Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

כאן בכרכום¹ של אותה מלכות — of that kingdom כרכוםHere it is the

OVERVIEW ר׳ יצחק בר אלעזר in the name of חזקיה resolves the contradiction between our משנה (which states that a city that was conquered by the כרכום, all the כהנות are פסולות), and the other משנה (which states when a בלשת enters a city in the time of war, all the wine remains מותר); that one משנה is discussing a כרכום of that kingdom, and the other משנה is discussing a כרכום of another kingdom. There is a dispute between רש״י (who maintains that by כרכום של אותה מלכות, the wine and the women are מותר) and תוספות (who maintains that by אותה מלכות, the wine and women are אסור), as to how to explain this answer. ---------------------–

פירוש² שיושבין בטח לפי שאין אחריהן מחנה³ ויש פנאי לנסך ולבעול – The explanation of the answer is that the כרכום של אותה מלכות, are resting securely for there is no other camp of enemy soldiers coming after them (for they are in their מלכות and therefore there is time to pour wine to their ע״ז and to be בועל the (Jewish) women –

אבל בלשת של מלכות אחרת שאימת מלכות שבאו בגבולה עליהם אין להן פנאי⁴ – However the raiding soldiers of another kingdom, who are afraid of the soldiers of the kingdom they invaded, have no time לנסך ולבעול.

וכן פירש רבינו חננאל ורבינו תם וכן מוכח בירושלמי⁵ – And the ר״ח and the ר״ת also explained it in this manner and this is also evident in the תלמוד ירושלמי that by כרכום של אותה מלכות everything is אסור and של מלכות אחרת everything is מותר.

תוספות explains the continuation of the גמרא:⁶

ופריך כרכום של אותה מלכות אי אפשר דלא ערקא חדא⁷ מינייהו – And the גמרא asks, why is it that by כרכום של אותה מלכות all the women are אסורות, since it is impossible that none of the women escaped from**** the כרכום –

והוה לן למשרינהו לכולהו ולמיתלי לקולא⁸ דבשבויה הקילו⁹ – And on account of this one woman we should permit all the women לכהונה and assume the lenient view regarding each woman, for the חכמים were lenient regarding a שבויה –

תוספות proves his point that it is appropriate to say בשבויה הקילו in this instance (even though the majority of the women did not escape): כדאמרינן בסמוך¹⁰ אם יש מחבואה אחת מצלת על כל הכהנות כולן – As רב אידי בר אבין says shortly in the name of ר׳ יצחק בן אשיאן, if there is one hiding place in the city**, it ‘saves’ all the כהנות** that they are all מותרות (even though not all the כהנות can hide in this מחבואה, only a minority [at most]), similarly here since (at least) one will have escaped, all the women should be permitted.

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty with this proof: אף על גב דמספקא לן באינה מחזקת אלא אחת¹¹ הכא פשיטא לן דשרו – Even though ר׳ ירמיה poses a question if the מחבואה can contain only one woman, is it מציל on the rest, **nevertheless here (**by escaping), it is obvious to us that all the women should be permitted; the difference is –

דהתם לא ודאי נחבאת אבל הכא ודאי ערקא¹² – That there by the מחבואה it is not certain that even one woman hid in this מחבואה, therefore there is room for doubt whether it is מצלת על כולן, however here (at least) one woman certainly escaped, therefore we can judge each woman that she is the escapee.

תוספות now challenges פירש״י:¹³

ולפירוש הקונטרס קשה טובא חדא דפריך נתלי לחומרא וגבי מחבואה תלינן לקולא¹⁴ – And there are many difficulties on פירש״י; firstly (#1), the גמרא initially asks that we should assume the stricter view (that perhaps one soldier managed to leave his group and be בועל or מנסך) and therefore all the women (and wine) should be אסורות on account of one, and on the other hand regarding the מחבואה we assume the lenient view (that perhaps some women hid) and therefore all the woman are מותרות because of the possibility that some hid!¹⁵ An additional question on פירש״י: ועוד דמה מתרץ¹⁶ דמהדר למתא כולי¹⁷ ואין אדם נכנס לשם והא קתני בלשת שנכנסה לעיר¹⁸ – And additionally (#2), what does the גמרא answer, that the king placed chains, etc. around the city, etc. so no person can enter the city (and that explains why in ע״ז it is מותר), but how can the גמרא state this when the משנה states, ‘a בלשת which entered the city; it is evident that the soldiers entered the city. Another question on פירש״י: ועוד כיון דאההיא דעבודה זרה פריך הוה ליה למימר אי אפשר דלא ערק חד מינייהו ונסך¹⁹ – And furthermore (#3), since the גמרא is asking the question of א״א דלא ערק וכו׳, on the משנה of מס׳ ע״ז (where it states that בשעת מלחמה all the wine is מותר), the גמרא should have phrased the question, ‘it is impossible that one of them did not escape and was

מנסך’ – A further question on פירש״י: ועוד דהתם מפרש טעמא לפי שאין פנאי לנסך – And in addition (#4), the משנה there in ע״ז explains the reason why the wine is מותר because the בולשת has no time to be מנסך –

ולית ליה טעמא לפי שאין כרכום של אותה מלכות רוצה להשחית את בני העיר – And it did not give the reason that the כרכום of the local kingdom does not want to destroy the property of the citizens of the city, as רש״י maintains. One final question: [ועוד מאי שנא שעת מלחמה משעת שלום²⁰]²¹ – And finally (#5) why is there a difference (regarding the בלשת in מס׳ ע״ז) whether it is a time of war or if it is a time of peace; in all cases all the wine should be מותר since according to רש״י the כרכום של אותה מלכות does not want להשחית את בני העיר?!

תוספות offers an [alternate] explanation [according] to פירש״י: ויש ליישב לפי שיטת הקונטרס²² – And we can explain the גמרא (even) according to פירש״י –

דרבי יצחק בן אלעזר לא אתי לשנויי²³ מתניתין אההיא דעבודה זרה – That ריב״א did not come to reconcile the contradiction from our משנה (which states אסורות) to the משנה of ע״ז (which states מותרות) –

אלא אית ליה שינוייא דרב מרי ומתניתין דהתם נמי בכרכום של מלכות אחרת – For rather ריב״א agrees with the answer of ר״מ that there is a difference between ניסוך (for which they have no time) and בעילה (for which they have time since תקיף להו יצרייהו), and the משנה there in ע״ז is also discussing a כרכום of a מלכות אחרת –

ולא בא אלא לפרושי מתניתין²⁴ – And ריב״א is only coming to explain our משנה that even though ר״מ answered that לבעול יש להם פנאי (and therefore כולם אסורות) that is only בכרכום של מלכות אחרת, however בכרכום של אותה מלכות, they are מותרות since אינו רוצה להשחית בני עירו. ²⁵

וכן משמע בפרק בתרא דעבודה זרה (דף עא,א) דפריך התם ממתניתין דהכא אמתניתין דבלשת – And it also seems this way from the גמרא in the last פרק of מסכת ע״ז, where the גמרא there asks from our משנה here on the משנה there of בלשת (as the גמרא asks here), and the גמרא there offers only the answer of ר״מ –

ולא מייתי התם²⁶ דרבי יצחק: But does not mention there the answer of ר״י בר אלעזר;**** indicating that ריב״א is not reconciling the משניות, but rather qualifying the answer of ר״מ regarding our משנה here.

SUMMARY רש״י (according to תוספות) maintains that our משנה discusses מלכות אחרת, and the משנה in ע״ז discusses אותה מלכות. However תוספות maintains the exact opposite. It is possible that רש״י maintains that both משניות are מלכות אחרת and ריב״א is differentiating in our משנה whether it is מלכות אחרת (where it is אסור) or אותה מלכות (where it is מותר).

THINKING IT OVER

1. It appears from תוספות that in the איבעיא of ר׳ ירמיה regarding a מחבואה which is אינה מחזקת אלא אחת, that we are not certain if even one woman hid in the מחבאה.²⁷ However the phrase, מי אמרינן כל חדא וחדא היינו

א; indicates that one certainly hid! 2. תוספות asks on רש״י (#1), how can the גמרא ask regarding the בלשת that we should be תולה לחומרא, when by מחבואה we are תולה לקולא.²⁸ Seemingly by בלשת we are discussing wine (ניסוך לע״ז), therefore the גמרא asks that we should be תולה לחומרא, however by מחבואה we are discussing a שבויה; therefore we are תולה לקולא, since בשבויה הקילו!²⁹ 3. How will תוספות explain why (according to תוספות [own] view) the גמרא in ע״ז did not offer the answer³⁰ of ר׳ יצחק בר אלעזר?!³¹

footnotes: ¹ כרכום means a siege (see רש״י ד״ה כרכום). The army which laid siege on a city captured it and entered into the city. ² The word פירוש is the customary manner in which תוספות implies that he is negating another interpretation; in our case, פרש״י, as mentioned later in this תוספות (see footnote # 13). ³ Let us assume the כרכום captured a rebellious city within their country; no one is coming after these soldiers; they just defeated their enemies and there is no longer any opposition. ⁴ They are in a rush to take whatever booty they can and run away before the local soldiers come. ⁵ In our פרק ה״ט. See there (in our editions יד,ב) that the rule of the משנה is ׳ובלבד כרקום של אותו מלכות אבל כרקום של מלכות אחרת כלסטים הם’, and the women are מותרות. ⁶ According to פרש״י that בכרכום של אותו מלכות they are מותרות, the question of the גמרא that א״א דלא עקר חד וכו׳ is understood, that there is always the possibility that one soldier would leave his company and either be בועל or מנסך. However according to תוספות that by כרכום של אותו מלכות they are אסורות, what is the question of א״א דלא ערק וכו׳. ⁷ The text in our גמרא reads דלא ערק (עקר, לפי הב״ח) חד מינייהו in the masculine, (seemingly) referring to the soldiers, not to the women. See מהרש״ל (and the הגהות וציונים אות ד׳ on the margin of the (newer) גמרות). ⁸ It is virtually certain that (at least) one woman escaped and is certainly מותרת. We should therefore rule that each woman is מותרת for perhaps she is the one (of the few) who escaped. ⁹ The rule that a שבויה is אסורה לכהונה is (merely) a דין דרבנן, since we are not certain that she was נבעלה לעכו״ם. Therefore the חכמים ruled that if there is a ספק in their שבויה status, we assume the lenient position and she is מותרת. ¹⁰ See later on this עמוד. ¹¹ תוספות explained that the question was since one can escape, they should all me מותרות. However we see from this איבעיא of אינה מחזקת אלא אחת, that we are in doubt whether we say that since one woman can hide, therefore all should be מותרות. Why should the possibility of escaping be different than the possibility of hiding?! ¹² We are not certain if any of the women were aware of this מחבואה and additionally we are not aware that any woman actually had the opportunity to hide in this particular מחבואה (see ‘Thinking it over # 1). However it is a virtual certainty that in an entire city (at least) one woman managed to escape entirely from the soldiers. The גמרא answered that there was extremely tight security and no one was able to escape. ¹³ רש״י (in ד״ה כרכום) maintains that by כרכום של אותו מלכות the נשים are מותרות, for the king wants to protect them. ¹⁴ According to תוספות, however, both the question of א״א דלא ערקא חדא וכו׳ and מחבואה are both תלינן לקולא. ¹⁵ If we are permitting all the women on account of the one (or few) that hid; how can we possibly be אוסר all the women on account of one who was maybe נבעלה?! See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹⁶ The גמרא asked why by כרכום של אותה מלכות (the משנה in ע״ז according to רש״י) they are מותרות, perhaps one of the soldiers was able to escape, enter the city, and be בועל. ¹⁷ It would seem (according to [תוספות understanding of] פרש״י), that the war was waged outside the city and (once the city was conquered) efforts were made that no one should enter the city. ¹⁸ According to תוספות, however, the chains in our משנה, we placed inside the city to assure that no woman escapes; however (even if we assume that in the משנה of בלשת there were also chains, nevertheless) they were not made (that secure) to assure that no one enters (especially raiding soldiers). ¹⁹ According to רש״י (in ד״ה ולא קשיא) the question (on the משנה in ע״ז) is why is it מותר, perhaps one soldier left his post and was בעיל (and others maintain that רש״י is גורס in the גמרא that [א״א דלא ערק חד] ובעיל; however the גמרא should have mentioned ניסוך (not בעילה) since that is what the משנה in ע״ז is discussing. [Alternately the גמרא should have clarified what this soldier is doing (when he escapes); i.e. that he is מנסך. Otherwise it is not that clear. However according to תוספות that the question is on our משנה, there is no need to explain what she did; if she escapes she is obviously מותרת.] ²⁰ On the contrary during peace time the כרכום certainly does not want להשחית את בני העיר! ²¹ However according to תוספות that we are discussing our משנה, and the distinction is whether there is פנאי or not; the above mentioned questions are not relevant, and there is very good reason to distinguish between שעת מלחמה where there is no פנאי to שעת שלום where there is פנאי. ²² The following explanation will answer all the question on פירש״י [except for the first one (see [however] מהרש״ל)]. ²³ See marginal note that others amend this to read, לשנויי רומיא דמתניתין. ²⁴ Question #2 is answered because we are not discussing the משנה of בלשת and therefore indeed in our משנה the city is secure and no one can enter. The גמרא could not have said לנסך (question # 3) since we are discussing our משנה regarding בעילה. There is no question (#4) why we do not mention שאין פנאי לנסך because in our משנה we are not discussing ניסוך. And indeed there is no difference in our משנה whether it is a שעת מלחמה or שעת שלום (#5). ²⁵ It will be necessary to say that the לשון of כאן וכו׳ כאן וכו׳ does not refer to the two משניות, but rather to two cases regarding our משנה. ²⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ²⁷ See footnote # 12. ²⁸ See footnote # 15. ²⁹ See מהרש״א. ³⁰ See footnote # 26. ³¹ See רמב״ן.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

והלך באחד מהם ועשה טהרות¹ — And he went on one of them and touched טהרות

OVERVIEW The משנה (which the גמרא cites here) states a case where there were two roads, of which one was טמא, and two people traveled, each on one of these roads, and afterwards they touched טהרות, and discusses the status of the טהרות. Our תוספות explains why the משנה did not discuss the status of the people (whether they are טמא or טהור) instead of the status of the טהרות. ---------------------------–

להכי נקט ועשה טהרות דלענין האדם אנו מזקיקים שניהם לטבול ולהזות² – The reason the משנה mentions, ‘and he touched טהרות’, is because regarding the person there is a different solution, for the ב״ד requires both of them to immerse in a מקוה and be sprinkled with the מי חטאת to purify them from their ספק טומאה. The reason for this stringency is –

פן יבואו לידי טומאה ודאי אם יגעו שניהם בככר אחד – Lest it will result in a certain טומאה, if for instance they will both touch the same loaf of bread. The loaf will be certainly טמא, for one of these two are certainly טמא –

לכך אומר להו זילו טבילו³ דהא נהרא קמייכו – Therefore in order to prevent this ודאי טומאה from happening, the בי״ד says to the two of them, ‘go be טובל [and additionally since he is טמא מספק there is no reason not to be טובל] for the river is before you’; there is no need to perpetuate the ספק טומאה which can turn into a ודאי טומאה. However regarding the טהרות there is no option of טבילה; if they are טמא they need to be burnt.

תוספות offers an alternate explanation⁴ why the משנה discusses the טהרות and not the people: ועוד דמשום דבעי למתני סיפא⁵ הזה⁶ וטבל טהור⁷ הלך בשני ועשה טהרות הרי אלו טהורות – And furthermore because the תנא of the משנה wanted that the case in the סיפא (משנה ה׳, our משנה of ב׳ שבילין) should be like the case of the [רישא (משנה ג׳)], which is: ‘he was sprinkled with the מי חטאת, and immersed himself in a מקוה and became טהור (he is now טהור even if he initially took the טמא road), then he went in the second path and touched other טהרות, these second טהרות are טהורות,⁸ the משנה continues –

ואם קיימות הראשונים אלו ואלו תלויות⁹ – And if the first טהרות that he touched, still exist (they were not eaten), both the first and second טהרות are ‘hanging’;¹⁰ they are טמאין מספק –

ואם לא טהר בינתים¹¹ הראשונות תלויות¹² והשניות ישרפו:¹³ And if he did not immerse himself between the first and second touching the first טהרות are תלויות and the second טהרות need to be burnt.¹⁴

SUMMARY The משנה discusses the טהרות instead of the person because the טהרות do not have the option of טבילה, or because the previous משנה was discussing the טהרות.

THINKING IT OVER Why is it that (in the first case) where נאכלו הראשנות the שניות are טהור (even though there is the possibility that the second road was טמא),¹⁵ and in the other two cases the ראשונות are תלויות (even though there is the possibility that the first road was טהור)?¹⁶

footnotes: ¹ טהרות or purified items may refer to either תרומה or קדשים (the meat of קרבנות). ² However there is no recourse for טהרות which become טמא; they need to be burnt. ³ The פורת יוסף amends this to read, טבילו ועוד דהא. ⁴ See footnote # 14. ⁵ The מהרש״א amends this to read, סיפא כרישא הזה. ⁶ The beginning of the משנה there is: שני שבילים, אחד טמא ואחד טהור, הלך באחד מהם ועשה טהרות ונאכלו, and then הזה וכו׳ as תוס׳ continues. The case is the same as in משנה ה׳ (but with one person); however after he touched the first טהרות, they were eaten, so we do not discuss their status for they no longer exist. The issue is regarding the second set of טהרות. ⁷ The רש״ש amends this to וטהר; as it is written in the משנה there. ⁸ We assume that the first road was טמא and therefore the first טהרות (which exist no more) became טמא, and the second road (and therefore the second טהרות) is טהור. See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁹ We are now discussing both sets of טהרות where one of them is certainly טמא (for one of the roads was certainly טמא), therefore they are both טמא מספק (since we do not know which road is טמא). ¹⁰ We do not burn them immediately; we wait until they spoil first and then burn them. ¹¹ Therefore after he went on both roads he is certainly טמא. ¹² Perhaps the first road was טמא so the first טהרות are טמא מספק. ¹³ At this point he is certainly טמא (see footnote # 11), therefore the second טהרות are ודאי טמא and need to be burnt. ¹⁴ This משנה ג׳ (and its corollary משנה ד׳, עיי״ש) is discussing the טהרות specifically (for there is a difference whether the first טהרות still exist), not the person directly, therefore the following משנה ה׳ also chooses to discuss the טהרות instead of the person. ¹⁵ See footnote # 8. ¹⁶ See מלאכת שלמה and תפא״י (אות כו, כז) there in משניות טהרות.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ואם נשאל זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו טהורות — And if one asked for himself and one for himself they are טהורות

OVERVIEW The משנה (which the גמרא cites here) states a case where there were two roads, of which one was טמא, and two people traveled, one on each of these roads, and afterwards they touched טהרות, and the משנה rules that if they each came separately to inquire as the their status and that of the טהרות, the טהרות are טהורות. Our תוספות qualifies this ruling. ------------------------–

לא שיאכלם אדם אחד דאם כן יאכל ודאי טומאה – When the משנה stated that the טהרות are טהורות, it did not mean that one person may eat both sets of טהרות, for if he will indeed eat them both, he will certainly eat טהרות which are טמא, which is certainly forbidden, but rather the משנה means that separate people may eat each set of טהרות. –

תוספות proves his point:¹

דהכי אמרינן בשבועות בפרק ב׳ (דף יט,א) הלך בראשון² ולא נכנס בשני ונכנס חייב³ – For this is what the ברייתא states in the second פרק of מסכת שבועות, ‘he went on the first road and did not enter the ביהמ״ק afterwards, and then we went on the second road and entered into the ביהמ״ק he is חייב’⁴ for entering the מקדש בטומאה –

דטמא הוא⁵ ממה נפשך: Because he is טמא in any event (either by traveling on the first road or on the second road).

SUMMARY In a case where each one asked separately and we rule that the two טהרות are טהור that is only for two different people but not for the same person.

THINKING IT OVER

1. Why is it that both the מהרש״ל and מהרש״א are of the opinion⁶ that תוספות proof cannot be from the רישא which תוספות actually quotes?⁷
2. Why did not תוספות bring proof (that one person may not eat both טהרות) from the ruling (in this same משנה) that if they asked simultaneously everything is טמא; one person eating both טהרות is seemingly the same as נשאלו בב״א?! Similarly תוספות could have brought proof from the משנה in טהרות (cited in the previous תוס׳ ד״ה והלך) that by ב׳ שבילין and one person if he was not מטהר in between, the טהרות are טמאות.⁸

footnotes: ¹ תוספות seeks a proof for one may argue, if we allow two different people to eat each set of טהרות (even though we know that one of them is eating טומאה ודאי), so why cannot one person eat both טהרות. [Alternately one may argue that since we already ruled for each individual that the טהרות which he touched are טהור; that היתר remains and cannot be reintroduced (as part of a ספק) even if both טהרות are eaten by one individual (see מהרש״ל).] ² There too we are discussing a case of ב׳ שבילין, where one was טמא and the other was טהור. ³ The ברייתא there continues; הלך בראשון ונכנס הזה ושנה וטבל ואח״כ הלך בשני ונכנס חייב וכו׳, ורבי שמעון בן יהודה פוטר בכולן משום ר׳ שמעון. [The גמרא there continues; בכולן ואפילו בקמייתא ממה נפשך טמא הוא; how can ר״ש be פוטר בקמייתא (when he was not הזה בינתיים), he is certainly טמא on his second ביאה.] ⁴ He is חייב a קרבן (עולה ויורד) if he entered בשוגג and is חייב כרת if he entered במזיד. ⁵ See מהרש״א that we can derive from the second case of the ברייתא in שבועות (see footnote # 3, where he was הזה and נטהר in between his trips) where if one person went on both roads he is חייב for ביאת מקדש בטומאה, even though it is possible that each time he entered the מקדש he may have been טהור (the first time perhaps it was the road which was טהור, and the second time, perhaps the first road was טמא and he was נטהר already from that טמאה through the הזאה), nevertheless he is חייב for ממ״נ he is חייב either for ביאה ראשונה or ביאה שניה, similarly here even though on each אכילה we are not sure that he is eating טהרות טמאים (and therefore two people are permitted to eat them) but ממ״נ between the two אכילות, the one person ate טהרות טמאים. [Alternately (see מהרש״ל and footnote # 1 [in the brackets]) that since the גמרא asks on ר״ש (see footnote # 3 [in the brackets]) how could he be פוטר בקמייתא since he is surely טמא, when seemingly we can answer that after he went on the first road he asked and was told he is טהור, so therefore that היתר remains and cannot be introduced again later (as part of the ספק). The fact that the גמרא did not consider this answer proves that we do reinstate the ספק once there is a ממ״נ that now he is certainly טמא, the same is here that we reintroduce the previous היתר as part of the ספק and the two sets of טהרות are forbidden to eaten by one person because one of them is טמא ממ״נ. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.] ⁶ See footnote # 5. ⁷ See מהרש״א הארוך who cites commentaries who derive תוספות proof from the רישא. ⁸ See מהרש״א and מגן גבורים.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

בבא לישאל עליו ועל חברו — When he came to ask about himself and his friend

OVERVIEW The גמרא cited the משנה of שני שבילין וכו׳ in an attempt to resolve the query of ר׳ ירמיה, what is the ruling if the מחבואה can only hold one כהנת, are all of them מותרות לכהונה or not. רש״י and תוספות disagree as to how this resolution was made. The גמרא first establishes that the מחלוקת between ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי is where one of the two people who walked on the שביל, came to ask regarding his status and his friend’s (who walked on the other שביל) status. תוספות clarifies what this means. -----------------------–

אין לפרש שבא לישאל בבת אחת דהתם מודו כולי עלמא דטמאות – One cannot explain that the meaning of בא לישאל עליו ועל חבירו means that he asked simultaneously about the status of both of them, for in that case all will agree (even ר׳ יהודה) that the טהרות are טמאות, and we know this –

מכל שכן¹ דבאו לישאל שניהם בבת אחת – With an obvious certainty from the case of where they both came to ask simultaneously, where we rule that they are טמא –

אלא מיירי ששאל על עצמו וטהרוהו ואחר כך בא לישאל על חבירו² – But rather the case of בא לישאל עליו ועל חבירו is discussing a situation where he first asked regarding himself and בי״ד pronounced him טהור (since it is a ספק), and afterwards the same person approached to the same בי״ד to ask regarding his friend, this is the case in which ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי argue –

דמר מדמי ליה לבת אחת כיון ששאל על שניהם במעמד אחד³ – Where one master (ר׳ יוסי) compares it to a simultaneous question (where they are טמאות),⁴ since he asked for both of them in one hearing –

ומר מדמי ליה לזה אחר זה כיון שטיהרוהו קודם – And the other master (ר׳ יהודה) compares it to a case of one after the other, since they already pronounced him טהור, so in this case as well they are both טהור –

תוספות continues with the concluding resolution of the גמרא regarding the איבעיא –

והכא נמי כיון דשרו לכולהו כבת אחת דמי⁵ – And here too (by the מחבואה) since we are considering permitting all of the כהנות, it is like a simultaneous situation and they should all be אסורות לכהונה, for it is an inherent self-contradiction to say that they are all טהורות when there was place for only one כהנת in the מחבואה –

תוספות anticipates a difficulty with the comparison from מחבואה to שבילין –

אף על פי שאין בא לפנינו אלא על אחת – Even though only one woman is coming before us to inquire on her status alone, so how can we compare this to the בת אחת by שבילין where he is asking about both of them –

תוספות replies: מכל מקום הדבר ידוע לכל שהרבה כהנות היו והוי כאילו בא לישאל על כולם בבת אחת – Nevertheless it is comparable, for it is common knowledge that there were many כהנות in the city and when this woman is asking about herself, it is as if she is asking about all the woman simultaneously (it is like the case which תוספות negated in the beginning where he is asking about both of them where it is surely טמאות) -

והכא מודו כולי עלמא – So in this case where the inquiry includes all the כהנות, everyone admits (even ר׳ יהודה) that they are אסורות לכהונה, because it is like the case which תוספות negated in the beginning where he is asking about both of them simultaneously, where they are surely טמא.

תוספות negates פרש״י: ובחנם דחק⁶ בקונטרס⁷ לפרש כרבי יוסי: And it was for naught that רש״י awkwardly explained that they are אסורות since the הלכה is like ר׳ יוסי, since in this case even ר׳ יהודה is מודה that כולן אסורות.

SUMMARY The meaning of בא לישאל עליו ועל חבירו is that he is asking consecutively in one מעמד בי״ד first about himself and after he is told that he is טהור, he asks about his friend. However if he asks simultaneously about the two of them, everyone agrees that they are טמא, and similarly by כהנות it is assumed that the question of one כהנת will affect all the כהנות, and therefore all of them are אסורות according to everyone.

THINKING IT OVER What would be the ruling according to ר׳ יוסי in the case of בבא לישאל עליו ועל חבירו (and as תוספות says במעמד אחד),⁸ after they were מטהר the שואל initially; now that they cannot be מטהר the second one since it is like בב״א, will the בי״ד change its ruling and be מטמא the שואל?⁹

footnotes: ¹ When two people come and ask (even בבת אחת) we can still imagine that בי״ד will tell each one (separately) that since it is a ספק, your טהרות are מותר, but nevertheless the ruling actually is that since they came בב״א they are טמאות (for it is a self-contradiction that both of their טהרות are מותר, when we know for certain that one of their טהרות is טמאה). Certainly in the case where one person comes and asks for a ruling concerning himself and his friend, where the self-contradiction of ruling them both טהור is so much more apparent, since we are giving a contradictory ruling to one person that we cannot give such a ruling. In short, if we cannot offer a contradictory ruling to two people we certainly cannot offer a contradictory ruling to one person. ² It is apparent from תוספות later, where he says that it was במעמד אחד (see footnote # 3), that the case here is where he came to בי״ד and asked about himself and בי״ד was מטהר him, and then he (immediately) asked about his friend. ³ See footnote # 2. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ It is like the situation which תוספות negated in the beginning where it is ודאי טמא. ⁶ The פרש״י is a דוחק (according to תוס׳) because the גמרא does not mention anything that the proof is because ר׳ יהודה ור׳ יוסי הלכה כר׳ יוסי, but rather it seems that it is אליבא דכו״ע. ⁷ בד״ה הכא. ⁸ See footnote # 4. ⁹ font size="20" See משנה למלך פי״ט ה״ב מהלכות אבות הטומאות and ברכת אברהם (here) בד״ה עוד תמה./font