Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

בתולה — An unmarried woman

OVERVIEW תוספות discusses the use of the definite article (ה׳ הידיעה); why sometimes it is used and other times (like in our משנה) it is not used. ------------------------–

תוספות anticipates a difficulty: הא דלא קתני הבתולה כדתני האשה נקנית היבמה ניקנית (קדושין דף ב,א) – The reason the משנה does not teach הבתולה (with the definite article ׳ה׳), as the משנה taught elsewhere האשה נקנית and היבמה נקנית – the woman is acquired, the sister-in-law is acquired (both with the definite article ׳ה׳) as opposed to here where it merely states בתולה (without a preceding ׳ה׳) –

תוספות responds: משום דהתם אקרא קאי¹ כי יקח איש אשה (דברים כב²) האשה הכתובה וכן היבמה – Because there regarding אשה (and יבמה) the משנה is basing its ruling on the פסוק of כי יקח איש אשה, therefore it can state ׳האשה׳ – the woman; meaning the woman which is written in the תורה, and similarly the יבמה, which is written³ in the תורה –

אבל הכא לא קאי אקרא – However here (where the משנה teaches a דין דרבנן that a בתולה is to be married ליום הרביעי) it is not based on any verse in the תורה, therefore the משנה does not write הבתולה, for there is no [known] בתולה in the פסוק who is getting married ליום הרביעי.

תוספות anticipates another difficulty: והא דלא תנן בפרק קמא דקידושין (דף יד,ב) העבד עברי⁴ – And the reason the משנה in the first פרק of מסכת קידושין does not teach העבד עברי (and writes instead עבד עברי without the ה׳ הידיעה) –

אף על פי דכתיב בקרא (שמות כא⁵) כי תקנה עבד עברי – Even though the manner in which an ע״ע is acquired is written in the פסוק as it states כי תקנה עבר עברי – if you will acquire a Hebrew slave, so it should be written with a ה׳ הידיעה –

תוספות replies: משום דאם כן הוה ליה למתני העבד העברי שאינו דבוק⁶ ואין דרך הש״ס לדבר כן – Because for then, if we would add the ה׳, it would be necessary to write העבד העברי, to inform us that the word עברי is not attached to the word העבד**, and it is not customary for the משנה to use such** a syntax.

תוספות offers an observation:⁷

ומיהו גבי איש ואשה רגילים בכל מקום לשנות בה׳ אף על גב דלא קאי אקרא⁸ – However regarding איש ואשה it is customary everywhere to write it with a ה׳ even if it is not based on a פסוק –

כמו האשה שהלכה (ביבמות דף קיד,ב) האשה שנתארמלה (לקמן דף טו,ב) – Like the woman who went overseas**,** or the woman who was widowed, or –

האיש מדיר את בנו בנזיר (נזיר ד׳ כח,ב): The man avows his son to be a נזיר.⁹

SUMMARY The ה׳ is added when the משנה references a פסוק. Once a word is used with a ה׳ for it is קאי אקרא (like איש or אשה) it is generally used with a ה׳.

THINKING IT OVER It is the דרך התנא to add a ה׳ if it is אקרא קאי.¹⁰ It is (also) the דרך התנא not to write two consecutive ה׳.¹¹ When it came to עבד עברי why did the תנא choose one דרך (not to write two consecutive ה׳) over the other דרך (to add a ה׳ when it is אקרא קאי)?¹²

footnotes: ¹ The תורה teaches us that an אשה and a יבמה are נקנית; therefore when the משנה teaches these laws it refers to them as האשה והיבמה; the known אשה ויבמה (from the תורה) are acquired in this manner. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² פסוק יג. Seemingly the reference should be to כד,א (from where we derive the laws of קידושין). ³ The תורה refers to the יבמה with the word ׳יבמתו׳ twice (in דברים [תצא] כה,ז ט). ⁴ The משנה there is discussing the manner in which an ע״ע is acquired (and acquires his freedom). ⁵ פסוק ב. ⁶ If it was written העבד עברי (where the word עברי is attached to העבד) it would mean the עבד of the עברי (but not necessarily that the עבד is an עברי). To avoid this misinterpretation it would need to be written העבד העברי (which would mean the Hebrew עבד [as we find in בראשית [וישב] לט,יז where it states בא אלי העבד העברי]). However the syntax of העבד העברי (with a double ה׳) is not used in the משניות [see ‘Thinking it over’]. Therefore the משנה left it as עבד עברי (which [seemingly] means a Hebrew slave. [See מהרש״א ורש״ש.] ⁷ Alternately תוספות may be offering another explanation regarding איש ואשה (however this explanation will not explain יבמה), that it is written with a ה׳, because this is the דרך התנא. ⁸ Once the תנא wrote האיש or האשה since אקרא קאי, it continued to use the term האיש and האשה even in משניות which are not אקרא קאי, as תוספות enumerates. ⁹ In all these three aforementioned משניות we are not discussing anything which is mentioned in the תורה and nevertheless the משנה uses the ה׳ הידיעה, because since in other משניות the words איש ואשה are referencing the תורה, therefore the תנא continues to use the definite article in other places as well. ¹⁰ See footnote # 1. ¹¹ See footnote # 6. ¹² See מר דרור.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

נשאת — She is acquired in marriage

OVERVIEW In this משנה the term נשואין is used in a passive form (נפעל — intransitive verb) ‘the בתולה is married’, and not in the active form (פועל), ‘one marries a בתולה’. Our תוספות discusses this matter. ------------------------–

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: הא דלא קתני נושאין את הבתולה¹ כמו האיש מקדש (קדושין דף מא,א) לפי שעתה מקצר יותר² – The משנה does not teach, ‘one marries a בתולה’ (in the active form), like another משנה, which reads האיש מקדש (also in the active form), but instead states בתולה נשאת (in the passive form), because now the משנה is more brief³ -

תוספות offers an alternate explanation: ועוד דאי תנא הכי הוה אמינא אפילו בעל כרחה⁴ – And additionally, if the משנה would have taught this way (נושאין את הבתולה), I may have thought that he may marry her even against her will, –

כדמשני (שם דף ב,ב) גבי הא דפריך וליתני האיש קונה⁵ – As the גמרא answered regarding that which was asked, and let the משנה say, האיש קונה, instead of האשה נקנית?

תוספות offers one more answer: ועוד דהתם אקרא קאי⁶ כי יקח איש אשה: And furthermore there by האיש מקדש he is basing it on the פסוק of כי יקח איש אשה (which is written in the active form) therefore the משנה also writes האיש מקדש; however here since there is no basis in the פסוק, the משנה chooses to write בתולה נשאת.⁷

SUMMARY Three reasons why the משנה writes בתולה נשאת and not נושאין את הבתולה; it is briefer, it implies her consent, and there is no פסוק to require otherwise (as opposed to האיש מקדש).

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות second answer is that נושאין את הבתולה would indicate that it may be בע״כ.⁸ Why indeed then does the משנה write האיש מקדש, which also seemingly implies that it can be done בעל כרחה?!⁹
2. תוספות third answer is that by האיש מקדש we can say that אקרא קאי.¹⁰ This seems to explain why the משנה there writes האיש מקדש; however it does not seem to explain why here the משנה writes בתולה נשאת instead of נושאין את הבתולה?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ The active form of נושאין את הבתולה describes more accurately the נישואין process, which requires active participation of the husband who acquires his wife in marriage. The passive form of בתולה נשאת is seemingly inadequate. תוספות cites the משנה of האיש מקדש to prove that the תנא uses active language in the marriage process. [Alternately, תוספות is basing his question entirely on the משנה of האיש מקדש.] ² בתולה נשאת (two words) is more brief than נושאין את הבתולה (three words); however האיש מקדש is not more lengthy than האשה מתקדשת (it even has (two) less letters). ³ There is an advantage in teaching בלשון קצרה in a brief manner (see פסחים ג,ב). ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁵ The גמרא there explained the reason the משנה begins with האשה נקנית and not האיש קונה, because האיש קונה can imply that he can acquire her even against her will (which is not true), therefore the משנה writes האשה נקנית (which implies that it is dependent on her consent to become מקודשת). Similarly here, writing בתולה נשאת instead of נושאין את הבתולה assures us that she can be married only with her consent. ⁶ דברים (תצא) כד,א. See previous תוס׳ ד״ה בתולה [TIE footnote # 2]. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ See footnote # 4. ⁹ See מהרש״א. ¹⁰ See footnote # 7. ¹¹ See footnote # 1.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ליום הרביעי — On the fourth day

OVERVIEW The משנה states that the נישואין (entering into the חופה, etc.) should take place on the fourth day. תוספות explains that this is precise; on Wednesday during the day, and not the following night. -------------------–

תוספות comments: ולא בליל חמישי כדאמר בפרק בתרא דנדה¹ (דף סה,ב) דליכא כתובה דלא רמו בה תיגרא – But not on the night preceding Thursday (i.e. Wednesday night), for as רשב״ג states (in the last פרק of מסכת נדה), ‘that there is no כתובה in which there is no strife involved’, so –

כל שכן אם יעשה נשואין בליל ה׳ דאיכא למיחש שיטרד בנשואין וכתובה ולא יבעול: Certainly if the נישואין will be made בליל ה׳, that there is the concern that they will be preoccupied with the נשואין and the כתובה, and he will not be בועל that night; thus nullifying the purpose of the תקנת חכמים to be בועל בליל חמישי for טענת בתולים. However if the נישואין is during the day, even if they will wrangle regarding the כתובה there will be ample time to be בועל בליל חמישי like the תק״ח.

SUMMARY The נשואין must be by day and not the following night, to make sure that the בעילה will be in time.

THINKING IT OVER How does תוספות infer from the משנה that it must be by day and not by night, perhaps the משנה meant (even) by day and certainly also by night (since it is closer to יום ה׳ when the בי״ד is in session)?²

footnotes: ¹ See the marginal note that in נדה it states שאני כתובה דמהגי בה טפי and the expression ליכא כתובה דלא רמי בה תגרא can be found in שבת קל,א. We derive from the גמרא in נדה that since שאני כתובה דמהגי בה טפי (they are very particular that it be written properly), we assume that the ביאה takes place at midnight, and in addition since ליכא כתובה דלא רמי בה תיגרא, then there certainly (כ״ש) is the concern that there will be no ביאה at all בליל ה׳ if the נשואין is set for ליל ה׳. ² See מהר״ם שי״ף

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

שאם היה לו טענת וכולי — For if he had a claim of, etc.

OVERVIEW The משנה explains the reason for the תקנת חכמים that a בתולה should be married ליום הרביעי is because in case the husband claims that she is not a בתולה (and was perhaps מזנה while she was betrothed [which would make them אסור to each other]), he will be able to immediately go to בי״ד (on Thursday) and state his claim. There is a dispute between רש״י and תוספות as to what is accomplished by stating the claim in בי״ד. -------------------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר הא תינח אשת כהן¹ או פחותה מבת שלש² – And if you will say; granted, there is a point in טענת בתולים by the wife of a כהן, or if he was מקדש his wife when she was less than three years old –

דליכא אלא חד ספיקא³ כדאמרינן בגמרא (לקמן ט,א)⁴ – For in those cases she will be אסורה to him (by his טענת בתולים) since there is only one doubt, as the גמרא states –

אבל בשאר נשים דאיכא ספק ספיקא⁵ אמאי תנשא ליום ד׳⁶ – However by the rest of the women (who are not אשת כהן or were not נתקדש פחותה מבת ג׳) where there is a ספק ספיקא and therefore she is not אסורה to him, so why should those women get married ליום ד׳, since the טענת בתולים will not accomplish anything.

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דלא פלוג רבנן בתקנתא – And the ר״ת answers that the רבנן did not differentiate in their enactment for a בתולה to marry ליום ד׳ –

ומשום אשת כהן ופחותה מג׳ תקנו בכל הנשים שינשאו ביום ד׳ – And they enacted that every woman should marry ביום ד׳ (even though the טענת בתולים will not prohibit them from being together) because of an אשת כהן and a פחותה מבת ג׳ (where the טענת בתולים creates an איסור).

תוספות cites sרש״י׳ opinion on this matter: ובקונטרס פירש שמתוך כך יתברר הדבר ויבואו עדים שזינתה ברצון⁷ – And רש״י explained; the purpose of טענת בתולים by שאר נשים is that by his complaining in בי״ד, the situation will be verified and witnesses will come forth that she was מזנה willingly and therefore אסורה לבעלה. In summation: according to תוס׳ the תקנה (initially) was only for an אשת כהן and a פחותה מבת ג׳, and on account of לא פלוג it was extended to שאר נשים also.⁸ However according to רש״י the תקנה was initially for all נשים, for we may find out that נבעלה ברצון.⁹

תוספות asks on פירש״י: וקשה לפירושו דאמרינן בגמרא (שם,ב) אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא – And there is a difficulty with פירש״י for the גמרא states, ‘אביי said we also learnt in a משנה this rule of ר׳ אלעזר –

דהאומר פתח פתוח מצאתי נאמן¹⁰ לאוסרה עליו¹¹ – That one who says, ‘I found an open doorway’, he is believed to have her forbidden to him; this rule is indicated in our משנה, for the משנה states –

בתולה נשאת כולי מאי לאו דקטעין פתח פתוח¹² – ‘A בתולה is married, etc. because if he has טענת בתולים he will be משכים לבי״ד’; אביי continues, is it not so that his טענת בתולים is that he claims פתח פתוח מצאתי’ (indicating, according to אביי, that האומר פ״פ מצאתי נאמן לאוסרה עליו). This concludes the citation from the גמרא. תוספות continues with his question on פרש״י –

והשתא היכי מייתי ראיה לפירוש הקונטרס הא אף על גב דאינו נאמן – But now, according to רש״י, what proof is אביי bringing to the ruling of פ״פ מצאתי נאמן, from our משנה; for even if he is not נאמן –

מכל מקום ישכים לבית דין שמתוך כך יצא הקול ויבואו עדים ויתברר הדבר¹³ – Nevertheless he should still be משכים לבי״ד, for on account of his claim, there will be publicity and witnesses will come and the matter will be clarified that she was מזנה ברצון; however his claim alone of פ״פ is not believed.

תוספות answers (his question on רש״י): ויש לומר דלא מייתי אביי ראיה לרבי אלעזר אלא שהוא בקי ומכיר אם הוא פתח פתוח¹⁴ – And one can say; that אביי is not bringing a proof to the ruling of ר״א that האומר פ״פ מצאתי נאמן לאוסרה עליו (for indeed according to פירש״י there is no proof), but rather אביי is proving that a person is acquainted and recognizes whether it is a פ״פ or not; he proves it in the following manner –

דאם אינו בקי לא יצא הקול ולא יבא לידי בירור – For if a ‘regular’ person is not a בקי, there will be no publicity to his claim and nothing will be verified –

כי יאמרו שהוא טעה וסבור שמצא פתח פתוח ואינו כן ולא יחושו לדבריו – For people **will say (**when they hear his טענת בתולים), that he is mistaken, for he thinks that he found a פ״פ, but really it is not so, and they will not pay attention to his claim, so there will be no בירור. However, since the משנה states that there will be a בירור, this proves that his claim of פ״פ is valid.

תוספות offers another explanation of פירש״י: ועוד יש לומר¹⁵ דגם לפירוש הקונטרס לא היו מתקנים שתהא ניסת ליום ד׳ – And additionally one can say, that even according to פרש״י (that the purpose of טענת בתולים is that יתברר הדבר), the חכמים would not have instituted that every woman should be married ליום ד׳, solely –

משום שמא יתברר על ידי עדים – Because that perhaps there will be verification through עדים, for that is too far a stretch (there may not be a קול, the עדים may not come, etc.) –

אבל כיון דבאשת כהן ובפחותה מבת שלש דנאמן לאוסרה עליו תקנו שתהא ניסת ברביעי – But rather since by אשת כהן and פחותה מבת ג׳, where he is נאמן לאוסרה עליו, the חכמים instituted that she should marry on Wednesday, therefore the חכמים –

גם בשאר נשים תקנו משום שמתוך כך יצא הקול ויתברר הדבר על ידי עדים – Also instituted by שאר נשים that they should marry ביום ד׳ (but not because of לא פלוג as תוספות said, but rather) because through this claim there will be publicity and the incident will be verified by witnesses –

והשתא מייתי אביי שפיר ממתניתין דבאשת כהן ובפחותה מבת שלש נאמן לאוסרה עליו. And now (that all [even רש״י] agree that the תקנה was [initially] made for an אשת כהן ופחותה מבת ג׳ since he is נאמן לאוסרה עליו), אביי brings a proper proof to ר״א from our משנה that by אשת כהן and פחותה מבת ג׳ he is believed לאוסרה עליו. In summation; according to this last explanation (of רש״י) the תקנה was made initially because of אשת כהן and פחותה מבת ג׳ [as תוספות maintains] where he is נאמן לאוסרה עליו. The חכמים then extended this תקנה to שאר נשים (not because of לא פלוג [as תוספות explained], but rather) because there is a purpose for שאר נשים as well, for through his טענת בתולים there will be a קול and יתברר הדבר בעדים.

תוספות asks: ותימה¹⁶ דהכא משמע דמשום חששא דזנות תקנו שתהא ניסת ברביעי – And it is astounding; for it seems from the משנה here that the חכמים instituted that she should marry Wednesday because of the concern of promiscuity זנות –

ובפרק ב׳ דגטין (דף יז,א ושם) איכא מאן דאמר דתקנו זמן בגטין משום פירי¹⁷ – However in the second פרק of מסכת גיטין there is one (ריש לקיש) who maintains that the חכמים instituted to write a date in a גט because of פירי –

אבל משום שמא יחפה על בת אחותו¹⁸ לא חיישינן משום דזנות לא שכיח – However this מ״ד maintains that we cannot say that the reason the חכמים were מתקן זמן בגיטין is because perhaps he will cover up for his niece, he negates this view and maintains that we are not concerned for שמא יחפה since זנות is not prevalent. The question is why there by זמן there is no תקנה because of זנות, however here by the wedding we make a תקנה because of our concern for זנות?!****

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דהתם קאמר זנות דאתי לידי מיתה דהיינו בהתראה¹⁹ ובעדים לא שכיח – And one can say that ר״ל says there that a זנות which will carry a death penalty, meaning that it was done with a warning and witnesses, is not common therefore there is no need to be מתקן זמן because of שמא יחפה; however זנות without עדים והתראה (for which we are concerned here) is indeed common, and therefore there is a need for the תקנה of יום ד׳.

תוספות offers an alternate answer: אי נמי הכא שלא תשב עמו באיסור כל ימיו חשו אפילו לזנות אף על גב דלא שכיח: Or you may also answer; that here they were concerned for זנות even though it is not common, in order that she should not be with him illegally all his life, however there, since there is no lifelong איסור to be concerned about (merely her wheedling herself out of the death penalty), they were not concerned for זנות.

SUMMARY The תקנה of בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳ was made initially for אשת כהן or פחותה מבת ג׳, however it was extended to שאר נשים either because of לא פלוג (the view of תוס׳), or because there is the possibility that יתברר הדבר בעדים (the view of רש״י).

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות writes (in פרש״י) that עדים will testify that זינתה ברצון.²⁰ Why is it necessary that they testify that זינתה ברצון, even if the testify that she was מזנה and do not know whether it was ברצון on not, she will still be אסורה לבעלה, for the עדים will know whether she was זינתה תחתיו, and once we establish that she was זינתה תחתיו, she is אסורה לבעלה (because now there is only one ספק whether it was באונס or ברצון); why mention זינתה ברצון?!²¹
2. If it is assumed that a person is בקי in פ״פ,²² is there any חידוש in the ruling of ר״א that האומר פ״פ מצאתי נאמן לאוסרה עליו in a case of אשת כהן or פחותה מבת ג׳?²³
3. Is there any connection between תוספות last question²⁴ regarding זנות, with that which תוספות mentioned previously?²⁵

footnotes: ¹ If the wife of a ישראל was forced into זנות against her will (באונס), she is permitted to remain with her husband. However if the wife of a כהן was נאנסה (she is considered a זונה and she) is forbidden to be with her husband. He is required to divorce her. ² A girl who is less than three years old; even if she had ביאה, her בתולים will return and she will retain her בתולה status. If she became מקודשת before she was three, and her husband finds her not to be a בתולה, it must be that she was נבעלה sometime (after she was three, which is sometime) after she was מקודשת and an אשת איש. ³ Regarding the אשת כהן (if the husband claims she is a בעולה) it can be she was נבעלה before the קדושין (when she was still a פנויה and is not considered a זונה) and she is מותרת לבעלה כהן, or it is possible she was נבעלה after the קדושין in which case she is a זונה (even if it was באונס [see footnote # 1]) and is אסורה לבעלה. Since there is only one ספק, she is אסורה לבעלה מספק as in every ספיקא דאורייתא. Similarly by a קטנה who was נתקדשה (to a ישראל) when she was less than three years old, there is also only one ספק whether she was נבעלה באונס (where she is מותרת לבעלה ישראל [see footnote # 1]) or whether she was נבעלה ברצון (where she is definitely אסורה לבעלה ישראל since she was certainly נבעלה תחתיו [after the קדושין (see footnote # 2)] for otherwise she would still be a בתולה). Therefore she is אסורה מספק. ⁴ In these cases it is understood why the חכמים were מתקן that he marry ליום ד׳, because if he finds out that she was already נבעלה she is אסורה עליו, and by going to בי״ד he will be told to divorce her. ⁵ By an אשת ישראל (who was נתקדשה when she was more than three) there is a doubt within a doubt, which should permit them to be together. There is the doubt that perhaps she was נבעלה באונס (in which case she is מותר לבעלה ישראל [see footnote # 1]), and even if she was נבעלה ברצון (which would seemingly forbid her to her husband); nevertheless there is the additional doubt that perhaps she was נבעלה before the קדושין (and she is permitted to him). Even if he tells בי״ד that she is a בעולה, nonetheless בי״ד will permit them to be together since there is a ספק ספיקא להיתרא. ⁶ We cannot say that the תקנה was made so that he can claim she is a בעולה and he does not owe her the (entire) כתובה, because for this we do not need a תקנה; if he does not want to pay her (full) כתובה, he can always claim that. However regarding איסור we are concerned that if he does not go immediately to בי״ד, he may calm down and convince himself that it does not matter (since it is only a ספק, etc.) ⁷ The words שזינתה ברצון do not appear in our רש״י text. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁸ If he makes the claim by אשת כהן ופחותה מבת ג׳ she will be אסורה on him; however by שאר נשים they will not be אסורה עליו. ⁹ However, it is possible that even by אשת כהן or פחותה מבת ג׳ she will not be אסורה (by טענת פ״פ) unless עדים testify. ¹⁰ The novelty of this ruling is that for טענת בתולים it is not necessary to prove that there was no דם בתולים, but even if there is no proof from the דם (for they lost the cloth, etc.), nevertheless if he claims there was an opening (instead of being closed) that is sufficient to render it a valid claim and we do not suspect that perhaps he is mistaken whether it was a פ״פ or not. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ¹¹ See the גמרא there on the עמוד א׳ that he is believed לאוסרה עליו only by an אשת כהן or פחותה מבת ג׳. ¹² See תוס׳ there ד״ה מאי (הא׳), why אביי assumed that the משנה is discussing טענת פ״פ. The גמרא refutes the proof of אביי for the משנה may be discussing טענת דמים (see footnote # 10). ¹³ It is possible that we do not rule like ר״א and )by טענת פ״פ) he is not נאמן לאוסרה עליו (even by an אשת כהן and פחותה מבת ג׳ [see footnote # 9]), however he is משכים לבי״ד so that עדים will come. However according to תוספות that the reason for the תקנה (initially) was for אשת כהן and פחותה מבת ג׳, for they will be אסורה to him if he claims טענת בתולים (and because of לא פלוג the תקנה was extended to שאר נשים), therefore there is a proper proof from our משנה that by פ״פ he is נאמן לאוסרה עליו (by אשת כהן and פחותה מבת ג׳). ¹⁴ See footnote # 10. ¹⁵ This explanation disagrees with the assumption mentioned in footnote # 9. ¹⁶ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 3. ¹⁷ When a woman brings property into a marriage (נכסי מלוג) the rule is that (even though she retains the ownership of the property, nevertheless) the husband receives the fruits of the property. This arrangement continues as long as they are married. If however the husband divorces her he loses the rights to the פירות (from the time of the divorce). If there would be no זמן in the גט, it is conceivable that the husband, even after the divorce, will continue consuming the פירות (without the woman realizing it), and when she will claim that he illegally ate the פירות, the burden of proof will be on her as to when the divorce took place (since there is no date in the גט). Therefore the חכמים instituted to write the date, protecting the woman’s rights to her פירות, beginning from the date on the גט. ¹⁸ The view of ר׳ יוחנן there is that they were מתקן זמן בגיטין because it is possible that someone will marry his niece ([not necessarily a niece but rather anyone] of whom he is very fond, regardless of their marital status), and she may be מזנה תחתיו and will be מחויב מיתה, so in order to spare her the death penalty her husband (dear uncle) will write her a גט and she will claim that she received the גט before the זנות, so she was not an אשת איש and not liable for the death penalty. Therefore they instituted זמן בגיטין to avoid this miscarriage of justice. ¹⁹ תוספות mentions התראה so the answer will be applicable even according to רש״י that עדים (without התראה) will come and testify that זינתה ברצון (for by זמן there needs to be התראה as well, to have a חיוב מיתה). ²⁰ See footnote # 7. ²¹ See פרדס יצחק אות צט. ²² See footnote # 10. ²³ See ח״ב מ״ת אות ו. ²⁴ See footnote # 16. ²⁵ See פנ״י and סוכ״ד אות כו.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מפני מה אמרו בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי לפי ששנינו כולי — For what reason did they say that a בתולה is married on Wednesday; because we learnt in a משנה, etc.

OVERVIEW שמואל asked why the חכמים enacted that a בתולה should marry ביום ד׳, and answered based on a משנה that if the time to get married was not on יום ד׳, the husband is not obligated to feed her. רב יוסף asked that שמואל is basing an explicable ruling on an inexplicable ruling. תוספות clarifies the flow of the גמרא. --------------------–

אין שואל הטעם למה נשאת ברביעי דאם כן לא הוה משני מידי¹ –

שמואל was not asking for the reason, why a בתולה is נשאת ליום ד׳, for if indeed that was his question, שמואל did not answer anything by citing the משנה of הגיע זמן –

אלא הכי פירושו מפני מה אמרו כלומר מאי נפקא מינה שתיקנו שנשאת ברביעי² – But rather this is the explanation of sשמואל׳ question why did they enact, etc., meaning what ramification is there as a result of what they enacted that a בתולה should marry בד׳ –

ומשני נפקא מינה לענין מזונות ותרומה – And שמואל answered that the ramification is regarding feeding and giving תרומה to his wife –

תוספות responds to an anticipated question:³

ורב יוסף קא מתמה מריה דאברהם⁴ דהא נפקותא מפרשה בהדיא שאם היה לו טענת בתולים – But ר׳ יוסף was astounded, saying, ‘Master of Avrohom, there is a ramification which is explicitly stated, that if he has טענת בתולים, he will go to בי״ד, etc.⁵ –

והוא מניח נפקותא זו המפורשת ותופס נפקותא אחרינא: And שמאול ignored this explicit ramification in our משנה, and mentions another ramification which was taught in another משנה’!

SUMMARY The question of מפני מה אמרו means what ramification is there as a result of this enactment. רב יוסף felt that the main ramification is stated in our משנה.

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות explains that שמואל could not be asking for the reason, for if so he did not answer anything.⁶ Why did not תוספות point out (more simply), but our משנה gives the reason, so what is שמואל asking?!⁷
2. Seemingly the phrase מפני מה אמרו,⁸ and the expression תלי תניא דמפרש טעמא בדתניא דלא מפרש טעמא,⁹ do not lend themselves respectively to תוספות explanation of sשמואל׳ question and of sרב יוסף׳ astonishment!

footnotes: ¹ He merely mentions (one of) the ramification(s) of the תקנה, but there is obviously no explanation in the משנה of הגיע זמן, why a בתולה is נשאת ליום ד׳. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ² It may be necessary to say that שמואל asks, now that we have this rule of בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳, what other ramifications are there as a result of this תקנה. (Otherwise the question is not understood, the נפק״מ is that one must marry ביום ד׳!) See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ³ If we assume the simple meaning of sשמאול׳ question (that he is asking for the reason), the astonishment of ר׳ יוסף is verily understood; however if שמואל is asking what difference does it make, then seemingly שמואל gave a valid answer, so how do we understand the astonishment of ר״י. ⁴ This refers to ה׳; as we would say, ‘רבונו של עולם’! ⁵ תוספות seemingly means to say that the ramification of בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳ is that if she was מזנה he will be protected from living with her באיסור since he will be משכים to בי״ד. See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ See תוס׳ הרא״ש. ⁸ See ‘footnote # 2. ⁹ See footnote # 5.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל — Rather, if it was taught, this is what was taught: ר״י said in the name of Shmuel

OVERVIEW Initially רב יוסף cited a statement of שמואל which רב יוסף heard from רב יהודה. Then רב יוסף challenged this statement that רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, and concluded that we must rephrase this statement that רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל. Our תוספות (in the heading) offers the correct text reading in our גמרא. --------------------------–

ולא גרסינן רב יוסף דהא רב יוסף גופיה קאמר¹ אלא אי איתמר: But the text do not read; אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר; אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, but merely אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל without mentioning רב יוסף, since it is רב יוסף himself who is stating ׳אלא אי אתמר׳, that the statement of רב יהודה אמר שמואל requires a revision.

SUMMARY The text reads אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר אמר רב יהודה וכו׳ (without mentioning רב יוסף).

THINKING IT OVER It is apparent that there were other text which included the name רב יוסף in the אי אתמר הכי אתמר (for otherwise תוספות would not have to negate that גירסא); how can we explain that גירסא?

footnotes: ¹ If an outside party (would ask the question on אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל and) would conclude that אלא אי אתמר הכי אתמר, then it is plausible that the text should read אמר רב יוסף אמר וכו׳ (that we must revise that which we heard from רב יוסף); however now that it רב יוסף who is revising the statement (that he heard from רב יהודה [אמר שמואל]), in what context is he mentioning his own name. See ‘Thinking it over’.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

מפני מה אמרו כולי — Why did they say, etc.

OVERVIEW After רב יוסף rejected the initial version of רב יהודה אמר שמואל, the גמרא mentions the revised version, which also begins with מפני מה אמרו וכו׳. Our תוספות distinguishes between this מפני מה (of the revised edition) and the מפני מה of the original statement. ------------------------–

בניחותא¹ גרסינן לה² ולא בא להקשות אלא ותנשא באחד בשבת: This מפני מה is read passively, for שמואל did not come to ask, why does a בתולה marry on Wednesday, but rather שמואל is asking that she should be allowed to marry (also) on Sunday

SUMMARY In the revised statement of שמואל there is no question why בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳, just why not ביום א׳ (as well).

THINKING IT OVER Can we say that שמואל meant to ask with his מפ״מ אמרו,³ how can we assume that בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳, (solely) because of טענת בתולים, for if that were the case, she should marry בא׳ בשבת (also)?!⁴

footnotes: ¹ It is difficult to say that (also) in this revised statement שמואל is asking מפ״מ אמרו בתולה נשאת וכו׳ and answers שאם היה לו טענת בתולים וכו׳, for this is an explicit משנה; what is שמאול teaching us?! ² The מפני מה is a lead into the real question. It should be understood as follows; [what is] the reason בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳, [it] is because of טענת בתולים; therefore the question is that she should marry on יום א׳ (also). ³ That it is not בניחותא. ⁴ See שיטמ״ק and לחם אבירים.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ותנשא באחד בשבת — And she should get married on Sunday

OVERVIEW שמואל asked since the reason a בתולה is נשאת ליום ד׳ is because of טענת בתולים and בי״ד convenes on Mondays and Thursdays, she should be allowed to be married on Sundays as well. The גמרא answered that she is married on יום ד׳ because שקדו חכמים על תקנת בנות ישראל. ¹ Our תוספות discusses another answer to this question. -------------------------–

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty: לא בעי לשנויי דנשאת ברביעי כדי שתבעל בחמישי² – The גמרא did not want to answer (the question of ותנשא בא׳ בשבת) that she is married בד׳ in order that she will be נבעלה בה׳, which is preferable –

משום ברכה שנאמרה בו לדגים³ כדאמרינן לקמן⁴ (דף ה,א) – On account of the blessing which was said by ה׳ to fish, as בר קפרא states later –

There is an additional difficulty: ועוד⁵ למה לי טעם דשקדו⁶ תיפוק ליה משום ברכה⁷ – And furthermore why do we need the reason of שקדו to explain why the בתולה is married ליום ד׳ and not ליום א׳, we can derive this ruling because of ברכה, without mentioning שקדו.

תוספות responds: ואומר רבינו יצחק דטעם דברכה אינה אלא עצה טובה ולא מקרי עבריינא⁸ – And the ר״י says that the reason of ברכה is merely good advice, but he is not considered a transgressor if he does not accept this advice and marries on יום א׳ –

אבל משום שקדו מקרי עבריינא⁹ – However on account of שקדו he is considered a transgressor if he does not marry ביום ד׳ (and therefore does not spend the three days preparing the feast) –

תוספות proves his point that ברכה is not a cause to consider him an עבריינא if he does not marry ליום ד׳: וכן משמע לקמן¹⁰ דאמר טעמא משום ברכה אבל משום איקרורי דעתא¹¹ לא חיישינן¹² – And so too it seems later where the גמרא infers from the ברייתא, saying; the reason a בתולה is נבעלת בה׳ is because of ברכה, however if not for ברכה the בעילה could be ביום ד׳, because we are not concerned for איקרורי דעתא. This concludes the citation from the גמרא. תוספות continues with his proof –

ומאי נפקא מינה אלא ודאי דמשום ברכה¹³ לא מקרי עבריינא: But what practical difference is there whether we are חושש לאקרורי דעתא or not, for in any event she needs to be נבעלת בה׳ (because of ברכה)?! Rather we must say that there is a difference (whether the reason is because of ברכה or because of אקרורי דעתא), for on account of ברכה one is certainly not considered an עבריינא, if she is not נבעלת בה׳, however if the reason is because of אקרורי דעתא, then he is considered an עבריינא.

SUMMARY The reason of ברכה is merely good advice but he is not a transgressor if he does not follow it; as opposed to the reasons of שקדו and טענת בתולים, where he is considered an עבריינא.

THINKING IT OVER Seemingly the two questions of תוספות are exactly the same; why answer שקדו, when you could answer ברכה.¹⁴ What is the difference between these two questions?!¹⁵

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא here explains that the בתולה marries ביום ד׳ and not ביום א׳, because the חכמים were diligent in enacting rules for the benefit of the Jewish daughters (that the חתן will have three days to prepare a proper wedding feast). ² When the wedding takes place on Wednesday, the בעילת מצוה can take place that night which is Thursday. ³ See בראשית א,כב that ה׳ blessed the fish on the fifth day of creation. ויברך אתם אלקים לאמר פרו ורבו ומלאו את המים וגו׳. ⁴ בר קפרא cited a ברייתא that a בתולה is נשאת בד׳ and נבעלת בה׳ because the ברכה לדגים was on ה׳. It is apparent (from this ברייתא) that ברכה is a sufficient reason to be married ביום ד׳ for she will be נבעלה בה׳ (as opposed to יום א׳). ⁵ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁶ See footnote # 1. ⁷ תוספות does not mean only ברכה, because then they should marry ליום ה׳ for the ברכה לאדם was said ביום ו׳ (see the גמרא there on ה,א). Rather תוספות means we need only the reasons of טענת בתולים (for either א׳ or ד׳) and ברכה (to limit it to ד׳ only), but there is no need to mention שקדו. ⁸ Therefore since he is not an עבריינא, if הגיע זמן is on Sunday he is obligated to give her מזונות, because his benefit of the ברכה is not sufficient reason to exempt him from מזונות. ⁹ For this reason he is not obligated to give מזונות, since he cannot marry now for he will be an עבריינא. ¹⁰ ה,א. The גמרא there queries whether the ביאה (of a בתולה הנשאת ליום ד׳) needs to be בה׳ or it can be even בד׳. ¹¹ איקרורי דעתא (literally his mind will cool) means that if he does not go immediately to בי״ד (but there is a time lapse), he will calm down and not report the טענת בתולים and may therefore live with his wife באיסור. ¹² The ברייתא only mentions ברכה לדגים as a reason for נבעלת בה׳, but does not mention איקרורי דעתא, indicating that (according to this ברייתא) we are not concerned for איקרורי דעתא, and were it not for ברכה לדגים there would be no need to be נבעלת ליום ה׳ since he will eventually go to בי״ד even if it is a little bit later. ¹³ The גמרא is therefore saying that according to this ברייתא that the reason is only because of ברכה and not because of אקרורי דעתא, one will not be considered an עבריינא if she is נבעלת בד׳. ¹⁴ See footnote # 5. ¹⁵ See מהרש״א הארוך.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

לפיכך¹ חלה הוא אינו מעלה לה מזונות — Therefore, if he became sick, he does not pay for her food

OVERVIEW In the initial version רב יוסף concluded that (just as if the marriage time occurred on a Sunday, he is not obligated to give her מזונות [since they are to be married on Wednesday], similarly) if he was sick by the wedding day, he is not required to give her מזונות. Our תוספות reconciles our גמרא with a seemingly contradictory גמרא. --------------------------–

תוספות asks: קשה לרבינו יצחק דאמר בהחולץ (שם דף מא,ב ושם) עמד בדין וברח נזונת משל יבם² – The ר״י has a difficulty; for the ברייתא states in מסכת יבמות in פרק החולץ, if the court ruled and the יבם ran away, she is fed from the estate of the יבם –

ומפרש בירושלמי³ ברח הוא הדין חלה והכא אמרינן דחלה אין מעלה לה מזונות – And the ירושלמי explains that this same law of ברח applies if the יבם became ill; she is supported from his estate, so why is the ruling here that if he is ill he does not feed her?! What is the difference between a יבם and an ארוס?

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דהתם חלה או ברח לאחר שעמד בדין שכבר נתחייב לה במזונות – And the ר״י explained that there (by a יבמה), the יבם became sick or ran away after the court ruled, so that he was already obligated to feed her –

אבל הכא בחלה קודם הגעת זמן⁴ – However here (by a wedding) he became sick before the time arrived for the wedding; therefore he was never obligated to feed her.

תוספות cites פרש״י and disagrees with it: ובקונטרס פירש שם⁵ דוקא ברח אבל חלה לא ואין נראה כדמשמע בירושלמי – And רש״י explained there that she is נזונית משל יבם only if he ran away, but not if he became ill; however it does not seem that way, as indicated in the ירושלמי –

תוספות responds to an anticipated difficulty on פרש״י: ולפירושו אין להקשות⁶ מאיכא דבעו לה מיבעיא אמאי לא פשיט לה מהתם – And according to sרש״י׳ explanation (that by חלה the יבם is not מעלה לה מזונות), one cannot ask from those that posed this as a query (whether or not he has to be מעלה לה מזונות, if he was חלה); why did they not resolve this query from the ברייתא there, that the יבם is required to feed her only if ברח not if חלה (even if he was עמד בדין), and the same will apply here that by חלה he is not מעלה לה מזונות?!

תוספות responds: דיש לומר דארוסתו אגידא ביה טפי מיבמתו⁷ כדאמרינן ביבמות בכמה דוכתי: For one can say that his betrothed is more attached to the groom, than the יבמה is attached to the יבם, as the גמרא states in מסכת יבמות in many places

SUMMARY There is no obligation to be מעלה מזונות if the חלה happened before the זמן. An ארוסה is more attached to her ארוס, than a יבמה to her יבם.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות explains why there is no difficulty on פרש״י;⁸ however the same answer is seemingly due on תוספות interpretation, for the גמרא there rules that if עמד בדין he has to be מעלה מזונות if חלה, indicating that if there was no העמדה בדין, he is פטור, thereby resolving the איבעיא, Why did not תוספות require the same explanation for his interpretation (as he did for רש״י)?!⁹

footnotes: ¹ This תוספות should precede the previous תוס׳ ד״ה מציא and they are both referencing the גמרא on the עמוד א׳. ² The ברייתא there states that for the first three months after her (childless) husband died, the widow (who is זקוקה ליבום) is fed from the estate of her husband, if after three months she took the יבם to בי״ד, saying either be מייבם me, or be חולץ (so I can remarry), and the יבם ran away, she is fed from the estate of the יבם. ³ כתובות פ״ה ה״ד (in our ירושלמי it is on לד,ב). ⁴ It appears from תוספות that if the time arrived (and they did not marry) and then he became sick, the husband is obligated to feed her (even during his sickness), since he was already obligated. ⁵ It does not say so explicitly in our רש״י there. However one may infer it, for רש״י states that the יבם must pay, because we fine him (for running away); indicating that by חלה (where there is no cause for a fine), he would be פטור. ⁶ However according to תוספות there is no question (as previously explained), for there he was חלה לאחר שעמד בדין, therefore he has to pay; however in our גמרא the query is in a case where he was חלה before the זמן. See (however) ‘Thinking it over’. ⁷ The reasoning is that the ארוס was מקדש his wife with the intention of marrying her (and even now she is an אשת איש); however by the יבם he may not intend to be מייבם her (and now she is merely a זקוקה ליבם, but not an א״א). Therefore even if the יבם is not מעלה לה מזונות if חלה, it is reasonable that the ארוס is מעלה לה מזונות if חלה. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ See מהרש״א (הארוך).