תרי ותרי נינהו — They are two against two

OVERVIEW The גמרא cites a הלכה (in the name of רב הונא אמר רב) that if there was an ערער on one of the דיינים on a בי״ד of קיום השטר; then if the other two דיינים did not sign, they may testify to vindicate the third דיין. Once the two דיינים signed however, they may not testify and have him sign. The גמרא challenges this הלכה and asks what type of ערער was it: if it was an ערער of גזלנות, then it is תרי ותרי (the גמרא does not clarify what is the question exactly); if it was an ערער of פגם משפחה, then it is (merely) a גילוי מילתא בעלמא (again the גמרא does not clarify). תוספות will cite sרש״י interpretation (and challenge it), and the sר״ח׳ interpretation. --------------------–

פירש בקונטרס¹ וכי אמרי לא גזל הוו להו תרי ותרי ולא מתכשר בהכי –

רש״י explains; and when the דיינים will testify that the דיין in question did not steal, it will be a situation of תרי ותרי (where two עדים contradict two other עדים), and the accused דיין will not be vindicated through the testimony of the דיינים.²

וקשה דהכא אליבא דרב הונא³ קיימינן דאית ליה⁴ (שבועות דף מז:) – And there is a difficulty with the aforementioned interpretation. For here in this גמרא we are following the view of רב הונא**** who maintains in a case of תרי ותרי –

דזו באה בפני עצמה ומעידה דאית לן למימר אוקי גברא אחזקתיה⁵ – That each group of the contradictory עדים may come independently to בי״ד and testify**(regarding other cases)**. The reason is that we do say that we place the person (each עד) on his presumptive status of כשרות.⁶ Similarly here, this third דיין had a חזקת כשרות; the subsequent תרי ותרי cannot diminish this חזקת כשרות. He should be כשר despite the תרי ותרי. For תרי ותרי cannot remove a חזקת כשרות.

תוספות expands his question: ועוד דלרב חסדא דאמר (שם) בהדי סהדי שקרי למה לי – And furthermore (even) according to רב חסדא (who argues with רב הונא)⁷ and maintains that in a case of תרי ותרי we say ‘why get involved with these false witnesses’. רב חסדא is of the opinion that these two כתי עדים cannot testify elsewhere, for each is suspect of being false עדים. Nevertheless רב חסדא would - מודה הכא דהאי גברא ממילא מתכשר – Admit here, that this person (the third דיין) would be naturally vindicated and able to serve as a דיין. תוספות explains: שהרי אם כת אחת מאלו מעידה על אדם אחד שהוא פסול – For if one of these contradictory כתיעדים would (subsequently) testify concerning a certain person that he is unfit for עדות, etc.; the כת –

לרב חסדא דחשיב להו סהדי שקרי לא היתה נאמנת אף על גב דאין אדם מכחישה⁸ – Would not be believed to be פוסל this person according to רב חסדא, for רב חסדא considers the members of each כת as false עדים. This is true in spite of the fact the no one is contradicting this כת in this testimony, which claims that a certain person is פסול – וכל שכן היכא דאיכא סהדי דמכחשי דלא מהימני – And certainly in our case where there are עדים (the two דיינים) who contradict the עדים הפוסלים, the עדים הפוסלים will surely not be believed; and the alleged פסול would be כשר.⁹

תוספות has an additional difficulty on רש״י: ועוד קשה לרבינו יצחק דקאמר אי ערער דפגם משפחה גלוי מילתא בעלמא הוא – And the ר״י has an additional difficulty; for the גמרא states, ‘if it is a contention concerning a family type blemish, then it is merely a revelation of the facts’ –

ופירש הקונטרס דדבר העשוי ליגלות הוא שיבדקו עד שיתברר הדבר – And רש״י explained, that this פגם משפחה is something that will eventually be revealed, for they will search out the facts until the matter will be clarified**. Therefore even if the דיינים signed, they should be able to testify, for it is not a real הגדת עדות, merely a גילוי מילתא** –

תוספות asks: וזהו תימה איך יתברר הדבר לעולם כיון שאלו ב׳ אומרים שהוא עבד – And this is astounding! How can the matter ever be clarified, since these two witnesses claim that he is an עבד, therefore –

אין כל העולם יכולים להכחישן דתרי כמאה – The entire world cannot refute them, for two עדים are as effective as a hundred עדים. No matter what evidence may show up, once these עדים claimed that the דיין is an עבד, they cannot be refuted

תוספות offers an alternate explanation of the גמרא: על כן נראה כפירוש רבינו חננאל דלא איירי בעדות דיינין¹⁰ אלא בעדות אחרים – Therefore תוספות prefers the interpretation of the ר״ח; that we are not discussing the testimony of the דיינים (the דיינים are not testifying about the third דיין), but rather the testimony of others concerning the third דיין –

והכי פירושה אם עד שלא חתמו קרא ערער על אחד מהם – And this is the explanation of the גמרא; if there was a contention concerning one ofthe דיינים before the others signed, then –

מעידים שנים מן השוק¹¹ עליו וחותם – Two people from the market can testify concerning the כשרות of this דיין and he may sign the הנפק. The reason is –

דהוי כאילו ישבו בית דין אחר שהכשירוהו ולא בטל וועד המושב וחותמין¹² – For it is considered as if the בי״ד convened after the דיין was vindicated, and the committee meeting place was not annulled, and all the דיינין sign.However –

משחתמו השנים ולא הספיק השלישי לחתום עד שקרא עליו ערער – Once two of the דיינים signed and the third דיין did not manage to sign before his legitimacy was contested**, then -** בא ערער וביטל וועד המושב של אותו בית דין – The contention nullified the וועד המושב of that בי״ד –

אף על פי שאחרי כן העידו אחרים שהוא כשר כיון שביטל ההוא מושב בטל – Even though that afterwards others testified that the third דיין is כשר, nevertheless once that מושב was nullified it remains nullified –

וצריך לחזור ולהושיב בית דין על כך – And it is necessary to reconvene a new בי״ד for this case, and sign the הנפק again.

ערער דמאי אי ערער דגזלנותא תרי ותרי נינהו ולא מיפסיל – What type of contention was there against this דיין; if it was an ערער that the דיין was a robber;that should not be a problem (even if two דיינים signed already), for it is a case of תרי ותרי, andthe דיין is not פסול –

דאוקי תרי בהדי תרי ואוקי גברא אחזקתיה¹³ – For we set the two עדים against the other two עדים who cancel out each other and we place the person on his presumptive כשרות status –

וכיון דאיגלאי מלתא דמעולם לא היה פסול – And since it subsequently became apparent that this דיין was never פסול –

הרי לא היה בטל וועד המושב של אותו בית דין – It turns out that the ועד המושב of that בי״ד was never בטל. There was always a proper בי״ד of three דיינים כשרים. Why is it necessary to reconvene a new בי״ד?!

The גמרא continues: אי ערער דפגם משפחה שאמרו עליו שהוא עבד ואלו מזימים אותם – If it was a contention of a פגם משפחה they claimed that the דיין was an עבד, and the second group of עדים מן השוק that are vindicating the דיין are refuting through הזמה the original עדים הפוסלים. תוספות interjects to explain why it is necessary to say that the עדים המכשירים are עדים המזימים –

דאי אומרים שאינו עבד אם כן היה נפסל דליכא למימר אוקי גברא אחזקה – For if the second group would merely claim that he is not an עבד, then the דיין would be נפסל; for in this case of תרי ותרי we cannot say ׳אוקי גברא אחזקיה’ –

דאם הוא עבד לא היה לו חזקת כשרות מעולם¹⁴ – For if he is an עבד as the first group claims then he never had a חזקת כשרות. Therefore we must say that the עדים המכשירים are עדים המזימים; in which case they are totally believed and the testimony of the first עדים is discarded –

אם כן גלוי מילתא בעלמא הוא¹⁵ – If that is so that the עדים המכשירים are עדים המזימים then their testimony is merely a גילוי מילתא –

דכיון דאיגלאי מלתא דכשר היה מה איכפת לן בההוא ערעור ולא בטל וועד המושב – For since it was revealed that the contested דיין was always כשר why should the ערעור concern us; the וועד המושב was never בטל?!

לעולם ערער דגזלנותא ודקאמרי הנך סהדי ידעינן ביה דעבד תשובה – That really it was an ערער of גזלנות and the latter עדים testified we know that the דיין did תשובה**, which makes him כשר to be a דיין** –

וכיון דמודו לקמאי דגזלן הוא הוה ערער דידהו ערער¹⁶ ובטל וועד המושב – And since the latter עדים admit to the former עדים that the דיין was a גזלן; therefore the ערער of the former עדים is considered a valid ערער and it nullified the וועד המושב –

דהואיל ואמת הוא שנפסל הוי בחזקת פסלות עד שנודע לנו כשרותו¹⁷: For since it is true that the דיין was נפסל for a period, he is in a status of חזקת פסלות until we become aware of his כשרות.

SUMMARY According to רש״י the קשיא of תרי ותרי means that the דיין is פסול (even עד שלא חתמו). The קשיא of גילוי מילתא means that the דיין is כשר (even משחתמו). תוספות argues that an accused by תרי ותרי is כשר (לכו״ע) on account of his חזקת כשרות.¹⁸ Also, there can by no גילוי מילתא by פגם משפחה because תרי כמאה. The ר״ח maintains that by תרי ותרי the דיין is כשר and there is no ביטול וועד המושב. By פגם משפחה if there are עדים זוממין there is no ביטול וועד המושב. However, if the עדים state that the דיין did תשובה, then there is a ביטול וועד המושב.

THINKING IT OVER

1. It seems from תוספות that by תרי ותרי, according to רב הונא the accused is certainly כשר (he has a חזקת כשרות), and even according to רב חסדא he is also כשר.¹⁹ However, it seems that the opposite is true; that according to רב חסדא (who maintains that the עדים המכחישים are סהדי שקרי), the accused is certainly כשר (without any need for חזקת כשרות), since no עדים כשרים are challenging his כשרות!²⁰
2. According to the ר״ח why does the גמרא ask אי פגם משפחה גילוי מילתא וכו׳; the גמרא should have said (even בגזלנותא): ואי בעדים זוממין גילוי מילתא וכו׳?!²¹
3. The ר״ח states that we are discussing עדות אחרים not עדות הדיינים.²² Does this mean that we are discussing only עדות אחרים; or does it mean that it is not necessarily עדות הדיינים it can also be עדות אחרים?²³

footnotes: ¹ ד״ה תרי. ² In a case of תרי ותרי the accused will lose his חזקת כשרות according to רש״י. ³ The גמרא states: אמר רב אבא אמר רב הונא וכו׳ ג׳ שישבו וכו׳. ⁴ When two groups of עדים contradict each other, each כת is suspect of being עדים פסולים; for each כת may be the lying group. ⁵ Just as by תרי ותרי the testimony of (say) the latter group cannot impinge on the חזקת כשרות of the former group (even though the latter כת accuses them of lying) because the former group contradicts the latter group, similarly here the testimony of the עדים הפוסלים cannot impinge on the חזקת כשרות of the דיין, since the other דיינים המכשירים contradict the עדות of the פוסלים. See footnote # 18. ⁶ Each of the עדים had a חזקת כשרות before this contradictory testimony. This חזקת כשרות resolves the ספק פסול, and renders them as עדים כשרים. ⁷ תוספות asks his question according to רב חסדא (even though תוספות previously said that אליבא דרב הונא קיימינן), perhaps because רב הונא states this הלכה in the name of רב. It is possible that רב follows the view of רב חסדא and not of רב הונא concerning תרי ותרי. Alternately תוספות want to clarify that in a case of תרי ותרי the accused retains his חזקת כשרות according to both רב הונא and רב חסדא. ⁸ They were contradicted (only) in the initial testimony (in a different case); nevertheless their פסול מחמת ספק carries over and extends to all cases, even those in which they are not contradicted. ⁹ It is only concerning the עדים המכחישים themselves, that רב חסדא maintains that the ספק פסול is stronger than their חזקת כשרות (since there are עדים who contradict them). However concerning the alleged פסול (as in our case) since there is two כתי עדים who contradict each other (and רב חסדא considers them as סהדי שקרי), they cannot invalidate his חזקת כשרות. [Alternately: The עדים המכחישים are considered סהדי שקרי. They can therefore not testify again. However the דיין was allegedly נפסל, (only) through סהדי שקרי; they cannot diminish his חזקת כשרות.] See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ¹⁰ According to רש״י the question is whether the other two דיינים are נוגעין בעדות. Not so according to the ר״ח. ¹¹ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹² It would seem that a וועד המושב is not considered convened, until the דיינים begin to sign. ¹³ This is what תוספות maintained originally that תרי ותרי cannot impinge on a חזקת כשרות. ¹⁴ This perhaps is what the גמרא had in mind when it asked אי ערער דפגם משפחה; that even if you want to say it is a פגם משפחה where we cannot say that it is תרי ותרי and rely on his חזקת כשרות; nevertheless there is a difficulty with the הלכה ממה נפשך. If there are only עדים המכחישים then since he has no חזקת כשרות, so even if the דיינים did not sign he cannot be מצטרף since he remains a ספק פסול, and if there were עדים המזימים, then even if the דיינים did sign the וועד המושב is not בטל. ¹⁵ The גמרא uses the expression גילוי מילתא בעלמא to distinguish this situation from the previous one of תרי ותרי. By תרי ותרי the דיין is כשר (in spite of the ספק פסול) because of his חזקת כשרות. Here (by פגם משפחה and עדים זוממין) the דיין is completely כשר without any ספיקות at all. The עדים המזימים make his כשרות a גילוי מילתא. ¹⁶ This is different from רש״י who understands the answer to explain why the דיין is כשר (even though it is תרי ותרי); it explains why עד שלא חתמו מעידין. However according to the ר״ח it explains why משחתמו אין מעידין. ¹⁷ Even though the עדים המכשירים stated that he did תשובה before this case and was therefore כשר to be a דיין in this case; nevertheless since we became aware of it, only after he was בחזקת פסול, his new status as a כשר begins only after this testimony. See ריטב״א. ¹⁸ See משכנות הרועים אותיות תקנ״ב – תקנ״ז for a comprehensive defense of שיטת רש״י. ¹⁹ See footnote # 9. ²⁰ See חכמת שלמה (מהרש״ל). ²¹ See תוספות הרא״ש (וח״ב מ״ת אות רצג). ²² See footnote # 11. ²³ See ריטב״א and תוס׳ הרא״ש.

במותב תלתא כחדא הוינא וחד ליתוהי — We three were in session together, and one is missing

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that if one of the three דיינים passed away before he had an opportunity to sign the הנפק, it should be noted in the הנפק that initially there were three דיינים and only two are signing because one is absent. The reason for this is that people should not mistakenly assume that קיום שטרות can be performed in the presence of only two; when in reality three דיינים are required. תוספות will discuss that this requirement is only לכתחלה and not בדיעבד. -----------------–

פירוש¹ צריך² לכתוב וחד ליתוהי – The explanation of the phrase ׳צריכין למכתב׳ is that it is merely initially necessary to write ‘and one is missing’; the reason for this necessity is –

כיון דכתב בהדיא במותב תלתא הוינא ואין חותמין בו כי אם שנים – Since it is was explicitly written that ‘we three were in session’, and only two signed on the הנפק;therefore it is necessary to clarify this discrepancy, that there were initially three דיינים (which is a requirement for קיום שטרות)³ - אבל ודאי אם לא כתב וחד ליתוהי כשר – However if he did not write ‘and one is absent’ it is certainly כשר. The requirement to write ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ is only a לכתחלה requirement; if it was not written in the קיום, the הנפק is nevertheless כשר.

תוספות proves this contention: תדע מדקאמר ואי כתב ביה בי דינא תו לא צריך ומיירי דלא כתב וחד ליתוהי – You will know that this is correct; since the גמרא states ‘and if he wrote in the הנפק that it was done in the presence of a בי״ד, then nothing else is required’.This ruling that nothing else is required is (also⁴) referring**(even) to a case** where he did not write ׳וחד ליתוהי׳, and nevertheless it is כשר. It is obvious that that the phrase of ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ is only a לכתחלה requirement.

תוספות will prove that the ruling of ׳ואי וכו׳ בי דינא תו לא צריך׳ is discussing a case where ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ was not written: מדפריך ודלמא בית דין חצוף הוה: Since the גמרא asks (why is it sufficient to write בי דינא instead of במותב תלתא, to assure us that three were present for the קיום השטר), ‘perhaps it was an audacious בי״ד’ (which sits in session with only two דיינים)? This question proves that ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ was not written in the הנפק. For if ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ would be written in the הנפק, then how can there be a concern that it was a בי״ד חצוף; two people signed and they clearly wrote וחד ליתוהי, indicating that there were three דיינים originally. This proves that the ruling of ׳בי דינא תו לא צריך׳ is applicable even if ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ was omitted; for it is not necessary that it be in the שטר. The same will apply if they wrote במותב תלתא הוינא and they did not write וחד ליתוהי, that it would also be כשר (בדיעבד).

SUMMARY The requirement to write ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ (if one of the דייני קיום dies before signing) is only לכתחלה and not בדיעבד.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why did not the דיבור המתחיל of this תוספות begin with ׳צריכין למכתב׳, instead of במותב תלתא וכו׳?!
2. תוספות contends that since by בי דינא it is כשר even without ׳וחד ליתוהי׳, the same applies by במותב תלתא. Perhaps there is a difference if בי דינא was written or if במותב תלתא was written?!⁵
3. In a case where בי דינא was written, is it necessary to write ׳וחד ליתוהי׳ (even) לכתחלה?⁶

footnotes: ¹ The term ׳פירוש׳ in תוספות (ורש״י) (usually) denotes that the interpretation may be somewhat different from what we may have initially assumed; in our case that this צריך לכתוב is מעכב even בדיעבר. ² In תוספות הרא״ש the text reads: ׳נאה וטוב להם לכתוב וחד ליתוהי׳. ³ Alternately; the לשון of תוספות which states ׳כיון דכתב בהדיא במותב תלתא וכו׳, indicates that if only two sign it is a מחזי כשקרא. See ח״ב מ״ת אות רצד. ⁴ The simple meaning of תו לא צריך is that it is not necessary to write במותב תלתא הוינא. However תוספות expands this to include that it is not necessary to write ׳וחד ליתוהי׳. ⁵ See מהרש״א (המבואר) [not the מהרש״א הארוך]. ⁶ See מהרש״א הארוך בדו״מ אות א׳.

ודלמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו — And perhaps the רבנן of sרב אשי׳ academy agree with שמואל

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that even if it was written in the הנפק that the הנפק was performed in the בי״ד of רבנא אשי it is still no proof that there were three דיינים present at the קיום; for it is possible that the רבנן of דבי רב אשי agree with שמואל, who maintains that שנים שדנו דיניהם דין. The implication of the גמרא seems that שמואל maintains that קיום with two דיינים will be כשר בדיעבד. Our תוספות chooses to disabuse us of this notion. ----------------–

פירוש¹ כמו שסובר שמואל בעלמא כן סבירא להו בקיום שטרות – The explanation of the phrase כשמואל סבירא להו is [not (necessarily) that they and שמואל agree that קיום שטרות can be done with only two; but rather it means] that just as שמואל generally maintains that a ruling by two דיינים is valid, similarly the רבנן דבי רב אשי maintain the same concerning קיום שטרות, that two דיינים are sufficient. אבל שמואל מצי סבר שפיר דבקיום שטרות בעי ג׳² – However, שמואל himself may indeed maintain that for קיום שטרות in particular, three דיינים are required. קיום שטרות is different than other דיני תורה where two דיינים are sufficient בדיעבד.³

תוספות proves his point that we can differentiate between קיום שטרות (where three are required), and other cases (where two are sufficient): דהא רב נחמן סבר לה כשמואל בפרק קמא דסנהדרין (דף ג. ושם) – For ר״נ agrees with שמואל in the first פרק of מסכת סנהדרין –

דשנים שדנו דיניהם דין – that if two דיינים issued a ruling, their ruling is upheld; nevertheless –

ורב נחמן גופיה סבר דקיום שטרות בשלשה⁴ – And ר״נ himself maintains that קיום שטרות requires three דיינים. This can be found –

בפרק חזקת הבתים (בבא בתרא מ.⁵ ) גבי ג׳ ארצות לחזקה – in פרק חזקת הבתים in the גמרא, on the משנה which reads that there are three different countries in relation tothe laws of חזקה. We see that ר״נ clearly distinguishes between קיום שטרות (where three are required) and cases in general (where two are sufficient). The same may apply to שמואל.

SUMMARY שמואל may maintain that שנים שדנו דיניהם דין and nevertheless require three by קיום שטרות.

THINKING IT OVER

1. It seems that תוספות is reluctant to assume that שמואל maintains that קיום שטרות בשנים is כשר בדיעבד.⁶ What is the reason?
2. Why indeed can there be a difference between קיום שטרות (which requires three)⁷ and other cases (where two are sufficient [בדיעבד])?⁸
3. How does תוספות derive that sרב נחמן׳ statement (in ב״ב) that קיום שטרות בשלשה,⁹ means even בדיעבד?

footnotes: ¹ The term פירוש indicates that we are not to understand the text in its superficial meaning. In this case it precludes us from interpreting that שמואל must maintain that קיום שטרות בשנים since he maintains שנים שדנו דיניהם דין. ² See ‘Thinking it over # 1. ³ See ‘Thinking it over # 2. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over # 3. ⁵ The גמרא mentions there various rulings that רבא said in the name of ר״נ; one of which is that קיום שטרות בשלשה. See תוספות there ד״ה קיום. ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ See footnote # 3. ⁸ See תוספות הרא״ש. ⁹ See footnote # 4.

מנין להפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר מן התורה שנאמר את בתי נתתי לאיש וגומר – How do we derive from the תורה, the rule that ‘the mouth that prohibits is the mouth that permits’; for it says: “I gave my daughter to this man’, etc.

OVERVIEW The משנה states that if a woman declares אשת איש הייתי וגרושה אני or נשביתי וטהורה אני, she is believed; for we say הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. רב אסי teaches that we derive this rule of הפה שאסר, from the fact that the father is believed to say I married off my daughter to this person. Otherwise, if we would not say הפה שאסר וכו׳ then why is the father believed that this individual is the groom. When the father originally stated that he married off his daughter, she become אסור to all men (for she is already married); on what basis is the father believed that he married her off to this individual?! The פסוק teaches us the rule of הפה שאסר וכו׳, therefore he is believed to specify to which individual he married her. The believability of a הפה שאסר or מגו (according to תוספות) is when the claim of היתר was stated immediately and in conjunction with the statement of איסור, without any (significant) interruption between them; otherwise it is not a valid מגו. There is a difference between the הפה שאסר of אשת איש הייתי וגרושה אני, and קדשתיה לפלוני; in the former, the טענת היתר is in conflict with the admission of איסור,¹ while in the latter the טענת היתר is merely specifying and clarifying the original claim.² תוספות will question whether a מגו is actually required in the latter case. -----------------– משמע דאין האב נאמן להתיר את בתו כשאסרה אלא מחמת מגו³ – It seems that the father would not be believed to permit his daughter to remain married to an individual when he initially **prohibited her [**to be marries to anyone (by his declaration that she is betrothed)], only on account of a מגו; however if there is no מגו, once the father stated that his daughter is betrothed, and did not specify to whom, he will not be subsequently believed that he betrothed her to any individual.⁴ תוספות is assuming this, for since the גמרא states that the father is believed to state that I married her to this man, (only) on account of a הפה שאסר וכו׳, this indicates that where there is no הפה שאסר, the father will not be believed. תוספות finds this concept difficult: ותימה דאם בא אחד ואמר קדשתי את בתי ולאחר שעה או למחר אמר לפלוני קדשתיה – And it is incredible to assume that if one came along and stated ‘I betrothed my daughter’, without specifying to whom, and after a while or on the morrow, the father would **state I betrothed her to ‘him’ –

לא יהא נאמן כיון דהשתא ליכא מגו – That** the father would not be believed since now there is no מגו! It is almost impossible to assume this, for many times people may say that I married off my daughter without being specific, and then if he cannot produce the עדי קדושין, she will be forbidden to remain with her husband!!⁵ תוספות answers and explains: ואומר רבינו יצחק דבענין זה שאינו סותר דבריו הראשונים – And the ר״י says that in this situation where the father is not contradicting his initial statement that he married her off to someone; and when he subsequently says that he married her off to this individual – ולא בא אלא לפרש דבריו הראשונים מהימן אף על גב דליכא מגו – He is only clarifying his initial statement, then he is believed even though there is no מגו (meaning even at a later time); how then do we derive the rule of הפה שאסר from this פסוק?! תוספות answers – והכא דריש מאת בתי הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר כגון דקאי האיש שקידש לו קמיה – But here we derive from the פסוק of את בתי that we implement the rule of הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר for instance in a case where the man to whom she was betrothed is standing in the presence of the father – וקאמר את בתי נתתי לאיש ושתיק דמשמע ודאי שאינו מכיר שזה חתנו – And the father said I gave my daughter to a man, and was silent as to the identity of his son-in-law, which certainly indicates that he does not recognize this person who is in his presence as **his son-in-law –

מדלא אמר את בתי נתתי לזה או לאיש הזה ביחד בלא הפסק מרובה – For he did not state concurrently, without a lengthy interruption⁶: ‘I gave my daughter to him, or to this man’.** The fact that he did not do this would indicate that he did not betroth her to this man, and **–

הלכך לא יהא נאמן אחר כך אלא תוך כדי דבור⁷ דאיכא מגו – Therefore he should not be believed afterwards** to claim that her husband is indeed the person who was standing in his presence, unless he made this claim within the time of a כדי דיבור, when the law of מגו applies. We assume that the פסוק of את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה וגו׳ applies (even) to a situation where the husband is present,⁸ and the only reason the father is believed is on account of the מגו (that he said לאיש הזה within a כדי דיבור following את בתי נתתי);⁹ for if there is no מגו (if he did not say ׳הזה׳ until after a כדי דיבור), then the father would not be believed¹⁰. תוספות offers an alternate interpretation: ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דאיכא למימר אפילו בכהאי גוונא מהימן בלא מגו – And furthermore says the ר״י that we can maintain that even in the above mentioned situation (where the groom was standing in the presence of the father when he made this statement) the father will always be believed even without a מגו (when he specified the son-in-law at a later time).¹¹ The question remains, how can we derive the rule of הפה שאסר from this פסוק, when in this instance there is no need for a הפה שאסר in order for the father to be believed? תוספות replies: וקרא יתירא קדריש¹² ואם אינו ענין כאן דאפילו לאחר זמן נאמן – And we are interpreting an extra פסוק. And if it has no relevance here in the case of betrothal (that the father is believed to identify the groom) for (in all cases) even after the time of a כדי דיבור (when there is no מגו), the father **is believed –

דסברא הוא שיהא נאמן לפרש למי נתנה אף על פי שלא פירש מתחלה – For it is logical that** the father should be believed to whom he gave his daughter to, even though he did not initially specify that individual; and the reason he is believed is because – שלא היה חושש לפרש – He felt no concern to specify; he was merely informing people that he married off his daughter (there is no indication when he does not mention the groom [even in his presence], that he is not the groom), so therefore –

Apply the lesson of this פסוק concerning הפה שאסר to a situation where the person would not be believed at a later time, that nevertheless he will be believed תוך כדי דיבור with a מגו. The נאמנות that the תורה gives the father in the case of את בתי וגו׳, is to be understood, that it teaches us that there is a נאמנות of הפה שאסר וכו׳ when it is needed.

SUMMARY The rule of הפה שאסר is derived from the פסוק of את בתי וגו׳ which is discussing a case where the חתן is present and the father is believed to identify him as the חתן, even if there was a sight hesitation (less than a כדי דיבור). Alternately we derive from this פסוק in the manner of אם אינו ענין וכו׳. Otherwise, when the חתן is not present (or even when he is present), the father is always believed at any time to specify the חתן.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that if the purported son-in-law was present when the father stated את בתי נתתי לאיש (and did not say הזה); this is an indication that he is not the groom, since he did not say ׳הזה׳ or ׳לאיש הזה׳, without a ׳הפסק מרובה׳.¹⁴ This would indicate that if there was not a הפסק מרובה, but rather a small הפסק, then there would be no indication that he is not the groom. In this case no מגו should be necessary. Why does תוספות conclude that תוכ״ד (which is presumably a small הפסק), he is believed (only) on account of a מגו?! There should be no need for a מגו!¹⁵
2. There is a general rule that תוכ״ד one may retract his testimony entirely. How can we derive the rule of הפה שאסר, from the fact that the father may specify who the חתן is;¹⁶ since it is תוכ״ד, the father can even retract the entire statement of קדשתי את בתי, without relying on מגו, etc.!

footnotes: ¹ גרושה אני is not an explanation of אשת איש הייתי, it is an addendum. ² (קדשתיה) לפלוני is a necessary detail of the קדשתיה; there must be a פלוני. ³ תוספות uses the terms of הפה שאסר and מגו interchangeably. ⁴ If the father would be believed to specify the individual even without a מגו (for instance at a later time), then how can we derive from here the rule of הפה שאסר וכו׳. ⁵ The reason he is believed is since he is initially believed to claim I married her to this man, then this believability is carried over, even if he specifies the individual at a later time; he is not altering his initial statement. Or he is believed as an עד אחד, for he is not altering her original חזקה. See משכנות הרועים אות תקפא. ⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ The time of כדי דיבור is the time it takes to say the words ׳שלום עליך רבי (ומורי)'. See ב״ק עג,ב. ⁸ The פסוק states לאיש הזה, indicating that the groom is present. ⁹ We derive the rule of הפה שאסר from the fact that the father is believed to say לאיש הזה, even though, initially, he hesitated (even though the groom was present) and did not say לאיש הזה immediately, but rather only after a brief hesitation of תוך כדי דיבור; he is nevertheless believed on account of הפה שאסר. The contradiction caused by the hesitancy (in the presence of the groom) in this case (where he is merely specifying), equates this case with the usual cases of הפה שאסר (אשת איש וגרושה וכו׳) where he renounces the initial claim. In both instances there is a change in his statement. The נאמנות is only because of הפה שאסר. See משכנות הרועים אות תקפא-ב. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁰ Even though the father is merely specifying to whom he was מקדש her, nevertheless since there was an indication (by the slight hesitancy) that he was not מקדש her to this individual; therefore the only way he is to be believed, is if there is a מגו. ¹¹ A מגו is not required even in this instance, since the father is merely specifying, and not contradicting, his initial statement. ¹² The פסוק of a בתי נתתי לאיש הזה is extra, for it is not required to teach us that the father is believed to identify the son-in-law in any event. ¹³ This אם אינו ענין וכו׳, is a common לימוד. If we find a פסוק that does not teach us anything significant in its particular case, apply it to other cases, where we will derive a novel concept from this פסוק. Here too, the תורה indicates that the father is believed; nevertheless here it is obvious, therefore we assume that the תורה wishes to teach us that in other (somewhat similar) cases where a מגו is necessary, they are also believed, with a מגו. ¹⁴ See footnote # 6. ¹⁵ See רע״א and ח״ב אות שלב. ¹⁶ See footnote # 9.

[מנין¹ לאב שנאמן לאסור וכולי — From where do we derive that a father is believed to prohibit, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that we derive from the פסוק of את בתי נתתי לאיש וגו׳, that a father is believed to establish his daughter as being married, and effectively preventing her from marrying anyone else. The קדושין of a נערה or a קטנה can be carried out (מדאורייתא) only by the father. The קדושין of a בוגרת is effected by the woman, not by the father. --------------–

תוספות asks: תימה מה צריך קרא תיפוק ליה דנאמן הואיל ובידו לקדשה² – It is astounding! Why is a פסוק necessary to teach us that a father may place a prohibition on his daughter and declare her married? It can be derived that the father is believed to prohibit her since it is in his power to betroth her. This girl is presently a נערה or a קטנה, therefore the father can betroth her now to whomever he wishes; it follows that if he claims that he betrothed her already, that he should be believed since it is בידו, in his power, to do so now.

תוספות will prove that when it is בידו, then he is believed: כדאמר ביש נוחלין (ב״ב קלד,ב) בעל שאמר גרשתי את אשתי נאמן הואיל ובידו לגרשה³ – As the גמרא states in פרק יש נוחלין; a husband who claims, ‘I divorced my wife’, he is believed, since it is in his power to divorce her. Here too the father should be believed since it is בידו; no פסוק is needed!

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהכא אין בידו כל כך דשמא לא ימצא אדם שיקדשנה (כדאיתא קדושין סד,א) – And one can say; that here in the case of קדושין it is not בידו that much, for perhaps he will not find a person who is willing to be מקדש her. By גירושין it is totally ביד הבעל to divorce his wife, therefore it is considered בידו and he is believed; here however it is not solely dependent on him, it also depends on the prospective husband –

להכי איצטריך קרא – Therefore a פסוק is required to teach us that even though it is not בידו כל כך, nevertheless the תורה accords him this נאמנות.

תוספות follows up with a limitation on the father’s נאמנות; ומיהו אם אמר על בתו בוגרת קדשתיה כשהיתה נערה או קטנה נראה דאינו נאמן⁴ – However if he claims concerning his daughter who is currently a בוגרת, that I was מקדש her previously when she was either a נערה or a קטנה, it seems to תוספות that the father will not be believed –

דהשתא אין בידו כלל – For now when she is a בוגרת, it is not בידו at all to be מקדש her. The fact that it was once בידו is not sufficient that we should presently believe him.

תוספות anticipates a contradiction to his current assumption: דאף על גב דלקמן בפרק נערה שנתפתתה (דף מו.) פריך ואימא הני מילי קטנה – For even though that later in פרק נערה שנתפתתה, the גמרא asks; ‘and let us say when is this so (that the כסף קדושין belongs to the father), when the מקודשת is a קטנה (for she has no יד to be מקבל קדושין) –

אבל נערה איהי תיקדש נפשה⁵ – However when she is a נערה (why should the father receive the כסף קדושין), she should be מקדש herself’ (accept and keep the קדושין from the בעל), and not the father. This concludes the citation from the גמרא in פרק נערה. לפי זה היה צריך להיות דנאמן לאסור אפילו בשעה שאין בידו לקדשה דקרא בנערה⁶ כתיב – According to that גמרא, the ruling should be that the father is believed to prohibit her even when it is not in his power to be מקדש her; for the פסוק of את בתי נתתי וגו׳ (from which we derive the נאמנות of the father) is concerning a נערה –

ובעי למימר דאין בידו לקדשה – And the גמרא in פרק נערה wanted to say that it is not בידו of the father to be מקדש the נערה, and nevertheless the תורה states that the father is נאמן לאוסרה. Seemingly this is a contradiction; how can the father state בתי נתתי that I was מקדש my daughter who is presently a נערה, when the גמרא now insists that a נערה is מקודשת by herself (not through the father). The answer must be –

ואת בתי נתתי כשהיתה קטנה וגזרת הכתוב הוא דנאמן אף על פי שאין בידו – That the פסוק of את בתי נתתי will be interpreted to mean that the father was מקדש her when she was a קטנה (and now [by the episode of מוציא שם רע] she is a נערה), and it is a גזירת הכתוב that the father is believed to be אוסר even בתו נערה, even though it is not בידו to be מקדש her now (but since it was בידו to be מקדש her when she was a קטנה (which is what he claims) therefore he is נאמן). The same should apply (according to the מסקנא) by a בוגרת, that if he claims that he was מקדש her before she became a בוגרת (when it was בידו), he should be נאמן, since it was בידו then, when she was not yet a בוגרת!

תוספות replies; that even though there was a הוה אמינא that a father cannot be מקדש a נערה and nevertheless he would be believed to be אוסר her (on account of a גזירת הכתוב), if he claims that he was מקדש her when she was a קטנה –

אבל לפי המסקנא לא נאמר כן]: However according to the conclusion of the גמרא (that a father is מקדש the נערה), we will not maintain this (that he can be אוסר a בוגרת by claiming he was מקדש her previously). If presently it is not בידו כלל, then he has no נאמנות.

SUMMARY It is not בידו כ״כ of a father to be מקדש a נערה or a קטנה, nevertheless the פסוק of בתי נתתי teaches us that he is נאמן לאוסרה when she is not a בוגרת yet. However once she is a בוגרת, and it is אין בידו כלל, he is not נאמן לאוסרה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that when it is בידו he is נאמן.⁷However, the נאמנות of the בעל to claim גרשתי את אשתי is only for the future (for that is בידו), but not for the past; here we are deriving from מוצש״ר that he the father is נאמן (even) for the past.⁸
2. Does the פסוק of בתי נתתי וגו׳ teach us that the father can be מקדש his daughter and therefore we can surmise that since it is בידו, he is נאמן לאוסרה; or does the תורה teach us directly that he is נאמן לאוסרה?!

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות is bracketed and in a smaller type in our texts, seemingly indicating that it is an addendum (from תו״י). Nevertheless it is cited (partially) in the תוספות הרא״ש. ² See תוספות הרא״ש who states that we know that it is בידו לקדשה from the פסוק of ויצאה חנם אין כסף (see לקמן מו,ב) [not from את בתי וגו׳]; why do we need the פסוק of בתי נתתי to teach us that he is נאמן לאוסרה. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ It may seem that if the נאמנות of the father was based only on בידו (not on a פסוק), then by בוגרת (where it is not בידו) the father would not be believed. However now that even by a נערה וקטנה it is not בידו (כ״כ), and nevertheless there is a פסוק that the father is נאמן; we might think that even by a בוגרת (where it is (also) אינו בידו (כלל)), he should also be נאמן. תוספות disabuses us from this notion. We cannot compare אינו בידו כ״כ to אינו בידו כלל. ⁵ The גמרא there ultimately refutes this notion. ⁶ The פסוק is in the פרשה of מוציא שם רע (דברים [תצא] כב,טז) which is applicable only when she is a נערה. ⁷ See footnote # 3. ⁸ See משכנות הרועים אות תקפ.