Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דאי רבן גמליאל הא אמר איהי מהימנא — For if it is according to ר״ג, he maintains that she is believed.

OVERVIEW The משנה states: if there are עדי הינומא, then the woman is believed that בתולה נשאתני. Our גמרא infers from this that if there are no עדים, the husband is believed that אלמנה נשאתיך. The גמרא asserts that (seemingly) our משנה is not in accordance with ר״ג, who favors the woman,¹ even if there are no witnesses to support her claim. It seems unlikely that our משנה would not cite the opinion of ר״ג, since he was cited in the previous משניות. -------------–

תוספות wishes to qualify the question; that it is limited to a specific opinion: נראה דלמאן דאמר הטוען אחר מעשה בית דין² לא אמר כלום פריך³ – It seems that this challenge that our משנה is not in accordance with ר״ג is only according to the one who maintains that ‘one who counterclaims an act of בי״ד,**** he has no claim’; if one claims that he already paid what בי״ד required of him we do not accept this claim of פרעתי, and he is still obligated to pay, unless he can prove that he paid his obligation. It is only according to this מ״ד that the גמרא challenges that the husband should not be believed (according to ר״ג) that אלמנה נשאתיך (even if there were no עידי הינומא), because he has nothing with which to support his claim.⁴ דלמאן דאמר דמצי טעין פרעתי – However, according to the מ״ד that one can claim ‘I paid’ (even by a מעשה בי״ד; such as a כתובה), then –

הכא נאמן הבעל אפילו לרבן גמליאל אלמנה נשאתיך במגו דאי בעי אמר פרעתי: Here in our משנה if there were no עדים שיצתה בהינומא, the husband is believed to claim אלמנה נשאתיך, even according to ר״ג, who usually favors the woman; nevertheless here the husband is believed to claim that I married you as a widow, for he has a מגו that he could have claimed ‘I already paid you the כתובה. According to this מ״ד, one is believed to claim פרעתי, even by a מעשה בי״ד; therefore if there were no עדי הינומא, the בעל is believed to claim אלמנה נשאתיך, since he has the מגו of פרעתי.

SUMMARY According to the מ״ד that הטוען (פרעתי) אחר מעשה בי״ד נאמן, it is understood (even in the הו״א) that ר״ג agrees that the בעל is נאמן (if there are no עדי הינומא), since he has a מיגו of פרעתי.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות claims that the question of לימא וכו׳ דלא כר״ג is only according to the מ״ד that הטוען אחר מעשה בי״ד לא אמר כלום; since he has no מיגו of פרעתי.⁵ Seemingly however, he has the מגו of אין את אשתי; you are not my wife and I owe you nothing.⁶
2. If the woman demanded her כתובה immediately after the גירושין, would the husband still have the מיגו of פרעתי?
3. Would רש״י, who states in ד״ה הבעל that העמד אותה על חזקה וכו׳, disagree with this תוספות?⁷

footnotes: ¹ See the various משניות in פרק ראשון דפים יב,ב וכו׳. ² A מעשה בי״ד is an obligation on a person that he is required to discharge even if there is no שטר or עדים. A prime example of a מעשה בי״ד, is the כתובה itself. The obligation to pay the כתובה is not dependent on the writing of the כתובה. Any woman who marries is entitled to a כתובה regardless if a כתובה was written or not. There is a dispute whether one may claim פרעתי on a מעשה בי״ד, even if he has no proof that he actually paid. This dispute is in a case where the claimant has no document (a כתובה) to prove that (s)he is still owed the monies. In cases other than מעשה בי״ד the debtor is (usually) believed to claim פרעתי, if the claimant has no שטר. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ This תוספות is discussing the הו״א of the גמרא, before we distinguished between ברי וברי and ברי ושמא. ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ See מהרש״א, מהר״ם שי״ף. ⁷ See שטמ״ק.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

הכי נמי מסתברא — This is also logical

OVERVIEW In our גמרא up to ׳הכי נמי מסתברא׳, there were two questions and two answers. The first מקשן asked how is it that our משנה disagrees with ר״ג (and does not even mention him).¹ The גמרא replied that ר״ג concurs with our משנה since it is a case of ברי וברי. The second מקשן asked, what was the question of the first מקשן originally; is it not obvious that there is a difference between ברי וברי and ברי ושמא?! The גמרא replied that our משנה is similar to a case of ברי ושמא (that is why there was a question initially). After this discussion the גמרא concludes that הנ״מ; logic dictates that this answer is not merely a deflection, but rather that this explanation is necessary in order to understand the משנה properly. It is not clear to which answer the גמרא is referring to, when it states that הנ״מ. Is it concerning the first answer, that ר״ג is מודה that by ברי וברי the woman is not נאמן? Or it the הנ״מ coming to confirm the second answer, that our משנה is similar to a ברי ושמא. This is the basis of the ensuing מחלוקת between רש״י and תוספות. ----------------–

פירש בקונטרס² הכי נמי מסתברא דמתניתין אתיא כרבן גמליאל – It is explained in רש״יthat the גמרא means, it is indeed also logical that our משנה concurs with the view of ר״ג, who maintains that usually the woman is believed (but only in cases of ברי ושמא), however we can reconcile ר״ג with our משנה –

כדמשנינן דבברי וברי מודה מדקתני ומודה רבי יהושע כולי – as the גמרא answers, that in a case of ברי וברי, as in our משנה, then ר״ג admits that the woman requires עדים to be believed; otherwise she cannot be מוציא ממון on the basis of her claim alone, since she is opposed by a טענת ברי.³ The גמרא offers proof that this is indeed so since the משנה teaches us that ר״י admits, etc. רש״י explains this as follows: The case in which ר״י is מודה, namely שדה זו כו׳, has no real relevance here in מסכת כתובות. The question arises, why mention it here at all. Its relevance here is understandable however, if we maintain that in the רישא of the משנה (the case of האשה שנתארמלה) ר״ג admits that the woman is not believed. It then follows, that once the משנה teaches us a situation wherein ר״ג is מודה to ר״י, the משנה also teaches us another instance where ר״י is מודה to ר״ג (in the case of שדה זו). However, if there is no ומודה in the רישא (if ר״ג disagrees even by ברי וברי),⁴ then why mention the case of ומודה ר״י (by שדה זו) which has no relevance to our משנה. The הנ״מ proves that the רישא of the משנה concurs with the opinion of ר״ג; that even though generally the woman is believed by a בו״ש, however since our case is a ברי וברי, therefore ר״ג admits that she is not believed. This is the interpretation of the גמרא according to רש״י.

תוספות has a difficulty with this interpretation; specifically the proof that רש״י offers concerning that ר״ג is מודה בברי וברי: וקשה לפירושו דכי לא איירי רבן גמליאל במודה אתי שפיר ומודה דרבי יהושע – And there is a difficulty with his interpretation;that the גמרא intends to proof that ר״ג is מודה בברי וברי, for even if ר״ג was not involved in admitting;**** the ׳ומודה׳ of ר״י would be properly cited in the משנה; even if we do not assume that ר״ג is מודה בברי וברי, but rather that he may argue on the רישא of the משנה, and maintain that even בברי וברי the woman is נאמנת,⁵ nevertheless the citing of ומודה ר״י would be well understood –

כלומר אף על גב דברישא פליגנא עלך בסיפא מודינא לך – it would mean to say**, that** even though that in the רישאof האשה שנתארמלה, I (ר״י) disagree with you**(ר״ג); for ר״י maintains, as the משנה states that she requires עדים to be believed,⁶ while ר״ג maintains (as we are wont to assume now) that she is believed (even by ברי וברי), nevertheless** in the סיפא of שדה זו כו׳, I admit to you that the מיגו is effective and the buyer is מוציא the field from the son of the מרא קמא –

תוספות anticipates the obvious question (which is the basis of sרש״י׳ proof): אף על גב דרישא וסיפא אינן מענין אחד – Even though the רישא (concerning האשה שנתארמלה, where ר״ג ור״י argue by ברי וברי) and the סיפא (concerning שדה זו, where ר״י admits to ר״ג by מגו) are not the same topic (one is ברי וברי and the other is מגו); how can we justify that the משנה cite an issue (שדה זו כו׳) which is seemingly irrelevant. This in fact is the basis of the sגמרא׳ proof according to רש״י. Nevertheless, תוספות claims that this irrelevance should not pose a difficulty –

כי היכי דאתיה ליה שפיר ומודה רבי יהושע אי איירי רבן גמליאל במודה – Just as רש״י deems proper the citing of ומודה ר״י in our משנה if ר״ג is involved in ‘admitting’; the citing of ר״י is then acceptable in our משנה –

אף על גב דמודה דרבן גמליאל אינו מענין ומודה דרבי יהושע – Even though that the ׳מודה׳ of ר״ג (concerning האשה שנתארמלה) is not the same concept as the ׳ומודה׳ of ר״י. The מודה of ר״ג is concerning ברי וברי; however the מודה of ר״י is concerning מגו (in addition to the difficulty that שדה זו is irrelevant to כתובות). Nevertheless it is acceptable to רש״י, as long as there is some continuity; you are מודה to me, and I am מודה to you. The same can be said, even if ר״ג is not מודה; there is still is a semblance of continuity. ר״י is stating that even though we disagree here (by אשה שנתארמלה), nevertheless we agree somewhere else (by שדה זו).⁷ The fact that שדה זו is irrelevant to our משנה should not pose a greater difficulty for this interpretation than it did according to the interpretation of רש״י, where the two statements of ׳ומודה׳ are equally irrelevant to each other. תוספות argues that the basis of the proof according to רש״י, namely the irrelevance of ומודה ר״י to our משנה, is not improved upon even if ר״ג is מודה. The two ׳ומודה׳ of ר״ג ור״י are not on the same topic.

תוספות offers an answer to justify the interpretation of רש״י: ויש ליישב דודאי כי איירי רבן גמליאל במודה שייך למיתני שפיר ומודה רבי יהושע – And it is possible to answer this question on רש״י; that we cannot compare the irrelevance of שדה זו, if ר״ג is מודה, to a situation where he is not מודה; for it is certain, that if ר״ג is involved in a ׳ומודה׳,**** then it is feasible to cite properly that ר״י is also מודה –

אף על גב דלא הוי מענין אחד כלומר – Even though the two ׳ומודה׳ are not of the same topic; meaning, that the continuity lies not in similarity of the concepts, but rather –

דאגב דתנא מילתא דמודה רבן גמליאל תני נמי מילתא דמודה בה רבי יהושע – That since the תנא taught us somethingin which ר״ג is מודה, therefore it is appropriate that the תנא also teach us something in which ר״י is מודה. There isn’t merely a semblance of continuity, but rather there is a connection and similarity between the two statements; they are both concerning ׳ומודה׳ –

אבל אי לא איירי רבן גמליאל במודה לא שייך למיתני ומודה רבי יהושע – However, if ר״ג is not involved in ׳ומודה׳, then it is not appropriate for the משנה to teach us ׳ומודה ר״י׳ –

לאשמועינן אף על גב דפליג ברישא מודה בסיפא כיון דרישא וסיפא אינם מענין אחד – to let us know that even though ר״י argues in the רישא,nevertheless he admits (to ר״ג) in the סיפא (שדה זו); this is not appropriate since the רישא and the סיפא are not of the same topic. There is no connection and similarity at all between the רישא and the סיפא, if there is no ׳ומודה ר״ג׳ in the רישא.⁸

After תוספות answered his (first) difficulty with רש״י, תוספות finds an additional problem: אבל קשה דלא הוה ליה למימר אמגו קאי⁹ – However there is another difficulty with פירוש רש״י for the גמרא should not have said,in its refutation of the ה״נ מסתברא, that ר״י is referring to מגו. It was not necessary for the גמרא to inform us of this –

דעד השתא נמי לפירוש הקונטרס אמגו הוי קאי – For**** even until now**; before the refutation, ר״י** was referring to מגו, according to פרש״י.The מודה of ר״י in the הנ״מ (even before the refutation) was that ר״י admits that the מגו of הפה שאסר is effective. The refutation of the הנ״מ, should state that ר״י is not referring to our פרק, but rather to the previous פרק. However concerning the idea of מיגו, there is no difference between the הנ״מ and the מסקנא; all agree that the מודה of ר״י is that a מגו of הפה שאסר is effective. Why does the גמרא add that אמגו קאי; that was known even to the הנ״מ?!

תוספות offers a different interpretation of the הנ״מ: ונראה לרבינו יצחק דהכי פירושו הכי נמי מסתברא דכברי ושמא דמי – And it appears to the ר״י that this is the interpretation of the הנ״מ; the logic also indicates that our משנה is similar to a ברי ושמא. Even though the husband claims ברי that אלמנה נשאתיך, nevertheless since רוב נשים בתולות נישאות, he is considered a שמא; his claim is weakened.

תוספות anticipates a possible misconception of his interpretation of the הנ״מ and proceeds to forestall it. It was necessary to claim that our משנה is כברי ושמא דמי, in order to explain the original question of לימא תנן סתמא דלא כר״ג.¹⁰ The assertion that our משנה is כבו״ש דמי, lends credence to the assumption that ר״ג disagrees with our משנה. When תוספות states that the הנ״מ intends to support the contention that our משנה is כבו״ש דמי, it may be understood that that the הנ״מ simultaneously supports the accompanying claim that ר״ג argues with the משנה. It is this misconception that תוספות will now clarify. ולא בא לומר דפליג רבן גמליאל ברישא – And the הנ״מ is not coming to assert that ר״ג is arguing in the רישא; that since we consider it בו״ש, therefore ר״ג would believe the woman without עדים. This is not so –

אלא אף על גב דכברי ושמא דמי מודה רבן גמליאל משום דלאו שמא ממש הוא – But rather the הנ״מ is coming to prove, that even though that our משנה is like a case of בו״ש**, nevertheless** ר״ג admits that the woman is not believed¹¹ because it is not an actual שמא; the husband is claiming ברי that אלמנה נשאתיך. The רוב cannot render his טענה into an actual שמא. The גמרא continues to prove this assertion (according to תוספות), that ר״ג is מודה even though it is similar to (but not actually) a בו״ש –

מדקאמר ומודה רבי יהושע – Since the משנה states: ומודה ר״י; this proves that ר״ג is מודה by a (quasi) בו״ש, as the גמרא continues –

אי אמרת בשלמא איירי רבן גמליאל במודה – It is well understood why the משנה states ומודה ר״י if you assumethat ר״ג is involved in a ׳מודה׳ situation; he is admitting to something –

כלומר¹² אף על גב דכברי ושמא דמי מודה רבן גמליאל דבעל נאמן – This ‘admitting’ means to say that even though the רישא of the משנה is similar to a בו״ש situation (on account of the רוב נשים בתולות כו׳), nevertheless ר״ג admits that the husband is believed (even though he is similar to a שמא). If we are to assume this ׳מודה׳, then –

היינו דקתני ומודה רבי יהושע דבהאי ברי נאמן – This is what the משנה teaches us by stating ומודה ר״י, namely that even though ר״י generally does not accept the ברי over the שמא, nevertheless by this ברי (of שדה זו), the ברי is believed to retain the field.

תוספות anticipates the need to interject a clarification at this point. Seemingly the reason ר״י is מודה by שדה זו is not because of ברי ושמא, but rather on account of מגו. Why is תוספות saying that ומודה ר״י on account of בו״ש?! תוספות explains: דסלקא דעתין דטעמא דרבי יהושע משום ברי ושמא דזה אינו תובעו כדפירש בקונטרס – For it entered our minds at this point that the reason that ר״י is מודה is because of ברי ושמא since the son is not demanding the field¹³ as רש״י interpreted the משנה.¹⁴ If it is a case of אין הלה תובעו, then the most logical reason why ר״י believes the ברי is because the defendant is a שמא.¹⁵ והשתא הוה מודה דרבן גמליאל ומודה דברי יהושע בענין אחד – And now that the ומודה of ר״ג is that even though the רישא is similar to a בו״ש, nevertheless ר״ג is מודה that לאו ברי עדיף; and the מודה of ר״י is that by אין הלה תובעו we also say that ברי עדיף, then the**** ׳מודה׳ of ר״ג (concerning בו״ש) and the מודה of ר״י are in the same topic; both are discussing ברי ושמא. The משנה then is justified in citing ומודה ר״י.

The גמרא continues with its proof: אלא אי אמרת דרישא בברי וברי גמור הוא ולא איירי רבן גמליאל במודה – However, if you will maintain not like the הנ״מ (that our משנה is כבו״ש דמי), but rather that the רישא is an absolute ברי וברי (since the husband is actually claiming ברי); the consequences of such an assumption is that ר״ג is not involved in ‘admission’ –

דפשיטא דכיון דברי וברי הוא דלא פליג רבן גמליאל מאי ומודה – For it is obvious that the woman is not believed even according to ר״ג; for since (as we are now assuming) that the רישא is a ברי וברי, then ר״ג would not argue;it would be inappropriate to term this מודה. He is not admitting anything. ר״ג only discussed בו״ש, not ברי וברי. Obviously he maintains that by ברי וברי we require עדים. If that is the case what is the ׳ומודה ר״י׳ doing in our משנה; it has no relevance here. This is the proof of the הנ״מ according to תוספות.

The גמרא continues and refutes the proof of the הנ״מ: וקאמר מי סברת ארישא קאי וטעמא דרבי יהושע משום ברי ושמא – And the גמרא says, who led youto think that ר״י is referring to the רישא;to the purported ׳ומודה׳ of ר״ג, and the reason of ר״י is because of בו״ש; it is not so –

אמגו קאי דטעמא דרבי יהושע משום מגו ונאמן אפילו הלה תובעו ואפרקין קמא קאי: He is referring to a מגו in his ומודה, for the reason of ר״י (by שדה זו) is because he has a מגו; not because the בן is a שמא,¹⁶ and the buyer is believed even if the son demands the field back, nevertheless the מגו is effective and ר״י is referring back to the first פרק. In the first פרק we find that ר״י does not give credence to a מגו; however in this מגו of שדה זו, even ר״י admits that it is an effective מגו.

SUMMARY רש״י is of the opinion that the הנ״מ is proving that ר״ג is מודה בברי וברי. תוספות insists that the הנ״מ is proving that ר״ג is מודה in a case that is similar to בו״ש.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the (essential) difference between תוספות (first) question on רש״י, and the ויש ליישב?
2. תוספות maintains that the הנ״מ was of the opinion that ומודה ר״י is discussing a case of אין הלה תובעו.¹⁷ Seemingly there is a difficulty with that assumption; how will the הנ״מ answer תוספות question¹⁸ that if it is אין הלה תובעו, the משנה should have concluded that ואם תובעו אינו נאמן, instead of ואם יש עדים כו׳ אינו נאמן!¹⁹
3. According to תוס׳ the הנ״מ assumed that ומודה ר״י is referencing a case of ברי ושמא (thereby proving that the רישא is also ברי ושמא). When the גמרא refuted the הנ״מ, why was it necessary (even according to תוס׳) to say אמיגו קאי (that the ומודה דר״י is not regarding בו״ש);²⁰ why is it not sufficient to say אפירקין קמא קאי, where we are also discussing case of בו״ש.²¹

footnotes: ¹ ר״ג argues with ר״י in the first פרק concerning various disputes between the husband and wife. ר״ג maintains that the woman is believed while ר״י maintains that her testimony is not accepted. ² בד״ה והכי. ³ According to רש״י the הנ״מ confirms that ר״ג admits by a ברי וברי. ⁴ This is what the first מקשן assumed (because he considered it a בו״ש, as the second תרצן suggested). ⁵ This may be because he considers it similar to a בו״ש (as the second תרצן explains) or because she has a חזקת בתולה, or רוב נשים בתולות נישאות, etc. ⁶ She cannot be מוציא ממון (based on any of the reasons enumerated in the previous footnote # 5). ⁷ תוספות is asserting that there is the same continuity from מחלוקת to מודה as there is from מודה to מודה. ⁸ The continuity from a מחלוקת to a מודה is justified only if the מחלוקת may lead one to think that the מחלוקת extends to the case of ׳ומודה׳. In our situation, however, the fact that ר״י argues on ר״ג in the רישא concerning ברי וברי, does not lead us to think that he should not agree with ר״ג, concerning הפה שאסר. There is no need for ׳ומודה׳. In contrast, the continuity from ומודה to ומודה is always self-justified in any case. ⁹ The גמרא refutes the הנ״מ saying; מי סברת ר״י אהאי פירקין קאי אמגו קאי ואפירקין קמא קאי. Our תוספות maintains that the words אמגו קאי are superfluous according to פירש״י. ¹⁰ If our משנה would be considered כברי וברי דמי, then obviously there is no reason to assume that ר״ג, who believes the woman in cases of בו״ש, should argue with our משנה, which requires עדים by ברי וברי. ¹¹ The הנ״מ is asserting that it is necessary to consider our משנה like a ברי ושמא case, not only to justify the question of the first מקשן; but rather (more importantly) to explain the continuity of the משנה. ¹² The ׳כלומר׳ is asserting that we are not merely interested that ר״ג is מודה in the רישא (since it is a ברי וברי); but rather that he is מודה despite that it is similar to a בו״ש situation. ¹³ It will be necessary to interpret (according to this הו״א) that when the משנה states that הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר; this means that the שמא of the son is based on the admission of the ברי; that שדה זו של אביך וכו׳, therefore ר״י agrees that ברי עדיף. However, in the ברי ושמא cases of פרק ראשון, there is no הפה שאסר; it is known without the ברי of the אשה that ‘something’ occurred. Alternately see בית יעקב (סוכת דוד אות יט). ¹⁴ See previous תוספות דף טו,ב ד״ה ומודה. In truth תוספות disagrees with רש״י, for the משנה is discussing even a case of הלה תובעו. However in this הו״א even תוספות agrees that the גמרא thought the case of שדה זו is only by אין הלה תובעו, which makes the claim of the בן a טענת שמא. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁵ After the claimant states שדה זו שלא אביך וכו׳, the son claims that perhaps you never bought it. ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁷ See footnote # 14. ¹⁸ See תוספות טו,ב ד״ה ומודה. ¹⁹ See מהרש״א וכו׳. ²⁰ See footnote # 16. ²¹ See רש״ש.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

התם שור שחוט לפניך — There, an ox is slaughtered before you

OVERVIEW The גמרא offers an explanation as to why ר״י differentiates between the cases of מגו in the first פרק (where the מגו is ineffective), as opposed to the מגו of שדה זו in this פרק (which is effective). The גמרא compares the מגו of פרק ראשון to a שור שחוט and the מגו of פרק שני to אין שור שחוט. There is a dispute between רש״י and תוספות as to the interpretation of this answer; based on their dispute concerning the actual litigation in the case of שדה זו. -------------------–

פירש בקונטרס¹ שהוא טוען עד שלא אירסתיך נאנסת – It is explained in רש״י, that the reason the cases in פרק ראשון are compared to a שור שחוט is, since the husband claims you were forced before I betrothed you. The husband’s claim against his wife is compared to a שור שחוט; there is a need for a response here, just as a שור שחוט necessitates a response as to who slaughtered it. והכא אין שור שחוט לפניך דאין הלה תובעו – However here in the case of שדה זו וכו׳ there is no ‘ox slaughtered before you’; there is no need for a response since the son is not demanding anything from the buyer.²

תוספות has a different interpretation: ורבינו יצחק מפרש דהכא נמי איירי בהלה תובעו כדפירישית³ – And the ר״י explains that here too; in the case of שדה זו וכו׳ it is discussing a case where the son is claiming ownership of the field, as I explained.

תוספות will now clarify what is meant by שור שחוט and אין שור שחוט: והכי פירושו התם שור שחוט לפניך דהרי אין לה בתולים⁴ And this is the explanation of the גמרא; there, in the cases of פרק ראשון, there is a שור שחוט לפניך for she has no דם בתולים –

ואינה יכולה לומר בתולה אני כמו בשור שחוט שאין יכול לומר חי הוא – And she cannot claim I was a בתולהby the נישואין; therefore her status is just as by a שור שחוט where no one can say he is alive; similarly she cannot deny the fact, that she is not a בתולה⁵ –

ולהכי בין אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי בין אומרת מוכת עץ אני תחתיך לא מהימנא – And therefore whether she claims I was forced after the אירוסין, or whether she claims I was struck by wood while I was an ארוסה she is not believed.⁶ However –

הכא אין שור שחוט לפניך ונאמן במגו דאי בעי אמר לא היתה של אביך מעולם – Here in the case of שדה זו there is no שור שחוט לפניך; we do not know, independent of the buyer’s admission, that it once belonged to the claimant’s father,⁷ so therefore the buyer is believed that he purchased it from the father, since he has a מגו for he could have claimed it never belonged to your father.⁸

SUMMARY According to רש״י the difference between שור שחוט and אין שור שחוט is if there is a claim or not. According to תוספות the difference is whether the counter claim to the מיגו is (basically) substantiated (as by טענת בתולים) or whether it remains unsubstantiated (as by שדה זו).

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to תוספות,⁹ is the claim of the son (merely) that it once belonged to my father; or does he additionally claim that I know he never sold it to you?
2. Is the אין שור שחוט by שדה זו, caused by the weakness of the claim (שדה זו של אבי); or by the strength of the מגו (that לא היתה של אביך מעולם)?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ See, רש״י ד״ה הכא, for a more complete rendition of sרש״י׳ view. ² If there is a need for a response (שור שחוט), then according to ר״י a (certain type of) מגו is insufficient to substantiate her claim; however when there is no need for a response (אין שור שחוט), the מגו is effective. ³ See תוספות טו,ב ד״ה ומודה [see ‘Thinking it over’ # 1]. According to תוספות the meaning of שור שחוט וכו׳ cannot be that a response is required; for in all cases a response is required, since it is הלה תובעו. ⁴ The husband is always believed if he claims that his wife has no דם בתולים (see כתובות י,א) [in addition, that presently she is certainly not a בתולה]. Alternately it is a case where there was no דם on the (cloth) עדים. ⁵ It is not necessary for her to admit that משארסתני נאנסתי, in order to establish that she was not a בתולה at the נישואין. See previous footnote # 4. Therefore it is considered a שור שחוט. ⁶ The lack of דם בתולים disqualifies the woman from receiving the full כתובה; unless she can prove that she was a בתולה (or a מוכת עץ according to ר״מ) at the time of אירוסין. There is no real מגו here; the claim of מוכת עץ אני תחתיך, cannot effectively challenge the fact the she is not a בתולה. ⁷ The claim of the son, does not establish it as fact that it once belonged to his father. Therefore it is considered as אין שור שחוט. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ If the buyer would have claimed לא היה של אביך מעולם he would certainly be believed, since the son has no עדים, that it once belonged to his father; and the buyer is currently occupying the field (albeit without a חזקה or שטר). ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See footnote # 7.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

כיון דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות כי ליכא עדים מאי הוי — Since most women get married as בתולות, what of it that there are no עדים!

OVERVIEW There is a מחלוקת between רב ושמואל¹ whether we can decide monetary rulings on the basis of majority (as is the case in other areas of הלכה).² Our גמרא contends that in our משנה we should follow the רוב, regardless if there are עדים or not. תוספות will qualify this challenge. -----------------–

לרב פריך דאית ליה הולכין בממון אחר הרוב: The contention of the גמרא (that the woman should collect מאתיים, on account of this רוב) is (only) according to רב, for רב maintains we follow the majority concerning monetary issues. Therefore since רוב נשים בתולות נישאות, we are to assume that this woman, as well, was a בתולה when she married and she deserves a כתובה of מאתיים. According to the other opinion, however, that אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב, then there is no difficulty. The fact that רוב נשים בתולות נישאות, is not sufficiently effective to extract the monies from the husband. They maintain that a רוב does not have the power to be מוציא ממון.³

SUMMARY The question of the גמרא that we should follow the רוב is only according to רב who maintains הולכין בממון אחר הרוב.

THINKING IT OVER Seemingly it is possible to differentiate between the case of רב (by the ox)⁴ and our case. There, the seller (the מוחזק) cannot claim with certainty that the buyer bought it for meat. Therefore the רוב is sufficient to be מוציא ממון. Here however the husband (the מוחזק) claims with certainty that she was an אלמנה. Perhaps in such a case even רב admits that אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב.

footnotes: ¹ ב״ק מו,א. The case there entails the sale of an ox that turned out to be a goring ox. The buyer claimed that the ox is useless to him since he bought it for plowing; the seller claimed that the ox was sold for its meat. רב maintains that since most oxen are bought for plowing, we follow the רוב and the sale is invalid. שמואל maintains that the sale is valid since אין הולכין בממון אחר הרוב, עיי״ש. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² The reason why ממון may be different is because the רוב is opposed by a מוחזק. ³ The תוספות ישנים (on the margin) disagrees with תוספות. The following is a (partial) translation: ‘It is possible that even according to שמואל, we should follow the רוב, rather than the חזקת ממון, since the חזקת הגוף (that she was born a בתולה) supports the רוב (they both indicate that she was married as a בתולה). עיי״ש. ⁴ See footnote # 1.