Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

וסברה דאניס — And she thinks he had a mishap

OVERVIEW The גמרא concluded that the ruling of רבא that אין אונס בגיטין (and if the תנאי was fulfilled, even because of an אונס, the גט is valid), is based on the logic that (if we would maintain יש אונס בגיטין) there would be a problem with women who are either צנועות (modest)¹ or פרוצות (promiscuous²). תוספות explains why they are referred to as צנועות or פרוצות, respectively. ---------------------–

ומן הדין³ לית לן למיחש דלמא אניס הוא דרובן לא אניסי – For according to the law, we are not obligated to suspect that perhaps he did not return due to an אונס, for the majority of people do not experience אונסים –

ולהכי קרי להו צנועות שמחמירים על עצמן אף על גב דמצי לאינסובי – And therefore the גמרא refers to these women (who will not remarry, unless they verify that the fulfillment of the תנאי is not due to an אונס) as צנועות, for they are strict with themselves, even though legally they may remarry (since רובן לא אניסי).

וגבי פרוצות לא גרסינן וסברה דלא אניס⁴ אלא ואמרה דלא אניס – And regarding פרוצות the text do not read, ‘and she assumes that there was no אונס’, but rather the text read ‘and she says, ‘there was no אונס’ –

פירוש אפילו כשיצא הקול דאניס⁵ אמרה דלא אניס⁶ – The explanation (why she is called a פרוצה) is that even if there is a rumor that he was אניס, she will say that she knows for sure that he was not אניס (even if she does not know whether he was אניס or not) –

או אפילו כשתדע היא עצמה דאניס ואחרים לא ידעו – Or furthermore even if she herself knows that he was אניס but others do not know that he was אניס, she will (lie and claim he was not אניס and) remarry illegally (if we assume יש אונס בגיטין).**** ⁷

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר מת תוך י״ב חודש נמי יהא גט מהאי טעמא⁸ – And if you will say; in the case where the husband dies within the twelve months (where the ruling is that it is not a גט [unless he said מעכשיו]), it should also be a גט for the same reason –

דזימנין דלא מת וסברה דמת ומיעגנא⁹ ויתבה¹⁰ – For occasionally it may be that he did not die (and therefore the גט is valid [for there was no אונס, and it was not לאחר מיתה]) and she will assume that he died (so the גט is invalid [since אין גט לאחר מיתה]), and she will remain an עגונה –

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמיתה קלא אית לה: And one can say that there is publicity regarding death, and therefore if we do not hear that he died, even the צנועות will assume that he is alive, the תנאי was fulfilled, the גט is valid, and they will remarry.

SUMMARY There is no חשש for אונס legally, however the צנועות are strict for themselves, while the פרוצות may remarry even if (they know) it is legally prohibited. There is no concern for אונס מיתה since there is publicity surrounding a death.

THINKING IT OVER תוספות asks that by מכאן ועד יב חודש it should be a גט because of the צנועות.¹¹ Why did not תוספות ask (also) that it should be a גט because of the פרוצות as well?!¹²

footnotes: ¹ In the case of צנועות we are concerned that even though the תנאי was fulfilled (the husband did not return within the specified time), however the woman (because she is a צנועה) is concerned that perhaps there was an אונס that caused her husband not to return, and if we maintain יש אונס בגיטין, the גט is not effective, and the woman will not remarry, when in truth (there was no אונס and) she may remarry. See footnote # 3. ² In the case of פרוצות we are concerned that the woman will remarry (illegally) even if the תנאי was fulfilled (the husband did not return) only because of an אונס, where (if we maintain יש אונס בגיטין) she is not permitted to remarry. Since she is a פרוצה, she will remarry regardless of the circumstances. ³ תוספות explains why we refer to these (cautious) women as צנועות; since we do not know the reason why the husband did not return, it seemingly behooves us not to permit her to remarry until we verify the circumstances why he did not return and we can ascertain that it was not due to an אונס. ⁴ If she remarries because she assumes there was no אונס, we cannot call her a פרוצה; as תוספות just said that if the תנאי was fulfilled she may remarry legally since רובן לא אניסי. ⁵ Once there is a קול that אניס, the בי״ד will not permit her to remarry unless we verify the קול. ⁶ If she maintains that she knows he was not אניס, the בי״ד will not prohibit her from remarrying (because of a קול). ⁷ This is obviously a much greater פרוצה than the previous case. ⁸ רבא is teaching us that even though legally יש אונס בגיטין and therefore in a case of אונס it is not a גט, nevertheless on account of צנועות (and פרוצות), we rule אין אונס בגיטין and validate the גט. The same should be true in the case of הרי״ז גיטך אם לא באתי מכאן ועד יב חודש, that even though legally it is not a גט (since אין גט לאחר מיתה), nevertheless because of the צנועות we should validate the גט (even though that it is לאחר מיתה]). See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁹ מיענגא which is related to the word עגונה means that the woman is ‘anchored’ in place and cannot remarry. ¹⁰ In our case the issue is יבום; if the גט is valid she can remarry, however if the גט is not valid, she is זקונה ליבום, and if for some reason there can be no יבום or חליצה, she will remain an עגונה. ¹¹ See footnote # 8. ¹² See תוספות הרא״ש.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אדעתא דרבנן מקדש — He is מקדש based on the approval of the Rabonon

OVERVIEW The גמרא explains that notwithstanding the fact that יש אונס בגיטין, and therefore if the תנאי was fulfilled only because of an אונס, the גט should be invalid (and the woman remains an אשת איש), nevertheless because of the concern of פרוצות וצנועות, we maintain אין אונס בגיטין and the גט is valid (and the woman is no longer an אשת איש) and the רבנן uproot the קידושין דאורייתא; the רבנן have the power to do this since כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, and the husband leaves it up to the רבנן to either sustain or nullify his marriage as they choose. תוספות explains how we see that a person is מקדש אדעתא דרבנן. ----------------------------–

לכן¹ אומרים בשעת קידושין כדת משה וישראל:² Therefore the husbands say at the time of the קדושין that the קדושין are being performed according to the laws of משה and ישראל.

SUMMARY We say כדת משה וישראל by קדושין to explicitly acknowledge that we are מקדש אדעתא דרבנן.

THINKING IT OVER What would be if one did not say כדת משה וישראל would the ruling of אין אונס בגיטין apply to this marriage? What is if he said (at the time of קדושין or later) that he was not מקדש אדעתא דרבנן?³

footnotes: ¹ The word לכן implies that since כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, therefore we implement that he should say it, but (seemingly) it does not mean that since he says it therefore he is מקדש אדעתא דרבנן. See ‘Thinking it over’. ² Seemingly the word ׳ישראל׳, indicates that he is מקדש אדעתא דרבנן. ³ See סוכ״ד אות ה׳.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

ואפקעינהו רבנן לקידושין מינה — And the רבנן extracted the קידושין from her

OVERVIEW The גמרא stated that since כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש, therefore the חכמים can (when they see fit) to be מפקיע the קידושין retroactively, that there never was any קידושין and they were never married. This can have serious consequences which need to be addressed. ------------------------------------–

בריש השולח¹ (גיטין לג.) פירשתי²: I explained this in the beginning of פרק השולח.

SUMMARY תוספות resolves the issues with אפקעינהו in פרק השולח.

THINKING IT OVER Seemingly the concerns mentioned in השולח apply only to one who will be מבטל a גט שלא בפניו (since he can plan to make an אפקעינהו);³ however here by אונס בגיטין, one cannot plan on making an אונס, so seemingly the concerns are not relevant here, so why does תוספות need to mention here that he addressed the concerns of אפקעינהו in פרק השולח?!

footnotes: ¹ The גמרא there states that even though מדאורייתא one may nullify a גט before a בי״ד (and he need not do it in the presence of the שליח or his wife), nevertheless the חכמים enacted that if one is מבטל a גט, not in the presence of the שליח or his wife, the ביטול is invalid and the גט is effective. There too the גמרא states that the חכמים relied on this same concept of (כל המקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדש and therefore) אפקעינהו לרבנן לקדושין מינה. ² The difficulty of saying אפקעינהו by one who is מבטל a גט שלא בפניו is that he can be מחפה על בת אחותו and be מטהר ממזרים, by writing a גט to his wife and then be מבטל it שלא בפניו, so his wife (because of אפקעינהו) was never married to him and she is not מחויב מיתה for her זנות and her children from this זנות will not be ממזרים. The תוספות there addresses these and other issues. See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ See footnote # 2.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

תינח דקדיש בכספא — with money מקדשIt is reasonable if he was

OVERVIEW The גמרא states that it can accept the idea of אפקעינהו if the קידושין was made with money, however how can we explain the אפקעינהו if the קידושין was made with ביאה. תוספות explains the difference¹ between קידושי כסף and קידושי ביאה. ------------------------–

תוספות explains that we can understand the אפקעינהו by קדושי כסף –

דהפקר בית דין היה² הפקר והוו מעות מתנה³ וממילא⁴ יהו כל בעילותיו זנות – Since the confiscation of בי״ד renders the מעות קידושין ownerless, and therefore the money of קידושין become a gift to the woman (and there was no קידושין), so automatically all his subsequent ביאות will be considered as ביאות זנות; however –

קדיש בביאה מאי איכא למימר איך יפקיעו ביאה של קידושין⁵ – What can we say if he was מקדש בביאה; how can the רבנן invalidate the קידושי ביאה –

תוספות anticipates a difficulty with this question: ואפילו למאן דאמר בהאשה רבה⁶ (יבמות פט,ב ושם) דיש כח לחכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה⁷ – And even according to the מ״ד in פרק האשה רבה, that the חכמים possess the power to uproot something which the תורה ordains –

תוספות responds that when do we say that יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה –

היינו כגון דליכא עבירה כההיא דהאשה רבה דהדר לטיבלא⁸ – That is only where for instance there is no transgression, like that case in פרק האשה רבה where the תרומה returns to its טבל status, in such a case we can say דיש כח ביד חכמים וכו׳ –

אבל היכא דאיכא עבירה דמקודשת היא בביאה⁹ מאי איכא למימר – However where there is an עבירה like in our case where she was מקודשת בביאה, what can we say?!

תוספות cites and explains the sגמרא׳ answer: ומשני שויוה רבנן בעילותיו בעילת זנות ואין כאן קדושין : And the גמרא answers that the רבנן caused that his בעילות are בעילת זנות and therefore there is no קידושין here.

SUMMARY The power of אדעתא דרבנן מקדש is sufficiently strong that (not only can they be מבטל the קידושי כסף through הפקר בי״ד, but) they can even cause קידושי ביאה to become a ביאת זנות and invalidate the קידושין.

THINKING IT OVER

1. According to the conclusion of תוספות, is it necessary to resort to הפקר בי״ד in order to explain why the חכמים can nullify the קידושי כסף?
2. Can our גמרא also follow the view that אין כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה and nevertheless the חכמים can be מבטל the קידושי ביאה?
3. How can we explain the need for both כל דמקדש וכו׳ and הפקר בי״ד; seemingly each one can nullify the קידושין without the other?¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ Seemingly both קדושי כסף and קדושי ביאה are קידושין מדאורייתא, so if the חכמים can invalidate one (קדושי כסף), they should be able (in the same manner) to invalidate the other (קדושי ביאה) ² Others delete the word ׳היה׳. ³ The simple understanding is that since בי״ד made his money הפקר and the woman is now in possession of this money, it is considered as if she received a מתנה through the הפקר בי״ד. [Alternately, since the חכמים have complete jurisdiction over his money (to the extent that they can confiscate it), they decreed that this money should be considered a מתנה to the woman and not כסף קידושין.] ⁴ The ביאות that were done after the קידושי כסף were not ביאות לשם קידושין, since the husband assumed that she is already מקודשת through the קידושי כסף. Therefore since the קידושי כסף were annulled, automatically the subsequent ביאות are ביאות of זנות, since she is not his wife and he is not בועל her לשם קידושין. However since it is not the חכמים who are making his בעילות into בעילת זנות (which is a forbidden ביאה); we are not concerned about it. See footnote # 8. ⁵ The concept of הפקר בי״ד cannot apply by ביאה and it would seem inappropriate that the חכמים should cause that the קידושי ביאה should become a ביאת זנות. ⁶ The case there is where one במזיד was תורם תרומה from טבל טמא on טבל טהור, where מדאורייתא it is a valid תרומה (and the כהן can use it as fuel, but it is forbidden to be eaten for it is תרומה טמאה). However the חכמים decreed that he must be תורם again מן הטהור. There is a dispute as to what is the status of the original תרומה טמאה; according to ר״נ בר אושעיא it retains its תרומה status, however רב חסדא maintains that it reverts to its טבל status. ר״ח maintains that יש כח ביד חכמים לעקור דבר מן התורה that even though מן התורה it is תרומה, nevertheless the חכמים render it טבל and when תרומה will be separated from this טבל טמא, the original תרומה (טמאה) will be permitted to be eaten (by a זר). ⁷ Seemingly therefore here too we can say that the חכמים have the power to nullify the קידושין even by קידושי ביאה (without resorting to הפקר בי״ד), just as they were able to render תרומה into טבל. ⁸ There the חכמים merely said that the תרומה reverts back to טבל. At that point the produce (which is now טבל) continues to be אסור (as it was when it was תרומה). The fact that later after one will be מפריש תרומה on this טבל, the original תרומה will become מותר באכילה is of no concern since it is not done directly by the חכמים (see מהרש״ל). See footnote # 4. ⁹ Here as soon as the חכמים invalidate her קדושי ביאה she ceases to be an אשת איש, and the חכמים are directly permitting an אשת איש לעלמא without a גט. [Alternately, by nullifying the קדושי ביאה the חכמים are causing directly that this ביאה becomes a ביאת זנות which is a ביאת עבירה (see תוס׳ ב״ב מח,ב ד״ה תינח).] ¹⁰ See סוכ״ד אות ט.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

איכא דאמרי אמר רבא וכן לענין גיטין — There are those who say; רבא ruled: and similarly regarding Gittin

OVERVIEW After the גמרא cited the initial view of רבא that אין אונס בגיטין, the גמרא cites an opposing view that רבא maintains יש אונס בגיטין. Our תוספות rules that אין אונס בגיטין and reconciles it with a seemingly contradictory גמרא. -----------------------------–

פסק רבינו חננאל כלישנא קמא דאין אונס בגיטין – The ר״ח ruled like the first version (of רבא) that אין אונס בגיטין –

והביא ראיה מדקאמר סתמא הש״ס בריש השולח (גיטין לד,א ושם) גבי ההוא דאמר¹ – And the ר״ח brought proof to his ruling since the גמרא stated anonymously in the beginning of פרק השולח, regarding a person who said –

אי לא נסיבנא עד תלתין יומין ליהוי גיטא כולי ואי משום אונס אין אונס בגיטין – ‘If I do not marry until thirty days it should be a גט’, etc. The גמרא ruled that it is a valid גט, because we disregard his claim that it was an אונס, since the ruling is that אין אונס בגיטין; thus proving the ruling of the ר״ח.

תוספות concurs with the ruling of the ר״ת: וכן נראה דאליבא דאיכא דאמרי הוו פירכי מכל הני דמייתי סייעתא ללישנא קמא – And so it seems that the הלכה is כלישנא קמא that אין אונס בגיטין, for according to the איכא דאמרי (who maintain יש אונס בגיטין) there are refutations to this view from all the sources**** from which the גמרא brought as a support to the ל״ק; and even though the א״ד respond to these difficulties, nevertheless –

ולא סמכינן אשינויי דחיקי – We cannot rely on these inadequate answers.

תוספות asks:²

וקשה לרבינו יצחק דמסיק בפרק מי שאחזו (שם עג,א ושם) – And the ר״י has a difficulty with this view that the הלכה is אין אונס בגיטין, for the גמרא concludes in פרק מי שאחזו –

דבין דאמר הרי זה גיטיך אם מתי מחולי זה בין אם אמר אם לא אעמוד מחולי זה³ – That whether he said; ‘here is your גט if I die from this sickness’, or whether he said, ‘here is your גט, if I do not stand up from this sickness’ –

ונפל עליו הבית או נשכו נחש או אכלו ארי דלא הוי גט אלמא דיש אונס בגיטין⁴ – And the house collapsed on him, or a snake bit him, or a lion devoured him, in all these case it is not a גט (this ends the citation from the גמרא there); it is evident that יש אונס בגיטין (and therefore it is not a גט) –

תוספות anticipates a response to his question: וליכא למימר דהתם לא מטעם דיש אונס קאמר דלא הוי גט – And we cannot answer that there it is not on account of יש אונס בגיטין that the גמרא rules that it is not a גט (as the ר״י would have us understand) –

אלא משום דבין אם מתי מחולי זה בין אם לא אעמוד משמע שימות מחמת זה החולי⁵ – But rather the reason why it is not a גט is because that whether he said אם מתי מחולי זה or whether he said אם לא אעמוד from this sickness, either way his intent was that the גט should be effective only if he dies because of this sickness -

וכשנפל עליו הבית או נשכו נחש אינו גט דאין זה מחולי זה – However when the house collapsed on him or a snake bit him, it is not a גט, because this is not considered that he died from this sickness; but it has nothing to do with יש אונס or אין אונס, thus resolving the sר״י׳ difficulty –

תוספות rejects this response: דהא מוכח בהדיא התם דמטעם דיש אונס הוא – For it is explicitly evident there that the reason it is not a גט is because יש אונס בגיטין (and not because the תנאי was not fulfilled), תוספות clarifies; for –

גבי ההוא גברא דזבין ארעא לחבריה וקביל⁶ עליה כל אונסא דאיתיליד בה כולי⁷ – Regarding that person who sold land to his friend and the seller accepted upon himself to be responsible for any misfortune that will develop, etc.

אמר רבא אונס דלא שכיח הוא ומייתי רבא סייעתא מהא דאכלו ארי אינו גט⁸ – רבא ruled that this is an uncommon אונס (the seller cannot be held responsible), and רבא brought proof that one is not responsible for אונס דלא שכיח, from the previously mentioned case where the lion ate him, where the ruling is that it is not a גט. תוספות refuted this alternate explanation and now תוספות reiterates his original question -

אלמא אונס דלא שכיח יש טענת אונס לרבא⁹ – It is evident that according to רבא there is טענת אונס by an אונס דלא שכיח –

והכא קאמר רבא גופיה בלישנא קמא שהוא עיקר – And here the very same רבא maintains in the ל״ק, which is the accepted version –

דאין אונס אפילו באונס דלא שכיח כדמוכח הסוגיא¹⁰ – That אין אונס even by an אונס דלא שכיח as is evident in the גמרא.

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו יצחק דג׳ ענייני אונס הן¹¹ – And the ר״י said that there are three types of אונס –

דאונס דלא שכיח כלל כההיא דמי שאחזו¹² אפילו ללישנא קמא דרבא דהכא יש אונס – That by an אונס which is altogether uncommon like the אונס in פרק מי שאחזו, even according to the ל״ק of רבא here (who maintains אין אונס), we say יש אונס –

דלא שייך התם לתקן משום צנועות ומשום פרוצות¹³ – For it is not applicable to enact in such a case**** a ruling of אין אונס because of the צנועות and because of the פרוצות; and תוספות explains –

דלעולם לא סברי צנועות דנפל עליו הבית או שהכישו נחש כיון דלא שכיח כלל¹⁴ – For the צנועות will never imagine that the house collapsed on him or that a snake bit him, since it is לא שכיח כלל –

ומשום פרוצות נמי ליכא למיחש כיון דלא שכיח שיעשה¹⁵ כן¹⁶ – And there is also no concern for the פרוצות, since it is not common that this should happen. This is one type of אונס (which is לא שכיח כלל) where the rule is יש אונס.

ואונס דשכיח כגון ההיא דפסקיה מברא אפילו לאיכא דאמרי אין אונס דאיבעי ליה לאתנויי – And by a common אונס, for instance by the person where the river prevented him from coming, even according to the א״ד (who maintain יש אונס בגיטין) the ruling would be אין אונס, for he should have stipulated that in case I do not come because of פסקא מברא (or something similar and common) it should not be a גט.

אבל אונס דשכיח ולא שכיח בהא פליגי תרי לישני דרבא¹⁷ – However by an אונס which is somewhat common but not very common (the third type of אונס), that is where the two versions of רבא argue whether יש אונס or אין אונס –

והלכתא כלישנא קמא דרבא כדפירשנו: And the ruling is like the ל״ק דרבא as we explained previously that אין אונס בגיטין.

SUMMARY By an אונס דלא שכיח כלל all agree that יש אונס, by a common אונס all agree that אין אונס, by a not so common אונס there is the dispute between the two versions of רבא.

THINKING IT OVER It appears from תוספות that the question from מי שאחזו is (only) if we maintain that the הלכה is אין אונס בגיטין.¹⁸ However, even if we do not rule אין אונס בגיטין, there is nevertheless a contradiction between the ל״ק of רבא which maintains אין אונס בגיטין and the גמרא in מי שאחזו where רבא maintains יש אונס בגיטין!¹⁹

footnotes: ¹ He wrote a גט to his ארוסה stating that if I will not make the נשואין within thirty days, this גט should become effective. He did not make the נישואין within the allotted time, but wanted to invalidate the גט claiming that he did whatever he could to make the נישואין, but was not able. The גמרא ruled that it is a valid גט for אין אונס בגיטין. ² See ‘Thinking it over’. ³ One may think that if he said אם לא אעמוד מחולי זה and אכלו ארי the תנאי was fulfilled (and if אין אונס בגיטין it would be a valid גט), however if he said אם מתי מחולי זה and אכלו ארי, the תנאי was not fulfilled (since he did not die מחולי זה), and it would not be a גט (even if אין אונס בגיטין), nonetheless the גמרא maintains that in either case it is not a גט because (as תוספות understands [now]) יש אונס בגיטין, but not because the תנאי was not fulfilled (for [even] אם מתי מחולי זה, can be interpreted to mean that I will die before I recover from this sickness and indeed he did). ⁴ If we maintain אין אונס בגיטין then the גט should be valid since he never recovered from the sickness. However if יש אונס בגיטין it is understood why it is not a גט, for his lack of recovery was due to an אונס. ⁵ According to this understanding (of the ליכא למימר), even לא אעמוד מחולי זה means that I will not recover, but I will die from this sickness, which did not happen when אכלו ארי, and therefore the תנאי was not fulfilled and the גט is invalid, but not because of יש אונס בגיטין. [See footnote # 3.] ⁶ The seller guaranteed the field and that no matter what will happen the seller will make the sale good to the buyer. ⁷ The king then ordered that the river be diverted and be made to flow in this land which was sold. The buyer whose field was ruined wanted compensation from the seller who accepted responsibility for כל אונסא דאיתיליד בה. ⁸ This proves that the reason it is not a גט (when he said אם מתי מחולי זה or אם לא אעמוד מחולי זה and אכלו ארי) is not because the תנאי was not fulfilled (for if this is the reason how can רבא derive from this that one is פטור for אונס דלא שכיח) but rather it is not a גט (even though the תנאי was fulfilled) because יש אונס בגיטין. ⁹ We see it from the way רבא derived from אכלו ארי that יש אונס and applied it to the case of the field that יש טענת אונס. ¹⁰ The גמרא replies (on the proof from פסקא מברא, which indicates that אין אונס בגיטין) that אונס דשכיח שאני, and by such an אונס even if we maintain יש אונס בגיטין, however there is no אונס by an אונס דשכיח. This proves that when רבא ruled אין אונס בגיטין it was by an אונס דלא שכיח. ¹¹ In the question תוספות assumed that there are two types of אונס an אונס דשכיח (where all agree אין אונס בגיטין) and an אונס דלא שכיח (where there is the dispute between the two לשונות of רבא and) therefore there is the abovementioned contradiction between רבא here and רבא in מי שאחזו. The answer is that there are three types of אונס. ¹² Being devoured by a lion or having the river diverted into your field is an אונס דלא שכיח כלל. ¹³ The ל״ק here maintains that even though יש אונס בגיטין, nevertheless we rule אין אונס (and the גט is valid) because if we would rule יש אונס the צנעות will never remarry because they are concerned that perhaps the תנאי was fulfilled (the husband did not return) only because of an אונס (so the גט is invalid). The opposite is true of the פרוצות that even if there was an אונס (unbeknown to us), and the גט is invalid, they will (falsely) argue that there was no אונס and they are permitted to remarry. Therefore the חכמים enacted that אין אונס and if the תנאי was fulfilled (regardless of the circumstances; אונס or no אונס) the גט is valid, so the צנועות need not be concerned and the פרוצות are remarrying legally. However if there was a verified אונס דלא שכיח כלל, the גט will be invalid. See footnote # 14. ¹⁴ Even if we rule that by an אונס דלא שכיח כלל it is not a גט, there is no concern that the צנועות will not remarry (when the תנאי was fulfilled) out of concern that perhaps an אונס דלא שכיח כלל caused the husband to fulfill the תנאי (and therefore it is not a גט), because since it is לא שכיח כלל they will never assume it. See footnote # 13. ¹⁵ This should be (seemingly) read: היו״ד צרויה והעין קמוצה; meaning, ‘that it should happen’. ¹⁶ There is also no concern that since we say that by an אונס דלא שכיח כלל it is not a גט, there is the possibility that there was an אונס דלא שכיח כלל (and the גט is not effective) but the פרוצות will claim that it was not an אונס דלא שכיח כלל and remarry, for since it is לא שכיח כלל we cannot make a גזירה by something which is לא שכיח כלל. ¹⁷ Therefore there is no contradiction, for the גמרא in מי שאחזו, which rules יש אונס is discussing an אונס דלא שכיח כלל, however our גמרא, where רבא rules (according to the ל״ק) that אין אונס בגיטין, is discussing an אונס which is שכיח ולא שכיח. ¹⁸ See footnote # 2. ¹⁹ See תוה״ר and מהר״ם שי״ף.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

שבתי דינין קבועים בכל יום — Where the courts of law are in session every day

OVERVIEW רב שמואל בר יצחק taught that the rule of בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳ is effective from the time of תקנת עזרא onward since the בי״ד are in session only on Mondays and Thursdays; however before תקנת עזרא, when the בי״ד was in session every day, a בתולה may be married any day. It seems that עזרא instituted that the בי״ד should not be in session that often. תוספות clarifies what תקנת עזרא accomplished. -------------------------------–

תוספות asks: ואם תאמר וכי תיקן עזרא שלא יהו בתי דינין קבועים בכל יום אלא בב׳ ובה׳ בלבד¹ – And if you will say; and did עזרא indeed institute that the בתי דינין should not be in session every day, but only on ב׳ וה׳?!

תוספות has an additional difficulty: ועוד קשה דאמרינן בשבת (דף קכט,ב ושם) מי שיש לו זכות אבות יקיז² בב׳ ובה׳³ – And there is an additional difficulty; for the גמרא states in מסכת שבת, only ‘he who has the merit of his ancestors should have bloodletting on ב׳ וה׳’, but not anyone else –

וכי קודם תקנת עזרא לא היו מקיזין כל עיקר⁴ – Is it indeed so that before this תקנת עזרא they were not מקיז דם at all?!

תוספות answers: ואומר רבינו תם דקודם תקנת עזרא לא היו קבועים בכל יום – And the ר״ת answers; that before תק״ע the בי״ד was not in session every day –

אלא כשהיו צריכין לשום דין היו יושבין בכל יום ויום⁵ – But rather whenever a ruling was necessary the בי״ד would convene on whichever day it was; there was no set day when בי״ד was in session –

ועזרא תיקן⁶ שיהיו קבועין בב׳ ובה׳ וכל הרוצה לדון יבא וידון – And עזרא instituted that בי״ד should convene on every ב׳ וה׳ (regardless if there was anything pending) and whoever wanted a ruling can come and be judged –

והיו יכולין להקיז בכל יום קודם תקנת עזרא כיון שלא היו קבועים – And so therefore before תק״ע they could be מקיז דם every day, since בי״ד was not scheduled to convene (it was not such a severe יום הדין and it would not pose a danger).

תוספות offers an alternate answer: ורבינו יצחק תירץ שלא היו קבועים תחלה אלא בעיר אחת ועזרא תיקן בכל עיר ועיר בב׳ ובה׳: And the ר״י answered that initially before תק״ע the בי״ד would not convene everywhere, but rather only in one major city (every day⁷),⁸ and עזרא instituted that the בי״ד should convene in every city on ב׳ וה׳.

SUMMARY Before תקנת עזרא the בי״ד would either meet (any day) when the need arose, or they would only meet in one city, but not in all cities as it was after תק״ע.

THINKING IT OVER According to the ר״י did the תק״ע change anything in the city where בי״ד would convene every day?⁹ If עזרא did change it to ב׳ וה׳, the question remains why would עזרא change it, and if not, then a בתולה should be able to marry there every day?!¹⁰

footnotes: ¹ If the prevailing custom was that בי״ד was in session every day, why would עזרא enact that they should only be in session on Mondays and Thursdays?! ² One of the medical procedures (in those days) was bloodletting. ³ The גמרא there says because on ב׳ וה׳ the בי״ד שלמעלה ושלמטה are in session (the בי״ד שלמעלה is always in session) and since it is a יום דין his עבירות are remembered (see רש״י there ד״ה שב״ד), and unless he has זכות אבות it is dangerous for him to be מקיז דם. ⁴ Before תק״ע the בי״ד (שלמטה) was in session every day (as was the בי״ד שלמעלה [see footnote # 3]), so every day if one did not have זכות אבות he would not be מקיז דם. This seems very strange. ⁵ It will be necessary to say that when the גמרא writes שבתי דינין קבועין בכל יום it means they would convene any day if necessary, but they were not scheduled to convene every day ⁶ Since the בי״ד had no schedule it took time to convene the בי״ד, and it was a bother (for the בעלי דין), however with the תק״ע, the בי״ד was already in session and no time was wasted. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁸ There was therefore no danger to be מקיז דם since בי״ד was not convened in every city; only in select larger cities. ⁹ See footnote # 7. ¹⁰ See שטמ״ק.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אשה נשאת בכל יום — A woman can be married on every day

OVERVIEW The גמרא said that before תקנת עזרא (when בי״ד was קבועים בכל יום) a בתולה can get married on any day. תוספות explains why she is not like the אלמנה (where there are no issues of טענת בתולים), who is to be married on Thursday. -------------------–

תוספות asks: קשה לרבינו שמשון בן אברהם אמאי נשאת בכל יום – The רשב״א has a difficulty; why should a בתולה get married on any day –

תהא כאלמנה¹ ותינשא בה׳ ותיבעל בששי לפי שנאמר בו ברכה לאדם² – Let her be like an אלמנה and get married on ה׳ and be נבעלה on Friday, since the blessing to אדם was said on Friday?

תוספות answers: ויש לומר דמשום ברכה לא היו קובעים יום כדפרישית לעיל³ – And one can say; that the חכמים would not establish a day to get married because of ברכה alone, as I explained previously –

ובאלמנה נמי⁴ לא קבעו שתיבעל בששי משום ברכה גרידא – And even by אלמנה they did not establish that תבעל on ששי because of ברכה alone –

אלא משום שקדו⁵ שיהא שמח עמה ג׳ ימים כדאמר לקמן⁶ (דף ה,א) – But rather the reason an אלמנה is married בה׳ וו׳ is because the חכמים persevered that the husband rejoice with his wife for three days, as the גמרא states later –

ובתולה דלא שייך ההוא טעמא דליכא למימר משכים לאומנתו והולך לו – However regarding a בתולה where that reason (of שיהא שמח עמה ג׳ ימים) is not applicable, for we cannot be concerned that he will arise to his trade and be on his way, as we are concerned by an אלמנה**;** the reason this is of no concern by a בתולה is –

לפי שיש בה שבעת ימי המשתה⁷ – Because there is the obligatory seven days of feasting for a בתולה –

הלכך משום ברכה גרידא לא היו קובעים יום: Therefore on account of ברכה alone the חכמים would not establish a day on which they should marry.

SUMMARY ברכה is not a sufficient reason to establish a day for marriage (as opposed to שקדו, which is a valid reason).

THINKING IT OVER

1. תוספות writes that the חכמים were not מתקן that an אלמנה should be married ביום ה׳ וו׳ because of ברכה alone but rather because of שקדו as well.⁸ However from the גמרא later (ה,א) it appears that there are two separate reasons why she marries on יום ה׳ וו׳; one because of the ברכה לאדם (עדיפא), and another reason is because of שקדו. How will תוספות answer according to the first explanation (which seemingly does not require שקדו)?!⁹
2. תוספות explains that the concern of משכים לאומנתו והולך לו is applicable only by an אלמנה but not by a בתולה, since there is שבעת ימי המשתה by a בתולה.¹⁰ However the גמרא later (ז,א) states that that by an אלמנה there is (also) שלשה לשמחה, so why are we concerned that משכים לאומנתו והולך לו by an אלמנה and not by a בתולה?!¹¹

footnotes: ¹ Just as by an אלמנה (where there are no issues of טענת בתולים, nevertheless) she is married on ה׳ וו׳ because of the ברכה לאדם, similarly a בתולה, in a case where there is no concern of טענת בתולים (since בי״ד is קבועים בכל יום), should also be married on ה׳ וו׳. ² See the גמרא later on ה,א. On Friday ה׳ blessed אדם (וחוה) with the blessing of פרו ורבו (therefore it is appropriate that the בעילת מצוה take place on [ליל] ו׳). ³ See תוס׳ ב,א ד״ה ותנשא (where תוספות explained that the reason of ברכה is merely sound advice, but does not obligate them to the extent that if they do not marry on that day they are considered transgressing the words of the חכמים). [The רשב״א, however may have assumed that since ברכה דאדם עדיפא than ברכה לדגים, it is sufficient to be קובע a day for marriage.] ⁴ The ׳נמי׳ may mean that even though the גמרא cites the reason of ברכה as the cause why an אלמנה is נבעלה בו׳, nevertheless it is not because of ברכה alone, but in conjunction with שקדו. ⁵ See footnote # 3 that the enactment of שקדו is sufficient to consider them transgressors if they do not marry then. ⁶ The חכמים were concerned by an אלמנה that if they were married on any other day of the week he will leave the next day to work and will not spend time with his new wife. Therefore they instituted that he should marry on Thursday (one day) and will be with her on Friday (because of חיבת ביאה [see רש״י there ד״ה וששי]) and שבת (for a total of three days). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1. ⁷ See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2. ⁸ See footnote # 6. ⁹ See תוס׳ ה,א (סוף) ד״ה מאי. ¹⁰ See footnote # 7. ¹¹ See ריטב״א on ה,א בד״ה (שם) למחר and סוכ״ד אות כה.

Tanslation by Rabbi Ephraim Piekarski

אי איכא בתי דינין כולי — If there are courts of law, etc.

OVERVIEW The גמרא explained that if nowadays there are places where the courts convene every day, a בתולה may get married on any day. תוספות qualifies this ruling and discusses whether one may marry on a Friday. -----------------------–

נראה לרבינו יצחק דמכל מקום אין נשאת בששי¹ דהא אין דנין בשבת² – It is the view of the ר״י that notwithstanding this which the גמרא states that she can marry on any day, she cannot be married on a Friday, for we do not judge on שבת; the בי״ד does not convene on שבת, and he will not be able to present his טענת בתולים to בי״ד on שבת.

תוספות notes an exception to the previous ruling: ועתה נוהגין לישא אף בששי משום דאין בית דין קבועין – And nowadays it is customary to marry even on Friday, since there are no בי״ד קבועין at all (even on Mondays and Thursdays) –

ואם יש לו טענת בתולין יכול לקבול בשבת בפני שלשה³ כמו בשאר ימות השבוע⁴ – So if he has טענת בתולים he can complain on שבת in the presence of three people, just as he would do in the other days of the week.

תוספות offers an alternate reason why nowadays we may marry on Friday: ועוד לפירוש הקונטרס⁵ דוקא בימיהם קבעו יום הנישואין – And additionally, according to פרש״י it was only in those days (of the תלמוד) that they established a wedding day for all בתולות on יום ד׳ –

משום שעל ידי כך יתברר הדבר ויבואו עדים מתוך שמתאספים העם לבית דין⁶ – Because through his coming to בי״ד, the issue will be clarified, for witnesses may come, since the people gather in the בי״ד –

ואין שייך לומר עכשיו כך: But this is not applicable today; for there is no בי״ד קבוע where people gather, so even if he complains it will not cause that יתברר הדבר. Therefore there is no difference when he marries.

SUMMARY Even when בי״ד קבועין every day he cannot marry on Friday since there is no בי״ד on שבת. Nowadays we marry on Friday because there is never a בי״ד קבוע, or because there is no purpose to go before בי״ד (according to רש״י).

THINKING IT OVER תוספות writes that nowadays he can present his טענת בתולים in front of three people.⁷ Why then was a תקנה made at all to marry ביום ד׳, let them marry whenever they want and if he has טענת בתולים he will present it before three people?!⁸

footnotes: ¹ One may certainly not marry on שבת for it appears is if he is making a קנין בשבת, which is prohibited. ² See the משנה in ביצה לו,ב. The reason (on לז,א) is because of a גזירה that they may write on שבת. ³ It will not be considered that they are דנין בשבת. ⁴ See ‘Thinking it over’. ⁵ ב,א במתני׳ ד״ה בשני. However, תוס׳ there בד״ה שאם disagrees with רש״י, that there is no need for יתברר הדבר. ⁶ When he comes to בי״ד to claim his טענת בתולים there will be many people there who will hear about it and witnesses may surface who will testify whether she was מזנה תחתיו (ברצון) and is אסורה to him. ⁷ See footnote # 4. ⁸ See אילת אהבים on the previous תוס׳ ד״ה אשה and פרדס יצחק אות צא.