The אירוסין (or betrothal) was the first step in the marriage process (somewhat similar to our ‘engagement’), and even though she is considered a married woman (regarding adultery, etc.; unlike our ‘engagement’), nevertheless the couple lived apart until the נישואין.
מברכין אותה מפני שמתייחד עמה — רבי יהודה said, we also make this blessing in the house of betrothal, since he is secluded with her
OVERVIEW
ר״י said that we make ברכת חתנים (even) in the בית האירוסין, and אביי explained that ר״י was discussing (the area of) יהודה where it was customary for the חתן וכלה to be secluded even before the נישואין. Our תוספות clarifies what is the connection of מפני שמתייחד עמה to the need for ברכת חתנים בבית אירוסין.
--------------------------–
ואמרינן2
In the beginning of מס׳ כלה (see previous תוס׳ ד״ה שנאמר [TIE footnote # 3]).
כלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה כנדה –
And we say that a כלה without a ברכה is forbidden to her husband as a נדה –
ולפי שפעמים בא עליה3
We are discussing יהודה where they are secluded before נישואין therefore there is the concern that בא עליה.
שלא לשם חופה4
[See רש״ש who deletes the words שלא לשם חופה.] See אילת אהבים who explains that according to תוספות only an ארוסה is אסורה לבעלה without a ברכה, however a נשואה is permitted לבעלה even without a ברכה. A חופה infers נישואין. If he is בא עליה for the sake of חופה (for the sake of נישואין), she becomes a נשואה and is מותרת without the ברכה, however the concern is that he may be בא עליה not לשם חופה, in which case she remains an ארוסה who is אסורה לבעלה without a ברכה. Therefore we make the ברכה בבית האירוסין so in case he is בא עליה לא לשם חופה (and she remains an ארוסה), nevertheless she is not אסורה לו since the ברכה was made. See ‘Thinking it over’.
עושין ברכה מתחלה כדי שתהא כלה בברכה:
And since occasionally he is with her not for the sake of חופה, therefore we initially make the ברכה in order she should be a כלה with a ברכה.
SUMMARY
In יהודה we make the ברכה so in case he is בא עליה not לשם חופה she will not be אסורה לו.
THINKING IT OVER
If we assume that a נשואה does not require a ברכה,5
See footnote # 4.
why is it that we make ברכת נישואין by the חופה?
OVERVIEW
אביי (in his attempt to prove the ruling of ר״א that האומר פ״פ מצאתי נאמן לאוסרה עליו) assumed that the טענת בתולים in our משנה is טענת פ״פ (and not טענת דמים).1
See ‘Thinking it over’.
Our תוספות explains what led אביי to this assumption
-------------------------–
נראה לפרש2
See ‘Overview’.
דקא סלקא דעתין דבטענת דמים3
טענת דמים (a claim of blood) means that there was no דם בתולים by the initial ביאה, which (seemingly) proves that she is not a בתולה (as opposed to טענת פ״פ, in which he claims [without proof] that no membrane was broken).
ליכא למיחש לאיקרורי דעתא –
The explanation seems to be, that we assume that by טענת דמים there is no concern that his mind will be calmed and he will not come to בי״ד if there is a delay –
דכיון דליכא דם4
The lack of דם is the most accurate way to substantiate that she is not a בתולה. There is no doubt in his mind.
לבו נוקפו ואין מתקרר5
He will come to בי״ד even after a delay of a few days; since he is certain she is not a בתולה, she may be אסורה עליו if she was מזנה (ברצון). Therefore there is no need to institute בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳, for no matter when he marries if he has טענת דמים he will certainly come to בי״ד eventually.
אבל בפתח פתוח6
This is not so definite a proof since he may be אינו בקי; therefore if there is any delay there is the possibility that he will not come to בי״ד. It was only for טענת פ״פ, that the חכמים instituted that בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳.
איכא למיחש שמא יתקרר:
For since there was no blood, his ‘heart pounds’ with concern and he will not cool down; however by a claim of פ״פ there is concern that he will cool off (and not come to בי״ד). Therefore they were מתקן בתולה נשאת ליום ד׳ for טענת פ״פ only, to make sure that he comes immediately before he calms down.
SUMMARY
In the הו״א we assumed that there would seemingly be no need to be concerned for אקרורי דעתא by טענת דמים, only by טענת פ״פ.
THINKING IT OVER
Why was it necessary for תוספות to explain the הו״א that the משנה is discussing טענת פ״פ (only); perhaps the גמרא meant we are discussing all טענות including פ״פ (which would still prove that by טענת פ״פ he is נאמן לאוסרה עליו)?7
See מהרש״א הארוך (and also how תוספות will explain the מאי לאו דקא טעין טענת פ״פ of רב יוסף later on this עמוד)
מאי לאו דקא טעין טענת פתח פתוח — Is it not so; that he alleged the claim of פתח פתוח
OVERVIEW
רב יוסף attempted to show that the משנה of האוכל אצל חמיו וכו׳ teaches us that the husband is believed להפסידה כתובתה with טענת פ״פ. Our תוספות discusses why he is not believed in יהודה as well.
----------------------------–
וביהודה אף על גב דאיכא חזקה1
The reason why a person is believed with טענת בתולים להפסידה בכתובתה is because (as the גמרא explains on י,א) אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה – a person does not toil to prepare a meal and then destroy it. See רש״י there ד״ה חזקה that he must be telling the truth, for if we assume that he is lying because he does not like his wife, why go to the bother of making a wedding feast and then losing your wife; it would be easier for him to divorce her while she is still an ארוסה (where she does not receive a כתובה).
לא מהימן כדפירש בקונטרס –
And regarding יהודה, he is not believed להפסידה כתובתה, even though there too there is the חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה,2
Why therefore is he not believed even in יהודה, since the same חזקה applies there?!
nevertheless he is not believed as רש״י explained3
ד״ה מאי, where רש״י states he is not believed for perhaps he was בועל while she was an ארוסה and he forgot. עיי״ש. According to this explanation (as opposed to the א״נ of תוספות) there is [merely] a concern that he was בא עליה.
–
תוספות offers an alternate explanation:
אי נמי כיון דמתייחד עמה ודאי בא עליה דלא מוקי איניש אנפשיה4
According to this explanation it is certain that בא עליה and not merely a concern as it is according to פרש״י (see footnote # 3). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.
–
Or you may also say; since he is secluded with her, he certainly had relations since a person cannot contain himself in such a situation.
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
ואף על גב דגבי יבמה אמרינן (יבמות דף קיא,ב) דעד ל׳ יום מוקי אנפשיה5
The משנה there states that if a יבמה claims within thirty days of יבום that the יבם was not בא עליה (and he gave her a גט), we force him to give חליצה (we believe her that he was not בא עליה and therefore she is still זקוקה ליבום and requires חליצה). However if she claimed after thirty days that he was (still) not בא עליה (and he claims he was בא עליה and he gave her a גט) then we ask him (but we do not force him) to give חליצה (since according to her claim she still requires חליצה), because we believe him and not her. The גמרא explains that we believe him that בא עליה because עד ל׳ יום מוקי אנפשיה, but no longer, so the יבם was certainly בא עליה.
–
And even though that regarding a יבמה, the גמרא states, ‘one can control himself up to thirty days’, and here we assume that he cannot control himself at all –
תוספות responds that nevertheless –
רוב פעמים לא מוקי אנפשיה אפילו שעה אחת דעל דעת כן מתייחד [עמה] ואיתרע חזקה:
Most times he cannot control himself even for one hour, 6
It is possible that מוקי אנפשיה up to thirty days, but not probable; especially in this case that ע״ד כן מתייחד עמה. See ‘Thinking it over’# 2.
for it is with this intent that he secludes himself [with her], and therefore the חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה is flawed.7
The חזקה tells us that he is telling the truth regarding his טענת בתולים; in this case that he was not בא עליה during אירוסין; however the fact that he was מתייחד עמה tells us that it is most likely that he was בא עליה and contradicts the חזקה.
SUMMARY
The חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה is weakened in יהודה either because we suspect that he was בא עליה or we are certain that he was בא עליה.
THINKING IT OVER
1. Is there any difference whether we assume פרש״י that perhaps he was בועל and forgot,8
See footnote # 4.
or whether we assume פי׳ התוס׳ that he was ודאי בעל?9
See חדושי בתרא אות צ״ה.
2. תוספות when differentiating between יבמה and יהודה writes רוב פעמים לא מוקי אנפשיה אפילו שעה אחת דעל דעת כן מתייחד [עמה].10
See footnote # 6.
Is תוספות offering two differences (a. that רוב פעמים לא מוקי אנפשיה and b. that דעל דעת כן מתייחד עמה)11
If it is two differences what is the meaning that by יהודה it is דעל דעת כן מתייחד עמה, seemingly by a יבמה when he is כונס אותה it is also ע״ד כן?!
or merely one12
If there is only one difference why the need to write both the רוב and the ע״ד כן?
difference?13
See אילת אהבים.
OVERVIEW
רב יוסף attempted to show that the משנה of האוכל אצל חמיו וכו׳ teaches us that the husband is believed להפסידה כתובתה with טענת פ״פ. Our תוספות discusses why he is not believed in יהודה as well.
----------------------------–
וביהודה אף על גב דאיכא חזקה1
The reason why a person is believed with טענת בתולים להפסידה בכתובתה is because (as the גמרא explains on י,א) אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה – a person does not toil to prepare a meal and then destroy it. See רש״י there ד״ה חזקה that he must be telling the truth, for if we assume that he is lying because he does not like his wife, why go to the bother of making a wedding feast and then losing your wife; it would be easier for him to divorce her while she is still an ארוסה (where she does not receive a כתובה).
לא מהימן כדפירש בקונטרס –
And regarding יהודה, he is not believed להפסידה כתובתה, even though there too there is the חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה,2
Why therefore is he not believed even in יהודה, since the same חזקה applies there?!
nevertheless he is not believed as רש״י explained3
ד״ה מאי, where רש״י states he is not believed for perhaps he was בועל while she was an ארוסה and he forgot. עיי״ש. According to this explanation (as opposed to the א״נ of תוספות) there is [merely] a concern that he was בא עליה.
–
תוספות offers an alternate explanation:
אי נמי כיון דמתייחד עמה ודאי בא עליה דלא מוקי איניש אנפשיה4
According to this explanation it is certain that בא עליה and not merely a concern as it is according to פרש״י (see footnote # 3). See ‘Thinking it over’ # 1.
–
Or you may also say; since he is secluded with her, he certainly had relations since a person cannot contain himself in such a situation.
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
ואף על גב דגבי יבמה אמרינן (יבמות דף קיא,ב) דעד ל׳ יום מוקי אנפשיה5
The משנה there states that if a יבמה claims within thirty days of יבום that the יבם was not בא עליה (and he gave her a גט), we force him to give חליצה (we believe her that he was not בא עליה and therefore she is still זקוקה ליבום and requires חליצה). However if she claimed after thirty days that he was (still) not בא עליה (and he claims he was בא עליה and he gave her a גט) then we ask him (but we do not force him) to give חליצה (since according to her claim she still requires חליצה), because we believe him and not her. The גמרא explains that we believe him that בא עליה because עד ל׳ יום מוקי אנפשיה, but no longer, so the יבם was certainly בא עליה.
–
And even though that regarding a יבמה, the גמרא states, ‘one can control himself up to thirty days’, and here we assume that he cannot control himself at all –
תוספות responds that nevertheless –
רוב פעמים לא מוקי אנפשיה אפילו שעה אחת דעל דעת כן מתייחד [עמה] ואיתרע חזקה:
Most times he cannot control himself even for one hour, 6
It is possible that מוקי אנפשיה up to thirty days, but not probable; especially in this case that ע״ד כן מתייחד עמה. See ‘Thinking it over’# 2.
for it is with this intent that he secludes himself [with her], and therefore the חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה is flawed.7
The חזקה tells us that he is telling the truth regarding his טענת בתולים; in this case that he was not בא עליה during אירוסין; however the fact that he was מתייחד עמה tells us that it is most likely that he was בא עליה and contradicts the חזקה.
SUMMARY
The חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה is weakened in יהודה either because we suspect that he was בא עליה or we are certain that he was בא עליה.
THINKING IT OVER
1. Is there any difference whether we assume פרש״י that perhaps he was בועל and forgot,8
See footnote # 4.
or whether we assume פי׳ התוס׳ that he was ודאי בעל?9
See חדושי בתרא אות צ״ה.
2. תוספות when differentiating between יבמה and יהודה writes רוב פעמים לא מוקי אנפשיה אפילו שעה אחת דעל דעת כן מתייחד [עמה].10
See footnote # 6.
Is תוספות offering two differences (a. that רוב פעמים לא מוקי אנפשיה and b. that דעל דעת כן מתייחד עמה)11
If it is two differences what is the meaning that by יהודה it is דעל דעת כן מתייחד עמה, seemingly by a יבמה when he is כונס אותה it is also ע״ד כן?!
or merely one12
If there is only one difference why the need to write both the רוב and the ע״ד כן?
difference?13
See אילת אהבים.
לא דקא טעין טענת דמים — No; for he alleges a claim of blood
OVERVIEW
The גמרא concludes that we cannot prove from the משנה that the husband is believed להפסידה כתובתה with טענת פ״פ; but rather he can be מפסיד her כתובה only with טענת דמים. Our תוספות discusses the difference between טענת פ״פ and טענת דמים, and what the woman’s claim is and why we do not believe her.
-----------------------–
תוספות explains the reason טענת דמים is effective (as opposed to טענת פ״פ) –
דהויא טענה ברורה מדאין סדינין מלוכלכים בדם1
Every בתולה (except for certain exceptions [mentioned on דף י׳]) bleeds after the first ביאה. The טענת דמים is effective when it was verified that there is no דם בתולים. Perhaps תוספות is negating פרש״י בד״ה לא that there were עדים who verified it; according to תוספות the lack of סדינים מלוכלכים is sufficient to verify his claim.
–
Because it is a convincing claim, since the sheets are not stained with blood, this proves unequivocally that she is not a בתולה. However, regarding פ״פ we do not know that it is so (perhaps he is lying), and in addition he may not be a בקי.
תוספות discusses what does the woman say when the husband claims טענת בתולים:2
There is a משנה later on יב,ב that if the husband claims טענת בתולים and she claims משארסתני נאנסתי, she is believed (according to ר״ג), so how can the גמרא rule here that (by טענת דמים) he is believed.
ונראה דבטענת פתח פתוח וטענת דמים דשמעתין איירי –
And it is the view of תוספות that regarding טענת פ״פ and טענת דמים of our סוגיא, we are discussing a case –
שהיא טוענת שהוא בא עליה באירוסין3
This can apply to either טענת פ״פ or טענת דמים. She is owed the כתובה since he was בא עליה.
או אומרת בתולה הייתי4
This would seemingly apply only by טענת פ״פ (but not by טענת דמים, since there is incontrovertible evidence that she is not a בתולה). [See ‘Thinking it over’ # 2.]
–
Where she either claims that her husband was בא עליה when she was his ארוסה, or she maintains that I was a בתולה, by the first ביאה and the husband is either making a mistake or lying. However if she would claim משארסתני נאנסתי she would be believed.
תוספות asks:
ואם תאמר ונהימנא לדידה במגו דאי בעיא אמרה משארסתני נאנסתי –
And if you will say; and let us believe her (either that בא עליה באירוסין or בתולה הייתי) with a מגו that she could have said, ‘I was forced after the קדושין’, in which case had she claimed משארסתני נאנסתי the ruling would be –
דנאמנת לרבן גמליאל דפסקינן לקמן (דף יג,א) כוותיה –
That she is believed according to ר״ג, and we rule according to ר״ג as רב יהודה אמר שמואל states later. 5
There is a dispute in this case where she counterclaims his טענת בתולים with משארסתני נאנסתי, where ר׳ יהושע does not believe her and ר״ג and ר׳ אליעזר do believe her. רב יהודה אמר שמואל stated הלכה כר״ג. The same שמואל rules here that טענת פ״פ is believed להפסידה כתובתה!
Let us therefore believe her current claim with this מגו that she could have claimed משארסתני נאנסתי where she would be believed.
תוספות answers:
ויש לומר דאינה מודה ברצון שנבעלה מאחר6
A מגו is effective if one can claim the מגו claim with the same ease as one claims the actual claim. In that case we say he is certainly telling the truth, for he could have just as easily said the מגו claim and be vindicated. However if it is more difficult to claim the מגו claim; the מגו is ineffective. We say that indeed he may be lying; the reason he did not make the vindicating מגו claim is because it has certain drawbacks (it is embarrassing, etc.). Here too it is easier for her to claim the actual claim of בתולה הייתי or בא עלי באירוסין (which is not that embarrassing) than to admit that she was forced upon by a stranger (where she may be [also] concerned that her husband would despise her).
–
And one can say that she will not willingly admit that someone had relations with her.
תוספות offers an additional explanation why there is no מגו here:
ועוד דאין זה מגו7
See previous footnote # 6. See ‘Thinking it over’ #1.
דמיפסלא נפשה מכהונה8
The rule is that any woman that had a forbidden ביאה is considered a זונה and is therefore forbidden from marrying a כהן. If she would claim משארסתני נאנסתי she is admitting to have had a ביאה אסורה (since she is an אשת איש), and therefore she would never claim it, in order not to disqualify herself מכהונה (in case her current husband dies).
–
And furthermore she is not believed, because this is not a מגו, since she invalidates herself from marrying into כהונה, by claiming משארסתני נאנסתי.
תוספות asks:
אבל קשה דליהמנה במגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת עץ9
A מוכת עץ (literally hit by wood) refers to a woman who lost her בתולים on account of a wound, but not through a relationship with a man.
אני10
The two reservations mentioned previously in תוספות regarding the מגו of משארסתני נאנסתי do not apply here; she has no difficulty in claiming מוכת עץ (as she has when claiming משארסתני נאנסתי) and she is not מיפסלה נפשה מכהונה.
–
However there is a difficulty, for let us believe her (that בא עלי באירוסין or בתולה הייתי) with a מגו for she could have claimed, ‘I am a מוכת עץ’. This is a valid מגו –
אפילו לרבנן דלקמן (דף יא,ב) דאמרי מוכת עץ כתובתה מנה דאין זה מגו –
Even according to the רבנן (who argue with ר״מ) who maintain later that the כתובה of a מוכת עץ is only a מנה, so seemingly there is no מגו of מוכת עץ –
דאינה רוצה להפסיד כלום מכתובתה11
Her current claim of בא עלי באירוסין or בתולה הייתי (if believed) gives her a כתובה of מאתיים; however the claim of מוכת עץ gives her a כתובה of only a מנה, so we cannot say that she should receive מאתיים, because she could have claimed מוכת עץ אני and received a מנה!
–
Since she does not want to lose anything from her כתובה –
מכל מקום נאמנת במגו דאי בעיא אמרה מוכת עץ אני תחתיך12
The ruling of the רבנן that a מוכת עץ receives only a מנה is valid if she was a מוכת עץ before the אירוסין. However if she became a מוכת עץ after the אירוסין, all agree that כתובתה מאתיים.
ונסתחפה שדהו13
This is a metaphor; it is as if you bought a field and it became ruined; you have no recourse, here too you married me and I became a מוכת עץ after the קידושין and you too have no recourse but to pay me the entire כתובה.
–
Nevertheless she should be believed with the מגו that she could have claimed I became a מוכת עץ while I was your ארוסה where we say that his field was ruined. The question remains why do we believe his טענת בתולים and make her lose her כתובה, let us believe her claim (of either בא עלי באירוסין or בתולה הייתי) since she has a מגו of מוכת עץ תחתיך.
תוספות answers:
לכך נראה דהוי מגו במקום חזקה14
A מגו במקום חזקה means that the actual claim (which we want to believe because of the מגו claim) contradicts the חזקה. Her claim of בא עלי באירוסין or בתולה הייתי alleges that he is lying with his טענת בתולים (for he claims she was not a בתולה and he was not בא עליה באירוסין). However the חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה tells us that he is not lying. Therefore this מגו which is seeking to support a claim which is contradicted by a חזקה is ineffective.
דאין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה15
See previous תוס׳ ד״ה מאי (הב׳) TIE footnote # 1.
–
Therefore it is the view of תוספות that this (מגו of מוכת עץ אני תחתיך [as well as the מגו of משארסתני נאנסתי]) is considered a מגו which contradicts the חזקה of אין אדם טורח בסעודה ומפסידה (a person does not toil for a meal and then ruin it).
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
אף על גב דבעיא היא בפרק קמא דבבא בתרא (דף ה,ב ושם) אי אמרינן מגו במקום חזקה או לא –
Even though that there is this query in the first פרק of מסכת ב״ב whether a מגו במקום חזקה is effective or not, 16
The גמרא there cites a חזקה that a person does not pay up his debt before the due date – אין אדם פורע תוך זמנו. Therefore if the מלוה came to collect his debt תוך זמנו and the לוה claims פרעתי, he is not believed. The question arises what is the ruling in a case where the מלוה came after the due date and the לוה claimed that he paid it before the due date, do we believe the לוה since he has a מגו that he could have said, ‘I paid you after the due date’, or we do not believed him since it is a מגו במקום חזקה; his claim of פרעתי תוך זמנו is contradicted by the חזקה of א״א פורע תו״ז.
so why do we dismiss this מגו (במקום חזקה) –
תוספות replies:
שמא חזקה דהכא עדיפא17
The presumption that א״א טורח בסעודה ומפסידה is more convincing that א״א פורע תו״ז. There is actually a מחלוקת there regarding the חזקה of א״א פורע תו״ז, where אבי ורבא disagree with this חזקה. It is ר״ל who maintains this חזקה. No one seems to disagree with the חזקה of א״א טורח בסעודה ומפסידה; indicating that it is a superior חזקה.
–
Perhaps this חזקה here is superior to the חזקה there and all would agree that it renders the מגו ineffective.
תוספות offers an alternate solution:
ואי לא אמרינן מגו להוציא אתי נמי שפיר:
And if we will maintain that a מגו להוציא is ineffective18
A מגו להוציא means that the litigant who has the מגו wants to be believed to the extent that he should be able to collect money from the other litigant. In our case the woman is the מוציא; she wants her husband to pay her the כתובה. The husband is the מוחזק. The money is in his possession. Many authorities rule that מגו להוציא לא אמרינן (see תוס׳ ב״מ ג,א ד״ה וזה), therefore even though it is a valid מגו but it does not present sufficient proof to be מוציא ממון from a מוחזק. To be מוציא ממון from a מוחזק we need unqualified proof such as עדים (or a שטר מקוים), etc.
it will also resolve this issue.
SUMMARY
טענת דמים is a convincing claim. The woman claims either בא עלי באירוסין or בתולה הייתי. There is no מגו of משארסתני נאנסתי because she is not comfortable with it or because she disqualifies herself מכהונה. Alternately this מגו as well as מוכת עץ תחתיך is ineffective either because it is a מגו במקום חזקה or it is a מגו להוציא.
THINKING IT OVER
1. תוספות gave two answers why the מגו of משארסתני נאנסתי is not an effective מגו. In the second answer (she is נפסלה מכהונה) תוספות writes דאין זה מגו;19
See footnote # 7.
however he does not write this (דאין זה מגו) regarding the first answer that אינה מודה ברצון. Explain!
2. תוספות writes that the entire סוגיא is discussing a case where she claims בא עלי באירוסין or בתולה הייתי.20
See footnote # 4.
It would seem that this also applies to the משנה of האוכל אצל חמיו ביהודה, where he has no טענת בתולים and she is believed. This is seemingly understood when she claims בא עלי באירוסין since שמתייחד עמה; however why is she believed if she claims בתולה הייתי (we cannot substantiate her claim מפני שמתייחד עמה; on the contrary it disproves her claim); why is יהודה different from גליל?!21
See the previous תוס׳ ד״ה אבל.
(א) הָאֲרוּסָה אֲסוּרָה לְבַעְלָהּ מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים כָּל זְמַן שֶׁהִיא בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ. וְהַבָּא עַל אֲרוּסָתוֹ בְּבֵית חָמִיו מַכִּין אוֹתוֹ מַכַּת מַרְדּוּת. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם קִדְּשָׁהּ בְּבִיאָה אָסוּר לוֹ לָבוֹא עָלֶיהָ בִּיאָה שְׁנִיָּה בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ עַד שֶׁיָּבִיא אוֹתָהּ לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְיִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ וְיַפְרִישֶׁנָּהּ לוֹ. וְיִחוּד זֶה הוּא הַנִּקְרָא כְּנִיסָה לַחֻפָּה וְהוּא הַנִּקְרָא נִשּׂוּאִין בְּכָל מָקוֹם. וְהַבָּא עַל אֲרוּסָתוֹ לְשֵׁם נִשּׂוּאִין אַחַר שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁהּ מִשֶּׁיְּעָרֶה בָּהּ קְנָאָהּ וְנַעֲשֵׂית נְשׂוּאָה וַהֲרֵי הִיא אִשְׁתּוֹ לְכָל דָּבָר:
(1) According to Rabbinic law, a woman who has been consecrated (i.e., an arusah) is forbidden to engage in sexual relations1Indeed, the two are forbidden to remain in privacy together. For the prohibition against yichud, being alone with a woman other than one's wife, applies until the marriage is consummated (Ramah, Even HaEzer 55:1). with her husband as long as she is living in her father's home.2This is alluded to by the wording of the blessing recited before consecrating a woman (Chapter 3, Halachah 24), which praises God "who has forbidden the arusot to us, and permitted to us those who are married by [the rites of] chuppah and kiddushin" (Kessef Mishneh). A man who has relations with his arusah in his father-in-law's home is punished with "stripes for rebelliousness."
Even when [the husband] consecrated [his arusah] by having sexual relations with her, he is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with her again until he brings her to his home, enters into privacy with her, and thus singles her out as his [wife].
[Their entry into] privacy is referred to as entry into the chuppah,3Popularly, the term chuppah is understood to refer to the wedding canopy. There are also sources for this definition (see Sotah 49b and Rashi's commentary; for other definitions, see the notes of the Ramah, Even HaEzer 55:1). Nevertheless, the common practice is to follow the Rambam's view as well. For this reason, after the ceremony under the wedding canopy, the bride and groom go to a private room, the cheder yichud. This constitutes the halachic definition of chuppah. and it is universally referred to as nisu'in.4As mentioned previously, in Jewish law, marriage is a two-stage process involving erusin and nisu'in. Erusin (also referred to as kiddushin) is the stage described in the previous chapters, that causes a woman to be designated as a man's wife and causes her to be forbidden to other men. It is not until nisu'in, however, that the couple begins living together as man and wife. At present, nisu'in follows directly after erusin; under the wedding canopy the groom consecrates the bride, and afterwards they go to a private room.
When a man has relations with his arusah for the sake of [establishing] nisu'in after he has consecrated her, the relationship is established at the beginning of sexual relations. This causes her to be considered his wife with regard to all matters.5I.e., all the privileges and obligations of the ketubah (marriage contract) apply. He alone nullifies her vows, and if he is a priest, should his wife die, he must become impure when burying her.
(ו) הַמְאָרֵס אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וּבֵרֵךְ בִּרְכַּת חֲתָנִים וְלֹא נִתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ בְּבֵיתוֹ עֲדַיִן אֲרוּסָה הִיא שֶׁאֵין בִּרְכַּת חֲתָנִים עוֹשָׂה הַנִּשּׂוּאִין אֶלָּא כְּנִיסָה לַחֻפָּה. אֵרֵס וְכָנַס לַחֻפָּה וְלֹא בֵּרֵךְ בִּרְכַּת חֲתָנִים הֲרֵי זוֹ נְשׂוּאָה גְּמוּרָה וְחוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ אֲפִלּוּ אַחַר כַּמָּה יָמִים. וְלֹא תִּנָּשֵׂא נִדָּה עַד שֶׁתִּטְהַר. וְאֵין מְבָרְכִין לָהּ בִּרְכַּת חֲתָנִים עַד שֶׁתִּטְהַר. וְאִם עָבַר וְנָשָׂא וּבֵרֵךְ אֵינוֹ חוֹזֵר וּמְבָרֵךְ:
(6) When a man consecrates a woman, recites the wedding blessings, but does not enter into privacy with her in his home, she is still considered to be [merely] an arusah. For nisu'in are not established by the recitation of the wedding blessings, but rather by [the couple's] entry into the chuppah.
When [a man] consecrates [a woman] and [the two] enter a chuppah, but do not have the wedding blessings recited, the woman is considered to be married with regard to all matters. The wedding blessings may be recited even after several days have passed.
A woman in the niddah state should not marry until she is purified. The marriage blessings are not recited for her until she is purified.17As mentioned in the notes on Halachah 2, although all efforts are made not to schedule a marriage when the woman is in the niddah state, if this is unavoidable the wedding may be held and the blessings recited. Nevertheless, the consummation of the marriage is possible only when the woman is purified. If a person transgresses, marries [a woman in this state] and has the blessings recited, they should not be recited again afterwards.
(א) דין ארוסה לענין מזונות וקבורה וירושה ואם יש כתובה ובו ז סעיפים:
הארוסה אסורה לבעלה מדברי סופרים כל זמן שהיא בבית אביה והבא על ארוסתו בבית חמיו מכין אותו מכת מרדות: הגה ואפי' בייחוד אסורים ולכן ארוס שהוא עם ארוסתו בבית א' מברכין ז' ברכות פן יתייחדו (מרדכי פ"ק דכתובות) וי"א דאין להם לדור ביחד שלא יקוצו זה בזה (כל בו) ואפי' בשדוכין בלא אירוסין יש לחוש (חידושי אגודה פרק קמא דכתובות) אפילו אם קדשה בביאה אסור לו לבא עליה ביאה שניה בבית אביה עד שיביא אותה לתוך ביתו ויתייחד עמה ויפרישנה לו ויחוד זה הוא הנקרא כניסה לחופה והיא הנקרא נישואין בכל מקום והבא על ארוסתו לשם נשואין אחר שקידשה משיערה בה קנאה ונעשית נשואה והרי היא כאשתו לכל דבר וצריך לברך ברכת חתנים בבית החתן קודם הנישואין: הגה וי"א דחופה אינו יחוד אלא כל שהביאה החתן לביתו לשם נשואין (כ"כ הר"ן בשי"א ריש כתובות) וי"א שהחופה היא שפורסין סודר על ראשה בשעת הברכה (הב"י הביאו) וי"א דחופת בתולה משיצאה בהינומא ואלמנה משנתייחדו (תוס' פ"ק דיומא) והמנהג פשוט עכשיו לקרות חופה מקום שמכניסין יריעה פרוסה על גבי כלונסות ומכניסין תחתיה החתן והכלה ברבים ומקדשה שם ומברכין שם ברכת ארוסין ונשואין ואח"כ מוליכים אותם לביתם ואוכלין ביחד במקום צנוע וזה החופה הנוהגת עכשיו ע' לקמן סי' ס"ב סעיף ט' וסימן ס':
(1) Betrothal Law in the Matters of Sustenance, Burial and Inheritance; Whether or not there is a “Ketubah” (7 paragraphs)
A betrothed woman is prohibited (to have intercourse with) her (future) husband, according to the rabbis (lit. the Sofrim2Lit. “scribes”. Since the return from the Babylonian Exile (dated approximately with the time of Ezra in the 5th century B.C.E.), the sofer functioned originally as the teacher or sage, but, in later times, as the professional copyist of the Torah and other religious articles.), as long as she is in her father’s house (i.e. if she is not yet married). One who has intercourse with his betrothed (before they are married), while she is still in her father’s house, must receive the “rabbinic lashes”3Lit. “beating for rebellion”. This penalty was imposed for specific crimes against the rabbinic law, or to compel the performance of a specific law of the Torah. It could be imposed without the judicial formalities which surrounded the infliction of the forty Biblical stripes..
HAGAH:4Introductory word signifying comments by Moses Ben Israel Isserles (cf. footnote 35) as contained in the Mapah (Table Cloth), supplementary notes from the Ashkenzai (Eastern European) point of view to the Sefardi-oriented Shulḥan Arukh of Josef Caro. They are even prohibited from “yiḥud”5From the Hebrew root meaning “together” or “unity”. The couple stays alone in a private room. This is considered evidence that co-habitation has taken place.; therefore, one who is with his betrothed in any house (i.e. in private) must recite the seven benedictions6The blessings recited at the wedding ceremony and at every meal during the subsequent week, when a new guest eats with the couple and a “minyan” (ten men) is at the meal.
The first blessing is over the wine, the second honoring the creation of Adam and Eve, the intermediate blessings are specific to the couple, while the last is an invocation for all Israel., because they might have intercourse (Mordecai7Kordecai ben Hillel HaCohen (1240-1298). German commentator to the Talmud and other rabbinic material., Chapter 1 of Ketubot). There are those who say that they should not dwell together (before they are married) so that they will not grow tired of each other (Kol Bo8Anonymous author. 14th century collection of laws.). They should be cautious (and not dwell together in the same house) after only preliminary arrangements for betrothal have been made (but before the betrothal) (Ḥidushe Agudah9Rabbi Alexander HaCohen Zoslin (14th century), Frankfort. Condensation of Talmudic laws and decisions., first chapter of Ketubot).
TEXT: Even if he has betrothed her by intercourse10“By three means is the woman acquired … by money or by writ (document) or by intercourse” (Kiddushin 1:1). If a man, in the presence of competent witnesses, recites the words: “Behold, thou art consecrated unto me with this intercourse, according to the law of Moses and Israel”, and then proceeds to take her into a private room, for the purpose of fulfilling that vow, she is betrothed to him from that moment., he is prohibited from having intercourse with her a second time (while she is still) in her father’s house, until he brings her into his house and (there) has “yiḥud” with her, thereby formally “setting her aside” (dedicating) for him. This “yiḥud” is called taking her into the “ḥupah”11Generally accepted to refer to a bridal canopy consisting of a “tallit” (prayer shawl) or a piece of other cloth, stretched over four sticks. It is often placed in the synagogue, but frequently in an outside location., and this is universally considered as marriage.
(In the case of) one who has intercourse with his betrothed for the sake of marriage - after he has betrothed her, she is considered married from the (moment of) first genital contact; she is then his wife in all matters.
One must say the groom’s benedictions12The seven benedictions (cf. footnote 6). in the groom’s house before the marriage (i.e. before intercourse for the sake of marriage).
HAGAH: There are those who say that the “ḥupah” is not (the) “yiḥud” (itself), rather it is only when the groom brings her to his house for the sake of marriage (so wrote the Rin13Rabbi Nisim ben Reuven Gerundi (1340 - 1380), Barcelona. Commentary on Alfasi (cf footnote 32). on the first chapter of Ketubot). And there are those who say that the “ḥupah” is (only) when they spread a cloth over their heads at the time of the benediction (the Bet Josef14Rabbi Josef Caro (1488 - 1575), Safad. Commentary on the Tur (cf. footnote 17). mentions this).
There are those who say that the “ḥupah” of a virgin is from the moment that she is carried in the “marriage litter”15Not to be confused with the “ḥupah”. As is evident from the text, certain customs were prevelant in the bringing of a bride to the marriage ceremony, of which the procession in the case of a virgin bride is an example. (Cf. viz. the etymology of the term in Chapter 2.). (or hymn procession); and that of a widow, when she has “yiḥud” (Tosafot16Commentary and notes to the Talmud and the commentary of Rashi (cf. footnote 36). First among the Tosafists were Rashi’s grandsons. to Chapter 1 of Yoma).
The custom is widespread now: to call the “ḥupah” that place where a spread curtain is brought in (held high by poles), under which the bride and groom are led in public and he betrothes her there, and the benedictions of betrothal and marriage are pronounced; after which they are led to their house and they eat together in a private place. This is the customary “ḥupah” nowadays. See below, Chapter 62 paragraph 9, and Chapter 60.
OVERVIEW
We derive that ברכת חתנים is made in the presence of ten people from the פסוק of ויקח בועז וגו׳. Our תוספות reconciles this with another source which derives this rule from elsewhere.
---------------------------–
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
ובמסכת כלה דמייתי קרא דויברכו את רבקה (בראשית כד) –
And in מסכת כלה where he cites the פסוק; ‘and they blessed רבקה’, as a source for ברכת חתנים בעשרה (and does not derive it from ויקח בועז [alone]) –
תוספות replies:
איכא למימר דהתם ברכת אירוסין והכא ברכת נישואין –
One can say; that there (in מסכת כלה by רבקה) it was regarding the blessing of the betrothal, and here (by בועז) it is regarding the blessing of the marriage.
תוספות continues with a tangential issue:
ויש ללמוד משם שיש לברך ברכת אירוסין לאשה המתקדשת על ידי שליח –
And we can seemingly derive from there (by רבקה), that one can recite the ברכת אירוסין to a woman is being betrothed through an agent –
שהרי אליעזר שליח היה –
For אליעזר was a שליח to be מקדש רבקה for יצחק, and they made ברכת אירוסין.
תוספות rejects the previous conclusion:
ונראה דאסמכתא בעלמא היא דעשרה לא מישתמע מהתם –
And it is the view of תוספות that the derivation from רבקה that ברכת אירוסין is required, this derivation is merely a support to the practice but not a source, for it is not understood from there that ten people are required –
ולא איירי פשטיה דקרא בברכת אירוסין:
And the simple interpretation of the verse does not indicate that it is discussing ברכת אירוסין, which is וצונו על העריות, but rather merely a blessing from her family that she should be successful, etc.
SUMMARY
We can perhaps say that the ברכה by רבקה is ברכת אירוסין (and by בועז it is ברכת נישואין), and derive that one makes ברכת אירוסין even if the שליח is מקדש, or probably assume that the פסוק of רבקה was merely an אסמכתא (and we do not derive anything from it).
THINKING IT OVER
1. תוספות (initially) states that the ברכה by רבקה refers to ברכת אירוסין. Seemingly this is difficult, for מס׳ כלה begins כלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה וכו׳; indicating that with a ברכה she is permitted. However if we assume that the ברכה of רבקה was ברכת אירוסין, then she is still forbidden until the נישואין!
2. תוספות writes that the לימוד from רבקה is merely an אסמכתא, since we cannot derive from it the requirement of עשרה אנשים. However in מסכת כלה it merely states that we derive the ברכה from רבקה it does not claim that we derive the requirement for עשרה from רבקה! במקהלות ברכו אלהים — Bless Hashem by the gatherings
OVERVIEW
ר׳ אבהו said that we derive the ruling that ברכת חתנים should be said בעשרה, from the פסוק of במקהלות ברכו אלקים ה׳ ממקור ישראל; the blessings of the מקור require מקהלות (or קהל), which means ten. תוספות discusses the word במקהלות.
---------------------------–
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
אף על גב דמקהלות תרי קהלות משמע –
Even though the word מקהלות (in the plural) indicates (at least) two congregations (or twenty people; not only ten); תוספות responds that nevertheless –
אין סברא לחלק בין עשרה לעשרים לענין שום מילתא –
There is no logic to differentiate between ten and twenty people regarding anything, and as far as using the plural term - מקהלות, the פסוק –
ומקהלות דעלמא בעי למימר –
Means to say that Hashem should be praised in the various congregations, but not that we require the presence of two congregations (twenty people) –
תוספות cites a differing view:
ומיהו בירושלמי דריש במקהלת כתיב חסר וי״ו:
However in תלמוד ירושלמי he interprets that the word במקהלת is written without a וי״ו; indicating the singular, not the plural
SUMMARY
There is never a requirement to have more than ten people for an occasion.
THINKING IT OVER
What precisely is the disagreement between תוספות and the ירושלמי? המזכה לעובר קנה — One who grants to a fetus; he acquires it
OVERVIEW
שמואל maintains that if one grants something to a fetus (by delivering it to a third party and asking him to acquire it on behalf of the עובר), the עובר acquires the item. תוספות reconciles this rulings with another ruling of שמואל regarding granting something which presently does not exist.
-------------------------–
תוספות anticipates a difficulty:
אף על גב דשמואל גופיה פסיק כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר (לקמן דף נח,ב) –
Even though that שמואל himself rules like ר׳ יוחנן הסנדלר –
דמקדיש מעשה ידי אשתו המותר חולין דאין אדם מקדיש דבר שלא בא לעולם –
That one who sanctifies his wife’s handiwork; the remainder is unconsecrated, for no one can be מקדיש something which does not exist. If שמואל maintains like ר״י הסנדלר that one cannot be מקדיש a דבר שלא בא לעולם –
וכל שכן לדבר שלא בא לעולם דגרע טפי כדאמרינן בסוף פרק קמא דגיטין (דף יג,ב ושם) –
So certainly שמואל will agree that you cannot be מקנה
TO something which does not exist, which (being מקנה לדבר שלא בא לעולם [like being מקנה
TO the עובר who is לב״ל]) is much worse (than being מקנה something which is לא בא לעולם), as the גמרא states in the end of the first פרק of מסכת גיטין –
דקאמר אפילו לרבי מאיר דאמר אדם מקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם הני מילי לדבר שבא לעולם –
Where רב אשי states, ‘even according to ר״מ who maintains אדם מקנה דשלב״ל, that is only if he is מקנה this דבשלב״ל to someone who exists –
אבל לדבר שלא בא לעולם לא אמר –
However ר״מ never said that you can be מקנה something to a דשלב״ל.’ This shows that a קנין
דשלב״ל is less effective that being מקנה a דשלב״ל; how is it then that שמואל who maintains (like ר״י הסנדלר) that א״א מקנה דשלב״ל, can rule that you can be מקנה
TO an עובר who is (seemingly) a דשלב״ל –
תוספות responds:
מכל מקום שמואל חשיב עובר בא לעולם –
Notwithstanding all this there is no difficulty, for שמואל considered the עובר as a דבר שבא לעולם.
תוספות offers an alternate solution ([even] if we consider the עובר a דשלב״ל):
אי נמי שמואל אית ליה טפי אדם מקנה לדבר שלא בא לעולם –
Or you may also say that שמואל maintains it is easier to be מקנה לדשלב״ל –
ממה שמקנה דבר שלא בא לעולם –
Than to be מקנה a דשלב״ל; not like רב אשי mentioned previously –
וההיא סוגיא דבפרק קמא דגיטין (גם זה שם) אתיא אליבא דרב הונא –
And we can say, that סוגיא in the first פרק of מסכת גיטין which stated that לדשלב״ל is worse that a דבשלב״ל follows the view of רב הונא and שמואל argues with him –
תוספות finds support that we find a dispute in this matter:
וכן מצינו רב נחמן דבהדיא סברתו הפוכה מדרב הונא –
And similarly we find explicitly that sרב נחמן׳ logic is the opposite of sר״ה׳ –
דרב הונא אית ליה בפירות דקל משבאו לעולם אין יכול לחזור בו –
For ר״ה maintain regarding the sale of fruits of a date palm that once the fruits were באו לעולם no one can retract from the deal (neither the buyer nor the seller) –
וגבי עובר קאמר אף לכשתלד לא קנה –
However regarding being מזכה to an עובר, ר״ה maintains that even if he says that the עובר should acquire it after she gives birth to the עובר, the עובר does not acquire it (so ר״ה maintains that לדבשלב״ל is worse than a דבשלב״ל)–
ורב נחמן סבר לכשתלד קנה ובפירות דקל קאמר אף משבאו לעולם יכול לחזור בו:
And ר״נ maintains that if he says that the עובר should acquire it when she gives birth the עובר is קונה, but by פירות דקל he maintains that even after באו לעולם either can retract the sale (so ר״נ maintains that a דשלב״ל is worse that לדבשלב״ל).
SUMMARY
שמואל (who agrees that א״א מקנה דשלב״ל) can either maintain that an עובר is בא לעולם, or that it is easier to be מקנה לדשלב״ל than to be מקנה a דשלב״ל.
THINKING IT OVER
1. Seemingly תוספות wants to prove with the וכן מצינו, etc. that ר״נ maintains that לדשלב״ל is easier than a דבשלב״ל. However one can argue that the reason ר״נ maintains that by an עובר that לכשתלד קנה is because an עובר is בא לעולם, as תוספות stated in the first explanation of שמואל!
2. What are the respective reasons why one would maintain that being מקנה לדשלב״ל is easier than to be מקנה a דשלב״ל, as opposed to maintaining that it is easier to be מקנה a דשלב״ל than to be מקנה to a דבשלב״ל? רבי יהודה אומר אף בבית האירוסין מברכין אותה מפני שמתייחד עמה — רבי יהודה said, we also make this blessing in the house of betrothal, since he is secluded with her
OVERVIEW
ר״י said that we make ברכת חתנים (even) in the בית האירוסין, and אביי explained that ר״י was discussing (the area of) יהודה where it was customary for the חתן וכלה to be secluded even before the נישואין. Our תוספות clarifies what is the connection of מפני שמתייחד עמה to the need for ברכת חתנים בבית אירוסין.
--------------------------–
ואמרינן כלה בלא ברכה אסורה לבעלה כנדה –
And we say that a כלה without a ברכה is forbidden to her husband as a נדה –
ולפי שפעמים בא עליה שלא לשם חופה עושין ברכה מתחלה כדי שתהא כלה בברכה:
And since occasionally he is with her not for the sake of חופה, therefore we initially make the ברכה in order she should be a כלה with a ברכה.
SUMMARY
In יהודה we make the ברכה so in case he is בא עליה not לשם חופה she will not be אסורה לו.
THINKING IT OVER
If we assume that a נשואה does not require a ברכה, why is it that we make ברכת נישואין by the חופה? מאן דלא חתים מידי דהוה אברכת פירות — The one who did not conclude with a ברכה, since it is like the blessing for fruits
OVERVIEW
The גמרא cites a dispute whether we conclude the ברכת אירוסין with the ברכה of בא״י מקדש עמו ישראל ע״י חופה וקדושין (the view of רב אחא וכו׳) or not (the view of רבין ב״ר אדא and רבה בר״א). The גמרא explains that the one who did not conclude with a ברכה compares it to ברכת הפירות והמצות and the one who concluded with a ברכה compares it to קידוש. Our תוספות clarifies in what way it is similar to ברכת הפירות and קידוש, respectively
----------------------–
שאין בה אריכות והאי נמי אינה ארוכה ולא דמי לקידושא דאריך טפי –
For the ברכת הפירות is not lengthy and this ברכת אירוסין is also not lengthy, and the ברכת אירוסין is not similar to קידוש, which is a longer blessing than ברכת אירוסין –
ומאן דחתים מידי דהוה אקידושא דחתים ביה משום דאריך והאי נמי חשיבא ארוכה –
And the one who concluded the ב״א with a blessing, for it is similar to קידוש which is concluded with a blessing (בא״י מקדש השבת), since the קידוש is long and this ב״א is also considered a long blessing.
תוספות cites פרש״י and rejects it:
ומה שפירש בקונטרס דמשום דבלשון קדושה היא חתמי בה כמו בקידושא אינו נראה –
And that which רש״י explained that the reason ב״א is similar to קידוש is because the ב״א is said with an expression of קדושה (אשר קדשנו) (like קידוש), therefore we conclude ב״א with a ברכה (מקדש ישראל וכו׳), just as we conclude the קידוש with a ברכה (מקדש השבת); this explanation is not acceptable.
תוספות asks:
קצת קשה מאן דלא חתים בה מאי שנא מברכת התורה דחתמינן בה באשר בחר בנו –
There is a slight difficulty; the one who does not conclude ב״א with a ברכה, why is ב״א different from the ברכה of אשר בחר בנו of ברכת התורה, which we conclude with a ברכה (בא״י נותן התורה) –
אף על גב דברכת אירוסין אריכא טפי מינה –
Even though ב״א is a longer ברכה than ברכת התורה, so we should certainly conclude ב״א with a ברכה!
תוספות replies:
ושמא לא היה חותם בה:
And perhaps indeed the מ״ד who is not חותם by ב״א was not חותם by ברכת התורה.
SUMMARY
ב״א is in between ברכת הפירות and קידוש in size. One compares it to ברכת הפירות (since it is shorter than קידוש) and is not חותם, and the other compares it to קידוש (since it is longer than ברכת הפירות) and is חותם. The one who is not חותם by ב״א, may not have been חותם by ברכה״ת as well.
THINKING IT OVER
When תוספות cites the ברכה of אשר בחר וכו׳, did he mean that ברכה exclusively (and not the ברכה of אשר נתן לנו וכו׳), or he meant either or both ברכות?