Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

שתי נשים שנשבו — Two women who were captured

OVERVIEW The rule is that if there are witnesses that a woman was captured by gentiles she is forbidden to marry a כהן (even if she claims they did not violate her), for we assume that they had relations with her.¹ However if there are no witnesses that she was captured but the woman admitted that she was captured and insists that she was not violated, she is permitted to marry a כהן (since we are only aware of her captivity status through her admission and she claims that she is טהורה).² Our משנה states that regarding two women, each of whom stated נשביתי וטהורה אני the rule is that they are not believed. תוספות discusses the correct גירסא in our משנה. ---------------------------–

אומר רבינו יצחק דלא גרסינן זאת אומרת נשביתי וטהורה אני כולי – The ר״י says that the text of the משנה does not read; this one says ‘I was captured but I am pure’, etc. –

אלא זאת אומרת טהורה אני – But rather the text should read; this one says טהורה אני’, without saying נשביתי –

דהא בדאיכא עדים שנשבו איירי³ – Because the משנה is discussing a case where there are witnesses that they were captured, so there is no need (for the משנה) to mention that they said נשביתי.⁴

תוספות offers an explanation to retain the גירסא of ׳נשביתי׳: ומיהו יש לקיים הגירסא דאיירי דאינהו לא ידעי דאיכא עדים – However, it is possible to sustain the גירסא of ׳נשביתי׳, in a case where the women do not know that there are עדים who know they were captured, and they came on their own and admitted to their captivity (before the עדים testified)⁵ –

ואשמועינן דאפילו הכי⁶ לא מהימני: And the משנה teaches us that (even though they are obviously honest women) nevertheless they are not believed to claim טהורה אני. ⁷

SUMMARY The woman is not believed that טהורה אני even if she did not know there are עדים and nevertheless admitted to being captured.

THINKING IT OVER In the concept of הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר there seems to be two factors. Firstly that the only reason we suspect that she is not טהורה is only because she admitted to נשביתי, therefore just as you ‘believe’ her that נשביתי you must also believe her that טהורה אני, since we only know נשביתי from her admission. [We will refer to this נאמנות as הפה שאסר.] Secondly, we see that she is an honest person since she came and admitted (נשביתי) when she did not need to do so; therefore (since she is honest) we should believe her that טהורה אני [We refer to this נאמנות as מה לי לשקר]. When the עדים subsequently come and testify that they were captured, we understand that the נאמנות of the הפה שאסר no longer exists (since we know נשביתי without their admission); however the נאמנות based on מה לי לשקר (seemingly) still remains, for we know she is an honest person (she admitted even though she did not need to). Why then is she not believed [even] if the עדים came later?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ A woman who has relations with a gentile (or with anyone with whom she is forbidden to live with) is called a זונה and forbidden to marry a כהן as the פסוק (in ויקרא [אמור] כא,ז) states אשה זונה וחללה לא יקחו. ² This is referred to as הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר. See משנה כב,א. ³ The משנה rules that they are not believed if they say נשביתי וטהורה אני. That rule is valid only if there are עדים that they were captured; otherwise they would be believed to say נשביתי וטהורה אני for it is considered הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר (see ‘Overview’ [footnote # 2]). ⁴ There is no need to mention that they said נשביתי, because it makes no difference whether they said נשביתי or not, in either case they are not believed to claim טהורה אני, since there are עדים that נשבו. ⁵ See הפלאה. ⁶ These women are obviously honest women for since they did not know that there were עדים שנשבו, why did they come forward and say that נשבו. They could have remained silent (since in their mind they assumed that no one knew that נשבו). Since they are presumably honest let us believe them as well that טהורה אני. ⁷ Once the עדים come and testify that they were captured, the women lose their הפה שאסר. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ See משכנות הרועים סי׳ תשס.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אין רישא וסיפא דאיכא עדים ומציעתא דליכא עדים – Yes; the רישא and סיפא is where there are עדים and the מציעתא is where there are no עדים

OVERVIEW אביי explains the ברייתא in the following manner: רב פפא interpreted the ברייתא in a case where (there were עדים [in all four cases] that נשבית and) one witness said the exact opposite of what she said. The גמרא asked (according to ר״פ) that we can derive cases #3 and #4 from cases #1 and #2.¹ תוספות explains why these questions do not apply to אביי. ----------------------–

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: השתא לא פריך הא תו למה לי כדפריך אשנויא דרב פפא² דהשתא אצטריך כולהו – Now (according to אביי) the גמרא does not ask, ‘why is all this necessary’, as the**** גמרא asked on the explanation of ר״פ, since now (according to אביי) all the cases are necessary. תוספות continues to explain the necessity of mentioning each case. The case of – אני טהורה וחברתי טמאה אשמעינן כיון דאיכא עדים לא מהימנא אנפשה – ‘I am טהורה and my friend is טמאה’ (#2), teaches us that since there are עדים that נשבית, she is not believed regarding herself – ואני וחברתי טמאה אשמעינן – And the case of, ‘I and my friend are טמאה’ (#3) **teaches us –

דלא מהימנא אחברתה היכא דליכא עדים ומשתריא חברתה אפומא דנפשה³ – That she is not believed regarding her friend** in a case where there are no עדים שנשבית, and her friend is believed by her own statement that she is טהורה. ואני וחברתי טהורה אשמועינן אף על גב דאיכא עדים מהימנא אחברתה – And the case of ‘I and my friend are טהורה’ (#4), teaches us that even though there are עדים שנשבית, nonetheless she is believed regarding her friend [and we cannot derive #4 from #1 as we asked according to ר״פ] – דרישא דרישא איכא לאוקמי בדליכא עדים⁴ – Because we can establish the רישא דרישא (#1) in a case where there are no עדים שנשבית. תוספות is not satisfied with this explanation: ואין נראה דאי בדליכא עדים היינו מציעתא⁵ – And תוספות does not agree with this explanation for if #1 is in a case where ליכא עדים שנשבית, it is the same as the middle case (#3).**** תוספות offers an alternate explanation: אלא בדאיכא עדים איירי – Rather case #1 is where there are עדים שנשבית, and regarding the question⁶ that seemingly we know #4 from case #1 – ומכל מקום איצטריך האי סיפא לאשמועינן דנאמנת אחברתה – But nevertheless this סיפא (#4) is necessary to teach us that she is believed regarding her friend that she is טהורה –

ואף על גב דלא פסלה נפשה⁷ והיה לנו לחוש לגומלים⁸ אפילו הכי מהימנא

And even though she did not disqualify herself (as in #1 where she said אני טמאה וחברתי טהורה, but rather she said אני וחברתי טהורה), so we should be concerned for גומלים, the ברייתא therefore teaches us that nevertheless she is believed and we are not concerned for גומלים.⁹ [*והיינו שינויא דלקמן דלא פסלה נפשה והוה מצי למיפרך השתא ולשנויי, תוספות ישנים.]

---

[And this is the answer which the גמרא states **later; because she did not invalidate herself, and * ***the גמרא **could have asked now * ***this question on אביי **and answer it * ***as תוספות and the גמרא both say. *ת״י]

---

SUMMARY According to אביי (even the מקשן understood that) all four cases of the ברייתא are necessary. The רישא דרישא is in a case where איכא עדים.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that if #1 is in a case where ליכא עדים then it is the same as #3.¹⁰ Seemingly there would be the same difficulty if #1 is in a case where איכא עדים, for then #1 is the same as #4.¹¹ We would seemingly resolve this question (on #1&#4) by saying לא זו אף זו; not only is she believed in #1 (where there is no חשש גומלים) but even in #4 (where there is a חשש גומלים). The same answer can apply here (on #1&#3), not only is חברתה טהורה if she said וחברתי טהורה (#1) but חברתה is טהורה even if she said וחברתי טמאה (#3); what is תוספות question?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ In case #3 we know that she is טמאה (since she admitted that she is טמאה as in case #1). We know that חברתה is טהורה from case #2. In case #4 we know that she is טמאה since איכא עדים. We also know that חברתה טהורה (even against an עד אחד [since she is testifying that חברתי טהורה]) from case #1. ² See ‘Overview’ (and footnote #3.) ³ We cannot derive #3 (that חברתה is טהורה [even though she said וחברתי טמאה]) from either #2 (where חברתה טמאה since איכא עדים), or from # 1 (since there חברתה is טהורה because she said וחברתי טהורה). ⁴ Therefore, we cannot derive that she is believed in #4 (where there are עדים שנשבית) from the fact that she is believed for חברתה in #1 (where there are no עדים שנשבית). Therefore #4 is a חידוש according to אביי. However, according to ר״פ that all four cases are where איכא עדים שנשבית, the question stands that #4 teaches us nothing new in addition to #1. ⁵ The question is that #1 is superfluous for if she said (#3) וחברתי טמאה she is not believed (בדליכא עדים) and חברתה is טהורה, then certainly if she says וחברתי טהורה (#1) surely חברתה is טהורה. [However תוספות does not mean that #3 is extra, for we cannot derive #3 from #1 (as explained in footnote #5.)] See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ The same question that was asked on ר״פ (see footnote # 3) that we know from #1 where she says וחברתי טהורה that נאמנת even בדאיכא עדים, so what does # 4 teach us? ⁷ In #1 it is understood that she is believed to say חברתי טהורה since she said אני טמאה so there is no ulterior motive; however (in #4) where she says אני וחברתי טהורה we should not believe her regarding חברתה since she has the ulterior motive of חיישינן לגומלים. ⁸ גומלים (here) means that they are protecting each other. They each testify that the other is טהורה so that the other will testify that she is also טהורה. ⁹ The difficulty with this answer (as stated immediately in the ת״י [and in the מהרש״א]) is that if the גמרא realized the חידוש of חיישינן לגומלים (in #4) according to אביי, why ask on ר״פ (since the answer is the same)?! One possible explanation may be that even after we know (according to אביי) that there is concern for גומלים, that is only when there is no עד who says the opposite, therefore since there are עדים שנשבו, she says וחברתי טהורה hoping the חברתה will also say וחברתי טהורה so they will both be טהור. However when there is an ע״א המפיך who says that you are both טמאים she thinks that her saying וחברתי טהורה (and her חברתה saying וחברתי טהורה) is meaningless since she thinks in her mind that they will not be believed since (there are עדים שנשבו and) the ע״א testifies that נטמאו, so there is no חשש of גומלים. Therefore the גמרא explains that even by an ע״א המפיך there is also the חשש of גומלים (עי׳ בחת״ס). ¹⁰ See footnote # 7. חברתה is טהורה even if she says וחברתי טמאה (#3) then certainly חברתה is טהורה if she says וחברתי טהורה (#1). ¹¹ She is believed וחברתי טהורה even when there is a חשש גומלים (#4), then she is surely believed to say חברתי טהורה when there is no חשש גומלים (#1). ¹² See מהרש״א (הארוך בד״מ אות ט ובקע״י שם אות ח).

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

הא תו למה לי היינו רישא – Why do we also need this; it is the same as the רישא

OVERVIEW רב פפא establishes the ברייתא that there are עדים שנשבו and there is an עד אחד who says exactly the opposite of what she says. The גמרא asks two questions on רב פפא; the first one (which our תוספות references) is that we can derive #3 (רישא דסיפא) from #2 (סיפא דרישא). Then the גמרא asks that we can derive #4 (סיפא דסיפא) from # 1 (רישא דרישא). Our תוספות explains why the first question (from סיפא דרישא) was not asked from רישא דרישא as was the second question. ------------------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר ואמאי לא קאמר הכא מרישא דרישא כדקאמר בסמוך – And if you will say, but why did not the גמרא ask here (on #3) from the רישא דרישא (#1) as the גמרא asks shortly (on #4). תוספות explains how #3 can be derived from #1(as well as from #2): דהא שמעינן מרישא דרישא דאיהי שויתה לנפשה חתיכה דאיסורא¹ – For we know from the רישא דרישא that when she says אני טמאה she is אסורה **since she made herself into a ‘forbidden piece’ –

וחברתה משתריא אפומא דידה –** And we also know from #1 that חברתה is permitted based on her testimony (that וחברתי טהורה) even though there is an ע״א who testifies that חברתה טמאה – וכל שכן דמשתריא אפומא דעד אחד² – So certainly (in #3)**** חברתה will be טהורה based on the testimony of the ע״א (who says חברתה טהורה) even though she says וחברתי טמאה. The question is that the גמרא could (should) have said that #3 is superfluous for we know it already from #1 (רישא דרישא) as the גמרא shortly states regarding the question on #4. תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהכא ניחא ליה למנקט סתמא דהיינו רישא – And one can say; that here the גמרא is satisfied to state generally that the teaching of #3 is the same as the רישא (without being specific as to which part of the רישא) – משום דמרישא נמי שמעינן³ דחברתה משתריא אפומא דעד אחד⁴ – Because from (#2) the (סיפא ד)רישא we can also derive that חברתה is טהורה based on the testimony of an ע״א (as we can also derive this from (#1) the רישא דרישא) –

אבל בסמוך לא מצי פריך אלא⁵ מרישא דרישא

However shortly the גמרא cannot ask on #4 only from (#1) the רישא דרישא, therefore the גמרא states specifically מרישא דרישא.

SUMMARY Case #3 can be derived from either case #1 or #2; however case #4 can only be derived only from case #1.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות states that if the אשה is מהימן (when she says אני טמאה וחברתי טהורה [#1]) then certainly the ע״א is נאמן (when she said אני וחברתי טמאה and the ע״א says חברתה טהורה [#3]).⁶ Seemingly in #1 since the woman initially says חברתי טהורה she has the נאמנות of שתים (for at the time of her testimony no one is contradicting her), however in #3 once the woman said חברתי טמאה and the ע״א says חברתה טהורה, he is מוכחש from the אשה so perhaps he will not be believed.⁷

footnotes: ¹ Therefore similarly by #3 where she says אני [וחברתי] טמאה she is also טמאה since שויתה לנפשה חתיכה דאיסורא (even though there is an ע״א who says that she is טהורה) as in #1. ² The testimony of an עד כשר is better than the testimony of an אשה. See ‘Thinking it over’. See however תו״י who states: וי״ל דס״ד דהיא מהימנא טפי מע״א לפי שנשבית עמה יודעת יותר. [‘And one can say that we may have thought that she is believed more than an ע״א, for since she was in captivity together with חברתה she knows more than the ע״א’.] Therefore we could not derive #3 from # 1 (only from #2). ³ תוספות does not address how we derive that she is believed to say טמאה אני (even though an ע״א contradicts her and says טהורה) since שויא אנפשא חתיכא דאיסורא. We cannot derive this from #2 (where she says טהורה אני) only from #1 (where she admits that אני טמאה). Perhaps תוספות assumes that this ruling of שויא אנפשא חתיכא דאיסורא is so obvious (and known) that we do not need to derive it from elsewhere (even though previously תוספות said that we derive שויא אנפשא וכו׳ (in #3) from #1 [see footnote #1]) ⁴ Seemingly תוספות is answering that when the גמרא asks הא מרישא שמעינן (generally, without being specific whether it means רישא דרישא or סיפא דרישא) that is because indeed the question is from either one (but not that it excludes the רישא דרישא). ⁵ We cannot derive that וחברתי טהורה נאמנת (even against an ע״א) except from רישא דרישא (for in the other two cases she is claiming וחברתי טמאה). ⁶ See footnote # 2. ⁷ See אהבת ציון.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

דאיכא דררא דממונא — There is a monetary involvement

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains the necessity for the משנה to teach us that הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר is effective by the case of שדה של של אביך היה ולקחתיה ממנו and by the case of העדים שאמרו כתב ידינו הוא זה אבל אנוסים היינו. We would not be able to derive that the עדים are believed to say אבל אנוסים היינו (on account of הפה שאסר) from the fact that the buyer is believed to say ולקחתיה הימנו (on account of הפה שאסר). The reason is that by שדה זו there is a דררא דממונא, however by העדים שאמרו there is no דררא דממונא. Our תוספות explains this difference. --------------------------–

פירש¹ רבינו חננאל שהאומר הוא מוחזק בשדה אבל העדים אין בידם כלום: The ר״ח explained that in the case of שדה זו של אביך היה he is believed because the one who is saying שדה זו כו׳ ולקחתיה ממנו is in possession of the field, therefore the הפה שאסר supports his חזקה and is effective; however the witnesses are not in possession of anything (they are not in possession of the money which the לוה may owe the מלוה); we may have thought that in this case הפה שאסר is insufficient. Therefore it was necessary for the משנה to teach us that הפה שאסר is effective even if he is not a מוחזק.

SUMMARY There may be more reason to say הפה שאסר if one is a מוחזק than if he is not a מוחזק.

THINKING IT OVER The ר״ח explains that by שדה זו וכו׳ he is the מוחזק, therefore the הפה שאסר is effective; seemingly implying that the פה שאסר preserves the status quo where the money is.² However, the same is by עדים, when they say אבל אנוסים היינו (and the שטר is פסול) they also maintain the status quo that the money remains בחזקתו by the לוה. What is the difference between the two?!³

footnotes: ¹ תוספות is negating פרש״י (בד״ה משום ובד״ה אבל). According to רש״י (See ב״מ ב,ב) the term דררא דממונא means a loss of money, therefore he explains the גמרא here to mean that since the buyer will suffer a loss if he says שדה זו של אביך היה, therefore we are more inclined to say that he meant to continue and say ולקחתיה הימנו so as not to suffer a loss; however the עדים suffer no loss when they say כתב ידינו הוא זה, therefore it is possible that they did not [necessarily] intend to say אבל אנוסים היינו. However, תוספות interprets דררא דממונא (ibid) to mean that בלא טענותיהם יש ספק לבי״ד (because each one has a legitimate claim), therefore here too תוספות prefers the פי׳ ר״ח that דררא דממונא means he has a monetary interest and therefore as a מוחזק there is more reason to believe him. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² See (end of) footnote #1. ³ See אילת השחר בד״ה והנה מדברי הר״ח.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אבל הכא דליכא דררא דממונא¹ לא — However here, where there is no דררא דממונא; no

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that if the משנה would teach us the rule of הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר regarding the case of שדה זו של אביך הי׳ ולקחתיה הימנו [where there is a דררא דממונא], we would not know that in the case of העדים שאמרו כת״י הוא זה אבל אנוסים היינו וכו׳ that they would be believed on account of הפה שאסר וכו׳ [since there is no דררא דממונא in that case]. תוספות asks that there is a better reason why the משנה needs to teach us the rule of הפה שאסר in the case of העדים שאמרו. ----------------------------–

תוספות asks: קשה לרבנו שמשון בן אברהם הא איצטריך גבי עדים לאשמועינן – The רשב״א has a difficulty; but it is necessary for the תנא to teach us regarding the case of העדים שאמרו –

דמהימני במגו לפסול השטר – That the עדים are believed with this מגו (of הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר) to invalidate the שטר and we cannot derive it from the case of שדה זו (even if we disregard the distinction of דררא דממונא) –

דהא אף על גב דרבי מאיר פליג² אסיפא³ מודה ברישא:⁴ For we see that even though ר״מ argues with the ruling in the משנה regarding the סיפא (of העדים שאמרו), nevertheless ר״מ admits regarding the רישא (of שדה זו) that in that case we do say הפה שאסר. ⁵

SUMMARY The גמרא could have said that it is necessary to mention the case of העדים שאמרו to negate the view of ר״מ.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that the סיפא (of עדים) is necessary in order to negate the view of ר״מ.⁶ Seemingly this is an answer if we maintain מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו;⁷ however if we maintain צריך לקיימו then (if not for the distinction of דררא דממונא) there would (seemingly) be no reason why the עדים should not be believed with the הפה שאסר. Perhaps the גמרא wanted to explain the צריכותא even according to the מ״ד that צריך לקיימו, so what is תוספות question?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ See previous תוס׳ ד״ה דאיכא for an explanation of the meaning of דררא דממונא (according to תוס׳). ² Others amend this to read: מאיר מודה ברישא פליג אסיפא. ³ The סיפא refers to the case of העדים שאמרו (on יח,ב) where the ברייתא there states that ר״מ is of the opinion that the עדים are not believed to claim אבל אנוסים היינו קטנים היינו פסולי עדות היינו. The reason ר״מ maintains we do not say הפה שאסר in this case is (see יט,א and תוס׳ there ד״ה טעמא) because ר״מ maintains מודה בשטר שכתבו א״צ לקיימו; meaning that a מגו is not effective against a שטר. Similarly the פה שאסר of the עדים is not effective against the שטר. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁴ The רישא refers to the case of שדה זו של אביך (on טו,ב) where we do not find that ר״מ argues with this ruling. ⁵ תוספות question is that we do not need to distinguish between the cases of העדים שאמרו and שדה זו by saying there is no דררא דממונא by עדים but there is a דררא דממונא by שדה זו (a distinction which is not accepted למסקנא), but rather that there is a תנא who actually maintains that we say הפה שאסר only by שדה זו and not by העדים שאמרו; therefore it is obvious that the משנה needs to inform us that notwithstanding this תנא (ר״מ), the חכמים maintain that by עדים we do say הפה שאסר even to invalidate a שטר. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ See footnote #5. ⁷ See footnote #3. ⁸ See (עד״ז) בית יעקב.