Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

באו עדים¹ לא תצא — If witnesses came, she is not required to leave

OVERVIEW The ברייתא teaches us that if a woman claimed נשבתי וטהורה אני and I also have עדים that טהורה אני (and בי״ד permitted her to marry), then even if the עדים subsequently came and claimed that they are unaware if she is טהורה or not, nevertheless לא תצא. Again, תוספות will explain the meaning of לא תצא. --------------–

פירוש² לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון – The explanation of the phrase (באו עדים) לא תצא is that she does not lose her initial permission to remarry לכתחלה.³

SUMMARY The woman is permitted to marry לכתחלה even if the עדים do not substantiate her claim.

THINKING IT OVER How indeed does תוספות derive this ruling that even if her claim is not completely substantiated, she may still marry לכתחלה?!⁴ Conversely if אבוה דשמואל maintains that the משנה which states ואם משנשאת באו עדים לא תצא means לא נשאת נשאת ממש אלא שהתירוה לינשא (even though it states משנשאת) and לא תצא means לא תצא מהתירה הראשון, so in our ברייתא which merely states התירוה לינשא (and it does not say נשאת), it certainly means לא תצא מהתירה הראשון. What is תוספות being מחדש?!

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרות the text reads באו עדים ואמרו לא ידענו הרי זו לא תצא. The גירסת הרי״ף is באו עדים שנשבית. ² See previous תוספות ד״ה לא תצא (including footnote # 1). ³ In this case the woman is slightly contradicted by the עדים. She claimed that עדים knew that she was not נטמאה. However the עדים are testifying that they do not know. It is possible that in this situation (since she was somewhat contradicted) we will not believe her completely and permit her to marry לכתחלה. Rather we would only allow her to remain married בדיעבד. Our תוספות negates this view. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See קדושת ישראל (להרב בנימין ליכטנשטט).

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

תרוייהו בפנויה קמסהדי — They are both testifying concerning an unmarried woman

OVERVIEW אביי interprets the ברייתא concerning contradictory עדים in cases of קדושין and גירושין, to being taking place in a situation where two individual עדים are contradicting each other. Therefore, in the case of ע״א אומר נתקדשה וע״א אומר לא נתקדשה the ruling is (לא תנשא) ואם נשאת לא תצא, since they both agree that she was a פנויה before this controversial קדושין, and only one says that it took place. It follows that one עד cannot contradict the assumption of both עדים that she was initially a פנויה; therefore אם נשאת לא תצא. This תוספות questions firstly, the need for an עד to say לא נתקדשה (to permit her to remain married) and secondly, why she cannot (re)marry לכתחלה since she is בחזקת פנויה. ----------------–

תוספות comments: לא הוה צריך להא¹ דאפילו ליכא אלא ההוא דאמר נתקדשה לא תצא – It was not necessary to mention this fact that they were both testifying that she was unmarried (before this controversial קדושין), for even if there were not two who testified, but rather only the one who maintains that she was betrothedpreviously to someone else (and no one contradicted him);nevertheless she would not be required to leave her new husband. The reason is –

דאין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים – For a matter concerning illicit relations cannot be established with less than two witnesses. There are no two witnesses here who testify that the woman was married (only the ע״א), therefore she remains בחזקת פנויה. תוספות does not resolve this difficulty.²

תוספות asks: אבל תימה³ אמאי לא תנשא לכתחלה דהוה לן לאוקמה אחזקה – However it is astonishing; why can she not initially be permitted to remarry?! For בי״ד should place her on her presumptive פנויה status,⁴ since the עד that claims נתקדשה is contradicted by the עד who claims לא נתקדשה. We should therefore fall back on her חזקת פנויה!⁵

תוספות answers: ויש לומר כגון שאנו יודעים שזרק לה קדושין ומספקא לן אי קרוב לו או קרוב לה⁶ – And one can say, that we are discussing a case where for instance we know that the ‘husband’ threw קדושין money towards her, and we are in doubt whether the קדושין money landed closer to him (and she is not מקודשת); or whether it landed closer to her (in which case she is מקודשת). This was known for a fact (without the two contradictory עדים)⁷ - והני ב׳ סהדי חד אמר קרוב לו וחד אמר קרוב לה – And these twocontradictory עדים, one claimed that it landed closer to him, and one claimed it was closer to her. Therefore - דכיון דודאי זרק לה הקדושין לית לן למימר אוקמה אחזקה להתירה לכתחילה – Since it is certain that he threw קדושין money to her, we cannot rule that we should place her on her חזקה to permit her to marry לכתחלה. Her חזקת פנויה has been severely flawed by the knowledge that an act of קדושין (albeit a ספק קדושין) has been performed. Once there is no ודאי חזקת פנויה, she may not marry לכתחלה.⁸

תוספות offers another possibility: אי נמי כגון שהיו נרות דולקות ומטות מוצעות – Or you may also say, that we are discussing a case where for instance the candles were lit and the beds were spread with linens, which indicates –

שהיה עומד לקדש כדאמר בסוף המגרש⁹ (גיטין פט,א) – That the husband was preparing to marry her, as the גמרא states in the end of פרק המגרש –

ועד אחד אומר נתקדשה ועד אחד אומר לא נתקדשה באותה שעה: And one עד claims she married and the other עד claimed she did not marry at this very time that the first עד claimed that she married. In this case as well, the חזקת פנויה is seriously flawed by the indications that a wedding was about to take place. Therefore the ruling is לא תנשא לכתחלה.

SUMMARY If there are indications that place a serious doubt on her חזקת פנויה status (such as קרוב לו וקרוב לה, or נרות דולקות, etc.), this prevents her from marrying לכתחלה by ע״א בחכחשה (but she may remain married).

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the דין if an ע״א claims that a woman was נתקדשה בפני שנים; is he believed against her חזקת פנויה?¹⁰
2. What would be the דין: a) if there were only two עדים, one said he threw it קרוב לו and the other קרוב לה? b) If we know that he threw the קדושין to her ספק קרוב לו ספק קרוב לה; and there were no עדים at all to testify positively that it was either קרוב לו or קרוב לה?¹¹
3. In our case of נרות דולקות was there a קול (beside the ע״א) that she was נתקדשה?¹²
4. Why did תוספות choose to give the example of קרוב לו וכו׳ before the example of נרות דולקות וכו׳? Seemingly, the case of נרות דולקות is where the גמרא (in גיטין) specifically states that she loses her חזקת פנויה!
5. Is there any value in a flawed חזקה?

footnotes: ¹ It would seem more appropriate that תוספות is referring to the phrase ׳ואין דבריו של אחד במקום שנים׳. The עד who testifies לא נתקדשה is merely stating that she was not נתקדשה at the time when the other עד claims that נתקדשה. He is not (necessary) claiming that she was never נתקדשה. ² See תוספות הרא״ש who answers that since in the סיפא it was necessary to state תרווייהו בא״א קא מסהדי, therefore in the רישא he also mentions תרווייהו בפנויה קא מסהדי. ³ Even if we are to ignore the previous difficulty, for it is ‘merely’ a ‘technical’ difficulty, not a difficulty in the actual ruling (or answer it somewhat; see previous footnote # 2); nevertheless there is the following difficulty which questions the ruling itself. ⁴ See מהרש״א that the ע״א is testifying that she was נתקדשה בפני שנים. The חזקת פנויה should resolve the contradictory testimony of the two עדים. See (following footnote # 5 and) ‘Thinking it over # 1. ⁵ This is different than if שנים אומרים נתקדשה ושנים אומרים לא נתקדשה where the ruling is לא תנשא (לכתחלה). For there, there are two עדים who maintain נתקדשה; it is therefore a situation of תרי ותרי, and by תו״ת (even if there is a חזקת היתר, nevertheless) it remains a ספק מדרבנן. However here it is a case of ע״א בהכחשה and therefore we should certainly follow the חזקה דמעיקרא (even מדרבנן). See (also) previous תוספות ד״ה מ״ש. [Alternately since here there is only an ע״א, therefore he cannot be believed since אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים.] ⁶ See גיטין עח,א, where the משנה states that if a man throws a גט to his wife, if it landed closer to him she is not מגורשת, and if it landed closer to her she is מגורשת. There are differing opinions there as to the exact meaning of קרוב לו and קרוב לה. The same rule will apply by קדושין. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ This ספק is different than if ע״א אומר נתקדשה וע״א אומר לא נתקדשה. There we are not sure that any קדושין took place at all, and she retains her חזקת פנויה. We only have the word of an ע״א and אין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים. However in this case we know that there is a ספק קדושין, this denies her, the חזקת פנויה status. ⁹ The משנה there (פח,ב) states that יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת. The גמרא there explains that there was a קול that she was נתקדשה היום when it was known that נרות דולקין ומטה מוצעת. Otherwise, a קול is meaningless. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4. ¹¹ See (footnote # 7 and) משכנות הרועים אות תרצז (קרוב לסופו ובהערה מ). ¹² See אילת השחר (for # 4 as well).

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מאן דמתני לה ארישא כל שכן אסיפא — He, who applies it to the רישא, certainly applies it to the סיפא

OVERVIEW The משנה stated two cases, one by an אשת איש and one by a שבויה, that if the woman testified (and there were no עדים) that she was married and divorced, or נשביתי וטהורה she is believed [but not if there are עדים that she was married or נשבית]. The משנה concludes that if the עדים came after she remarried, the rule is לא תצא. It is not clear if this rule applies to both cases (of א״א and שבויה or not). The גמרא states that whoever maintains that this rule of לא תצא applies by א״א will certainly maintain that it applies by שבויה, for by a שבויה (where the entire prohibition of a שבויה to a כהן is מדרבנן), the חכמים were lenient. תוספות challenges this assumption that the ruling of אם משנשאת באו עדים לא תצא applies to the סיפא (of שבויה) if it applies to the רישא (of א״א). Perhaps in the case of שבויה we are even more lenient that by א״א. -------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מנא ליה – And if you will ask, how does the גמרא assume that מאן דמתני ארישא כ״ש אסיפא –

דלמא אסיפא לא מצי קאי¹ דאפילו באו עדים ואחר כך נשאת² לא תצא³ – Perhaps the rule of אם משנשאת באו עדים לא תצא, cannot apply in the סיפא, for in the case of נשביתי the rule may be that even if the עדים came first and then she married, nevertheless she is not required to leave her husband (the כהן), for by שבויה הקילו.

תוספות answers: ולמאי דמפרש בסמוך⁴ לא ניסת ניסת ממש אתי שפיר – And according to what the גמרא will shortly explain that the term ניסת (in the ruling of אם משנשאת באו עדים וכו׳) does not actually mean ניסת (but rather (even if) בי״ד just permitted her to [re]marry), then it is properly understood. There is no difference between שבויה and גרושה; in both cases if התירוה לינשא, she may marry (even if באו עדים before she [re]marries)⁵, and if לא התירוה לינשא then the ruling is תצא in both cases.⁶

SUMMARY If we assume that in a case of א״א וגרושה אני she is not permitted to remain married if she remarried after the עדי אישות came, we can still maintain that in a case of נשביתי וטהורה אני she may remain married (to the כהן) even if she married after the עדי שבויה came. However if we maintain that by א״א וגרושה אני she may remarry even after the עדים came (as long as התירוה להנשא), then the same rule would apply to נשביתי וטהורה אני.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What did תוספות assume (in his question) would be the view of the one who is מתני לה אסיפא; what would be the דין in the רישא?⁷
2. In his question, תוספות asserts that it is possible that the מאן דמתני ארישא is not מתני אסיפא (because in the סיפא even if באו עדים ואח״כ נשאת לא תצא).⁸ If that is so, then why did the משנה write the ruling of ואם משנשאת באו עדים לא תצא after the סיפא, if it pertains only to the רישא?! The משנה should have written it after the רישא, before the סיפא!⁹
3. תוספות clearly states that לפי מה דמפרש בסמוך there is no question,¹⁰ so what is תוספות question?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ The inference of ואם משנשאת באו עדים לא תצא is that if באו עדים ואח״כ נשאת תצא, and by a שבויה it is not (necessarily) so. ² They came after she testified נשביתי וטהורה אני and בי״ד accepted her testimony (based on the פה שאסר). ³ See ‘thinking it over’ # 2. ⁴ On this עמוד; אמר אבוה דשמואל לא נשאת נשאת ממש וכו׳. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁵ See following תוספות ד״ה לא תצא. ⁶ It is self-understood that if the עדי שבויה came, before בי״ד accepted her testimony to permit her to remarry, that she is אסור to remarry, and if she did so, the rule would be תצא. ⁷ See מהרש״א (הארוך). ⁸ See footnote # 3. ⁹ See רש״ש. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4. ¹¹ See פנ״י.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אית ליה דרב המנונא — He agrees with רב המנונא

OVERVIEW רב המנונא states that if a woman claims, in the presence of her husband, that she was divorced; she is believed, and permitted to remarry.¹ In our גמרא there is a dispute (between ר׳ אושעיא and רבה בר אבין) whether a woman may remain (re)married if עדי אישות came after she remarried (based on the פה שאסר of her testimony that א״א הייתי וגרושה אני). Our גמרא suggested initially that this dispute hinges on whether we agree with רב המנונא (that the woman is believed [and therefore לא תצא]); or not (תצא). Our תוספות questions (and explains) the relevancy of רב המנונא to our discussion.

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: אף על גב דרב המנונא איירי בפניו² – Even though רב המנונא is discussing a case where the wife is in the presence of her husband; it is in this situation that רב המנונא maintains that the woman is believed to claim גרשתני since she is in the presence of her husband. Seemingly this should have no bearing on our discussion here, where the husband is not present. Why does the גמרא associate this dispute with the ruling of רב המנונא?!³

תוספות responds: מכל מקום לענין ניסת ואחר כך באו עדים מהני שלא בפניו: Nevertheless concerning a situation where she remarried and witnesses came afterward (and testified that she was once married) the ruling of רב המנונא would apply even not in the presence of the husband. If we maintain as רב המנונא does, that a woman is believed to tell her husband in his presence that she is divorced, and we permit her to remarry (based on her pronouncement [alone]), then we will also maintain that if she already remarried and then עדים came, her original pronouncement should suffice⁴ to permit her to remain married.⁵

SUMMARY The ruling of רב המנונא (that אשה נאמנת לומר גרשתני) can also apply in a case of שלא בפניו, to the extent that she may remain married (if נשאת ואח״כ באו עדים).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות maintains in his question, that the ruling of רב המנונא is only בפניו.⁶ However our גמרא concludes that one מ״ד maintains that רב המנונא is also discussing a case of שלא בפניו!⁷

footnotes: ¹ She would not have the audacity to declare in his presence that he divorced her, if it were not true. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ Even if we agree with רב המנונא, the woman still may not be permitted to remain remarried, for in this case she did not testify בפני בעלה. ⁴ It would seem that her נאמנות (in a case where she says לבעלה גרשתני) is not based solely on the חזקה of אין אשה מעיזה פניה בפני בעלה; but rather that this חזקה strengthens her טענה of גרשתני to the extent that she can marry לכתחלה. However even without the חזקה (as in our case where it is שלא בפניו), she retains sufficient נאמנות when she says גרושה אני (based on her original הפה שאסר) to remain married בדיעבד. A lesser נאמנות is required for a לא תצא בדיעבד than for a תנשא לכתחלה. [Alternately, the חזקה of אין אשה מעיזה (even if it is not בפני בעלה) is sufficient to weaken the חזקת א״א which the עדים seek to impose. Her מגו [דאי בעי שתיק] allows her to remain married since there is no valid חזקת א״א. See משכנות הרועים אות (תשלט-) תשמב, for a detailed discussion] ⁵ However if we disagree with רב המנונא, and a woman is never believed to claim that she is divorced, even in the presence of her husband (except when there is a valid הפה שאסר), then even if she is already remarried, but since עדים came (and weakened her הפה שאסר), she must be תצא. For her pronouncement without the aid of a valid הפה שאסר, is meaningless (for we see that even the חזקה cannot sustain her claim). ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ See מהרש״א.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון — She does not leave (lose) her initial unrestricted status

OVERVIEW The משנה stated that if עדים testified משנשאת that she was a שבויה (or an א״א), the ruling is לא תצא. The term משנשאת was interpreted by אבוה דשמואל to mean that permission was granted to her to (re)marry (but not necessarily that she actually married). The גמרא was then required to interpret the phrase לא תצא, to mean that לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון. The question our תוספות discusses is what does לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון mean? Does it mean that she may initially remarry (as her היתרה הראשון allowed), or does it (merely) mean that if she remarries she may remain married (as it means elsewhere). ---------------–

פירוש¹ ותנשא [לכתחלה] דלא שייך לזות שפתים כלל² – The explanation of the phrase לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון is that she may [initially] (re)marry; for ‘crookedness of the lips’ is not at all applicable in this case. There is no one who contests her statement that she is a (גרושה or) טהורה.³

תוספות anticipates that this interpretation may be questioned: אבל אין לפרש כי ההיא דיבמות דלא תצא מהיתרה הראשון לענין דאם נשאת לא תצא – However we cannot interpret the phrase לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון to means as in the case in מסכת יבמות,⁴ namely that she does not lose her initial permission in regards that if she already remarried, she is not required to leave her new husband. It is only to that extent that her היתרה הראשון is effective –

אבל לכתחלה לא תינשא – But she may not initially remarry (perhaps it means the same here as in יבמות).

תוספות negates this: we cannot maintain this view –

כדמשמע גבי בנתיה דמר שמואל בסמוך שהתירן לכתחילה⁵ – as is indicated shortly concerning the daughters of מר שמואל (who were שבויות [by their own admission]), that רבי חנינא permitted them initially to marry (to כהנים). He told ר׳ שמן who was a כהן to marry one of them. We must therefore conclude that here לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון means that she may marry לכתחלה.

SUMMARY A woman who claims נשבתי וטהורה אני and בי״ד was מתיר her to marry a כהן; if עדים testified later that she was a שבויה, she may nevertheless marry a כהן לכתחלה. (The same would apply to a woman who claims א״א הייתי וגרושה אני, she would be able to remarry לכתחלה, according to ר׳ אושעיא).

THINKING IT OVER Why would we think that לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון, here, means ואם נשאת לא תצא as it does in יבמות;⁶ there the עד is contradicted, however here no one contradicts her?!

לחידודא – שלא להוציא הנייר חלק בתוס׳ ד״ה משום (כב,ב) מצטט רק המלים הסר ממך עקשות פה (בלא ׳וגו׳׳ אפילו), ובתוס׳ שלנו מצטט רק ׳לזות שפתיים׳. וטעמא בעי. והנה אם נניח שהפסוק הנ״ל בא בסדר של לא זו אף זו [שצריך לשלול לא רק עשקות פה אלא גם לזות שפתיים], ז.א. שעקשות פה הוא יותר גרוע וממילא יותר מושלל מלזות שפתיים (והטעם לזה הוא אולי משום שמלת ׳עקש׳ מורה על עקמומיות יתירה ממלת ׳לזות׳, ועוד (והוא העיקר) שהפה הוא מראה על דיבור יותר מהשפתיים בלבד [שהפה כולל גם השפתיים וגם שאר מוצאות הפה]),יובן. דשם כשיש ע״א בהכחשה יש (לא רק לזות שפתיים, אלא גם) עקשות הפה (שהעד האחר אומר במפורש שלא מת הבעל), משא״כ כאן כשהאשה אינה מוכחשת אין אפילו לזות שפתיים (מהעדים שמעידים שהיתה שבויה מאחר שזה לא מורה שנטמאה).

footnotes: ¹ תוספות (usually) uses the term ׳פירוש׳ to indicate that it should not be understood in a different (or more obvious) manner. Here, תוספות is rejecting the ׳אין לפרש׳, which he will shortly state. ² Previously (כב,ב), concerning the case where an ע״א claimed that her husband died and another ע״א contradicted him, the rule is אם נשאת לא תצא (since האמינה תורה ע״א וכו׳); however initially לא תנשא on account of (הסר ממך עקשות פה) ולזות שפתיים. This concern is not applicable in our case. ³ The עדים merely testify that she was a שבויה (or an א״א) they do not contradict her testimony that she is a טהורה (or that נתגרשה). However by the case of an ע״א, another ע״א contradicts him. ⁴ דף קיז,ב. See previous תוספות כב,ב ד״ה משום. There the גמרא states לא תצא מהיתרא הראשון (in the case of two contradicting עדים), and תוספות interprets it to mean that if she remarried she may remain married, however initially she may not remarry. Seemingly here too, where the same expression לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון is used, it should means the same. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ See תוסספות ישנים in the margin who writes: לכתחלה דפריך טעמא דליכא עדים הא איכא עדים מיתסרא ומאי פריך אי מתסרא לכתחלה. The תו״י offers (an additional) poof that לא תצא means תנשא לכתחלה from the end of this סוגיא. The גמרא (initially) inferred that if עדי שבויה would come (later) she would be אסורה. The גמרא asks that this contradicts the ruling of אבוה דשמואל who states התירוה לינשא. The תו״י claims that if the ruling of אבוה דשמואל is only בדיעבד, then there is no contradiction. Perhaps the תו״י offers this additional proof, in order to prove that אבוה דשמואל also agrees that תנשא לכתחלה (not only רבי חנינא). ⁶ See footnote # 4.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

באו עדים¹ לא תצא – If witnesses came, she is not required to leave

OVERVIEW The ברייתא teaches us that if a woman claimed נשבתי וטהורה אני and I also have עדים that טהורה אני (and בי״ד permitted her to marry), then even if the עדים subsequently came and claimed that they are unaware if she is טהורה or not, nevertheless לא תצא. Again, תוספות will explain the meaning of לא תצא. --------------– פירוש² לא תצא מהיתרה הראשון – The explanation of the phrase (באו עדים) לא תצא is that she does not lose her initial permission to remarry לכתחלה.³

SUMMARY The woman is permitted to marry לכתחלה even if the עדים do not substantiate her claim.

THINKING IT OVER How indeed does תוספות derive this ruling that even if her claim is not completely substantiated, she may still marry לכתחלה?!⁴ Conversely if אבוה דשמואל maintains that the משנה which states ואם משנשאת באו עדים לא תצא means לא נשאת נשאת ממש אלא שהתירוה לינשא (even though it states משנשאת) and לא תצא means לא תצא מהתירה הראשון, so in our ברייתא which merely states התירוה לינשא (and it does not say נשאת), it certainly means לא תצא מהתירה הראשון. What is תוספות being מחדש?!

footnotes: ¹ In our גמרות the text reads באו עדים ואמרו לא ידענו הרי זו לא תצא. The גירסת הרי״ף is באו עדים שנשבית. ² See previous תוספות ד״ה לא תצא (including footnote # 1). ³ In this case the woman is slightly contradicted by the עדים. She claimed that עדים knew that she was not נטמאה. However the עדים are testifying that they do not know. It is possible that in this situation (since she was somewhat contradicted) we will not believe her completely and permit her to marry לכתחלה. Rather we would only allow her to remain married בדיעבד. Our תוספות negates this view. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ See קדושת ישראל (להרב בנימין ליכטנשטט).

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

עד האידנא מאן נטרינהו — Who guarded them until now

OVERVIEW Captive women were brought to אבוה דשמואל (for ransom), who placed them under guard (to protect them [from their captors]). שמואל asked his father; ‘Who guarded them until now’? תוספות explains the intent of sשמואל׳ question. -------------–

פירוש דכבר נאסרו: The explanation is that שמואל told his father, that there is no purpose in guarding them now in order that they should be מותרות לכהונה, since they are already forbidden to marry כהנים, for we know that they were שבויות.¹ However שמואל did not mean that they should not be protected now from their captors.

SUMMARY שמואל argued that even if they are guarded now, it would not affect their איסור לכהונה, since they are already אסורות.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות, by saying ׳פירוש׳, is negating a different explanation.² Why would we have thought that the other explanation is preferable (that תוספות needs to negate it); and why indeed does תוספות negate the other explanation?
2. According to the interpretation of תוספות; why did אבוה דשמואל respond so harshly to his son שמואל? All that שמואל meant was that they are אסורות לכהונה!³

footnotes: ¹ תוספות is negating (see previous תוספות ד״ה לא footnote # 1) an alternate interpretation; that שמואל was asking why are you guarding them from being נבעל by the captors, it makes no difference whether they will be נבעל now (again), since previously no one guarded them and they were נבעל then, and thus אסורות לכהן. תוספות does not accept this (more callous) interpretation. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. See מהרש״א. ² See previous footnote # 1. ³ See מהרש״א

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

והא איכא עדים במדינת הים — But there are witnesses overseas

OVERVIEW רב חנינא ruled that the daughters of שמואל are מותרות לכהונה (for they have a הפה שאסר). רב שמן בר אבא challenged this ruling and asked ‘but there are עדים במדה״י’ (which the גמרא initially assumed to mean that there are עדים that they were captured). תוספות will discuss the meaning of ‘that there are עדים במדה״י’; is it a known fact, or merely a concern, etc. -----------------–

תוספות comments that the phrase ׳והא איכא עדים במדינת הים׳ –

אין לפרש דלמא איכא עדים במדינת הים¹ דאם כן תיקשי ליה נמי אמתניתין – Cannot be interpreted to mean that perhaps there are witnesses overseaswho know that they were שבויות (even though we are not at all aware that there may be עדים במדה״י); for if that would be the interpretation and the concern of ר׳ שמן בר אבא, then he should have the same difficulty with our משנה –

דקתני נשביתי וטהורה אני נאמנת ואמאי דלמא איכא עדים² – For the משנה states that if she claims נשביתי וטהורה אני, she is believed; why should she be believed (and permitted to marry a כהן) perhaps there are עדים who know that she was a שבויה?!³

תוספות offers his interpretation of ׳והא איכא עדים במדה״י׳: אלא הכי פירושה הא יצא קול דאיכא עדים במדינת הים שיודעים שנשבית⁴ – But rather this is the explanation; ‘for a rumor has gone out that there are עדים במדה״י who know that she was captured’.

תוספות asks a question: ומיהו קשה לרבי שמשון בן אברהם – The רשב״א however has a difficulty –

דהיכי סלקא דעתיה השתא דעדים היינו עדי שבויה – For how did it enter the mind of the גמרא now to assume that the term עדים refers to עדי שבויה (that they are [merely] aware that they were captured, but they are not עדי טומאה) - דאם כן מה הוה צריך למימר הא איכא עדים במדינת הים – For if that is so (that the concern is that there may be עדי שבויה) then why was it necessary to say; ‘but there are עדים במדה״י’ (which is merely a maybe, based on a קול), when רב שמן בר אבא –

הוה ליה למימר הא איכא עדים קמן דהא איכא שבויינהו: could have asked, there are עדים before us; for their captors are present! The captors are telling us that they were definitely שבויות.⁵ There is no need to mention a concern that perhaps there are עדים במדה״י! תוספות does not answer this question.⁶

SUMMARY If there is no reasonable basis, we are not concerned that there may be עדים (to nullify the פה שאסר). It is not clear why the potential עדים במדה״י should negate the פה שאסר any more than the שבאים that are present before us.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to the ׳אין לפרש׳ how can we generally rule on any issue;⁷ there is always a concern perhaps there are עדים that will support the other view?!
2. Is there any reason why we would have preferred the אין לפרש over תוספות explanation?
3. Is there any connection between the קשיא of the רשב״א, and that which was discussed previously in this תוספות?
4. What does the רשב״א mean that ‘the captors are present’?⁸ Presumably no one knew that they were captives (otherwise there is no הפה שאסר). It cannot mean that the captors will testify that בנתיה דשמואל were captives, for they are עכו״ם and their testimony is worthless!⁹
5. תוספות explains that there was a קול that there are עדים במדה״י who know that they were captured.¹⁰ Was this קול known before the היתר of רבי חנינא or not?

footnotes: ¹ On account of this concern they should not be permitted to marry. For if there are עדים that they were שבויות; they no longer have the הפה שאסר. It is reasonable to assume that there may be עדים; since we know that she is a שבויה (according to her own admittance), it is (very) likely that people are aware of it. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² According to the אין לפרש this concern has no real basis, and it should apply therefore in all instances. ³ The fact the תוספות rejects the ׳אין לפרש׳ indicates that (according to תוספות) we are not concerned about all types of possibilities, unless there is a basis. ⁴ רב שמן בר אבא knew of this קול, therefore he was concerned. The משנה however is discussing a case where there is no such rumor; therefore she is מותרת לכהן. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 5. ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over # 4. ⁶ See תוספות ישנים (in the margin) who answers this question stating: ויש לומר דמחמת השבאים לא איתסרו דהא אינהו אתי בתר דשרינהו אבל הכא מחמת שבא הקול מקמי שריותא דידהו איכא למסרינהו והכי פירושא טעמא דלא אתו עדים הא אתו עדים מיתסרו כיון שנתגלה [שאמת] היה הקול שיש עדים [והקול הרי היה] מלפני ההיתר; (free translation): that on account of the captors, they will not be אסורות, since the captors came after they were already התירוה לינשא. However the concern here is on account of the קול which preceded the התירוה, therefore they should be prohibited. And this is how the גמרא should be understood; the reason they are permitted is because no עדים actually came, however if the עדים came (now) they would be אסורות on account that the קול that there are עדים, was known before the היתר. See also ח״ב אות שלו. ⁷ See footnote # 1. ⁸ See footnote # 5. ⁹ See רש״ש. ¹⁰ See footnote # 4.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

עדי טומאה איתמר — Witnesses of defilement, were mentioned

OVERVIEW רב שמן בר אבא challenged the opinion of ר׳ חנינא and argued how can we permit the שבויות to marry כהנים, for there are עדים, who know what happened. The גמרא concluded that these עדים presumably could attest to the fact that the daughters of שמואל were נטמאו by their captors. ר׳ חנינא maintained his ruling that nevertheless the woman are permitted to remarry on account of their הפה שאסר regardless of the purported עדי טומאה that are overseas. ---------------–

והא איכא עדים במדינת הים דפריך לעיל פירוש – The explanation **of the challenge, ‘**but there are עדים overseas’, which רב שמן בר אבא previously asked of ר׳ חנינא; is –

והא יצא קול דאיכא התם עדי טומאה כדפירשתי¹ – But there is a rumor that there are עדי טומאה there in מדה״י, as תוספות explained previously; that the concern of רב שמן בר אבא was based on the קול that there are עדים who know what happened.²

תוספות asks: הקשה רבינו תם בפרק קמא דקידושין (דף יב,א) גבי ההוא גברא דקדיש באבנא דכוחלא – The ר״ת asked; the גמרא related in the first פרק of מסכת קדושין, concerning a particular person who was מקדש a woman with a dark marble stone ויתיב רב חסדא וקא משער אי אית בה שוה פרוטה אי לא – And רב חסדא was sitting and evaluating this stone whether it was worth a פרוטה (whereby the woman would be מקודשת) or not (and the woman would not be מקודשת). The גמרא there continues that it was mentioned to רב חסדא that there are witnesses (who are now elsewhere) who know that on that particular day when he gave the קדושין, it was worth a פרוטה. ומסיק לאו היינו דרבי חנינא דאמר עדים בצד אסתן ותאסר – And the גמרא there concludes; is this not the same as the case of רבי חנינא**(of our גמרא)** who said, ‘just because there may be witnesses in the north, therefore the שבויות should be prohibited (from marrying כהנים)?! Therefore רב חסדא ruled that she is not considered to be ודאי מקודשת. וקאמר אביי ורבא לא סבירא להו הא דרב חסדא אם הקילו בשבויה נקל באשת איש – And the גמרא there states that אביי ורבא did not agree with רב חסדא (who compared the case of קדושין to the case of שבויה [and therefore רב חסדא is not concerned about the possibility that there may be witnesses who will testify that it was a שוה פרוטה and she is an אשת איש]); but rather אביי ורבא maintain that we cannot compare the two cases; for if the חכמים were lenient concerning a שבויה (and permit her to marry a כהן [who is only אסור לשבויה מדרבנן]), should we also be lenient concerning an אשת איש (where there is a ספק מדאורייתא)! If indeed the אבנא דכוחלא was a שוה פרוטה, then this woman is an א״א דאורייתא and is forbidden to marry anyone, under the threat of a חיוב מיתה! This concludes the citation from the גמרא in קדושין.

תוספות concludes his question: והשתא למאי דמסיק דעדי טומאה איתמר מה לי עדי שבויה מה לי עדי אשת איש – But now according to the conclusion of our גמרא that we are discussing עדי טומאה (which makes the woman אסורה לכהן מדאורייתא), what difference is there whether it is עדים regarding a שבויה (that she was נטמאת) or עדי אשת איש;³ in both cases it is an איסור דאורייתא. Why therefore did אביי ורבא argue and maintain that an א״א should be different from a שבויה?!

תוספות cites sרש״י׳ explanation (and rejects it). ורש״י פירש שם⁴ אם הקילו בשבויה דאיסור לאו – And רש״י explained there that אביי ורבא maintain, if they were lenient by a שבויה where it is merely an איסור לאו (but there is no חיוב מיתה) if a כהן marries a שבויה [זונה], should we be lenient by the איסור א״א where there is a חיוב מיתה if she marries someone else while she is still an א״א. The distinction between שבויה and קדושין (according to רש״י), is that שבויה is merely an איסור לאו and קדושין is a חיוב מיתה.

תוספות rejects this explanation: וקשה לרבינו תם דבשבויה נמי איכא איסור סקילה – And the ר״ת has a difficulty with this explanation; for by the case of a שבויה there can also be an איסור סקילה –

אם נשאת לכהן שישמש בנה על גבי מזבח בשבת – If she marries a כהן and her son from this כהן (who may be a חלל) served on the מזבח on שבת. If the son is a חלל he cannot do the עבודה. If he does a מלאכה דאורייתא on שבת in the בית המקדש (such as שחיטה, הקטרה, etc,) he is חייב סקילה.⁵ Therefore both by שבויה and קידושין there is a חיוב מיתה.

תוספות suggests an alternate solution: ומיהו אית ספרים דגרסי התם אם הקילו בשבויה דמנוולה נפשה באפי שבויה כולי – However there are texts there in קדושין that read, ‘if they were lenient by a שבויה who makes herself revolting in the presence of her captors (to discourage them from having relationships with her), etc. –

פירוש ולא שכיח כולי האי שנטמאה – Meaning, that it is not that probable that she was profaned –

נקל באשת איש דשכיח דידעי אם אית בה שוה פרוטה – should we be lenient by an א״א,**** where it is common that people can know if it is worth a שוה פרוטה.

תוספות concludes: ובלאו הך גירסא איכא למימר דלא שכיח שיהו עדי טומאה – And even without this reading of the text (that a שבויה is מנוולה נפשה), we can still maintain that it is not common that there should be עדי טומאה (for טומאה is done in privacy)⁶ - אבל עדים שידעו ששוה פרוטה שכיח: However it is common that there are עדים who know that it is worth a פרוטה. Therefore there is no need to be concerned by שבויה (for either it is unlikely that she was נבעלה, or it is unlikely that there are עדים שנבעלה), however there is a need to be concerned by קדושין (for there is a sufficient likelihood that there are עדים who will testify that it was worth a פרוטה).

SUMMARY The concern that there may be עדי טומאה was based on a קול. There is a difference between a ספק שבויה and ספק קידושין; a) by שבויה, there is no חיוב מיתה, as opposed to קדושין, where there is a חיוב מיתה, b) by שבויה it is unlikely that she was נטמאה, or c) that by שבויה it is unlikely that there are עדי טומאה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. What is the connection between the קשיא of the ר״ת, and the preceding statement concerning a קול?
2. The אית דגרסי distinguish between שבויה where it is מנוולא נפשה (and therefore not שכיח שנבעלה) and א״א (where שכיח דידעי). Seemingly the contrast is not appropriate; by שבויה there is little chance of טומאה and by א״א there is a greater chance of ידיעה but not a greater chance of שוה פרוטה. In addition why is not one difference (either מנוולא נפשא or שכיח דידעי) sufficient to distinguish between the two; why mention both differences?!
3. Why does the תו״י distinguish between a ספק ספיקא and a ספק,⁷instead of distinguishing between a ספיקא דרבנן (שבויה) and a ספיקא דאורייתא (קדושין)?
4. Previously⁸ תוספות distinguished between a ספק of two contradictory עדים whether she was מקודשת [where we say אוקמה אחזקת פנויה], and a ספק of קרוב לו קרוב לה when the חזקת פנויה was איתרע. Why do we not make the same distinction between a קול of עדי טומאה [where אוקמה אחזקת היתר] and ספק שוה פרוטה [where since he was ודאי מקדש her] her חזקת פנויה was איתרע?⁹

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוספות ד״ה והא. ² Originally the גמרא thought that there [was a קול that there] are עדי שבויה במדה״י. The conclusion is that there [is a קול that there] are עדי טומאה במדה״י. The contribution of תוספות is that the concern that there may be עדי טומאה is only if it is based on the קול (even though there are the שבאים [as opposed to the case of the משנה], nevertheless the חשש of עדי טומאה in only if there is a קול [see תוספות הרא״ש]). ³ See תוספות ישנים (in the margin) who states: ולמאי דסלקא דעתין מעיקרא דעדי שבויה ניחא דהוי ספק ספיקא ספק אם נשבית אם לאו ואם תמצא לומר נשבית ספק לא נטמאת ובאשת איש ליכא אלא חדא ספיקא (free translation): that if it would be merely עדי שבויה then it would be different than קדושין, for by שבויה it is a ספק ספיקא, i.e. ספק נשבית ואת״ל נשבית ספק נטמאה, however by קדושין there is only one ספק if it is a שוה פרוטה or not. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ⁴ See marginal note, that this פירוש does not appear in our version of רש״י; however תוספות mentions it there (בד״ה אם) in the name of יש מפרשים. ⁵ Only a כהן כשר is permitted to do מלאכות דאורייתא on שבת in the ביהמ״ק as part of the עבודה; not a חלל. See the various מפרשים who comment that (even though) the rule is that a חלל שעבד עבודתו כשרה (however he still may be חייב for חילול שבת). ⁶ The difference between the אית ספרים דגרסי and the other גירסא is that according to the אית ספרים דגרסי, there is less likelihood that she was נטמאה; according to the other גירסא there is a less likelihood that there are עדים שנטמאה. ⁷ See footnote # 3. ⁸ ד״ה תרווייהו on this עמוד. ⁹ See חידושי מהרי״ט.