵ דף יד,א. The גמרא there cites an opinion of ר״י in another משנה (concerning אלמנת עיסה) which (seemingly) contradicts his opinion in our משנה that the woman is אינה נאמנת. The גמרא resolves the contradiction by stating that אלמנת עיסה is a ספק ספיקא and therefore even ר״י agrees that she is מותרת. The case of אלמנת עיסה is discussed at length in the גמרא [and תוספות] there. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁷ The גמרא there maintains that ר״י admits to ר״ג ור״א that a certain type of מגו (which is mentioned in פרק ב׳) is effective; but not the type of מגו that ר״ג ור״א maintain in the first פרק. The גמרא then attempts to discern where there is an effective מגו in the first פרק (according to ר״ג ור״א). The גמרא concludes that according to זעירי, there is an effective מגו in the case of ראוה מדברת. ⁸ In our text the גירסא is: ׳מגו דאי בעי אמרה לא נבעלתי וקאמרה נבעלתי מהימנא׳. The word ׳מהימנא׳ is written adjacent to וקאמרה נבעלתי and not as in תוספות גירסא, near the words לא נבעלתי. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁹ In this answer תוספות disregards any differences between the types of ספיקות. See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See footnote # 8. See רש״ש. ¹¹ See footnote # 6. ¹² See אילת השחר. ¹³ See footnote # 3. ¹⁴ See footnote # 4. ¹⁵ See פנ״י.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מעלה עשו ביוחסין — They set higher standards in regards to Kohannic lineage

OVERVIEW The גמרא asked that the ruling of רב (that אין אוסרין על היחוד) contradicts the ruling of ר׳ יהושע (according to זעירי) that אינה נאמנת. The גמרא answered that there is no contradiction. The ruling of ר״י is concerning (a subsequent) marriage to כהונה, therefore she is אינה נאמנת, since מעלה עשו ביוחסין; however the ruling of רב is not concerning marriage to כהונה. It follows therefore that the leniency of רב is concerning an אשת איש. An אשת איש who was מתייחד is not אסורה לבעלה,¹ because יחוד does not presume ביאה. It is not conceivable that רב is discussing a פנויה, for even if a פנויה was נבעלה, the only possible (subsequent) איסור is to a כהן;² and we just concluded that רב is not discussing איסור כהונה. The complete statement of רב (as cited in our גמרא) is מלקין על היחוד ואין אוסרין על היחוד. The apparent understanding is that these two ruling are discussing the same case; if there was a יחוד, בי״ד will give מלקות (for this act of פריצות); however there will be no subsequent איסור ramifications. תוספות will ask that it seems from another גמרא that these two rulings are discussing different cases, which seems illogical. ---------------–

תוספות asks: תימה דמשמע דאין אוסרין על היחוד איירי באשת איש ולא בפנויה – It is astounding! For this answer of ׳מעלה עשו ביוחסין׳, indicates that the ruling of ׳אין אוסרין על היחוד׳ is discussing a case of a married woman and it is not discussing a case of an unmarried woman. The גמרא reconciles the rulings of רב and ר״י; that the reason ר״י is strict is because in his case there are ramification for marrying into כהונה (and by כהונה we are more strict, since מעלה עשו ביוחסין); however in the case of רב, there are no such ramifications (therefore רב is lenient). This answer is valid if רב is discussing the יחוד of an אשת איש and the (only) concern is whether she is permitted to return to her husband. However, if רב is discussing the יחוד of a פנויה, then the concern whether there was ביאה or not, is (also only) in reference to whether she may marry a כהן. This is precisely the same concern as in the case of ר״י! In fact it is (almost³) the exact same case! Why is ר״י strict and רב lenient!? We must therefore conclude that אין אוסרין על היחוד is discussing an אשת איש. However there is a difficulty with this –

ובסוף קידושין (דף פא,א ושם) מוקי מלקין על היחוד דוקא בפנויה – For in the end of מסכת קידושין, רב אשי there establishes that the ruling of ׳מלקין על היחוד׳ is only specifically in the case of a פנויה –

אבל באשת איש לא דאתה מוציא לעז על בניה⁴ – However if there was יחוד by an אשת איש**, there is no מלקות; the reason is as the גמרא there states** for you will be spreading (false) rumors about her children. The question is since the opening ruling of רב that מלקין על היחוד, is discussing a פנויה and not an אשת איש, it would seem obvious that the ruling immediately following, of ואין אוסרין על היחוד is a continuation of the former ruling and is also discussing a פנויה and not an אשת איש. However our גמרא indicates that אין אוסרין על היחוד is discussing only an אשת איש and not a פנויה!

תוספות anticipates a possible (partial) solution to this question and rejects it: ואפילו למר זוטרא דמלקין ומכריז באשת איש – And (the question stands) even according to מר זוטרא who disagrees with רב אשי and maintains that even by an אשת איש we are מלקין for יחוד, andin order to prevent הוצאת לעז על בניה, we announce that we only know that there was יחוד (not ביאה). Seemingly according to מר זוטרא, there is no difficulty; since מלקין על היחוד refers to an אשת איש, so does אין אוסרין על היחוד refer to an אשת איש. This is seemingly in agreement with the תירוץ of the גמרא. Nevertheless תוספות rejects the solution (even) according to מר זוטרא; for even מר זוטרא –

מודה דבפנויה נמי איירי – agrees that the ruling of מלקין על היחוד is also discussing the case of a פנויה as well as an אשת איש.⁵ He is only adding to רב אשי, that not only does מלקין על היחוד apply to a פנויה it can even apply to an אשת איש. It should therefore follow, that the סיפא of the ruling ואין אוסרין על היחוד is also discussing a פנויה (as well as an אשת איש), just like מלקין על היחוד. The question remains: if אין אוסרין על היחוד is referring to a פנויה (also), then the only concern by a פנויה is whether she remains מותר לכהונה; if we maintain מעלה עשו ביוחסין for ר״י, it should apply to the case of רב as well.

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דאף על גב דמלקין על היחוד איירי בפנויה – And the ר״ת says that even though that the ruling of מלקין על היחוד is (certainly) discussing the case of a פנויה,however the ruling of –

אין אוסרין על היחוד לא איירי אלא באשת איש – ׳אין אוסרין על היחוד׳ is not discussing the case of a פנויה (according to זעירי) but rather it is discussing a case of an אשת איש. It is the view of the ר״ת that on account of the difficulty of תוספות question, we are forced to split the two rulings of רב. The first ruling of מלקין על היחוד is definitely concerning a פנויה (and also an אשת איש according to מר זוטרא); however the second ruling of ואין אוסרין על היחוד is only concerning an אשת איש. However by a יחוד of a פנויה the ruling, according to ר״י (according to זעירי), would be that she is אסורה לכהונה.⁶

תוספות has an additional question: ואם תאמר והא אמרינן בפרק בתרא דנדרים (דף צא,ב) – And if you will say; that we have learnt in the last פרק of מסכת נדרים –

גבי ההיא נואף⁷ דעייל לגבה דההיא איתתא – concerning this adulterer who entered the house of this woman –

אמר ליה נואף לא תיכול מינהון דטעמינהו חויא – The נואף said to the husband do not eat from those foods for a snake tasted them and poisoned them. The husband then asked if he is permitted to live with his wife, since the נואף may have had relations with her –

אמר רבא איתתא שריא אם איתא דעבד איסורא ניחא ליה דלימות –

רבא ruled that the woman is permitted to be with her husband. רבא gave a reason for his ruling, for if it happened that he transgressed with the woman he would have preferred that the husband die; he would not have prevented him from eating the poisonous fruit. This proves that there was no ביאה. משמע דאי לאו האי טעמא היתה נאסרת על ידי יחוד – It seems from the fact that רבא required a reason to permit the woman to her husband that if there was no such reason she would be אסורהלבעלה, just through the יחוד alone. This contradicts what has been said up to now that אין אוסרין על היחוד refers specifically to an אשת איש. There is no need for any additional proofs to permit the husband and wife to remain together.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דנואף שאני – And one can say that by a נואף it is different. There is more suspicion by a נואף than by a יחוד with a ‘regular’ person. Therefore רבא required additional proof that there was no ביאה.

תוספות offers a different interpretation: והרב רב יוסף דשליטן תירץ דאין אוסרים על היחוד איירי בפנויה כמו מלקין על היחוד – And ר׳ יוסף דשליטן answered תוספות original question that the ruling of אין אוסרין על היחוד is concerning a פנויה just like the ruling of מלקין על היחוד is concerning a פנויה. This interpretation removes תוספות original question; how is it possible that מלקין על היחוד is discussing a פנויה and אין אוסרין על היחוד is concerning an אשת איש. According to ר״י דשליטן, they are both concerning a פנויה.⁸ However there still remains the question, that if אין אוסרין על היחוד is concerning a פנויה why is this any different than the case of ר״י where מעלה עשו ביוחסין.

תוספות explains that the ruling of אין אוסרין על היחוד –

ולא איירי לכהונה אלא אין אוסרין אותה לבנו כשתתיחד עם אביו – And we are not discussing her eligibility to marry into כהונה; for she is indeed אסורה לכהונה since מעלה עשו ביוחסין but rather the ruling of רב that אין אוסרין על היחוד teaches us that we do not prohibit her from marrying his son when she was מתייחד with the father. If she was מתייחד with יעקב, she may marry ראובן the son of יעקב, for we do not assume that there was ביאה. This rule is necessary (specifically) –

לרבי יהודה דאסר באנוסת אביו (יבמות צז,א): according to ר״י who prohibits the relationship of a person with a woman who was (even merely) forced by his father. One may not marry his father’s wife (מדאורייתא) if they were legally married. However if a father had a forced relationship with a woman; there is no איסור for the father’s son (from a different marriage) to later marry her, since she is not the father’s wife. ר״י however maintains that there is an איסור מדאורייתא even by אנוסת אביו. רב is teaching us that if there was merely יחוד with the father, the son may marry this woman (who was מתייחד with his father). We do not assume that there was any ביאה, just יחוד.⁹

SUMMARY The ruling of מלקין על היחוד is concerning a פנויה (and an אשת איש according to מר זוטרא); however the ruling of אין אוסרין על היחוד is concerning only an אשת איש להתירה לבעלה. A אשה that was מתייחד with a נואף would need additional proof להתירה לבעלה. הר״ר יוסף משליטן maintains that אין אוסרין על היחוד is to permit a son to marry a woman who was מתייחד with his father [(even) according to ר׳ יהודה].

THINKING IT OVER תוספות assumes that מר זוטרא agrees that מלקין על היחוד refers to a פנויה (as well as to an אשת איש).¹⁰ Why does תוספות assume this? Perhaps מר זוטרא maintains that מלקין על היחוד refers only to an אשת איש?!

footnotes: ¹ An אשת איש that was מזנה ברצון is אסורה לבעלה מן התורה. ² There is no איסור in marrying a woman who was נבעלה (even outside of marriage). Even a כהן may marry a בעולה provided that she was not נבעלה to a נתין וממזר וכיו״ב. ³ In the case of ר״י she admits that נבעלתי (לכשר); in the case of רב she claims לא נבעלתי. See תוספות ישנים. ⁴ If an אשת איש who was מתיחד with a stranger would receive מלקות, it would be perceived that she was מזנה. If it is assumed that she was מזנה, then any (ensuing) children will be looked on as פסולים. They are either from the בועל (in which case they are ממזרים מה״ת) or (even) from her husband (in which case they are בני חייבי לאווין, for she is forbidden to her husband). ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ The reason why by a יחוד of a פנויה she is אסורה לכהונה (for we assume there was ביאה [לנתין ולממזר]), and by a יחוד of an אשת איש she is מותרת לבעלה (we assume there was no ביאה), is (the answer of our גמרא) that מעלה עשו ביוחסין. In reality we assume there was no ביאה by a יחוד; however we will not allow her to marry a כהן, since מעלה עשו ביוחסין. The simple explanation is that the פנויה can marry anyone else (besides a כהן); the אשת איש however will become אסורה לבעלה. We do not wish to do this, since it is based only on a ספק. ⁷ The גמרא there relates that when he was (hiding) in the house he noticed that a poisonous snake ate some of the food in the house. When the נואף realized that the husband returned home the נואף appeared. ⁸ As far as the question from נדרים is concerned, the answer will be the same, that נואף שאני. ⁹ In this case there is no מעלה עשו ביוחסין, since we are not dealing with a כהן (see [however] footnote # 6). ¹⁰ See footnote # 5.