Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

חדא דקא מודה — Firstly he admitted

OVERVIEW¹ רב יוסף maintains that the ולד of the ארוסה is כשר if he is מודה that they had relations. This תוספות reconciles our גמרא with the סוגיא in יבמות. -----------------------– וללישנא קמא דיבמות – And according to the first opinion in מסכת יבמות; which maintains that the מחלוקת between רב ושמאול is in a case of הבא על ארוסתו; it is known that the ארוס וארוסה had a relationship; where רב maintains הולד ממזר and שמואל maintains הולד שתוקי. It is difficult therefore to understand why רב יוסף maintains that since the ארוס was מודה (which is seemingly the same as הבא על ארוסתו), therefore the ולד is כשר. ² תוספות explains that our סוגיא is discussing a case – דלא דיימא מעלמא – where she is not generally promiscuous. This will explain why רב ושמואל who maintain there (where she is דיימא מעלמא³), that the child is either a ממזר or a שתוקי, can agree that here the child is כשר, since we are discussing a case of לא דיימא מעלמא. ולאיכא דאמרי – And according to the alternate opinion in יבמות which maintains that the מחלוקת between רב ושמואל is in a case of ארוסה שנתעברה (where we do not know that the ארוס וארוסה had relations), then we can say that our case is – דאפילו דיימא מעלמא כיון דקא מודה בתריה דידיה שדינן ליה – even when the ארוסה is דיימא מעלמא, since in our case the ארוס admits to having (continuous) relations with the ארוסה, we ‘cast’ the child after the ארוס; we assume that it is his child, since he was מודה; as opposed to the גמרא in יבמות where we do not know whether they had relations, therefore רב ושמואל maintain that the child is a ממזר ושתוקי respectively.

SUMMARY If the מחלוקת between רב ושמואל is by הבא על ארוסתו, then we have to say that the מחלוקת is in a case of דיימא מעלמא and our סוגיא is in a case where לא דיימא מעלמא. However if the מחלוקת is by ארוסה שנתעברה, then we can maintain our case even by דיימא מעלמא, since the ארוס is מודה. ⁴

THINKING IT OVER Is there an advantage of establishing that our סוגיא is discussing a case of לא דיימא⁵ as opposed to establishing that our סוגיא is discussing a case of ביאות הרבה?⁶ This chart illustrates the two לשונות in מסכת יבמות according to אביי ורבא and how it is reconciled with our סוגיא according to תוספות ד״ה ההוא וד״ה חדא.

footnotes: ¹ See (‘Overview’ to) previous תוספות ד״ה ההוא. ² See רש״ש, who points out that this question was already answered (differently) in the end of the previous תוספות ד״ה ההוא. In our גמרא the ארוס claimed to have a continuous relationship with the ארוסה; as opposed to יבמות where it occurred only once. See footnotes # 3 & 4. ³ This explanation is valid only according to רבא, there. However according to אביי, who maintains that the מחלוקת there is even if לא דיימא מעלמא, תוספות will have to resort to the answer given at the end of the previous תוספות. See previous footnote # 2. ⁴ It seems that our תוספות is the conclusion of the previous תוספות ד״ה ההוא. The end of the previous תוספות reconciled our סוגיא with the מחלוקת of רב ושמואל according to אביי (by לא דיימא מעלמא). This was accomplished by assuming that here the ארוס was continually with the ארוסה, while in יבמות there was only one known relationship. According to רבא however, there is no need to make this distinction. In fact רב יוסף merely stated ׳חדא דקא מודה׳. He did not seem to indicate that the ולד is כשר because of their continuous relationship. Rather the הודאה of even one ביאה is sufficient. תוספות makes different distinctions; either that here we are discussing a case of לא דיימא מעלמא, or that here there was a הודאה; as opposed to the גמרא in יבמות where it was either דיימא מעלמא or there was no הודאה. ⁵ This is the answer our תוספות offers. ⁶ This is the answer of the previous תוספות ד״ה ההוא.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

חדא דקא מודה — Firstly, for he admitted

OVERVIEW The גמרא is discussing a case of an ארוסה who was pregnant. רב יוסף ruled that there is no concern; firstly because the ארוס was מודה and furthermore because she is believed to claim לכשר נבעלתי. It is not clear whether the issue is the child; if he is כשר or a (ספק) ממזר, or if the issue is the ארוס וארוסה; if they are permitted to rejoin with each other, since she is a ספק אשת איש שזינתה. It is also not clear what is the meaning of ׳ועוד׳ ‘and furthermore’. Does it mean even if he is not מודה, or does it mean even if his מודה is ineffective. תוספות will be discussing these issues. --------------–

מצינן לפרש דאיירי לענין לאוסרה על הארוס¹ – It is possible for us to explain that we discussing whether the ארוסה is forbidden to marry the ארוס. The issue here is since the ארוסה had a child; therefore it is possible that someone other than the ארוס fathered the child. If that were the case then the ארוסה would be אסורה to the ארוס. She is a married woman who committed adultery and is therefore forbidden to return to her husband (as well as to the adulterer). רב יוסף however ruled that there is no concern and she may return to her ארוס husband. והכי פירושו חדא דקא מודה הלכך אינה נאסרת עליו ועוד הא רב יהודה כולי – And this is the explanation of the ruling; firstly, she is permitted to return to the ארוס for he**** admits that he had relations with her and he is the father of the child (and no other), therefore she is not forbidden to the ארוס; we believe him and assume that she had no relations with anyone else, and furthermore רב יהודהstated, etc. that she is independently believed.

תוספות will now explain what is meant by ׳ועוד׳, ‘and furthermore’² –

לא קאמר ועוד אפילו לא מודה – The meaning of ׳ועוד׳ is notto be understood, that even if the ארוס was not מודה, she is still permitted to him. This is not so –

דאם אינו מודה פשיטא דנאסרת עליו – For if the ארוס is not מודה that he had relations with her, and she is with child, then it is obvious that she is prohibited to him. He is not מודה that he fathered the child; obviously someone else did. This makes her (certainly from the perspective of the ארוס) an adulteress, an אשת איש שזינתה, who is אסורה לבעלה, since שוויה אנפשיה חתיכא דאיסורא. אלא כלומר³ אפילו ליכא טעמא דמודה – But rather we are to understand the ׳ועוד׳⁴ as if it was stated, even if the reason of מודה is not effective; it is not sufficient cause to permit her to rejoin the ארוס –

תוספות continues to explain why ׳מודה׳ may not be sufficient cause to believe him –

כגון לאביי דסוף פרק אלמנה מדאפקרה נפשה לגבי ארוס מפקרה נפשה נמי לגבי עלמא – for instance according to אביי mentioned in the end of פרק אלמנה,⁵who maintains (according to רב) that even if we know that the ארוס וארוסה had relations the child is still a ממזר, for since she was wanton with the ארוס, she was also wanton with anyone else and the child is a ממזר. Similarly מודה itself would not be a sufficient cause to permit her to the ארוס⁶ –

אפילו הכי אינה נאסרת עליו משום דנאמנת כרבן גמליאל כן פירש לנו רבינו יצחק – Nevertheless she is not forbidden to the ארוס because she is believed that she had relations exclusively with the ארוס; as ר״ג maintains that a woman is believed to claim לכשר נבעלתי. This is how we could have interpreted the גמרא, and this is how the ר״י actually explained this גמרא to us.

In Summation; the פי׳ ר״י is that ׳ועוד׳ means even if we agree with אביי (אליבא דרב) that the admission of the ארוס (that he had relations with the ארוסה) in insufficient (for מדאפקרה וכו׳), nevertheless, since she also maintains that she had relations only with the ארוס she will be believed since the הלכה is like ר״ג. It would then turn out that if the woman maintains she was not מזנה, she is believed even according to אביי (אליבא דרב). (See footnote # 7.)

תוספות takes issue with the above interpretation: ואי אפשר להעמידה דלפי דבריו אם כן הא דאמר אביי מדאפקרה נפשה – And it is impossible to sustain this interpretation, for according to the sר״י׳ words it would therefore follow that when אביי**(אליבא דרב)** stated that since she was wanton with the ארוס, she was wanton with others as well –

היינו בשלא בדקו את אמו וזה אינו – that is limited to a case where the mother was not investigated**; for if the mother was asked and she replied I had relations only with the ארוס she is believed,⁷** and this is not so; אביי (אליבא דרב) cannot maintain that if the ארוסה claims that the child is from the ארוס, that she is believed –

דהא אפלוגתא דרב ושמואל קאי דמוקמי בקדושין מאי שתוקי בדוקי – For אביי (in מסכת יבמות) is referring to the dispute between רב ושמואל, which is established in מסכת קדושין that what שמואל meant when he said that the child is a שתוקי**, is that he is a** בדוקי; meaning that we question the mother and accept her claim that the child is from the ארוס. This implies that רב (who argues with שמואל) maintains that the child (even a בדוקי) is a ממזר.⁸

תוספות qualifies his difficulty with the פירש ר״י: ולמאי דגרסינן⁹ בקדושין ארוסה שעיברה לא קשה מידי – However, according to our reading of the text in מסכת קדושין**, which is, ‘an ארוסה who became pregnant’(indicating that we are not certain that the ארוס וארוסה had relations)**;and not הבא על ארוסתו (which indicates that we know that the ארוס וארוסה had relations), there is no difficulty at all. According to this גירסא the only time אביי maintains (according to רב) that the child is a ממזר even if בדקו את אמו is when we are not aware that the ארוס וארוסה had relations. However in our סוגיא where the ארוס is מודה, everyone will agree that her claim combined with his מודה is sufficient to believe them. However according to the other text, that רב ושמואל are disputing (even) in a case of הבא על ארוסתו, then the ׳ועוד׳ is difficult to understand.

תוספות offers an alternate explanation: על כן צריך לפרש דהכא לא איירי לאוסרה עליו אלא להכשיר את הולד – Therefore it is necessary to explain that we are not discussing here whether to prohibit the ארוסה from the ארוס, but rather to validate the child; that he is not a ממזר but a כשר לישראל –

והשתא הוי ועוד כפשוטו¹⁰ ועוד דאפילו לא יודה – And now the ׳ועוד׳ assumes the obvious interpretation; firstly that the ארוס was מודה, and ‘furthermore’,meaning, that even if he was not מודה; תוספות immediately interjects to explain what is meant by the statement ‘he was not מודה’ –

ולאו דקאמר דלא מיניה דבהא לא מכשיר רבן גמליאל כיון דהוי ברי וברי –¹¹ And ׳לא מודה׳ certainly does not mean that he claims the child is not from him**, since he had no relations with the ארוסה. It cannot mean that;** for in sucha case (where the ארוס contradicts the ארוסה) ר״ג does not maintain that the child is כשר, since it is a case of a ברי (of the ארוס who claims he did not father the child) which contradicts a ברי (of the ארוסה who claims that the ארוס fathered the child); in a case of ברי וברי then even ר״ג agrees that we do not believe her –

כדאמר בריש פרק ב׳¹² – as the גמרא states in the beginning of the second פרק, therefore אינו מודה cannot mean that he is denying the relationship –

אלא כגון שמת או דליתיה קמן דלישייליה – But rather אינו מודה means for instance ifthe ארוס died or that he is not present before us that he can be asked. That is what רב יוסף states ׳ועוד׳ that even if the ארוס does not corroborate that he fathered the child, nevertheless the child is כשר according to ר״ג, since she claims that the ארוס is the father (and there is no ברי to contradict her).¹³

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: והא דחשיב ליה בסמוך דיעבד – And the reason the גמרא shortly considers this to be case of דיעבד (that it already happened). Seemingly this is a case of לכתחילה; we are deciding whether this child may marry a ישראלית, it is not a case of בדיעבד, where he already married and we want to know if they can remain married (as it is according to the¹⁴פירש ר״י).

תוספות responds: לפי שלא היה יכול הולד להינשא לבת ישראל – For the child may not be permitted to ever marry a Jewess (if he is a ספק ממזר) –

ואפילו לממזרת אסור דמדאורייתא כשר הוא – And he is even forbidden to marry a ממזרת, for מן התורה he is a ולד כשר (we are not certain whether he is a ממזר or not –

דהאי הוי כדיעבד¹⁵ הלכה כרבן גמליאל¹⁶]: Therefore in such a case (where the child may not be able to ever marry anyone), it is considered as a בדיעבד**, where** the ruling is according to ר״ג that she is נאמנת.

SUMMARY According to the ר״י the issue at hand is whether the ארוס וארוסה are permitted to rejoin. The ׳ועוד׳ means even if we maintain that his מודה is ineffective. תוספות maintains that the issue is whether the child is כשר לישראל and the ועוד means even if the ארוס is not present to corroborate what the ארוסה claimed.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות questions the ר״י. If the ועוד refers to אביי, then the fact the she is testifying is meaningless, for according to אביי the ולד is a ממזר (according to רב) even if the mother testified. The ׳ועוד׳ however is according to שמואל (not according to רב)¹⁷ and indeed according to שמואל the child is כשר (even according to אביי) if the mother testifies, and if not he is a שתוקי.¹⁸

footnotes: ¹ The reason this interpretation is chosen (despite some difficulties) may become apparent at the conclusion of this תוספות. See footnote # 14. ² The term ׳ועוד׳, ‘furthermore’ (generally) means that even if this is not so, nevertheless the ruling is valid. ³ The term כלומר supplants the simple meaning (that even if he was not מודה, etc.) with a more complicated meaning (that even if מודה is not effective, etc.). See footnote # 10. ⁴ See footnote # 13. ⁵ יבמות סט,ב; see previous two תוספות ד״ה ההוא וד״ה חדא (הא׳). ⁶ אביי utilizes the סברא of מדאפקרה to explain שיטת רב, why the ולד is a ממזר. Therefore here too (even though the ארוס וארוסה are already married to each other, nevertheless) the סברא of מדאפקרה implies that she was ודאי זינתה and therefore (הולד ממזר and) אסורה לארוס. However according to שמואל even if we assume that the ולד is a שתוקי (before the בדיקה) it is not because we assume positively מדאפקרה, but rather it is a ספק, which can make the child into a שתוקי; however it will not be able to prevent the ארוס וארוסה from rejoining. The ׳ועוד׳, therefore is for אביי according to רב only. See: ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ The point of the ׳ועוד׳ according to the פירוש ר״י is that even according to אביי that the מודה is ineffective nevertheless her testimony is effective; this is tantamount to saying that according to אביי she is believed. ⁸ The point of the ׳ועוד׳ according to the פירש ר״י is that even according to אביי who maintains that מודה is insufficient (since מדאפקרה נפשה לגבי ארוס וכו׳), nevertheless if she corroborates his מודה they are believed. אביי does not accept the ׳מודה׳ (only) according to רב (who maintains that the child is a ממזר). According to רב, however, the child is a ממזר even if the ארוסה corroborates the testimony of the ארוס. This is the מחלוקת between רב ושמואל when we assume that the מאי שתוקי (of שמואל) is a בדוקי, and nevertheless רב argues and maintains that he is a ממזר. There seems to be no point in the ׳ועוד׳. See: ‘Thinking it over’. ⁹ See previous תוספות יג,ב ד״ה ההוא. ¹⁰ See footnote # 3. ¹¹ תוספות does not say here as he did previously פשיטא דנאסרת עליו; for there (according to the פר״י) we were discussing the איסור of the ארוס וארוסה, therefore since he is not מודה, she is certainly אסורה עליו for שוויה אנפשיה חתיכא דאיסורא. However here we are discussing the ולד, where there is no סברא of שוייה אנפשיה וכו׳, nevertheless the ולד will not be כשר, since she is not נאמנת in a case of ברי וברי. ¹² לקמן טז,א. ¹³ We obviously cannot have this interpretation of ׳ועוד׳ according to the פירוש ר״י, where we are discussing if she is מותרת לארוס. The ארוס is obviously present. We can ask him whether they had relations or not. That is why the ר״י was forced to interpret the ׳ועוד׳ in the manner he did (that it means according to אביי). ¹⁴ See footnote # 1. ¹⁵ In the תוה״ר it reads; דהא בדיעבד הלכה כר״ג. ¹⁶ As mentioned previously, the last three תוספות beginning with ההוא ארוס are bracketed and are an addendum to the original תוספות. ¹⁷ רב יוסף stated ועוד הא אמר ר״י אמר שמואל וכו׳. ¹⁸ See בית יעקב וסוכ״ד אות לט. Alternately see footnote # 6.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אלמנת עיסה — A widow (whose husband’s lineage is entangled and is) of a [dough(y)] mixture

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a משנה, in which ר״י and ריב״ב testify that the widow of an ׳עיסה׳ is permitted to marry into כהונה. There is a dispute between רש״י and תוספות as to what consists an עיסה.

**פירוש בקונטרס שני פירושים¹ ושניהם דחוקים –

רש״י offers two interpretations** as to the meaning of**** אלמנת עיסה and both of these explanations are lacking. They do not satisfactorily explain the term אלמנת עיסה. תוספות goes on to explain why they are דחוקים – דהא אמרינן לקמן² איזו היא אלמנת עיסה כל שנטמע בה ספק חלל³ – For we learn later in a ברייתא; ‘who is this אלמנת עיסה’? The ברייתא replies ‘all situations in which a ספק חלל was intermingled’; this concludes the citation from the ברייתא. ומה⁴ טימוע שייך במה שנישאת לספק – And how is the term טימוע (intermingled; mixed in) applicable because she married this ספק חלל. He is not טימוע; it is known that he is a ספק חלל. The term טימוע means that somewhere in the genealogy there is a ספק חלל intermingled; not that a woman married a ספק חלל. תוספות asks an additional question on פירש״י: ועוד דאין לשון עיסה נופל על אדם אחד אלא על משפחה שייך לשון עיסה – And furthermore, the expression עיסה is not applicable for one person; rather the expression עיסה is appropriate for a family – כדאמרינן (קידושין סט,ב) כל הארצות עיסה לארץ ישראל וארץ ישראל עיסה לבבל – As the גמרא states all countries are considered as an עיסה (a doughy mixture) compared to א״י, and א״י is an עיסה when compared to בבל. All countries have no pure lineage as א״י has; but rather their lineage is a ‘mixture’ of various indiscernible types, like a dough which is a mixture of various ingredients. The גמרא there continues, the lineage of בבל is purer than even the lineage of א״י. This concludes the גמרא there. It is evident from this גמרא that the term עיסה applies to a ‘mixture’ of different elements that are intermingled among the populace at large and are not (necessarily) discernable. This is in conflict with both of sרש״י׳ interpretations. תוספות offers an additional difficulty with sרש״י׳ explanation: ובתוספתא⁵ תניא מפני מה אמרו עיסה פסולה מפני ספיקי חללין – And we learnt in a ברייתא in the תוספתא; why did the חכמים rule that an עיסה is disqualified from marrying into כהונה? On account of the ספיקי חללין (plural) which are intermingled in the עיסה – ומה ספיקי חללין שייך לאלו הפירושין – And how is the concern of ספיקי חללין (plural) applicable according to these explanations that רש״י offered?! According to both explanations of רש״י, the אלמנה married one ספק חלל; there is no issue with many ספיקי חללין! תוספות offers his explanation of אלמנת עיסה: ונראה לרבינו יצחק ולרבנו יצחק בר אשר⁶ – And the ר״י and the ריב״א are of the opinion – דעיסה קורא המשפחה שנטמע בהם ספק חלל אחד או הרבה ספיקי חללים – That the term עיסה applies to a family in which one ספק חלל became intermingled or that many ספיקי חללים became intermingled with this family. It is known that in a particular family (either one or) some of the people are ספיקי חללין; however they cannot be identified with certainty – ולהכי חשיב ליה לקמן⁷ ספק ספיקא – And therefore the גמרא later considers this ‘עיסה family’ as a ספק ספיקא; a doubt within a doubt, meaning – דכל אחד מבני המשפחה ספק הוא אם הוא אותו ספק שנתערב בהן אם לאו That each one from this עיסה family in which a ספק(י) חלל(ים) was intermingled, there is a doubt (by בי״ד) whether he is the ספק חלל that was intermingled with them or not. It is possible that he is not the ספק חלל and therefore כשר לכהונה. Even if he is the ספק חלל, it is possible that in fact he is not a חלל and is therefore (still) permitted לכהונה. That is why this עיסה is merely a ספק ספיקא concerning איסור כהונה. ולקמן⁸ גרסינן איזהו עיסה כל שנטמע בה כולי ולא גרסינן אלמנת – And later the text should read; ‘what is an עיסה; in all cases where there was an intermingling, etc.’ and the text does not read a ‘widow of’ an עיסה; but merely the word עיסה itself. The mixture is in the עיסה (this particular family); not in the אלמנה – והכי איתא בירושלמי⁹ ואפילו גרסינן אלמנת כל שנטמע בה קאי אעיסה – And this is also how it is rendered in תלמוד ירושלמי; only the word ׳עיסה׳, not אלמנת עיסה. And even if the text reads ׳אלמנת עיסה׳; nevertheless in the following phrase of ׳כל שנטמע בה׳; the word ׳בה׳ is referring to the עיסה; and not to the אלמנה. The term עיסה is fitting only for a community, and not for an individual such as an אלמנה. תוספות asks: ואם תאמר דבפרק עשרה יוחסין (שם דף עה,א) משמע – And if you will say; that it seems from the גמרא in פרק עשרה יוחסין – דאפילו מאן דמכשר אלמנת עיסה מודה בבת דפסולה – that even the one who permits the אלמנת עיסה to marry into כהונה (which would include ר׳ יהושע וריב״ב), nevertheless he admits that the daughter of the עיסה is disqualified from marrying into כהונה. תוספות will now show that the one who is מכשיר the אלמנה is פוסל בבת. When the גמרא discusses – גבי הא דאמר רב חסדא הכל מודים באלמנת עיסה שפסולה לכהונה כולי – Concerning that which ר״ח stated; ‘everyone agrees that an אלמנת עיסה is פסולה לכהונה, etc.’ The גמרא comments that the statement of ר״ח is coming – ולאפוקי מהני תנאי דתנן העיד רבי יהושע כולי – to exclude from these תנאים, which we have learnt in a משנה that ר״י and ר״י ב״ב testified, etc. that an אלמנת עיסה is כשרה לכהונה.¹⁰ This concludes the citation from the גמרא. תוספות concludes his question: ומה לי אלמנה ומה לי בת דבת נמי הוי ספק ספיקא כמו באלמנה – And what difference is there whether she is the אלמנה of an עיסה or whether she is the daughter of the עיסה, for by the daughter there is also the same ספק ספיקא as there is by the אלמנה!¹¹ תוספות answers: ויש לומר דבת העיסה אין לה חזקה דכשרות – And one can say; that the daughter of the עיסה has no חזקת כשרות; as opposed to the אלמנת עיסה who has a חזקת כשרות from the time before she married into this עיסה**.** However the**** בת העיסה was born into a ספק situation, therefore since she has no חזקת כשרות, she is אסורה לכהונה. תוספות anticipates a difficulty and resolves it: ואף על גב דבעלמא מקילין בספק ספיקא – And even though that generally we are lenient by a ספק ספיקא, and we permit it even without a חזקת כשרות. Therefore, here too by the בת העיסה, even though she has no חזקת כשרות, she should still be כשרה לכהונה, since it is only a ספק ספיקה; nevertheless – הכא מעלה עשו ביוחסין – Here, for the genealogy of כהונה,**** the חכמים instituted a higher level of stringency and forbade even a ספק ספיקא from marrying into כהונה –

כי היכי דמצריך לקמן¹² תרי רובי להכשיר אף על גב דבעלמא סגי בחד רובא

Just as later, the גמרא requires two pluralities (of כשרות) to permit marriage to כהונה, even though generally one רוב is sufficient; nevertheless concerning כהונה we are more stringent, and we require two רובא; the same is by a ספק ספיקא, that in addition to the ספק ספיקא, we also require a חזקת כשרות.

SUMMARY The term ׳עיסה׳ (according to תוספות) refers to a family in which a ספק חלל (or many ספיקי חללים) were intermingled. An offspring of this family is אסורה לכהונה (for she has no חזקת כשרות); however a woman who married into this family and became widowed is מותרת לכהונה, according to ר״י וריב״ב (since she has a חזקת כשרות). A חזקת כשרות is required in addition to a ספק ספיקא in order to be מותרת לכהונה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. רש״י and תוספות disagree as to the meaning of אלמנה עיסה. Is this merely a difference of interpretation; or do they disagree להלכה as well? [What will רש״י and תוספות maintain is the rule in each other’s scenario?]
2. תוספות asks why there is a difference between the אלמנה and the בת.¹³ How will רש״י deal with this question לשיטתו? ¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ In ד״ה על אלמנת עיסה, there רש״י explains that if a ספק חלל (a ספק חלל is one who is born from a marriage between a כהן and a woman who is a ספק גרושה, ספק זונה, etc.) marries and subsequently dies, his widow is the אלמנת עיסה. In ד״ה תרי ספיקי, there רש״י offers a different explanation (in the name of ר״י טוב עלם). A woman was a ספק מגורשת and remarried to a כהן within three months of the ספק גירושין (after her first husband died) and bore a child of questionable lineage; whether he is a son of her original ספק divorced husband and therefore he is כשר; or if he is a son from her new husband; in which case he is a ספק חלל for perhaps the גט was valid and she is a גרושה and the child is a חלל, or there was no גט (and she is an אלמנה) and the child is כשר. There is a ספק ספיקא on this child. The widow of this ‘child’ is an אלמנת עיסה. It appears from רש״י that the term עיסה is referring to the individual who is a ספק (ספיקא) חלל. ² On the top of יד,ב. See following תוספות ד״ה ת״ר; see מהר״ם שי״ף here. ³ A חלל is an offspring of a relationship between a כהן and a woman who is forbidden to a כהן, such as a גרושה. A ספק חלל is someone who is the offspring of a relationship between a כהן and a ספק גרושה, etc. ⁴ In the (bottom) margin there is an additional question (seemingly from תו״י or likewise): וגם על חלל עצמו אין שייך לשון טימוע. ‘And in addition, on the חלל himself the expression טימוע does not apply’. According to רש״י the term אלמנת עיסה means she married a ספק חלל. Therefore עיסה means a ספק חלל. We cannot refer to the חלל by saying that there was נטמע in him a ספק חלל. ⁵ קדושין פ״ה ה״ג. ⁶ עי׳ שה״ג להחיד״א מערכת גדולים אות 291. ⁷ On this עמוד the גמרא comments that according to ר״י a ספק ספיקא is sufficient to be מתיר a woman לכהונה. ⁸ At [the bottom of this עמוד and] on top of the עמוד ב׳. ⁹ Here פ״א ה״ט, and elsewhere. ¹⁰ רב חסדא was referencing a previous ברייתא taught there, in which there were various opinions. רב חסדא maintains that all of these opinions (who argue in the ברייתא) agree (nonetheless) that an אלמנת עיסה is אסורה. רב חסדא proved his statement by citing רשב״ג (who was the most lenient view in the ברייתא) who ruled that if you are not permitted to marry someone’s daughter, you are also not permitted to marry his widow. Therefore, concludes רב חסדא that since one may not marry the בת העיסה, one may not marry the אלמנת עיסה as well. רב חסדא offered no proof that a בת העיסה is אסורה; he merely presumed it as a universally agreed upon ruling. The גמרא then concluded that the ruling of רב חסדא that an אלמנת עיסה is אסורה, is intended to reject the ruling of ר״י and ר״י ב״ב (that were not mentioned in the previous ברייתא), who maintain that אלמנת עיסה is מותרת. According to that גמרא, the ruling of ר״י and ר״י ב״ב is that an אלמנת עיסה is מותרת, even though that the בת העיסה is אסורה (this is a universally agreed upon ruling). This is what רב חסדא is rejecting; how can ר״י ור״י ב״ב maintain that אלמנת עיסה is מותרת, since even רשב״ג who is the most lenient view, maintains that ׳כל שאי אתה נושא בתה אי אתה נושא אלמנותה׳. Therefore since the בת העיסה is אסורה the אלמנת עיסה is also אסורה. However ר״י ור״י ב״ב disagree and maintain that the בת העיסה is אסורה and the אלמנת עיסה is מותרת. Our תוספות asks why should there be a difference between the בת העיסה and the אלמנת עיסה. ¹¹ Why does רב חסדא presume that everyone (including ר״י ור״י ב״ב who maintain that אלמנת עיסה מותרת) agrees that בת העיסה אסורה?! See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹² לקמן טו,א. This is regarding a woman who was נאנסה מחוץ לעיר; in order that she remains כשרה לכהונה there is a requirement that both the רוב of the city and the רוב of the caravan, which passed through the city, are כשרים לכהונה, even though that generally one רוב is sufficient. ¹³ See footnote # 11. ¹⁴ See מהר״ם שי״ף.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דרבי יהושע אדרבי יהושע לא קשיא — There is no contradiction between the two opinions of ר״י

OVERVIEW The גמרא presented a contradiction between ר״י of our משנה (where the woman is not believed to claim לכשר נבעלתי) and ר״י of אלמנת עיסה (where the woman is כשרה לכהונה). רבה resolved this contradiction; by אלמנת עיסה since the woman married the ׳עיסה׳, she first investigated and ascertained that he is not a חלל. However no such investigation occurs when there is a זנות relationship (as in our משנה). רבא asked that we have, however, not resolved the contradiction between ר״ג (of our משנה) and ר״ג (of אלמנת עיסה). After רבא resolved that contradiction, he continues to resolve the contradiction between the two (abovementioned) statements of ר״י. Seemingly there is no need to resolve any contradiction by ר״י, since this was resolved previously. תוספות will explain why it was necessary for רבא to resolve the contradiction in ר״י, differently than was previously explained (by רבה). ----------------–

והשתא לא מצי לשנויי דבודקת ונישאת כדמשני לעיל¹ – And now (according to the answer of רבא), we cannot answer as we previously answered to explain that the reason why ר״י is מכשיר by an אלמנת עיסה (as opposed to ראוה מעוברת, etc.), is since she investigates and when she is certain that he is כשר, only then does she marry him. This answer of בודקת ונישאת is not valid according to this מסקנא –

כיון דהשתא אוקימנא באומרת שמא:² Since that now רבא establishes that אלמנת עיסה is discussing a case where the אלמנה merely states that perhaps he is כשר; there is then no חזקה of בודקת ונישאת.

SUMMARY According to רבא by אלמנת עיסה the woman is merely a שמא, therefore there is no concept of אשה בודקת ונישאת.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Is there a מחלוקת להלכה (אליבא דר״י) between רבה and רבא?
2. Seemingly תוספות is stating the obvious. What was תוספות concern initially?!

footnotes: ¹ (רבא) [רבה] earlier on this עמוד. ² In order to resolve the discrepancy by ר״ג, רבא stated that in the case of אלמנת עיסה (in which there is a dispute between ר״י and ר״ג) the woman is merely claiming שמא.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

תנו רבנן איזו היא אלמנת עיסה.¹ — The רבנן taught; who is considereda widow of an עיסה.

OVERVIEW² This ברייתא intends to clarify the term ׳אלמנת עיסה׳. This indicates that the ברייתא is referencing a previous source where the term אלמנת עיסה was used. According to רש״י (ד״ה איזוהי), this ברייתא is referring to the previously cited משנה of מסכת עדיות, wherein ר״י and ריב״ב testified that an אלמנת עיסה is כשרה לכהונה. This ברייתא qualifies³ and limits which אלמנת עיסה is כשרה לכהונה. The גמרא explains that this ברייתא is dealing with people who are accused of being פסול and react either by denying the accusation (צווח) or remaining silent and not reacting (שתק). The ת״ק maintains that the אלמנה עיסה which is מותרת, is one whose only possible פסול is the ספק חלל whom she (may have) married. However there is no involvement in this עיסה of anyone who was accused of any פסול and remained silent. Had there been such an incident the אלמנת עיסה would be פסולה.⁴ ר״מ however disagrees and maintains that even if there was a שתוק חלל (according to the ת״ק) or a שתוק ממזר (according to רשב״א) the אלמנת עיסה (who is married to the ספק [ספיקא] חלל) would still be כשרה. The גמרא concludes that רבי יוסי agrees with one of the opinions of ר״מ. This is the view [and גירסא] of רש״י (as תוספות [seemingly] understands it). תוספות has difficulties with this גירסא and therefore changes the גירסא and the interpretation of this ברייתא. --------------------–

תוספות asks: קשה לרבינו תם על גרסת הספרים דגרסי אלמנת עיסה – The ר״ת has a difficulty with the texts that read אלמנה עיסה (as in our גמרא, as opposed to just ׳עיסה׳; omitting the word ׳אלמנת׳) –

דאם כן אית ליה לרבי יוסי דאלמנת עיסה כשרה – For if this is so (that the גירסא is ׳ אלמנת עיסה׳), it would turn out that ר״י maintains that an אלמנת עיסה is permitted to marry into כהונה –

דהא מכשר לקמן⁵ שתוק ממזר וכל שכן דמכשיר באלמנת עיסה כדמוכח הסוגיא – For ר״י maintains later in the גמרא that (even) a שתוק ממזר (one who is silent when (s)he is called a ממזר) is permitted to marry into כהונה, so certainly ר״י will permit the widow of the עיסה (to marry, when there is not even any שתוק); as it is evident from the entire discussion; that when there is no שתוק at all, everyone agrees that an אלמנת עיסה is כשרה.⁶ ובפרק עשרה יוחסין (גם זה שם⁷) אמר בהדיא דלרבי יוסי אלמנת עיסה פסולה – And in פרק עשרה יוחסין the גמרא explicitly states that according to ר״י an אלמנת עיסה is disqualified from marrying into כהונה.⁸ There is an open contradiction between our גמרא which implies (if we are גורס אלמנת עיסה) that אלמנה עיסה is כשרה לר״י and the גמרא in עשרה יוחסין when it is clearly stated that ר״י maintains that an אלמנת עיסה is פסולה!

תוספות offers his גירסא and interpretation: לכך מוחק רבינו תם אלמנת וגרס איזוהי עיסה ולענין בת קתני – Therefore the ר״ת erases the word ׳אלמנת׳, and the text reads, ‘who is an ׳עיסה;omitting the word אלמנת. This ברייתא is discussing the daughter who was born into this עיסה; not a woman who married into this עיסה. וקאי אהאי דתנא בשילהי עדיות העיסה נאמנת לטהר ולטמא לרחק ולקרב לאסור ולהתיר – And this ברייתא is referencing that which the משנה teaches us in the end of מסכת עדיות**;⁹ where the משנה states,¹⁰** ‘the עיסה is believed to purify and defile, to distance and to bring close, to prohibit and to permit’. This is the quote of the משנה in עדיות. והכי פירושו נאמנת לטהר עצמה בצויחה או בשתיקה למר כדאית ליה ולמר כדאית ליה¹¹ – And this is the interpretation of that משנה:¹² any member of the עיסה family is believed to purify itself by either screaming or remaining silent; according to this master as he maintains and according to the other master in the manner that he maintains. The various תנאים in the ברייתא express their views as to when the עיסה is נאמנת.

תוספות will now explain the various categories in the משנה; לטהר ולטמא, לרחק ולקרב, לאסור ולהתיר, how they apply to an עיסה which deals with איסורי חיתון. The expression of –

לטהר ולטמא שייך לענין ממזרות ונתינות –

לטהר ולטמא, which the משנה states, is applicable concerning the issues of whether this עיסה member has a פסול of ממזרות ונתינות, which he was accused of –

כדתנן (קדושין דף עב,ב) ממזרים ונתינים עתידין ליטהר – As we learnt in a משנה that ממזרים and נתינים will eventually be purified. We see from that משנה that the term of טהרה (and טומאה) apply to ממזרים ונתינים. The expression of –

לרחק ולקרב שייך אחללות כדתנן¹³ הכהנים שומעים לכם לרחק ולא לקרב –

לרחק ולקרב is applicable to חללות, as we learnt in a משנה (concerning the איסור of חללות) ‘the כהנים will listen to you only to distance certain suspect woman from marrying into כהונה; however they will not listen to you regarding bringingcertain woman closer and permitting them to marry into כהונה. וכן לקמן (דף כז,א) וריחקום בני משפחה – And similarly later the גמרא cites a משנה which states that the family members distanced her (a suspected זונה) from marrying into כהונה. We see from these two משניות that the term of לקרב ולרחק is applicable for חללות (and איסורי כהונה) –

ולאסור ולהתיר שייך אעבדים¹⁴ – And the expression of לאסור ולהתיר is applicable for slaves. This concludes תוספות explanation of the various expressions in the משנה. However, תוספות did not conclude his answer as of yet. תוספות continues to explain the terminology of the משנה in the end of עדיות that the ברייתא is referencing.

תוספות asks on his previous assumption that לטהר ולטמא refers to the פסול of ממזרים ונתינים: והא דפריך בפרק ב׳ (לקמן דף כח,ב) טמאה וטהורה סלקא דעתך – And that which the גמרא asks in the second פרק ‘how can you think of saying טמאה and טהורה’?! The גמרא there cited a ברייתא which stated that a child is believed to say that my father stated ‘this family is טמאה and this family is טהורה’. The גמרא asked how you can refer to a family as טמאה or טהורה?! The term טמאה וטהורה refer to טומאה, but not to יוחסין. This seems to contradict what תוספות previously maintained that the term לטהר ולטמא applies to ממזרים and נתינים!

תוספות answers: התם דכייל כל פסולי בחד לישנא – There (in the second פרק) where the ברייתא includes all unqualified categories in one expression; when they said there משפחה זו טמאה, they were alluding to all types of פסולים, including ממזרים, נתינים, חללים and עבדים –

הוה ליה למיתני משפחה זו כשרה וזו פסולה – The ברייתא should have taught us ‘this family is כשרה and this family is פסולה; this is the universally accepted terminology for פסולי קהל. That is why the גמרא there asks ׳טמאה וטהורה ס״ד׳ –

אבל אממזרות ונתינות לחודא שייך שפיר לשון טמאה וטהורה – However concerning ממזרות ונתינות exclusively as in the משנה of עדיות where the משנה divides the various פסולי קהל into different categories (as תוספות previously stated), then it is indeed appropriate to use the termsof טמאה or טהורהto refer to ממזרות ונתינות specifically, as תוספות previously proved from the גמרא in קדושין.

תוספות continues to explain the משנה at the end of עדיות: ונאמנת דקתני משום לטהר לקרב ולהתיר – And when the משנה taught that the עיסה is believed; the משנה there stated העיסה נאמנת לטהר ולטמא וכו׳, the term ׳נאמנת׳ was used only on account of the phrases ׳לטהר, לקרב, ולהתיר׳; it is only for these instances that it is appropriate to state that the עיסה is נאמנת –

אף על גב דלטמא ולרחק ולאסור בצויחה או בשתיקה לא שייך נאמנת – Even though that concerning the phrases of לטמא ולרחק ולאסור, it is not appropriate to say that the עיסה is believed through צויחה or שתיקה to be מטמא, מרחק or לאסור. The term נאמנת can be used only when it supports and is a leniency for the claimant as when the צויחה ושתיקה will be מטהר, etc.; not when the צויחה ושתיקה results in stringency for the accused. Nonetheless the משנה finds it appropriate to use the term נאמנת, since it applies to the positive terms of לטהר, etc. (even though it does not apply to the negative terms of לטמא, etc).

תוספות has concluded explaining the משנה בשלהי עדיות, now תוספות continues to explain our ברייתא which is referencing that משנה: ועלה קתני בברייתא דהכא איזוהי עיסה שנאמנת בצויחה או בשתיקה לטהר הבת – And concerning that משנה בשלהי עדיות, the ברייתא cited here teaches, what type of עיסה is believed through צויחה or שתיקה which that משנה stated, that the עיסה is believed to be מטהר the daughter? We are not discussing the אלמנת עיסה, a woman who married this עיסה (where there is a חזקת כשרות for the אלמנה), but rather we are discussing the עיסה itself, whether the daughter of the עיסה (the family in which one of its members¹⁵ is being accused) who has no חזקת כשרות, is permitted to marry into כהונה. The ברייתא continues that the עיסה is –

כל שאין בה כולי – Anyone, where there is no, etc. accusation of the various פסולים which the ברייתא enumerates.¹⁶

תוספות brings a proof to his contention that we are discussing the (בת ה)עיסה, and not the אלמנת עיסה: **** והכי משמע בתוספתא¹⁷ – And it also seems in the תוספתא that this is the interpretation of the משנה –

דקתני נאמנת עיסה לטהר ולטמא לאסור ולהתיר לרחק ולקרב – It stated **there that ‘**an עיסה is believed לטהר ולטמא לאסור ולהתיר לרחק ולקרב, (and the תוספתא concludes; however) –

ובאלמנת עיסה לא נגעו – They did not touch (or discuss) the status of an אלמנת עיסה’. We may derive from this תוספתא that the משנה of נאמנת עיסה is discussing (even) the בת העיסה and not (only) the אלמנת עיסה.

תוספות will now explain that according to his גירסא of איזוהי עיסה (as opposed to גירסת הספרים of איזוהי אלמנת עיסה), there will be no contradiction between ר״י of our גמרא (who [seemingly] maintains that אלמנת עיסה is כשרה לכהונה) and ר״י in קדושין (who maintains that אלמנת עיסה is פסולה לכהונה).

There are two משניות; the משנה cited in our גמרא of העיד ר״י וכו׳ על אלמנת עיסה שהיא כשרה, and the משנה בשלהי עדיות that states נאמנת עיסה לטהר וכו׳. In addition there is a ברייתא cited in our גמרא that is interpreting one of these משניות. According to the גירסת הספרים it is interpreting the משנה of העיד ר״י and the גירסא is איזוהי אלמנת עיסה. According to the ר״ת the גירסא in the ברייתא is איזוהי עיסה and it is interpreting the משנה of נאמנת עיסה.

There is a difference between the משניות which עיסה we are referring to. The משנה of אלמנת עיסה is referring to a woman who married a ספק (ספיקא) חלל; a person who is known to be a ספק (ספיקא) פסול. The משנה of נאמנת עיסה is interpreted by our ברייתא (according to the ר״ת) to be discussing a case of a שתוק; someone who was accused of being a פסול, however we do not know that he is even a ספק פסול. Therefore according to the ר״ת, when the term אלמנת עיסה is used we are referring (with the word עיסה) to a ספק (ספיקא) חלל; when the term עיסה alone is used we are referring to an accused פסול, but not to a ספק פסול.

תוספות continues: והשתא לא קשה דרבי יוסי אדרבי יוסי – And now (that the ברייתא of איזוהי עיסה is referring to the משנה of נאמנת עיסה and not to the משנה of ׳אלמנת עיסה׳), there is no contradiction from ר״י (of our גמרא who maintains that an אלמנה of this עיסה is כשרה) on ר״י (in קדושין who maintains that אלמנת עיסה is פסולה). There is no contradiction, for the two ר״י are discussing different cases –

דהא דאכשר רבי יוסי בשתוק ממזר אגוף העיסה קאי להכשיר את הבת – For that which ר״י was מכשיר a שתוק ממזר in our גמרא, he was discussing the עיסה itself, to be מכשיר even the daughter of this שתוק to marry into כהונה, since there is no known ספק פסול on this person; he was merely accused of being a ממזר and therefore by his שתיקה or צויחה he exonerates himself, and (even) his daughter may marry into כהונה, and certainly his widow (who has a חזקת כשרות). In the ברייתא we are discussing an עיסה. There is no known ספק פסול only an accusation of פסול. אבל במקום שמזכיר אלמנת עיסה להכשיר אלמנה דוקא ולא הבת – However in a place where אלמנת עיסה is mentioned**; where the issue at hand is whether the אלמנת עיסה** is כשרה;since אלמנת עיסה is mentioned, that is an indication that we are discussing specifically whether the אלמנה is permitted but not whether the daughter is permitted. The reason why the term אלמנת עיסה is used is to indicate that at most we can be מכשיר the אלמנה, but we can certainly not be מכשיר the בת. This teaches us that the case of אלמנה עיסה is where there is a known ספק (ספיקא) concerning the עיסה. Therefore the אלמנה who has a חזקת כשרות is כשרה; however the בת who has no חזקת כשרות is פסולה לכהונה. כדמוכח בקדושין (דף עה,א) ושם ודאי פוסל רבי יוסי אפילו את האלמנה – As is evident in מסכת קדושין, and there in a case where there is a ספק (ספיקא) of פסול then ר״י is certainly פוסל even the אלמנה from marrying into כהונה; regardless that she has a חזקת כשרות and he is certainly פוסל the בת העיסה –

כדמוכח נמי בקדושין – as is also evident in מסכת קדושין.¹⁸

תוספות offers an additional proof to the interpretation of the ר״ת: וכדברי רבינו תם משמע בירושלמי¹⁹ – And in תלמוד ירושלמי it is also indicated as the ר״ת stated –

דקתני איזהו עיסה כל שאין בה לא ממזר ולא נתין ולא עבדי מלכים – For it states there in a ברייתא ‘what is an עיסה? Anything that has no mixture of a ממזר, a נתין, and no slaves of kings; the ירושלמי continues –

רבי מאיר אומר כל שאין בה אחד מכל אלו בתה כשרה –

ר״מ said any עיסה that has none of the above, the daughter of this עיסה is כשרהלכהונה’, this concludes the citation from the ירושלמי –

אלמא דבכשרות דבת מיירי ולא באלמנה – It is evident from the concluding words of ר״מ in this ירושלמי that we are discussing the כשרות status of the daughter and not**(merely)** of the אלמנה.

תוספות presents a difficulty with the פירוש ר״ת ומיהו קשה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם – However, the רשב״א has a difficulty with this interpretation –

כיון דהך ברייתא קיימא לפרושי ההיא דסוף עדיות – Since (as the ר״ת maintains) that the intent of this ברייתא (of ת״ר איזוהי עיסה) is to explain that משנה at the end of מסכת עדיות (עיסה נאמנת לטהר וכו׳) –

אם כן רבי מאיר דסבר דחלל בין צווח בין שתק כשר – If this is correct,then ר״מ who maintains in this ברייתא (according to the ת״ק) that a חלל is כשר whether he protested or whether he was silent (when he was accused of being a חלל) –

אם כן היכי מפרש האי דקתני לרחק – If this is so, then how can ר״מ explain that which the משנה (in עדיות) states that an עיסה will be distanced, which is referring to a חלל. The ר״ת previously explained that the expression in that משנה of לקרב ולרחק is referring to one who is accused of being a חלל. Under certain circumstances (if he is צווח) it will be לקרב (מותר) and under other circumstances (שתק) it will be לרחק (אסור). However, concerning a חלל, ר״מ maintains that he is always מותר. What did the משנה mean when it states that there is a situation of לקרב and לרחק (by a חלל)?!

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק הא דמכשר רבי מאיר חלל שותק – And the ר״י answers; that which ר״מ permits a חלל שותק to marry into כהונה –

הני מילי כשאחרי כן שואלין ממנו אם הוא חלל אם לאו וצווח – This ruling is valid only in a case where afterwards (after his initial שתיקה on the accusation of him being a חלל) he is again asked**(by בית דין**), if he is indeed a חלל or not; and he protests that he is not a חלל. In this case we disregard his initial שתיקה and say that we accept his ultimate צוויחה (this is included in the לקרב) –

אבל אם לעולם שותק פשיטא דפסול – However if he always remains silent and does not protest this accusation that he is a חלל, then obviously he is פסול. Therefore we can now understand –

והא דקתני נאמנת לרחק אם לעולם שותק: that which the משנה stated that the עיסה may be believedto rule לרחק by a חלל and be אסור; it is in a situation where he is always silent, and never denies the accusations that he is a חלל.

SUMMARY If the גירסא in the ברייתא is איזוהי אלמנת עיסה; then the ברייתא is referring to the משנה of העיד ר״י וכו׳ that an אלמנת עיסה (one who was married to a ספק (ספיקא) חלל) is כשרה. The ברייתא is limiting this היתר to exclude (certain) cases of שתוק. All the תנאים of this ברייתא (and ר׳ יוסי) agree that an אלמנת עיסה without issues of שתוק is מותרת. תוספות argues that ר׳ יוסי maintains that אלמנת עיסה is פסולה. תוספות therefore is גורס איזוהי עיסה (omitting אלמנת) and the ברייתא is referring to the different משנה of העיסה נאמנת. According to this ברייתא, that משנה is discussing cases of accused פסולים only (no known ספיקי פסולים). In those instances even the בת העיסה is כשרה. However in a case of אלמנת עיסה (of a ספק פסול) then ר״י maintains that even אלמנת עיסה is פסולה and certainly the בת העיסה is פסולה.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות argues²⁰ that since ר״י is מכשיר בשתוק ממזר he should certainly be מכשיר by אלמנת עיסה. The entire סוגיא indicates (according to תוספות understanding of רש״י) that if שתוק ממזר is כשר then an אלמנת עיסה is certainly כשר. However this may be true for the חכמים and ר״מ of the ברייתא איזוהי אלמנת עיסה; however ר״י (who is not cited in this ברייתא) may maintain that by an אלמנת עיסה (who was married to a known ספק (ספיקא) חלל) there is more reason to be פוסל her, than to be פוסל a שתוק (ממזר), who is not a known ספק (ספיקא) פסול.²¹ 2. According to תוספות it seems that the ברייתא is dealing with a person who was accused of being a פסול.²² Why then does רשב״א use the expression (in the ברייתא) ׳איזוהי וכו׳ כל שנטמע בה ספק חלל׳. The term נטמע indicates that a ספק חלל was intermingled in the family,²³ and not merely an accused חלל.²⁴

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד״ה אלמנת עיסה for an explanation of the term (אלמנת) עיסה. ² It is advantageous, for a better understanding of תוספות, to study the entire סוגיא till the משנה on עמוד ב׳. ³ The actual term of אלמנת עיסה was seemingly understood (see previous footnote # 1). It merely required further qualification. ⁴ It seems (from רש״י) that this alone (the פסול of שתוק) would be פוסל that person, even without a marriage to a (known) ספק חלל. ⁵ לקמן עמוד׳ ב׳ before the משנה. This is according to רשב״א אליבא דר״מ, עיי״ש. ⁶ According to the חכמים and ר״מ the פסול of a שתוק is greater than the פסול of אלמנת עיסה. They both are פוסל a שתוק (in certain instances), but nevertheless are מכשיר the אלמנת עיסה. It stands to reason that ר״י who is מכשיר a שתוק ממזר, should certainly be מכשיר an אלמנת עיסה. See מהר״ם שי״ף ורש״ש. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ דף עה,א. The גמרא there mentions a three way מחלוקת between the ת״ק, ר׳ יוסי and רשב״ג. רב חסדא subsequently said that they all agree that אלמנת עיסה is פסולה; and disagree with the העיד ר׳ יהושע וכו׳. ⁸ It is assumable that the term אלמנה עיסה here and in קדושין refer to the same situation; the same term is used in both places, in regards to the statement of ר׳ יהושע that אלמנת עיסה is כשרה. ⁹ This ברייתא is not referring to the משנה of העיד ר״י וריב״ב על אלמנת עיסה וכו׳ (as רש״י maintains). ¹⁰ פ״ח מ״ג. It is actually inserted in the same משנה of העיד ר״י וריב״ב וכו׳. In our text the משנה reads ׳שהעיסה כשרה לטמא ולטהר לרחק ולקרב. It does not mention לאסור ולהתיר. See the מפרשי המשנה. תוספות either had a different גירסא or perhaps תוספות is (also) alluding to the תוספתא, which he will cite shortly. ¹¹ Some are deemed כשר even by שתיקה and others by צוויחה, as the ברייתא elaborates (ר״מ אליבא דת״ק maintains that a שתוק חלל is כשר, and ר״מ אליבא דרשב״א maintains that a שתוק ממזר is כשר). According to the ת״ק of the ברייתא however, no שתוק can be deemed to be כשר. ¹² תוספות will now digress slightly and explain the משנה in עדיות which the ברייתא is referencing. ¹³ Cited previously on this עמוד in the name of ר״ג. ¹⁴ This may be because the עבדים can become מותר לבת ישראל through שחרור. See שטמ״ק. ¹⁵ The fact that it is being called an עיסה would indicate that we are not only dealing with the specific individual who was accused, but rather with the family in which this individual was intermingled. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁶ The ברייתא (and the משנה it references) is not discussing an עיסה where one of its members is a known ספק (ספיקא) חלל (as רש״י maintains). In that situation the בת העיסה would certainly not be כשר. Rather the ברייתא is discussing an עיסה where one [of it members] is merely accused of being one of the פסולי קהל. This עיסה is כשרה according to the ת״ק, only if the accused was צווח. ¹⁷ תוספתא דעדיות פ״ג ה״ג. ¹⁸ See previous footnote # 7. ¹⁹ כאן פ״א ה״ט. In our ירושלמי it is on דף ז,א. ²⁰ See footnote # 6. ²¹ It is seemingly not sufficient to claim that since the גמרא relates the opinion of ר״י to the opinion of ר״מ then that proves that ר״י agrees with ר״מ (even) concerning אלמנת עיסה. This is not necessarily so. The גמרא merely connects the versions of ר״י to the two versions of ר״מ regarding שתוק חלל ושתוק ממזר (that there are reasons either way). However concerning אלמנת עיסה, it is possible that ר״י maintains that it is more severe than a פסול שתוק! See סוכ״ד אות סה. ²² See footnote # 15. ²³ See previous תוספות ד״ה אלמנת. ²⁴ קושית הבאור למהר״ם שי״ף אות (מ).