Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ואפילו הכי לא עבד שמואל עובדא בנפשיה — And nevertheless, שמואל did not practice this ruling for himself

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that שמואל learnt from רב forty times the ruling that אם נתנה אמתלא לדבריה נאמנת, and nevertheless שמואל was reluctant to follow this leniency for himself. תוספות cites an actual example where this issue was relevant to שמואל personally. --------------–

רבינו חננאל הביא ירושלמי¹ שמואל בעא לאזדקוקי לאתתיה – The ר״ח cited a גמרא in תלמוד ירושלמי which states; שמואל wanted to have relations with his wife –

אמרה ליה טמאה² אני ולמחר אמרה טהורה אני – She said to him, ‘I am טמאה’, and on the morrow she said, ‘I am טהורה’ –

אמר לה אתמול טמאה יומא דין טהורה³ – שמואל said to her, ‘yesterday you were טמאה, and this day you are טהורה’! אמרה ליה אתמול לא הוות בי חילא כי ההיא⁴ שעתא – She replied, ‘yesterday I had no strength at that time’. שמואל –

אתא שאיל לרב אמר ליה אם נתנה אמתלא לדבריה נאמנת:⁵ came and asked רב (if she is permitted to him today). רב answered him, ‘if she provided an אמתלא to her statement, she is believed’, and therefore she is permitted to שמואל.⁶

SUMMARY שמואל consulted with רב concerning a personal issue, and רב ruled that אם נתנה אמתלא לדבריה נאמנת.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the conduct of שמואל (who was לא עבד עובדא בנפשיה), if she initially claimed, ‘I am טמאה on account of a (long) past נדות’, and subsequently claimed (with a proper אמתלא), ‘I was not a נדה’, in a case where she has a מגו and could have claimed טבלתי?⁷

footnotes: ¹ כתובות פ״ב ה״ה, In our text on דף יג,א. The ירושלמי cites this story as an example of ׳ואם נתנה אמתלא לדבריה נאמנת׳. It would seem therefore that תוספות intent of citing this ירושלמי is to question our sגמרא׳ contention that ׳לא עבד שמואל עובדא בנפשיה׳. See (however) footnote # 5 6. ² It would seem that she meant, ‘I became a נדה today’. See: ‘Thinking it over’. ³ There is a requirement to wait (at least) seven days to become טהורה. Or perhaps when she said טהורה אני she meant that she was never a נדה. ⁴ The גירסא in our ירושלמי is היי שעתא (not כי ההיא). ⁵ If this is the case where we are to assume that שמואל לא עבד עובדא בנפשיה (see footnote # 1), perhaps the reason he did not accept her אמתלא (even though רב ruled that נאמנת) is because שמואל assumed that it was an unconvincing אמתלא, since she could have told him outright לא הוות בי חילא, instead of stating טמאה אני. ⁶ See אליהו רבה who maintains that this תוספות is a continuation from the previous תוספות, to explain how רב knew that שמואל was asking whether an אמתלא is sufficient (and not if it is necessary). It is now evident from this story, where she gave an אמתלא, and nevertheless שמואל inquired whether it is sufficient. עיי״ש עוד. ⁷ See מהר״ם שי״ף.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

הבא עליה באשם תלוי קאי — Whoever comes upon her is liable for an אשם תלוי

OVERVIEW The גמרא is discussing a case of a married woman, where two contradictory sets of עדים came, and one group claims that her husband died (or divorced her) while the other set denies that this took place; the rule is that if she remarries (illegally) she may remain married. The גמרא challenges this ruling; how can she remain married since there are contradictory witnesses (one set of which claims that she is still a married woman), whoever lives with her may be transgressing a תורה prohibition, and is liable to bring a קרבן אשם תלוי!¹ The issue in this תוספות is whether this woman is considered a ספק אשת איש, on account of the תרי ותרי; or perhaps she should be considered a ודאי אשת איש on account of her חזקה דמעיקרא that she was an אשת איש. -----------------–

תוספות asks: תימה דבחטאת קאי דהא מסקינן בפרק ד׳ אחים (יבמות דף לא,א ושם) – It is astounding to maintain that whoever is בועל this woman is obligated (only) for an אשם תלוי, when in fact he should be obligated for a קרבן חטאת, for the גמרא concludes in פרק ד׳ אחים –

דתרי ותרי ספיקא דרבנן ומדאורייתא אוקמה אחזקה² – For a case of two עדים against two עדים, is deemed to be a ספק only מדרבנן;³ however מן התורה we place this woman on heroriginal presumptive status that she is married. If she is בחזקת אשת איש, then whoever is בועל her בשוגג, is liable for a חטאת, and not for an אשם תלוי!

תוספות has an additional question: ומאי משני נמי כשניסת לאחד מעדיה הא עד נמי בחנק קאי דאוקמה אחזקה – And in addition, what does the גמרא answer, that she married one of her witnesses (who testified that her husband died or divorced her); the answer is insufficient, for that witness too, is liable for the חנק death penalty⁴ (for there is no ספק), since we place her on her חזקת אשת איש.

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דחזקה דאשה דייקא ומנסבא מרעה לה להך חזקה – And the ר״ת answers that the (opposing) חזקה,which is that a woman is meticulous and marries only after a scrutinizing investigation,⁵ diminishes the strength of this חזקת **אשת איש.⁶ These two חזקות cancel out each other. It is therefore considered as if there is no חזקה דמעיקרא and the תרי ותרי is ruled as a ספיקא דאורייתא.**⁷ Therefore הבא עליה באשם תלוי קאי since it is a ספיקא דאורייתא, and if נשאת לאחד מעדיה there is no problem (for the עד), for he maintains that there is no ספק; he observed the מיתת הבעל.

תוספות now proves that the חזקה of דייקא ומנסבא cancels the חזקת אשת איש: דמהאי טעמא נמי שרינן לה כי ליכא עדים כלל אף על פי שהיא בחזקת אשת איש: For it is also for this very same reason that we permit herto remarry even if there are no witnesses at all,⁸ even though she is בחזקת אשת איש; for the abovementioned reason that the חזקה of דייקא ומנסבא cancels the חזקת אשת איש,⁹ and we permit her to remarry.

SUMMARY תרי ותרי is only a ספק מדרבנן; and מדאורייתא we follow the חזקת א״א דמעיקרא; however the חזקה of דייקא ומנסבא cancels out the חזקת א״א and it remains a ספיקא דאורייתא.

THINKING IT OVER If a person is aware that there is a ספק דאורייתא in the act that he is performing, is he required to bring an אשם תלוי?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ An אשם תלוי (a ‘hung’ [doubtful] guilt offering) is brought when there is an (evenhanded) doubt that a תורה prohibition has been violated. A classical case is when there are two pieces of meat, one of which is not כשר, and someone ate one of the pieces and is unsure which one. In our case on account of the contradictory testimonies she seems to be a ספק אשת איש. Whoever lives with her is חייב an אשם תלוי. See following תוספות ד״ה באשם. ² If תרי ותרי would be a ספיקא דאורייתא, then it would be understood that הבא עליה באשם תלוי קאי, for it is a ספק איסור; however מדאורייתא in a case of תרי ותרי we follow the חזקה דמעיקרא (in this case she is בחזקת אשת איש). She is therefore ודאי אסורה. ³ When the חזקה דמעיקרא is a חזקת היתר, the חכמים rule that (even though מדאורייתא it is מותר, nevertheless) it is אסור מדרבנן, for the חכמים deem it to be a ספיקא דאורייתא לחומרא. ⁴ See מהרש״א (וכו׳) who comments that תוספות differentiates between הבא עליה that he should be (merely) מחויב חטאת (for he is a שוגג and may have thought the she was בחזקת פנויה); and אחד מעדיה who should be מחויב חנק (for he is aware that there she was בחזקת א״א [for he is testifying מת בעליך] and seemingly aware that there is a תו״ת situation, which places her בחזקת א״א). See also אליהו רבה. ⁵ The חזקה of אשה דייקא ומנסבא is (usually) associated with the severity she will encounter if her original husband returns after she remarries on the basis of the testimony of an עד אחד; but not if two עדים testified that her husband died (as in our case). See תוספות הרא״ש (here and תוס׳ ד״ה אנן on כו,ב [TIE footnote # 27]) who maintains that since here it is תרי ותרי, she will suffer the severe consequences if her husband returns, therefore she is דייקא ומנסבא. See there and in תו״י in the margin (brought in footnote # 7) why the חזקה of דייקא ומנסבא applies (even) to the case of שנים אומרים נתגרשה (where seemingly it can never be disproven that her husband divorced her, since two עדים testify to that on her behalf). ⁶ The commentaries explain that even though at this point in the גמרא we have not as yet established that we are discussing a case where she claims ברי לי שמת, nevertheless there is the חזקה of אשה דייקא ומנסבא; either because the woman even though she is not ברי, nevertheless she ascertains that the היתר will not be contradicted; or that the חזקה of דייקא ומנסבא affects the עדים (המתירים), they will not lie, for she may be דייקא and prove them wrong. See משכנות הרועים אות תרמז-ח. ⁷ See תוספות ישנים in the margin (mentioned in footnote # 5) who writes; ובשנים אומרים נתגרשה נמי דייקא כי יראה שלא יוזמו עידיה אבל חזקה דאין אשה מעיזה ליכא כיון דאיכא עדים דקא מסייעי לה. And when two say she was divorced, etc., she is also meticulous, for she is afraid that her witnesses may be impeached; she does not, however, have the חזקה that a woman is not brazen (to claim she is divorced, and therefore believed when she does claim so), since she has witnesses who support her claim of divorce. ⁸ תוספות is referring to the הלכה that if one עד (even a פסול לעדות, or even the wife) testifies that the husband died; the woman is permitted to remarry (with precautionary consequences which insures us that דייקא ומנסבא). ⁹ Even though that the reason we allow her to remarry is because משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן; nevertheless if the חזקת א״א would remain (despite the דייקא ומנסבא), the reason of עיגונא would not be sufficient to overrule a חזקת איסור. Therefore we must say that the דייקא removes the חזקת איסור, and משום עיגונא provides that she is not considered (מדרבנן) as a דבר שבערוה, and any עד is sufficient. See משכנות הרועים אות תרמט. ¹⁰ See also following תוספות and משכנות הרועים אות תרנב.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

באשם תלוי — For an Ambiguous Guilt offering

OVERVIEW There is a מחלוקת concerning the obligation of bringing an קרבן אשם תלוי for transgressing a ספק איסור. One opinion maintains that this obligation exists (even) if there was one ‘piece’ of ספק איסור, and the person transgressed this ספק איסור בשוגג. The other opinion maintains that there is a חיוב for an אשם תלוי only if there were two mixed ‘pieces’ one אסור and one מותר, and the person interacted with one of the pieces. [The גמרא there cites various reasons for the latter opinion, which תוספות will discuss.] Our גמרא which states that whoever is בא on this woman is liable for an אשם תלוי seems to be following the view of the ‘one piece’ opinion; the woman is merely one piece of ספק איסור. Our תוספות will offer two views on this matter. ---------------–

אפילו למאן דבעי חתיכה אחת משתי חתיכות¹ הכא לא בעינן שתי חתיכות – Even according to the one who requires that it be ‘one piece from two pieces’,in order to be liable for an אשם תלוי; nevertheless here there is no requirement of ‘two pieces’. Seemingly here the woman is comparable to a ‘one piece’ ספק (whether she is מותר or not) and not to a ‘two piece’ ספק. Why is there a חיוב for an אשם תלוי according to the מ״ד that requires חתיכה אחת משתי חתיכות?!

תוספות explains: דמאן דמפרש בפרק ספק אכל (כריתות דף יז: ושם) טעמא דבעינן חתיכה משתי חתיכות – For according to the one who explains in פרק ספק אכל the reason why one חתיכה of two חתיכות is required, is –

משום דאפשר לברר איסורו פירוש אפשר לברר על ידי בקי² – Because it is possible to verify the איסור; meaning that the איסור is verifiable through an expert –

שיכיר חתיכה הנשארת אם חלב היא אם שומן היא – Who will recognize the remaining חתיכה whether it is (forbidden) חלב or (permissible) fat –

הכא נמי אפשר לברר על ידי הזמה – Here too it is possible to verify the testimonies of the witnesses through the הזמה process. Therefore it is understood that הבא עליה באשם תלוי קאי. If the עדי מיתה will be מוזם we will know that she is an אשת איש (and מחויב בחטאת).

תוספות will now explain according to the reason of the other מ״ד. ולמאן דמפרש משום דבשתי חתיכות אחת של חלב ואחת של שומן איקבע איסורא – And according to the one who explains that the reason שתי חתיכות are required is because that whenthere are שתי חתיכות, one of חלב and the other of שומן, there is an establishment of איסור; we are certain that there was a presence of איסור (as opposed to one חתיכה of ספק איסור where there is no איקבע איסורא), then –

הכא נמי איקבע איסורא שהיתה בחזקת אשת איש³ – Here too it is איקבע איסורא for she was בחזקת אשת איש. We certainly know that for a specific time this woman was אסור (and we do not know that this איסור has been removed).

תוספות offers a different approach: אי נמי לאו אשם תלוי ממש קאמר אלא כלומר באיסור אשם תלוי – Or you may also say that the גמרא did not mean an actual אשם תלוי (for since there are no שתי חתיכות, there can be no אשם תלוי),⁴ but rather the גמרא meant that it is a an אשם תלוי type of transgression; meaning that there is a ספק איסור, which is prohibited [לכתחלה] (even though there will be no actual חיוב for an אשם תלוי).

SUMMARY The phrase הבא עליה באשם תלוי קאי can be understood literally, even if there is a requirement for חתיכה אחת משתי חתיכות; since the reasons for those requirements are met. Or it merely means that there is a ספק איסור.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות states that here it is איקבע איסורא since she was בחזקת אשת איש.⁵ In the previous⁶ תוספות it was stated that the חזקה of דייקא ומנסבא negates the חזקת א״א and it remains a ספק. How can we reconcile these two תוספות?⁷
2. The גמרא states היא גופא באשם תלוי קיימא; how will the first פשט of תוספות interpret this?⁸
3. What would the ruling be in a case where two עדים state that this חתיכה is חלב and two other עדים state that it is שומן; should this be considered איקבע איסורא or not?

footnotes: ¹ According to this מאן דאמר an אשם תלוי is bought only in a case where (for instance) there are two pieces of meat present, one which is מותר and the other אסור, and an individual ate (inadvertently) one of the pieces. In this case he is required to bring an אשם תלוי; but not if there was only one piece of meat, and we are not sure if it is מותר or אסור, then there is no חיוב for an אשם תלוי if someone ate that one piece בשוגג. ² The reason that it is necessary that the איסור be verifiable is (as רש״י explains there) that the purpose of an אשם תלוי is to temporarily protect the person from עונשים until he can verify his sin and bring a חטאת which will absolve him completely. However if it is not verifiable then the חטאת will never be brought to absolve him. There is therefore no reason for the ‘holding action’ of the אשם תלוי. ³ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁴ This may be referring to a third מ״ד, who explains that the reason for חתיכה אחת משתי חתיכות is based on the פסוק (ויקרא ה, יז) of חיוב אשם תלוי,which states ואם נפש כי תחטא ועשתה אחת מכל מצוות וגו׳ (in the plural), indicating that two חתיכות are required. According to that מ״ד, there will be no אשם תלוי in our case since it is not שתי חתיכות. See תוספות הרא״ש. Alternately, תוספות may be questioning the איקבע איסורא here; and also that it is not as readily אפשר לברר here, as it is by ספק חלב וספק שומן. ⁵ See footnote # 3. ⁶ ד״ה הבא. ⁷ See משכנות הרועים אות תרנ. ⁸ See ‘Thinking it over’ in the previous תוספות ד״ה הבא. See משכנות הרועים אות תרנב.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

כגון שניסת לאחד מעדיה — For instance, that she got married to one of her witnesses

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that in the case of תרי ותרי the reason the woman may remain married is because she married one of the עדים who testified that her husband died (and he is certain of it). The issue at hand in this תוספות is whether we should not be suspicious of a witness who claims that the husband died and then later marries his widow. He may have an ulterior motive for his testimony. He should be prevented from marrying her, in order to preserve the dignity of his testimony. ----------------–

תוספות asks: והא דתנן בפרק שני דיבמות (דף כה,א ושם) הרגנוהו לא ישא את אשתו – And that which we learnt in a משנה in the second פרק of מסכת יבמות; ‘if a witness said, ‘he died, I killed him, or WE killed him’, this witness should not marry his wife’. It seems from that משנה that an עד who testified (together with other עדים [הרגנוהו]) we killed him, is not permitted to marry the widow (for it casts an aspersion on his testimony¹), and here the גמרא states that she is permitted to marry the עד!

תוספות explains

לא ששנים מעידין כן דבשום מקום אין שנים חשודין² – The term הרגנוהו does not mean that two עדים testified that they killed him, for in no place are two עדים suspect. If two עדים testified that they killed him, they would be believed, and one of them would be permitted to marry the widow³ as our גמרא states (rather the term הרגנוהו means something different, as תוספות will shortly explain).

תוספות will now prove that two עדים are never suspect: כדמוכח לקמן⁴ דאפילו למאן דחייש לגומלין – As is evident later that even according to the opinion that maintains we are concerned for reciprocity (in a case of one witness), nevertheless –

אם שנים מעידין על זה ושנים על זה נאמנין – If two witnesses testify for one and two witnesses testify on the other, they are believed; even if the first witness testifies on behalf of the second witness, who in turn testifies on behalf of the first witness; as long as there are two witnesses testifying on behalf of those two they are believed.⁵

תוספות offers an additional proof that there is no suspicion of ulterior motives by two witnesses (where we can ascribe the ulterior motive to only one) וכן מוכח נמי בפרק ב׳ דיבמות (ג״ז שם ע״ב) דתנן התם – And it is also so evident in the second פרק of מסכת יבמות where we learnt there in a משנה,if a woman, who is a קטנה –

מיאנה⁶ או שחלצה בפניו ישאנה מפני שהוא בית דין – ‘rejected’ her husband or (a woman who was a גדולה) performed חליצה in the presence of a דיין, he may marry her, because he was part of a בי״ד –

ודייק בגמרא טעמא דבית דין הא בתרי לא – And the גמרא there infers from the משנה, the reason the דיין may marry her is because he is part of a בי״ד of three דיינים; however if there were only two דיינים present he would not be permitted to marry her (for it would seem suspect). The גמרא there asks –

מאי שנא מהא דתנן⁷ – Why this is different from that which we learnt in a (משנה) [ברייתא] –

עדים החתומים על שדה מקח או על גט אשה לא חשו חכמים לדבר זה – Witnesses who signs on a sale of a field or on a גט אשה, the חכמים were not concerned for this matter of suspicion of ulterior motives.⁸ The question is why is מיאון וחליצה different that two are not sufficient, and we require three. The גמרא there answers that two are always sufficient to remove concern of suspicion; the reason the משנה states מפני שהוא בי״ד is because the משנה –

היא גופה קמשמע לן לאפוקי ממאן דאמר מיאון בשנים – Is teaching us this rule itself that three are required for מיאון; to exclude from the opinion that maintains that מיאון can be performed in the presence of only two דיינים. It is evident from this גמרא as well that there is no concern if there are two עדים. The question remains why it says that by הרגנוהו לא ישא את אשתו.

תוספות answers that the meaning of הרגנוהו is not that עדים are testifying that we killed him –

אלא כלומר שהרגו עם אנשים הרבה: But rather it means that one עד is testifying that he killed him together with many people; the עד with many others killed her husband. Since there is only one עד who is testifying concerning the death, and no one is supporting him, therefore there is a suspicion of an ulterior motive, and he may not marry the widow.

SUMMARY There is no חשד on an עד אחד, when two עדים are מעיד.

THINKING IT OVER

1. When two עדים testify that someone died, one of them is permitted to marry the widow.⁹ Is this because that even without the testimony of the marrying עד, there is still one עד who is testifying that the husband died (and by עיגונא one עד is sufficient), or do we say that he may remarry because there are two עדים (including the marrying עד) who testify that the husband is dead?¹⁰
2. How can we even assume that if two עדים testified that the husband is dead, neither of them is permitted to marry the wife;¹¹ since she is permitted to marry based on the testimony of only one עד, the other עד may marry her because she is no longer an אשת איש, based on the testimony of the other עד?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ There is a concern that he is testifying that the husband died in order to marry his purported widow. ² This is referring to a case where (only) one of the עדים may be suspect of ulterior motives. It is obvious that if we can ascribe ulterior motives to both witnesses that they are פסול לעדות, for they are נוגעין בעדותן. ³ There is a rule that אין אדם חוטא ולא לו; a person does not sin unless it benefits him. Only one person can marry this widow. We do not suspect that two עדים lied in order that one of them should marry the widow. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1 2. ⁴ כד,א. ⁵ ראובן ושמעון testify the לוי is כשר and לוי ושמעון testify that ראובן is כשר, they are believed for שמעון has no benefit from this עדות; no one is testifying on his behalf. ⁶ A girl who is a קטנה and has no father may be married off (מדרבנן) by her brothers or mother. However she has the option of rejecting her husband (as long as she is a קטנה). This rejection process is called ׳מיאון׳. ⁷ גיטין סז,א. The gloss in יבמות notes that it is a ברייתא. ⁸ Perhaps one of the witnesses wants to ultimately buy this field from the purchaser on the שטר, or he wants to marry the divorcee. We reject this concern, and permit an עד to buy the field or to marry the גרושה. ⁹ See footnote # 3. ¹⁰ See משכנות הרועים אות תרנה. ¹¹ See footnote # 3. ¹² See בית יעקב and רע״א.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אי הכי לכתחלה נמי — If it is so, it should also be permitted initially

OVERVIEW The גמרא interprets a statement of ר׳ יוחנן to mean that if two עדים contradict each other concerning the death of the husband, the woman should not remarry initially, however if she remarried she may remain married. The גמרא explained this, based on the ruling of עולא who maintains that whenever an ע״א is believed¹ he possesses the status reserved for two עדים, and therefore he cannot be contradicted by one עד. The גמרא asks that based on the ruling of עולא, the woman should be permitted to remarry initially, for the עד המתיר cannot be contradicted. The גמרא answers that we do not allow her to remarry, in order to prevent gossip and slander (since there is a witness who denies the husband’s death) as רב אסי declared. This תוספות will discuss to what extent is the rule of עולא applicable. -----------------–

תוספות anticipates a question: ומהא דתנן בהאשה שלום (יבמות דף קיז,ב ושם) – And from that which we learnt in a משנה in פרק האשה שלום, that if –

עד אחד אומר מת ועד אחד אומר לא מת הרי זו לא תנשא ליכא לאקשויי לעולא – One witness claimed the husband died and one עד claimed he did not die,the rule is she should not remarry; we cannot challenge עולא from this משנה.² (Seemingly that משנה does not accord the עד המתיר the believability of two עדים, for it prohibits the woman to remarry)³ –

תוספות answers: דהתם איירי בבת אחת⁴ ואפילו אם ניסת תצא⁵ – For there in that משנה it is discussing a case where the two witnesses testified simultaneously, therefore the עד המתיר is not believed ;and in such a case even if she remarried after their testimony she must leave the second husband –

ועולא איירי בזה אחר זה כשבא עד אחד ואמר מת התירוה – And עולא is discussing a case where the witnesses came one after the other; when the first עד came and testified that the husband died, בי״ד permitted her to remarry – ואחר כך בא אחר ואמר לא מת אם נשאת לא תצא – And after this permission was granted, another witness came and claimed the husband did not die; in such a case if she remarried she is not required to leave her second husband. בי״ד has already established her widowhood status and she may remain married. In fact she should really be permitted to marry initially, even after the second עד testified (since אין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים) –

אבל לכתחלה לא תנשא משום דרב אסי כדמסיק – However on account of sרב אסי׳ statement, she may not initially remarry,as the גמרא will shortly conclude. The ruling of עולא is only if the two עדים came בזא״ז, and not if the two עדים came בב״א.

תוספות seeks to prove his point that there is a difference whether the two opposing עדים come simultaneously or consecutively: ומרישא דהתם יש להוכיח שיש חילוק בין בבת אחת בין בזה אחר זה – And we can prove from the רישא of the משנה in פרק האשה שלום, cited previously, that there is a difference betweenthe two עדים testifying simultaneously, and one ע״א (האוסר) testifying after a previous ע״א (המתיר) –

דקתני עד אחד אומר מת וניסת ובא אחר ואמר לא מת לא תצא – For the משנה teaches there, if one עד claims the husband died, and the woman remarried (based on his testimony), and another עד came and testified that the husband did not die, the rule is that the widow is not required to leaveher new husband. This concludes the citing of the משנה. ומפרש בגמרא דלא ניסת ממש אלא התירוה לינשא אף על פי שלא ניסת – And the גמרא there explains that when the משנה states that if she remarries she is not required to leave, it does not mean that she actually remarried, but rather the term ניסת means they permitted her to remarry (based on the testimony of the first ע״א who claimed the husband died), even though she did not actually remarry the rule is still לא תצא –

The גמרא there explains itself that even though she is not currently married, the meaning of –

ולא תצא היינו מהתירה הראשון –

לא תצא is that she does not leave (or lose) her initial permissibility status. She may still remarry even if the עד האוסר comes before she remarries.⁶ משמע דווקא התירוה קודם שבא העד ואמר לא מת – It is apparent from that גמרא that she is permitted to remarry only if they permitted her to remarry before the second עד came and claimed the husband is not dead –

הא בא קודם שהתירוה לא – However if the second עד האוסר came before she was permitted to remarry, then once the second עד comes, she will not be permitted to remarry.⁷ It is evident from that גמרא that there is a difference between זה אחר זה where she may remarry (even initially, were it not for רב אסי) and בבת אחת where she cannot remarry.⁸

תוספות has a question: וצריך עיון בפרק מי שקינא (סוטה דף לא:) דמשמע דאיירי עולא בכל ענין – And there is a need for deliberation in פרק מי שקינא, where it is indicated that עולא applies his rule in any manner –

בין בבת אחת בין בזה אחר זה – Whether the עדים came simultaneously or consecutively; in all cases the rule of עולא applies that כל מקום שהאמינה תורה הרי כאן שנים ואין דבריו שלא אחד במקום שנים. תוספות explains his question: דתנן התם עד אחד אומר נטמאת ועד אחד אומר לא נטמאת היתה שותה⁹ – For the משנה there teaches, that if one עד claims that the suspected סוטה defiled herself, and the other עד testifies that she did not defile herself, the סוטה would drink the מים המאררים. ודייק בגמרא טעמא דהאי מכחיש אבל לא מכחיש עד אחד נאמן מנא הני מילי כולי – And the גמרא infers from this משנה, the reason the סוטה drinks is because that this other עד who claims לא נטמאת is contradicting the עד who claims נטמאת (so there is still a ספק); however if there is no contradiction, the one עד who claims נטמאת would be believed and the woman would not drink the מים המאררים [and would become אסורה לבעלה וכו׳]. The גמרא there continues and asks; from where do we derive this, etc. The גמרא there explains the source for this דין.¹⁰ ופריך כיון דמדאורייתא עד אחד נאמן אידך היכי מצי מכחיש ליה – And then the גמרא there asks, since מדאורייתא the one עד is believed, then how can the other עד who claims לא נטמאת contradict him –

והאמר עולא כל מקום שהאמינה כולי – For עולא ruled that wherever the תורה believed, etc. an ע״א he isכשנים, ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים! The גמרא there answers –

אלא אמר עולא תני לא היתה שותה ורבי חייא אומר היתה שותה – Rather עולא says that the משנה should read ‘she does not drink (even) if there is a הכחשה בעד אחד, because the עד האוסר is נאמן מדאורייתא. However רב חייא says that the משנה reads ‘she does drink’. The גמרא there continues to ask –

לרבי חייא קשיא דעולא לא קשיא כאן בבת אחת כאן בזה אחר זה – According to ר״ח that the משנה reads היתה שותה this is difficult to reconcile with the rule of עולא (that כל מקום שהאמינה וכו׳). The גמרא answers, there is no difficulty; here by the case of סוטה both עדים came simultaneously (therefore the עד האוסר was never accepted) and here (where עולא says ואין דבריו של אחד וכו׳) it is in a case where the two עדים came consecutively. This concludes the citing from מסכת סוטה. משמע דעולא נמי איירי בבת אחת ולכך צריך להגיה ולא משני כדמשני רבי חייא – This indicates that עולא is also discussing a case of simultaneity, and therefore it is necessary to correctthe reading of the משנה from היתה שותה to לא היתה שותה and he did not answer as ר״ח answered**(that there is a difference between בזה אחר זה and ב״א)**. For if עולא is discussing only a case of בזה אחר זה why was it necessary for עולא to change the גירסא from היתה שותה to לא היתה שותה? The גירסא could be היתה שותה and the explanation would be because it is בב״א. This proves that according to עולא even בב״א the עד is נאמן כשנים. This contradicts what תוספות maintained previously that ([even] according to עולא) there is a difference between בזא״ז and בב״א. תוספות offers a possible answer: ומיהו איכא למימר דעולא לא מיירי אלא בזה אחר זה – However it is possible to maintain that עולא is only discussing בזא״ז;and in a case of בב״א he does not rule that the עד is כשנים –

אלא שנראה לו דוחק להעמיד המשנה בבת אחת – However it appeared to him difficult to establish the משנה in a situation of ב״א (as ר״ח did) –

משום דמשמע ליה דמיירי בזה אחר זה¹¹ – For it seemed to עולא that the משנה is discussing a situation of בזא״ז**(where an ע״א is נאמן כשנים),** therefore he had to change the גירסא to לא היתה שותה.

תוספות offers an alternate answer: ועוד אומר רבינו יצחק דאפילו איירי לעולא בכל ענין – in addition, the ר״י answers that even if according to עולא this rule applies**** in all cases even ב״א, that עולא will maintain that even in a ב״א situation the ע״א has a נאמנות of שנים –

הני מילי התם דמדאורייתא¹² עד אחד מהימן בסוטה כדנפקא ליה התם מועד אין בה – This would be applicable only there by סוטה, for by a סוטה, an ע״א is believed מדאורייתא as the גמרא derives it there from the פסוק of ועד אין בה –

אבל הכא גבי אשה דלא מהימן אלא מדרבנן לא חשיב כשנים אלא בזה אחר זה – However here by עדות אשה where the עד is not believed מדאורייתא to testify that the husband died; he is believed only מדרבנן, in this case the ע״א is not considered as two עדים, except in cases of בזא״ז, where initially his testimony was not as yet challenged, when it was accepted and ruled upon.¹³

תוספות anticipates a question: ואף על גב דיש חילוק בין דאורייתא לרבנן – And even though there is a difference between a נאמנות מדאורייתא (where the rule applies even בב״א) and a נאמנות מדרבנן (that [even if there is a rule] it applies only בזא״ז); so how can the גמרא here ask that there is the rule of עולא, when the rule of עולא was stated by a נאמנות מדאורייתא –

תוספות answers that nevertheless, the גמרא –

מייתי מדעולא דנראה לו דחשיב כשנים בזה אחר זה בדרבנן כמו בבת אחת בדאורייתא: Cites the ruling of עולא, for it seems to the מקשן that an ע״א should be considered as two עדים (even) in a נאמנות מרבנן, (at least) if it a בזא״ז situation, just as the ע״א is considered like two in a נאמנות דאורייתא (even) in a ב״א situation. The מקשן is of the opinion that a נאמנות מדרבנן by a בזא״ז situation should be as strong as a נאמנות מדאורייתא by a ב״א situation.

SUMMARY The rule of עולא that כל מקום וכו׳ עד אחד הרי כאן שנים וכו׳ applies (only) when the עדים came בזה אחר זה. Concerning where an ע״א is נאמן מדאורייתא, there are two opinions whether this נאמנות applies even by בב״א or not.

THINKING IT OVER How do we explain that if it is a נאמנות מדאורייתא then it is effective even בב״א; however if it is only a נאמנות מדרבנן then it is effective only בזא״ז?¹⁴

footnotes: ¹ An ע״א is believed (מדרבנן) to testify that the husband died and the woman is allowed to remarry based on this testimony. ² The contradiction from the משנה to עולא poses a greater difficulty than the (apparent) disagreement between עולא and ר׳ יוחנן (who are both אמוראים). Why did not the מקשן pose this question (also)?! ³ תוספות question is based on the assumption of the מקשן, that according to עולא, the widow is permitted לכתחלה to remarry. We cannot therefore answer that the משנה in יבמות is אוסר only לכתחלה. See following תוספות ד״ה משום. ⁴ בי״ד never had the opportunity of accepting the testimony of the עד המתיר and rule accordingly, since the עד האוסר contradicted him (immediately). See footnote # 11. ⁵ תוספות answers that the מקשן could not have asked from the משנה (in addition to asking from ר׳ יוחנן), because the מקשן knew that the משנה could be discussing a case of בב״א where the rule of עולא does not apply. It follows therefore that even if she married she must leave, since she is a ספק א״א. See מהר״ם שי״ף. ⁶ See (however) footnote # 8 (Alternately). ⁷ The משנה states ׳עד אחד אומר מת וניסת ובא אחר ואמר לא מת לא תצא׳, the second עד came after the וניסת, which we interpret to mean התירוה לינשא. It is only in such a case that לא תצא מהתירה הראשון; but not if the second עד came before the התירוה לינשא. ⁸ It would seem at this point that there is a difference between the ruling of ר׳ יוחנן (according to עולא) and the ruling of the משנה in the case of בזה אחר זה. According to ר׳ יוחנן she may remain married; but not marry initially on account of רב אסי. However according to the משנה ruling (there is no concern of רב אסי and) she may remarry initially. The difference (according to ר׳ יוחנן) between בזה אחר זה and בבת אחת, would be if she remarried; if it is בזה אחר זה she may remain remarried, however if it was בבת אחת then she must be תצא. Alternately, one may interpret לא תצא מהתירא הראשון to mean that if she married (בדיעבד) she is not required to be תצא. The משנה and ר׳ יוחנן would then be in agreement. See משכנות הרועים אות תרנו. See following תוספות ד״ה משום. ⁹ If it is known that the סוטה was נטמאת (she was מזנה while an אשת איש), there is no process of drinking the מים המאררים. She becomes אסורה לבעל ולבועל וכו׳. ¹⁰ It is derived from the פסוק in פרשת סוטה (במדבר [נשא] ה,יג) where it is written ועד אין בה והיא לא נתפשה. ¹¹ The משנה there states the case of ע״א אומר נטמאת וע״א אומר לא נטמאת together with the case of ע״א אומר נטמאת וב׳ אומרים לא נטמאת היתה שותה. Assuming that עולא is only בזא״ז, we must say that the case of וב׳ אומרים לא נטמאת is בזא״ז for if it is בב״א, then even if one עד says לא נטמאת she would be שותה. We therefore assume that the case of ע״א וכו׳ וע״א, which is brought together with the case of וב׳ ואמרים וכו׳, is also בזא״ז. This differentiates between the משנה in סוטה which תוספות assumes (according to עולא) that it is בזא״ז, as opposed the משנה in יבמות regarding which תוספות stated previously (footnote # 4) that it is בב״א. See also מהר״ם שי״ף (ד״ה בא״ד משום) and משכנות הרועים אות תרנו. ¹² עולא states כל מקום שהאמינה תורה ע״א וכו׳. This implies that the rule of עולא is where the נאמנות is מדאורייתא. ¹³ See ‘Thinking it over’. ¹⁴ See footnote # 13. See ח״ב אות שלד.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

משום דרב אסי הסר ממך עקשות פה — On account of רב אסיwho said, ‘remove from you, distortions of the mouth’

OVERVIEW אביי interpreted ר׳ יוחנן according to עולא. When two עדים contradict each other concerning the death of the husband, the woman should not remarry; however if she remarried she may remain married. The latter is on account of עולא that the ע״א המתיר is believed כשנים. However initially she should not remarry, on account of רב אסי; to remove any gossip or slander. The issue here is whether this restriction (of not marrying initially) based on רב אסי, is agreed upon by all, or is it just the opinion of ר׳ יוחנן (according to אביי). ---------------–

תוספות anticipates a question and answers it; the statement ascribed to רב אסי, namely הסר ממך עקשות פה ולזות שפתים הרחק ממך, is actually –

פסוק הוא אלא דרב אסי רגיל להביאו¹ – A פסוק (so why is it said in the name of רב אסי?); howeversince רב אסי was accustomed to cite it often, therefore it is credited to him.

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר והא דתנן בהאשה שלום (יבמות דף קיז,ב ושם)– And if you will say**;** and that which we learnt in a משנה in פרק האשה שלום, if –

עד אחד אומר מת וניסת ובא עד אחד ואמר לא מת לא תצא – One עד claims, ‘your husband died’ andthe widow remarried, and subsequently another ע״א came and claimed he did not die;the rule is she is not required to leave her second husband. This concludes the citation of the משנה. ופריך בגמרא טעמא דניסת הא לא ניסת לא תנשא והאמר עולא כל מקום כולי – And the גמרא there asks; the reason she is not required to leave is because she remarried already before the עד האוסר came, however if she did not remarry yet, and the עד האוסר came, she will not be permitted to remarry;how can this be for עולא ruled that wherever, etc., an ע״א is believed הרי כאן שנים ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים, so why can she not remarry?! This concludes the quote from the גמרא. תוספות concludes his question: ומאי פריך והא עולא² לא קאמר אלא בדיעבד – And what is the גמרא asking; for עולא did not rule that an ע״א is believed כשנים, only בדיעבד when she remarried –

אבל לכתחלה מודה דלא תנשא משום דרב אסי – However, עולא admits that initially she should not remarry on account of רב אסי, which would make עולא in agreement with that משנה.³

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהתם דייק טעמא דניסת – And the ר״י says, that there the גמרא infers from the משנה that the reason of לא תצא is because she already remarried before the עד האוסר came –

הא אם לא נשאת לא תנשא ואם נשאת תצא – However, if she did not remarry before the עד האוסר came, she is notpermitted to remarry, and if she remarries she should leave –

דהכי משמע מתניתין דוקא נשאת ואחר כך בא העד לא תצא – For this is the implication of the משנה; only if she remarried and afterward the עדהאוסר came, she is not required to leave –

הא בא העד קודם שנשאת ואחר כך ניסת תצא משום הכי פריך מדעולא – However if the עד האוסר came before she remarried and she remarried afterward, the rule would be תצא (even בדיעבד), that is why the גמרא challenges this ruling from עולא, who maintains that בדיעבד the עד is certainly believed כשנים and she may remain married.⁴

תוספות continues to ask: ואם תאמר והיכי משני התם דהכי קאמר עד אחד אומר מת והתירוה לינשא – And if you will say; and how then does the גמרא answer there (on the abovementioned question) that this is what the משנה means: ‘one עד said ‘he died’ and בי״ד permitted her to remarry (but she did not remarry yet) –

ובא אחר ואמר לא מת לא תצא מהתירה הראשון⁵ משמע ותנשא לכתחלה – And another עד came and claimed he did not die; the rule is she does not leavebehind her initial permissibility (this concludes the answer of the גמרא;⁶ תוספות continues that), this indicates that she may initially remarry!⁷ This contradicts what the גמרא maintains here that even when an ע״א is נאמן כשנים, she cannot marry לכתחלה (if there is an עד האוסר), on account of רב אסי.

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דודאי לכתחלה לא תנשא – And one may say, that certainly she may not remarry לכתחלה (on account of רב אסי) –

ולא תצא מהתירה הראשון לענין דאם נישאת לא תצא – And the meaning of לא תצא מהתירא הראשון is referring to a case, where she did remarry (after the עד האוסר came), then בדיעבד she is not required to leave**.**

SUMMARY The משנה in יבמות may follow the opinion of רב אסי that when there is an עד האוסר (even if he came after the עד המתיר), she should not marry לכתחלה. However בדיעבד (even if she remarried באיסור), she may remain married ([only] if the עד האוסר came after the עד המתיר).

THINKING IT OVER In a case where we rule לא תנשא (an עד against an עד), and she remarried, the rule is לא תצא מהתירה הראשון and she may remain married; just as she would be allowed to remain married when she married בהיתר. However when she remarried בהיתר (when there was only the עד המתיר), the reason for this היתר is because אשה דייקא ומנסבא, therefore we can say that even if the עד האוסר came later, nevertheless לא תצא. However in the case where both עדים came before she remarried, and she remarried באיסור, there is seemingly no חזקה that אשה דייקא ומנסבא (for she remarried באיסור), then how can we allow her to remain married without this חזקה?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ See פרקי אבות פ״ד משנה יט, and in the פירוש הרע״ב. ² It would seem more appropriate to insert ר׳ יוחנן instead of עולא, for עולא did not state specifically any difference between לכתחלה and בדיעבד, it is only ר׳ יוחנן (according to אביי) who makes this differentiation. ³ It is possible that תוספות initially stated that הסר ממך וגו׳ is a פסוק in order to bolster his question. If it is merely a statement of רב אסי (who was an אמורא), it is not that likely that the משנה would have to subscribe to this view, that she should be אסור לכתחלה. However if it is a פסוק, then it is (more) likely that the משנה would rule in a similar fashion. ⁴ The question (on עולא) is not, why she should not initially remarry (if the עד האוסר came before marriage), but rather why if she remarried (even after the עד האוסר came) she cannot remain married. We will interpret the question הא לא נשאת לא תנשא to mean הא לא נשאת לא תנשא ואם נשאת תצא. ⁵ לא תצא does not (merely) mean she does not leave her husband (if she remarried before the עד האוסר came) but rather, she does not lose her היתר, (even) if the עד האוסר came before she remarried. ⁶ תוספות assumes that the גמרא is answering that since ניסת means התירוה לינשא, then we cannot be מדייק that if נשאת after the עד האוסר came she should be תצא, since ניסת means התירוה לינשא, and concerning this התירוה the משנה states לא תצא, meaning that even if the עד האוסר came before she remarried לא תצא. ⁷ When the עד המתיר came (alone), בי״ד was התירוה לינשא, which means they gave her permission to remarry; it follows that the לא תצא מהתירא הראשון, means the same, that she is still permitted to remarry. ⁸ See אילת השחר.