Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ולרב חנן דאמר הוראת שעה היתה — And according to ר״ח who maintained that it was a provisional ruling –

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that the case of the משנה is that there were תרי רובי. The גמרא asks, that רב חנן, who maintains (in the name of רב) that the ruling of the משנה was a הוראת שעה, would contradict the ruling of רב that the תינוק המושלך is פסול ליוחסין with one רוב. Our תוספות will discuss what רב חנן meant that our ruling is a הוראת שעה, and whether it contradicts the ruling of רב. ----------------–

תוספות explains that the ruling of the משנה was exceptional, in that it required תרי רובי –

אבל לדורות סגי בחד רובא קשיא הך – However for posterity one רוב is sufficient; therefore there is the difficulty with this ruling of רב by a תינוק המושלך, where תרי רובי are required.

תוספות anticipates that there may be a different understanding of the meaning הוראת שעה היתה which would circumvent the difficulty; however תוספות rejects it: ולא מיסתברא ליה למימר דהוראת שעה היתה שהתיר בתרי רובי – The גמרא did not consider the option to say that it was a הוראת שעה to permit the תינוקת לכהונה with (just) תרי רובי –

אבל לדורות לא סגי אפילו בתרי רובי:¹ However for posterity even תרי רובי would not be sufficient to be מתיר לכהונה.

SUMMARY The הוראת שעה was that we required תרי רובי, however for posterity one רוב is sufficient; but not that the הוראת שעה was that תרי רובי are sufficient, and for posterity even תרי רובי are insufficient.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות states that it is not מיסתבר to say that the הוראת שעה was to permit with תרי רובי, however לדורות even תרי רובי are not sufficient. Is it אינו מיסתבר because a הוראת שעה usually denotes a prohibition, not a leniency; or that it is אינו מיסתבר for other reasons (perhaps that תרי רובי is not effective is אינו מיסתבר)?²

footnotes: ¹ font size="20" Had we interpreted the הוראת שעה of רב חנן in this matter there would be no contradiction from תינוק המושלך; for רב merely says that (even) if there are רוב ישראלים we do not consider him a ישראל in regards to יוחסין. We may understand this statement to mean that he is not considered a ישראל ליוחסין even if there are תרי רובי, which would be in agreement with רב חנן. However תוספות is of the opinion that it is not likely that this is what רב חנן meant when he said הוראת שעה היתה./font ² See רש״י טו,א ד,ה הוראת.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא — The one who taught this did not teach the other

OVERVIEW רב חנן בר רבא stated [in the name of רב] that the תינוקת was permitted לכהונה (only) as a הוראת שעה. At this point (in the question) the גמרא assumed that there were תרי רובי (as רב interpreted that בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה). The הוראת שעה was the requirement that there be תרי רובי; for ordinarily one רוב is sufficient to be מתיר לכהונה. The גמרא therefore asked that this ruling contradicts another ruling of רב that even if there are רוב ישראלים, the תינוק המושלך is not considered a ישראל concerning יוחסין. The statement of הוראת שעה, if we assume בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה, contradicts the statement of וליוחסין לא. The גמרא answered מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא. The one who maintains (in the name of רב) that it was a הוראת שעה does not agree with the other statement (of רב). It is not clear which statement (of רב) the גמרא is referring to. It can be referring to קרונות של צפורי or it can be referring to וליוחסין לא. Our תוספות will point out that this is a מחלוקת between רש״י and the רבינו חננאל.

פירש בקונטרס דרב חנן לא מתני דבקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה –

רש״י explained that ר״ח did not teach that the story of the תינוקת in the משנה took place by the caravans of צפורי. According to ר״ח there were no תרי רובי in the case of the תינוקת –

ולא הוה אלא חד רובא – And there was only one רוב by the story of the תינוקת. This was the הוראת שעה, that even though there was only one רוב, nevertheless they were מתיר the תינוקת to כהונה. Ordinarily, however, תרי רובי are required. ולפירושו לא פליגי דלדורות לכולא עלמא בעינן תרי רובי – And according to sרש״י׳ explanation there is no argument, for everyone (רב חייא בר אשי and רב חנן בר רבא) agrees that for posterity two רובי are required to be מתיר לכהונה –

ולא פליגי אלא במעשה היכי הוה – And they (רב חייא and רב חנן) do not argue להלכה; rather they merely argue how the story with the תינוקת took place. רב חייא maintains that it happened בקרונות של צפורי and there were תרי רובי; while רב חנן maintains that it did not take place בקרונות של צפורי and there were not תרי רובי, but nevertheless they were מתיר her, based on a הוראת שעה.

תוספות offers a different explanation:¹ ורבינו חננאל פירש דרב חנן לא מתני אבל ליוחסין לא וסגי לדידיה לדורות בחד רובא – And the ר״ח explained that רב חנן did not teach the ruling of רב concerning the תינוק המושלך, that even though that in various respects we consider him a ישראל, however not in regards to יוחסין. Concerning יוחסין he is not considered a ישראל. רב חנן does not agree with this statement, rather he maintains that by רוב ישראל the child is considered a ישראל even for יוחסין; and according to רב חנן (even) one רוב is sufficient for posterity.²

In summation: according to רש״י the story of the תינוקת was with one רוב (according to רב חנן), however for posterity two רוב are required. רב חנן does not agree that בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה but he does agree that רב stated וליוחסין לא, when there is only one רוב. According to the רבינו חננאל, the story of the תינוקת was בתרי רובי (on account of the הוראת שעה); however for posterity one רוב is sufficient. רב חנן agrees that בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה; however he disagrees that רב stated וליוחסין לא; rather one רוב is sufficient.

תוספות has difficulties with the פירוש רבינו חננאל: אבל קשה לפירושו לרב חנן תקשי רבי יוחנן בן נורי דאמר כמאן דסגי בחד רובא – However there is a difficulty with the sר״ח׳ explanation; according to רב חנן, whose ruling was ריב״ן following when he ruled that one רוב is sufficient? רב חנן maintains (according to the ר״ח) that ריב״ן rules that חד רובא is sufficient (there happened to be a requirement of תרי רובי by the תינוקת only because of the הוראת שעה). This is not in agreement, with either רבן גמליאל,³ or with רבי יהושע –

כדפריך לעיל⁴ – as the גמרא challenged previously. The ruling that one רוב is sufficient to be מתיר לכהונה is not in agreement with ר״ג (who maintains that no רוב is needed), nor with רבי יהושע (who maintains that [even] a ]single] רוב is פסול לכהונה).

תוספות has an additional difficulty with the פירוש ר״ח: ועוד דלא מיסתבר דשום אמורא יחלוק אההיא דאבל ליוחסין לא – And furthermore it is inconceivable that any אמורא should argue whether רב ruled that ‘however concerning יוחסין the child is not considered a ישראל’. The reason it is inconceivable that רב חנן (or any other אמורא) would argue whether this is a ruling of רב, is –

דרב גופיה קאמר לה בלא אמורא⁵ – For רב himself stated this הלכה; without another אמורא saying it in his name.

תוספות brings a proof to this argument, that none of the later אמוראים would disagree that this is the ruling of רב: ולהכי אפירכא דרבי ירמיה לא משני מאן דמתני הא לא מתני הא – And therefore we see that the גמרא did not respond to the challenge of ר׳ ירמיה (who contrasted the ruling of רב חייא in the name of רב, with the ruling of רב that וליוחסין לא); by saying the one who taught this (רב חייא) did not teach this (וליוחסין לא). This would have resolved the contradiction. The reason the גמרא did not offer this resolution is, for it is inconceivable that any of these later אמוראים would argue on a statement attributed directly to רב.

SUMMARY רש״י maintains that רב חנן disagrees that בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה; the תינוקת was permitted only because of a הוראת שעה. However for posterity תרי רובי are required, agreeing that רב stated וליוחסין לא if there is only one רוב. ר״ח maintains that רב חנן agrees that בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה; however the תרי רובי were required only as a הוראת שעה. For posterity only one רוב is required. רב חנן disagrees that רב stated וליוחסין לא (with [only] one רוב). The difficulties with פי׳ הר״ח are that seemingly ריב״ן is not following either ר״ג or ר״י; and that it is unlikely that רב חנן disagrees that רב stated וליוחסין לא.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks on the פי׳ ר״ח, that ריב״ן does not follow either ר״ג or ר״י.⁶Seemingly It is possible to answer that ריב״ן follows the opinion of ר״ג;⁷ however here the תינוקת is not claiming ברי לכשר נבעלתי. Therefore even ר״ג requires (one) רוב.⁸

footnotes: ¹ It is possible that תוספות is not satisfied with sרש״י׳ explanation. According to רש״י the story of תינוקת (according to רב חנן) was not בקרונות של צפורי; however the גמרא just concluded responding to ר׳ ירמיה stating that he seemingly forgot that בקרונות של צפורי היה מעשה (and that was also part of the ׳קשיא הא׳). [If the גמרא is retracting it should have said ׳אלא׳ מאן דמתני וכו׳.] It is also generally not desirable to have a מחלוקת in the facts of a story. In addition according to רש״י there is no מחלוקת between רב חייא and רב חנן; this seems unlikely (see מהר״ם שי״ף). Finally what is the point of רב חנן saying that it was a הוראת שעה, but really תרי רובי are required? According to the פירוש ר״ח however, all these difficulties do not exist. ² According to the רבינו חננאל, when רב חנן says הוראת שעה היתה, it means that there were תרי רובי by the story of the תינוקת. Ordinarily one רוב is sufficient however there was a הוראת שעה and they required תרי רובי. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ דף יד,ב ⁵ When an אמורא says something in the name of רב (as in אמר רב יהודה אמר רב), then it is possible that another אמורא may have had a different tradition as to what רב actually said, and will therefore disagree with what was said in sרב׳ name. However, here רב himself is saying this הלכה. It is universally accepted that רב maintains this view. How then, can רב חנן say in the name of רב הוראת שעה היתה, while רב himself maintains אבל ליוחסין לא?! ⁶ See footnote # 3. ⁷ See מהרש״א (הארוך). ⁸ See תוספות יד,ב (טו,א) ד״ה כמאן.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אם רוב עבדי כוכבים עובד כוכבים למאי הלכתא — ‘If the majority is gentiles, the child is a gentile’; what is the relevance of this law

OVERVIEW The גמרא is presently discussing one of the rulings of the משנה concerning the castaway child. The גמרא asks; in regards to what, did the משנה rule that if the city had a majority of עכו״ם, the child is considered an עכו״ם. Seemingly the גמרא could have answered that he is considered an עכו״ם; in that we are not required to support him. תוספות will explain why the גמרא did not answer in this manner. ---------------–

לא מצי למימר לענין שלא להחיותו דמאי איריא רוב עובדי כוכבים אפילו מחצה נמי – The גמרא could not have answered that the child is considered an עכו״ם in regards that there is no requirement to sustain him; for if it is in reference to שלא להחיותו then why teach this rule in a case where a majority are gentiles; even if (only) half are gentiles, we are also not required להחיותו –

דדוקא ברוב ישראל קאמר רב דהוי ישראל להחיותו¹: For only in a case where the majority is ישראל did רב rule that he is considered a ישראל in reference להחיותו; but not by מחצה על מחצה.²

SUMMARY The גמרא could not have said that he is considered an עכו״ם (if רוב עכו״ם) concerning שלא להחיותו; for even במחצה על מחצה there is no חיוב להחיותו.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that when רב ruled that there is a חיוב להחיותו that is only ברוב ישראל; but not במע״מ. Can תוספות offer proof (from our גמרא) for this assumption; or is it (merely) a סברא?
2. If we assume that להחיותו is (merely) a דין ממון³ then even by רוב ישראל there should be no חיוב להחיותו; for אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב!⁴

footnotes: ¹ See also רש״י ד״ה לא שנו. ² The reason seems to be that להחיותו is a דין ממון. We are not required to be מוציא ממון unless he proves that he is a ישראל (as the גמרא shortly states concerning מחצה על מחצה). See אילת השחר (בגמ׳ ד״ה ל״ש). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ See footnote # 2. ⁴ See ח״ב אות קפב (ואילך).

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

להחזיר לו אבידה — To return to him a lost object

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that the rule of אם רוב ישראל ישראל requires us to return an object which was lost by this person who was abandoned as a child. תוספות will (first) discuss why the גמרא did not mention a more relevant issue; that since רוב ישראל ישראל, we are obligated to sustain this person. -----------------–

הוה מצי למימר להחיותו כדאמר רב – The גמרא could have answered that the ruling of רוב ישראל ישראל teaches us that we are obligated to support him; as רב stated previously –

אלא נקט להחזיר לו אבדה דהוי רבותא טפי – However the גמרא chose to mention that the ruling pertains to the obligation to return a lost object to him; for that is a greater noveltythan להחיותו –

דאיסור גדול הוא משום¹ למען² ספות הרוה וגומר³ – For there is a severe prohibition to return an אבידה to an עכו״ם; for **one transgresses the פסוק which declares ‘**in order to increase the satiated, etc.’ אבל להחיותו לא הוי רבותא כל כך דהא מפרנסין עניי עובדי כוכבים עם עניי ישראל⁴ – However the obligation להחיותו is no so much of a novelty; for we sustain the gentile poor together with the Jewish poor. The גמרא teaches us that we are permitted to return an אבידה to this person, even though there is a possibility that he is a gentile; in which case it would be a grave transgression to return the אבידה to him; nevertheless we follow the רוב and return the אבידה. It follows that we are certainly required to sustain him; for even if he is a gentile, nothing untoward occurred; for it is permissible to support the gentile poor together with the Jewish poor.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the ruling that if there is a רוב ישראל then we return an אבידה to this child on account of the רוב: ואפילו לשמואל דאמר אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב – And even according to שמואל, who maintains that in monetary matters, we do not follow the majority**; therefore even if there is a רוב ישראל, we should seemingly not return this person’s אבידה, nevertheless שמואל will agree to this ruling.** תוספות will differentiate between the ruling here and the ruling of שמואל. The ruling of שמואל that אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב –

היינו במוכר שור לחבירו ונמצא נגחן – That is in the case where one sold an ox to his friend and it turned out to be a goring ox. שמואל rules that even if the majority purchase oxen for plowing (for which this goring ox is unfit) nevertheless the seller can claim ‘I sold it to you for slaughtering’ (since the buyer did not specify that he is purchasing it for plowing) and it is a valid sale. We do not say that since the majority purchase for plowing it is a מקח טעות. The reason why there we do not follow the majority is –

שבהיתר באו המעות לידו ומדעתו נתנם לו הלוקח – For the money came into the hands of the seller legally; and the buyer gave him the money willingly. Now if the buyer has regrets and wants to extract the money from the seller (who acquired it legally) he must bring evidence that he purchased it for plowing (and made it known to the seller); otherwise we do not follow the רוב, and the seller retains the money –

אבל הכא מודי דאזלינן בתר רובא: However here in our case of השבת אבידה, (even) שמואל admits that we follow the רוב. In our case we cannot say that the אבידה came to him בהיתר.⁵ We certainly cannot say that it was given to him willingly. The finder is not that much of a מוחזק in the אבידה,⁶ therefore we follow the רוב.

SUMMARY The גמרא prefers to interpret that the rule of רוב ישראל ישראל teaches that we are obligated להחזיר לו אבידה, rather than להחיותו. On the chance that he is an עכו״ם it would be more problematic להחזיר לו אבידה than להחיותו. שמואל agrees that the rule of אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב applies only where the money came to him בהיתר ובדעת הנותן; but not by אבידה.

THINKING IT OVER Why does not תוספות explain, that the גמרא prefers the חידוש of להחזיר לו אבידה (over להחיותו), since it is valid even though אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב?!⁷

footnotes: ¹ See סנהדרין עו,ב. ² דברים (נצבים) כט,יח. The פסוק reads והתברך בלבבו לאמר שלום יהיה לי כי בשרירות לבי אלך למען ספות הרוה את הצמאה; and continues לא יאבה ה׳ סלוח לו. The word צמאה refers to ישראל who are thirsty and desirous to do the will of ה׳. ³ The word רוה refers to עכו״ם who are satiated; and are not thirsty to do the will of ה׳. When one returns an אבידה to an עכו״ם he is increasing and supporting the רוה. The severity of this transgression is evident from the phrase of לא יאבה ה׳ סלוח לו; ה׳ will not be willing to forgive him. See רש״י ד״ה להחזיר. ⁴ See גיטין סא,א, that we feed then so there should be no enmity between the עכו״ם and ישראל. ⁵ It is possible that the person is a ישראל and the finder must return the אבידה to him. ⁶ See רמב״ן who states אבל מוצא אבידה לאו מאריה דממונא הוא. The finder of an אבידה is not the owner of the money. ⁷ See סוכ״ד אות צ׳.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

לא צריכא דנגחיה תורא דידיה כולי — It was only necessary to teach this ruling when**** his ox gored, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא interpreted the ruling of מחצה על מחצה ישראל in regard to נגח תורא דידיה לתורא דידן. The תינוק is considered a ישראל and is not required to pay a נזק שלם. The issue תוספות addresses is that we can just as easily say מע״מ עכו״ם, (but) in a different case. ---------------–

תוספות asks: תימה דהכי נמי הוה מצי למימר מחצה על מחצה עובד כוכבים – It is astounding! For the משנה could have just as well ruled that if the city is half (Jews) and half (gentiles), the child¹ is considered an עובד כוכבים; instead of saying that he is considered a ישראל. The child will be considered an עכו״ם, in a case where –

ומנגח תורא דידן לתורא דידיה – Our (Jewish) ox gored his (the child’s) ox; the child is considered an עכו״ם and the ישראל is פטור. Instead of saying מחצה על מצחה ישראל in a case where נגח תורא דידיה לתורא דידן (and he is פטור from a נזק שלם), the משנה could have ruled מע״מ עכו״ם in a case where נגח תורא דידן לתורא דידיה (and the ישראל is פטור, unless the child can prove that he is a ישראל)!²

תוספות addresses an additional issue: [כולה³ מילתא הוי מצי למימר לענין נגיחה⁴ – [The entire issue (whether he is considered a ישראל or עכו״ם) could have been portrayed in regards to goring; without resorting to the cases of להאכילו נבילות and להחיותו –

אלא ניחא בכל חד למצוא דבר חדש. מורינו הרב מאיר(?)⁵ ]: However it is desirable to find a novel case for each ruling. מהר״ם.Therefore the גמרא chose to discuss the cases of להחזיר אבידה and להאכילו נבילות in addition to נגיחה.]

SUMMARY The rule by מחצה על מחצה could be stated that he is considered an עכו״ם in a case of נגח תורא דידן לתורא דידיה. [All three rulings can be explained in terms of נגיחה. The גמרא however desires to offer a different case for each ruling.]

THINKING IT OVER

1. Is תוספות (first) question⁶ that instead of saying מע״מ ישראל it should have said מע״מ עכו״ם;⁷ or is תוספות question that since by מע״מ in certain instances he is considered a ישראל and in certain instances he is considered an עכו״ם, how can we identify him as either?⁸
2. תוספות insinuates (here and states clearly in מסכת יומא) that by רוב ישראל if נגח תורא דידן לתורא דידיה the ישראל would be חייב.⁹ According to the previous תוספות ד״ה להחזיר the rule of אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב should apply here, for the מזיק owns the money בהיתר! Why therefore, should the ישראל be obligated to pay, unless the child brings proof that he is a ישראל?!¹⁰

הדרן עלך בתולה נשאת We shall return to you פרק בתולה נשאת

---

גמרנו פירושי התוספות לנכון למסכת כתובות פרק ראשון בעזרת החונן לאדם דעת והגיון שגבנו טהרנו א-ל אדון לעבדך באמת בהכשר ויתרון

footnotes: ¹ The term ‘child’ is used here as an identifier. It is referring to the person whose lineage is doubtful. ² See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ³ This last section of תוספות is bracketed in the original text. ⁴ רוב ישראל ישראל is concerning דנגח תורא דידן לתורא דידיה and the ישראל is חייב (see ‘Thinking it over’ # 2); מע״מ ישראל is concerning דנגח תורא דידיה לתורא דידן and the child is חייב only מחצה; רוב עכו״ם עכו״ם is concerning דנגח תורא דידיה לתורא דידן and the child is חייב נזק שלם. ⁵ This may be an addendum by the מהר״ם מרוטנבורק. See: שה״ג אות מ׳ #29. He mentions there (אות ג׳) that the תוספות on מסכת יומא are from the מהר״ם מרוטנבורק. This [bracketed addendum] is a summation from a תוספות in יומא דף פה.א ד״ה לא. ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ If this option is accepted, a reason is necessary as to why one choice is better than the other. ⁸ See סוכ״ד אות קי. ⁹ See footnote # 4. ¹⁰ See תוספות הרא״ש (מהודרת מוסד הרב [נערך ע״י א. ליכטנשטיין]) הערה 771.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

האשה. אם יש עדים שיצאת בהינומא כולי — The woman. If there are witnesses that she left her father’s house with a הינומא¹, etc.

OVERVIEW The משנה states the case of a woman who is widowed or divorced and there is a dispute whether she was a בתולה when she originally married. If there are witnesses that she was יצאה בהינומא at the wedding, it is proof that she was a בתולה and receives a כתובה payment of מאתיים. Our תוספות will be discussing some details in this case. There are places where the כתובה was written and used as a note to collect payment; however there are places where there was no written כתובה.² The woman collected her כתובה based on a מעשה בית דין. It is an enactment of בי״ד that a woman collects a כתובה (etc.), if she is widowed or divorced. ---------------–

בדלא נקיטא כתובה איירי דאי איכא כתובה ניחזי כתובתה אם היא בתולה או אלמנה – The משנה is discussing a case where the woman is not holding a כתובה;³ the widow or the divorcee has no כתובה in her possession, for if there is a כתובה, why should there be an issue, let us see what is written in her כתובה, whether she was a בתולה when she married, and her כתובה is מאתיים; or if she was a widow (or a divorcee) when she married and her כתובה is only a מנה.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty if we assume that there is no שטר כתובה being presented here for collection; and rejects it: ואפילו⁴ למאן דאמר הטוען אחר מעשה בית דין ואמר פרעתי⁵ נאמן – And even according to the one who maintains, that one who argues with an enactment of בי״ד and he says I paid the debt that בי״ד placed upon me he is believed and does not have to pay, nevertheless there is no difficulty. Seemingly according to this מ״ד there is a difficulty. In our case since the ex-wife is not presenting a כתובה, the husband (or the יתומים) has the option of claiming that the כתובה was already paid in full.

תוספות will first clarify the difficulty, and then answer it: מכל מקום אין נאמן לומר כאן אלמנה נשאתיך מגו דאי בעי אמר פרעתי – Nonetheless, even though that this option of פרעתי exists, the husband is not believed in this case to claim, that I married you as a widow**, since he has a** מגו that he could have claimed I paid the כתובה. If he would have claimed פרעתי he would be פטור from paying anything. Now that he is claiming אלמנה נשאתיך and is willing to pay a מנה, he should be believed.⁶ The question is why the woman receives the entire כתובה; there is a מיגו of פרעתי, which should support the claim of אלמנה נשאתיך.

תוספות responds: דמגו במקום עדים הוא: For this is a מגו which contradicts עדים. A מיגו במקום עדים refers to case where the claim (not the מיגו) contradicts the עדים. In our case the claim is that she was a widow at the time of marriage. The עדים claim that יצאה בהינומא; that she was a בתולה. A מיגו cannot justify a claim which contradicts עדים.

SUMMARY If there are עדים that יצאה בהינומא, then even though the woman does not possess a כתובה, he is not believed to claim אלמנה נשאתיך, with a מיגו of פרעתיך. This is considered a מיגו במקום עדים.

THINKING IT OVER The ruling that מיגו במקום עדים לא אמרינן is well established. What was תוספות question initially?

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא (on דף יז,ב) cites two opinions whether a הינומא is a wreath of myrtles or a type of veil. ² See the גמרא later on טז,ב. ³ It is either a מקום שאין כותבין כתובה or she lost her כתובה. ⁴ The term ‘even’ is to be understood that ‘even according to this מ״ד’ there is (ultimately) no difficulty, as תוספות continues to expound on the proposed question and subsequent answer. ⁵ There are those who maintain (ר׳ יוחנן) that one cannot claim פרעתי on a debt that בי״ד imposes on him (like supporting one’s wife and daughters) for it is like a מלוה בשטר where פרעתי is not believed. See ב״מ יז,א. However there are others who maintain that פרעתי is נאמן against a מעשה בי״ד; see the marginal note. ⁶ This seems to be even stronger than a regular מגו. If he would have used the מגו claim he would have been entirely פטור; certainly he should be believed with his actual claim where he is admitting to owing a מנה.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ומודה רבי יהושע באומר שדה כולי דנאמן — admits in a case ר״י And where one says this field, etc.; that he is believed.

OVERVIEW ר״י agrees (to ר״ג ור״א) that in a case where the current occupant of a field asserts; ‘This field once belonged to your father and I bought it from him’, the rule is that the מוחזק is believed.¹ It is not clear from the משנה whether the son initially demanded that the מוחזק vacate the premises (and the מוחזק responded that שדה זו כו׳) or whether the מוחזק initially informed the son that שדה זו וכו׳, and subsequently the son demands the field be returned to him (based on the admission of the מוחזק). -----------------–

מתוך פירוש הקונטרס משמע² דדוקא כשאין הלה תובעו – From the context of sרש״י׳ explanation, it seems that the ruling of ר״י that we accept the claim of the current occupant that לקחתיה הימנו, is only when this son of the original owner is not presenting a claim against him. The current מוחזק approached the son of the original owner and informed him that he, the מוחזק, bought the field from his father. The son was not aware that it once belonged to his father. ונאמן במגו דאי בעי שתיק – And the מוחזק is believed that he bought it, for he has a מגו for he could have been silent. There was no need to tell the son anything. If he were silent he would have kept the field. Therefore, even though he admits that the field once belonged to the father, and he has no proof, nor a חזקה that it is his, nevertheless he gets to keep the field since he has the מגו דאי בעי שתיק –

אבל אם תובעו אינו נאמן³ – However, if the son presented a claim against him;the מוחזק is not believed; the son initially demanded that the מוחזק leave the field, since the son inherited it from his father, and subsequently the מוחזק responded that I bought it from your father, the מוחזק is not believed, and the field reverts back to the son.

תוספות disagrees with רש״י: ואינו נראה דהא קתני סיפא ואם יש עדים כולי – And this interpretation does not seem to be correct, for the משנה teaches us in the סיפא ‘and if there are witnesses, etc’. The משנה states that if there are witnesses that the field once belonged to the father, then the מוחזק is not believed that לקחתיה הימנו (without a שטר or חזקה). משמע דדוקא אם יש עדים שהיתה של אביו אינו נאמן – it seems from this סיפא that only if there are witnesses that it once belonged to his father; only in such a case is the מוחזק not believed; for since there are עדים that it originally belonged to the father, then in order to be מוציא a field from a מרא קמא, a שטר or חזקת ג׳ שנים is required. אבל אם אין עדים אף על גב דהלה תובעו נאמן במגו – However if there are no witnesses that the father was the מרא קמא, then the מוחזק is always believed even though the son is demanding of him**,** that he vacate the premises, nevertheless the מוחזק is believed, for he has a מיגו –

דאי בעי אמר לא היתה של אביך מעולם – For the מוחזק could have claimed it was never your father’s; the son has no witnesses that it was his father’s (in the רישא of the משנה). It is only in the סיפא that the משנה states that there are עדים. תוספות concludes his proof that the רישא is discussing even a case of הלה תובעו –

מדלא נקט אם תובעו אינו נאמן – Since the משנה did not state ‘if he demands of him, he is not believed’. According to רש״י the משנה should not have (merely) said if there are עדים, he is not believed; rather the משנה should have said that even if the son accuses him (without עדים), the מוחזק is not believed.⁴

תוספות offers an additional proof to his contention that רש״י is mistaken: ובגמרא נמי פריך⁵ וליתני שדה זו שלך היתה – And the גמרא also challenges **the משנה and asks, ‘**and the משנה should rather have taught us a case where the מחזיק says this field was once yours, etc.’ The גמרא asks that instead of teaching us the דין of שדה זו של אביך היתה (which is somewhat more complicated), the משנה could have taught the same דין in a case of שדה זו שלך היתה ולקחתיה ממך (which is a simpler case). This concludes the citation from the גמרא.

תוספות continues with his proof. This question of the גמרא –

משמע דבהלה תובעו איירי – indicates that the משנה is discussing a case where the son is accusing the מוחזק of occupying his field, which prompted the response of שדה זו שלך היתה ולקחתיה ממך.

תוספות expounds; If we assume that the case of שלך היתה is discussing a situation of הלה תובעו –

ולכך משיב ודאי שלך היתה ולקחתיה ממך – Thereforethe מוחזק responds to him; ‘certainly it was yours**, however** I subsequently bought it from you’. This conversation is understandable –

אבל אם לא תובעו אין שייך לומר שלך היתה כי מסתמא הוא יודע בעצמו דבר זה: However, if we are discussing a case where the מחזיק is not being accused;rather the מחזיק is approaching the former owner (as רש״י would have us understand), then it is not appropriate for the מחזיק to stateto the original owner ‘it was yours’, for it is assumable that he himself (the former owner) knows of this.⁶ The owner knows that he is an owner; what does the מוחזק accomplish by saying ‘this was once your field’. He merely should have said שדה זו לקחתיה ממך. The words שדה זו שלך היתה, make sense only if the מוחזק is acknowledging a claim made against him; not if he is merely informing the former owner of his own status as a buyer. Once we assume that the question of שלך היתה is discussing הלה תובעו, it is self understood that the מיגו of להד״ם is sufficiently strong that the מוחזק retain the field.

תוספות therefore maintains that the ruling of ר״י is valid even if הלה תובעו. The מוחזק is believed since he has a מיגו of לא היתה של אביך מעולם.⁷

SUMMARY There is a dispute between רש״י and תוספות in a case where a מערער claims that the מוחזק is occupying his (deceased) father’s field; and the מחזיק responds that he bought it from the father.⁸ According to רש״י the מערער receives the field; according to תוספות the מוחזק retains the field.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What would be the respective views of רש״י ותוספות in a similar case where there is no mention of a father; rather the מחזיק claims he bought it from the מערער?
2. Where is there a greater חידוש that the מוחזק is נאמן; in a case of הלה תובעו without עדים, or אין הלה תובעו with עדים?⁹

footnotes: ¹ The משנה is discussing a case where there is no proof that it ever belonged to the father, and the מוחזק has neither a שטר nor a חזקת ג׳ שנים. ² See רש״י טז,א ד״ה שהפה, where רש״י clearly states זה אינו יודע שהיתה של אביו אלא על פיו של זה. See also, רש״י ד״ה הכא where רש״י states אם שתק זה לא היה לו עוררים. ³ If the מוחזק would have responded that it never belonged to your father; the מוחזק would retain the field. However now that he admits של אביך היתה, he is not believed that לקחתיה הימנו with the מיגו of לא היתה של אביך מעולם. It would seem that רש״י maintains that only a מיגו דאי בעי שתיק is sufficiently strong to allow the current מוחזק to retain the field. However, the מיגו of להד״ם, is not sufficient. Once the מוחזק admits that the father was the מרא קמא, a regular מיגו cannot be מוציא from a מרא קמא; only a מיגו דאי בעי שתיק, which the משנה refers to as הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר, can be מוציא from the מ״ק. ⁴ תוספות assumes that it is a greater חידוש that the מוחזק is not believed בהלה תובעו without עדים, than that the מוחזק is not believed if there are עדים that the father owned the field. Therefore if רש״י is correct, that בהלה תובעו אינו נאמן, then the משנה should have taught us the greater חידוש of הלה תובעו. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁵ דף יז,ב. ⁶ תוספות could not have proven this from the case in the משנה of שדה זו של אביך היתה; for there the phrase שדה זו של אביך היתה is appropriate even if אין הלה תובעו. He is informing the son, who may not be aware, that this field once belonged to your father. However in the sגמרא׳ question where he is stating שלך היתה, that statement is only appropriate if it is הלה תובעו. ⁷ See previous footnote # 3. תוספות will assume that since the son has no proof that it ever belonged to his father. His only claim is based on the admission of the מוחזק, that של אביך היתה; therefore the מיגו of להד״ם is sufficiently effective for the מוחזק to retain the field. According to תוספות this type of מיגו is also considered הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. ⁸ There are no other witnesses, documents or חזקה. ⁹ See footnote # 4.