1) TOSFOS DH RAVA AMAR MI'KA'AN U'LE'HABA HU NIFSAL

תוס' ד"ה רבא אמר מכאן ולהבא הוא נפסל

(SUMMARY: Tosfos reconcile Rava here, with his own opinion in Chezkas ha'Batim, where, in a similar case, he declares the witnesses retroactively. They reject the suggestion that differentiates between where the testimony of the second witnesses took place 'Toch K'dei Dibur' of the first ones or not).

תימה, הא דאמר בפ' חזקת הבתים (ב"ב ד' לא. ושם) 'זה אומר "של אבותי ואכלתיה שני חזקה", וזה אומר " ... "; האי אייתי סהדי דאבהתיה היא ואכלה שני חזקה והאי אייתי סהדי דאכלה שני חזקה'. וקאמר התם 'אוקי חזקה בהדי חזקה ואוקי ארעא בחזקת אבהתא; ואמר רבא, 'עדות מוכחשת היא'.

(a) Question (Part 1): In a case where two people bring witnesses to substantiate their claim that they had made a three-year Chazakah, but where one of the pairs of witnesses also substantiated one of the claims that the field had belonged to his father, Rav Nachman rules that the two conflicting Chazakos cancel each other, and that we place the land in the possession of the claimant who says that it belonged to is father. Rava however, maintains that since the two testimonies clash, they are both negated.

והשתא מאי נפקא לן מינה, כיון דאמר רבא 'מכאן ולהבא הוא נפסל', ה"נ היה לו לומר למאי דאיתכחוש איתכחוש, אבל לעדות של אבהתא, שהיה קודם שהוכחשו, לא?

(b) Question (Part 2): Seeing as here, Rava holds that witnesses only become Pasul with regard to future testimonies, what difference does contradiction make? There two, Rava ought to have said that the testimony is negated only as regards the actual Chazakah, but as far as the testimony regarding the father is concerned, which took place before the contradtion was declared, it ought to be accepted (like Rav Nachman rules).

וה"נ גבי הזמה - קאמר רבא גבי טביחה ומכירה דהוזמו על הטביחה ולא על הגניבה; למאי דאיתזום איתזום, בהכחשה לא כ"ש?

(c) Question (Part 3): Moreover, seeing now that Rava in our Sugya, rules regarding witnesses who become Huzam on their testimony on the Shechitah, but not on that of the actual theft, that whichever point the witnesses are Huzam, they are Huzam, and whichever point they are not, they are not, how much more ought he to say it there, with regard to Hakchashah?

וכ"ת דהתם מיירי שתוך כדי דבור הוכחשו.

(d) Suggested Answer: Perhaps we can answer that the Gemara in Chezkas ha'Batim speaks where the Hakchashah took place 'Toch K'dei Dibur of the first witnesses?

והא מוכח אותה שמעתין דפרק מרובה (ב"ק דף עב: ושם) גבי טביחה ומכירה, דאפילו תוך כדי דבור לא מיפסלי למפרע אליבא דרבא?

(e) Refutation: It is clear however, from the Gemara in 'Merubeh' regarding Tevichah and Mechirah that as far as Rava is concerned, the witnesses are not disqualifies even if it is 'Toch K'dei Dibir' of the first witnesses.

וי"ל, כיון שאותם שתי עדיות בקרקע אחת הוי כעדות אחת כדמפליג התם, אבל הכא אף על פי שהוחזקו שקרנין על הטביחה, על הגניבה לא הוחזקו.

(f) Answer: The reason that Rava is strict there is, because both sets of testimony concern the ownership of the land, rendering them one testimony (in the manner that the Gemara itself differentiates there); whereas here, even though the witnesses are established as like liars regarding Shechitah, they were not established liars on the theft.

2) TOSFOS DH EIN L'CHA BO ELA CHIDUSHO

תוס' ד"ה אין לך בו אלא חידושו

(SUMMARY: Tosfos gives two explanations to reconcile this Sugya with the Gemara in Bava Basra, which equates Rava with Rav Chisda, who invalidates both pairs of contradicting witnesses, in which there does seem to be a Chidush here).

משמע דהחידוש הוי ממה שאנו פוסלים את הראשונים.

(a) Clarification: The Chidush appears to be the fact that we invalidate the first witnesses.

תימה, דהתם (ב"ב דף לא:) קאמר 'לימא רבא דאמר כרב חסדא דאמר "בהדי סהדי שקרי למה לי" ', ומפסלי שתי העדות אפי' בהכחשה בעלמא - דמכחשי אהדדי תרווייהו פסולי; ואם כן, מאי חידוש הוא גבי הזמה אי פסלינן עדים הראשונים?

(b) Question: The Gemara there (in Bava Basra) asks that Rava perhaps holds like R. Chisda, who maintains that we cannot accept false witnesses, and that both pairs are therefore Pasul, even if they merely contradict each other. That being the case, what is the Chidush here, if by Hazamah, we disqualify even the first witnesses?

ויש לומר, דמאי דבעי למימר התם מעיקרא דרבא סבירא ליה דרב חסדא היינו ללישנא דפסידא דלקוחות.

(c) Answer #1: That when the Gemara there establishes Rava like Rav Chisda, that is only according to the opinion here that invalidates them only on account of the loss of the purchasers (see Tosfos ha'Rosh).

וי"מ, דהא דקאמר הכא חידוש, לאו אפסולא דקמאי קאי, אלא אהכשירא דבתראי - כלומר היה לנו לפוסלן ככל שתי כיתות; וכיון דאיכא חידוש, לא ילפינן אף לגבי הפסול לפסול כלל הראשונים למפרע.

(d) Answer #2: Others explain that the Chidush here is (not that the first witnesses are Pasul, but) that the second ones are Kasher, even though we ought to have declared them Pasul, like all cases of two pairs of contradictory witnesses; and since there is a Chidush here regarding their leniency, we cannot learn from them the stringency by the Pasul witnesses, to extend the P'sul retroactively.

וכי האי גוונא אמרינן פרק כל הבשר (חולין דף צט ושם) דלא ילפינן ד'טעם כעיקר' מ'בשר בחלב', משום דאיכא בו חידוש בהתירו, דהא אי תרו ליה בחלבא כולי יומא שרי, ובבישול חדא שעה אסור.

(e) Precedent: A similar format occurs in Perek Kol ha'Basar, where the Gemara declines to learn the Chumra of 'Ta'am ke'Ikar' (that 'taste renders Asur just like the actual Isur does') from 'Basar be'Chalav', because there is a Chidush in the aspect of its Heter (since soaking meat all day in milk does not render it Asur, whereas cooking them together even for a short time does.

3) TOSFOS DH DE'ASHIDU BEI T'REI BE'CHAD U'T'REI BE'CHAD

תוס' ד"ה דאסהידו בי תרי בחד ותרי בחד

(SUMMARY: Based on three queries, Tosfos cites Rabeinu Tam, who changes the text to where two testify against one, period. Likewise, in the second answer, he changes the Lashon to 'they disqualified him [rather than them] by declaring him a Ganav').

וקשה לר"ת, חדא, דמאי קאמר 'דאסהידו בי תרי בחד ותרי בחד' ומשום הכי ליכא חידוש, הא 'תרי כמאה'?

(a) Question #1: Rabeinu Tam asks that, firstly, what does the Gemara mean when it says that if two Eidim testified against one of the Eidim, and two Eidim testified against the other Eid, there is no Chidush? What about the principle that 'Two is like a hundred' (in which case the same Chidush will apply)?

ועוד, דמאי קאמר 'דפסלינהו בגזלנותא', הא לא הוי מעין פלוגתייהו כלל, דפליגי בהזמה, ולא שייך 'איכא בינייהו' אלא מעין פלוגתייהו?

(b) Question #2: Secondly, what does it mean when, in the second answer, the Gemara says 'de'Paslinhu be'Gazlenusa'. That is not similar to the case in hand, which is speaking about Hazamah, and one can only draw a distinction in a way that is similar to the Machlokes?

ועוד, ד'עדים זוממין' מבעי ליה לעיל למימר, כיון דאמרת 'תרי בחד ותרי בחד', ואמאי נקט 'עד זומם'?

(c) Question #3: Seeing as, having said 'Two against one, and two against one', they are clearly talking about two Eidim Zomemin, why did the Gemara introduce the case as 'Eid Zomem' and not 'Eidim Zomemin'.

ונראה לר"ת - דגרסינן 'דאסהידו תרי [בחד]'. ותו לא, שלא הוזם כי אם האחד. והשתא ניחא, דלהכי נקיט לעיל 'עד זומם' לשון יחיד.

(d) Answer (Part 1): Rabeinu Tam therefore changes the text to ' ... two Eidim testified against one', period; where it is only one of the witnesses became a Zomem, which explains why the Gemara begins with the Lashon 'Eid Zomem' (in the singular).

וניחא נמי הא דמהני תרי המזימים טפי מההוא חד, ולאו חידוש הוא.

(e) Answer (Part 2): It also explains why two Mazimin are better than one, and why it is no Chidush.

וגרסינן נמי 'ופסליה בגזלנותא', פירוש - דאחד נפסל בגזלנותא והשני הוזם. והשתא הוה מעין פלוגתייהו קצת.

(f) Answer (Part 3): And he also reads in the second answer 'and he disqualified *him* as being a Gazlan, meaning that one of the witnesses is disqualified by being declared a Gazlan, and the other one, by being Huzam - and this is slightly similar their Machlokes.

4) TOSFOS DH MAI SHEVU'OS SHEVU'OS DE'ALMA

תוס' ד"ה מאי שבועות שבועות דעלמא

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explain why even Rava, who in our Sugya, requires Rasha de'Chamas, will concede in 'Kol ha'Nishba'in' , where a person who is guilty of a past Shevu'as Shav, has now denied Mamon, that a Rasha de'Chamas is not necessary).

תימה, ליתיב אביי לרבא מפרק כל הנשבעין (שבועות דף מד:) דתנן 'ושכנגדו חשוד על השבועה, נשבע ונוטל'; וקאמר דאפי' שבועת שוא. אלמא - לא בעינן רשע דחמס, ד'מיגו דחשוד אשבועת שוא (דרע לשמים), חשוד נמי אשבועת ממון (דרע לשמים הוי רע לבריות')?

(a) Question: Why does Abaye not query Rava from the Mihnah in Perek Kol ha'Nishba'in, which states that if the defendant is suspect on swearing falsely, then the claimant swears and takes` - and the Gemara explains there that this speaks even if he is suspect on swearing a Shevu'as Shav. So we see that in order to become Pasul, one need not be a Rasha de'Chamas, but that if one is suspect on a Shevuas Shav (which makes him Ra la'Shamayim), that is sufficient to make him Pasul on a Shevu'as Mamon (Ra la'Beri'os)?

וי"ל, דלא דמי - דהתם מן השבועה הוא רע לשמים, ועכשיו שכופר ממון לחבירו הוה ליה נמי רע לבריות; הלכך מיראת שבועה לא יודה, דכבר רע לשמים הוא; ובהאי שבועה נמי ליכא כ"א רע לשמים כדפרישית.

(b) Answer (Part 1): The case there is not comparable to our Sugya; since there the Shevu'ah that he made renders him Ra la'Shamayim, and now that he has denied his friend Mamon, he becomes also a Ra la'Beri'os. Consequently, fear of making a false oath will not deter him from swearing.

אבל הכא גבי עדות, אע"ג דהוא רע לשמים משום שבועת שוא, לא יעיד עדות שקר להיות רע לבריות [וע"ע תוס' שבועות מו: ד"ה ואפילו].

(c) Answer (Part 2): Whereas in our case (of Eidus), even though he is Ra la'Shamayim due to the Shevu'as Shav, we do not suspect him of testifying falsely to become Ra la'Beri'os.

5) TOSFOS DH VE'EILU HEIN HA'KEROVIM ... LI'VENEIHEM VA'CHASENEIHEM (1)

תוס' ד"ה ואלו הן הקרובין וכו' ובניהם וחתניהם

(SUMMARY: After confining 'Beneihem ve'Chasneihem' to the cases mentioned specifically in the Mishnah, Tosfos discusses Rashi's Kashya why the Mishnah mentions step-son, which we already know from 'mother's husband'. They then ask why the Tana does not list the Tana 'wife's brother's son' [for which they have no answer], though they find a good reason as to why he omits 'son-in-law).

'ובניהם וחתניהם' לא קאי רק אהנך קרובים דמפרש במתני' בהדיא, כגון 'אחי אביו ואמו; אבל אהנך דנפקי מכללא לא קאי, כגון בניו וחתניו דידיה אינם פסולים להנך, אי לאו הוו בכלל הנך קרובים דמפרש.

(a) Explanation #1: ' ... and their sons and their sons-in-law' refers to the relatives who are listed in the Mishnah specifically, such as 'the brother of his father and mother', but not to those relations that are learned from an inference, such as his own sons and sons-in-law, who are not Pasul from testifying for the others - unless they are also relatives of those that are listed.

ותדע, דהא 'בנו' כשר הוא ל'אחי אביו' לתנא דמתני', דהא הוי שלישי בראשון כדאיתא בגמרא (דף כח.).

(b) Proof: As proof of this, 'his son' is Kasher to testify for his 'father's brother', according to the Tana of the Mishnah, since he falls under the category of 'the third to the first', as the Gemara explains.

והקשה בקונטרס, אמאי תנא חורגו, הא נפיק מ'בעל אמו'?

(c) Question: Rashi asks why the Tana lists 'step-son', which we already know from 'mother's husband'?

ואי לאשמועינן 'לבדו'

(d) Implied answer: Perhaps it is because of 'alone' (to preclude 'their sons and their sons-in-law).

הא נמי פשיטא - כדפ"ל ד'בניהם וחתניהם' לא קאי אהנך דנפקו מכללא

(e) Refutation: That too, is obvious, seeing as we have already learned that 'sons and sons-in-law' does not pertain to those relations that we learn from inferences (including 'son-in-law' according to the current Kashya).

ותירץ, דאין התנא חושש בזה, דאכתי איכא שלש קרובים דאתו מכללא ואפ"ה תני להו בהדיא - כגון 'אחי אביו, דנפיק מכללא ד'אחיו ובנו' ... .

(f) Answer: The Tana is not troubled by the question, since there are anyway three relatives that we can learn by sway of inference, yet the Tana mentions them specifically (such as 'father's brother', which we already know from 'his brother and his son' [see next Tosfos]).

וקשה, ליתני נמי 'בן אחי אשתו' כמו אינך?

(g) Question: Why does the Tana not also list 'his wife's brother's son', like it mentions the others?

ומיהו, 'חתנו' איכא למימר דשפיר הוה (תני) [אתי] מ'וחתניהם', דכ"ש דפסול לחמיו.

(h) Implied Question and Answer: The reason that the Mishnah does not mention 'son-in-law' is because we can learn it from a 'Kal ve'Chomer' from 'Chasneihem' (how much more so 'son-in-law' to his 'father-in-law').

אבל מ"מ 'בן אחי אשתו' קשה?

(i) Conclusion: But 'his wife's brother's son' remains a Kashya?

6) TOSFOS DH VE'EILU HEIN HA'KEROVIM ... LI'VENEIHEM VA'CHASENEIHEM (2)

תוס' ד"ה ואלו הן הקרובין וכו' ובניהם וחתניהם

(SUMMARY: Tosfos therefore conclude that all the cases need to be mentioned, either intrinsically or because of 'their sons and sons-in-law' [which are either included or excluded]. And it is in that light that they finally explain why, on the one hand the Tana mentions 'stepson', despite their earlier reservations in this regard; and why, on the other, there is no need to mention the 'wife's brother's son').

אלא נראה דכולהו איצטריכו, אי משום אינהו גופייהו או משום 'בניהם וחתניהם'.

(a) Explanation #2: It therefore seems that the Tana needs to mention all the cases, either intrinsically or because of 'their sons and sons-in-law'.

והשתא הא ק"ל מחורגו?

(b) Question: In that case, the Kashya we asked earlier from 'stepson' returns?

וי"ל, דתנייה לאשמועינן דהוי 'לבדו, ולא בנו וחתנו'.

(c) Answer: The Tana does indeed mention it because of 'alone, and his son or his son-in-law' (as we suggested earlier).

ואע"ג ד'בניהם וחתניהם' לא קאי אהנך דאתו מכללא, כדפרישית,

(d) Implied Question: Even though 'their sons and their sons-in-law' does not pertain to those cases that we learn from an inference (as we asked there) ...

מ"מ, בחורגו איצטריך, דסד"א כיון דחורגו כבנו, ובן הבן פסול - כדאיתא פרק יש נוחלין (ב"ב דף קכח.), אימא דה"ה בן חורגו, קמ"ל.

(e) Answer: Nevertheless, by 'stepson' it is necessary. This is because we might otherwise have thought that since a stepson is like a son, and a son's son is Pasul, the son of a stepson is Pasul, too. So the Mishnah needs to teach us that he is not.

ואפי' למר בר רב אשי דמכשר ב'אבא דאבא' דהיינו 'בן הבן'?

(f) Implied Question: But what can we say according to Mar bar Rav Ashi who validates 'the father's father' - which is equivalent to 'the son's son'?

איכא למימר דמהכא הוא דיליף לה.

(g) Answer (Part 1): Presumably, he learns it from here (i.e. from 'stepson').

אבל 'בן אחי אשתו' לא צריך למהדר ולמיתנייה כלל, כיון דמפיק הוא מכללא.

(h) Answer (Part 2): On the other hand, there is no need to mention the 'wife's brother's son', since we already know that from an inference (as we explained earlier).

דאי לאשמועינן דהוא לבדו פסול, ולא 'בנו וחתנו' כמו ב'חורגו'?

(i) Implied Question: And if it is to teach us that only he is Pasul, but not his 'son or his son-in-law' (like we learned by 'stepson') ...

הא פשיטא! דמהיכא תיתי?

(j) Answer #1: That is obvious, for why would we have though otherwise?

ועוד, דלא עדיף 'בן אחי אשתו' מ'בן אחיו', ו'בן אחיו' - בניו וחתניו כשרין לו, כדתני גבי כולהו ובניהם' - משמע 'ולא בני בניהם'.

(k) Answer #2: And besides, there is no reason why a 'wife's brother's son' should be any different than 'a brother's son', whose 'son and son-in-law' is Kasher. This is because it says by all the cases 'and their sons', implying that the 'sons of their sons' are permitted.

7) TOSFOS DH EILU HEIN HA'KEROVIM VE'CHORGO LEVADO

תוס' ד"ה אלו הן הקרובים וחורגו לבדו

(SUMMARY: This Tosfos seems to be repeating many of the points raised in the previous Dibur. See final note).

פי' לא בנו ולא חתנו.

(a) Explanation #1: meaning, but not his son and not his son-in-law.

והקשה רש"י, אמאי נקט 'חורגו', הא נפיק מכלל ד'בעל אמו'?

(b) Question: Rashi asks why the Tana sees fit to mention stepson at all, seeing as it is included in 'his mother's husband'?

ואין לומר דנקטיה משום 'לבדו', דאשמועינן דבנו כשר.

(c) Suggested Answer: Nor can we answer that it mentions it because of the clause 'only', to teach us that his son is permitted.

הא נמי פשיטא, דמהיכא תיתי טפי, והא אמרינן ד'בניהם וחתניהם' לא קאי אלא למבוארים דכתיבי במתני', ולא קאי אהני דנפקי מכללא, שהרי 'בנו' ל'אחי אביו' כשר לתנא דמתני', דהוי שלישי בראשון, כדאיתא בגמ'?

(d) Refutation: This too, is obvious, seeing as we have already explained that 'their sons and sons-in-law' is confined to those relations that are written explicitly, but not to those that are derived from an inference. For 'his son' is Kasher to testify for his father's brother, according to the Tana of the Mishnah, since he falls under the category of 'the third to the first', as the Gemara explains.

ותירץ רש"י דכולהו נמי אתיא מכללא כגון 'אחי אביו' מכללא ד'אחיו ובנו ... ' - ואפ"ה תני להו, שאינו מקפיד בזה (בר מ'בן אחי אשתו' דמפיק מכלל ד'בעל אחות אביו'; ו'חתנו' נפקא מכלל ד'חמיו').

(e) Answer: Rashi therefore explains that all (most of) the cases we can also learn from an inference - such as 'father's brother', which we can learn from 'his brother and his son ... ', yet the Tana inserts them, because it does not bother him to do so (with the exception of 'the son of his wife's brother', which we can learn from 'his father's sister's husband', and 'son-in-law', which we can learn from 'father-in-law').

ולא נהירא, דא"כ, אמאי לא הדר ותני הנך דאתו מכלל ד'בעל אחות אביו' 'וחמיו?

(f) Refutation: This is not correct however, because if so, why did the Tana not repeat those cases that we can learn from 'father's sister's husband' and 'father-in-law'?

על כן נראה לומר דכולהו איצטריכא - ד'אחי אביו', אע"ג דאיהו גופיה אתי מכללא ד'בן אחיו', מ"מ 'בנו וחתנו' לא נפקי מכללא; וכן 'אחי אמו' 'ובעל אחותו', אף ע"ג ד'בנו' אתי מכללא ד'אחי אמו', מ"מ איהו גופיה לאו מכללא אתי; ואתא לאשמועינן דבעל כאשתו.

(g) Explanation #2 (Part 1): We must therefore say that all the cases need to be mentioned - 'father's brother', which intrinsically we may well know from 'brother's son', but which nevertheless needs to be mentioned because of 'son and 'son-in-law' which we cannot learn from a inference. Likewise, 'mother's brother' and 'sister's husband', even though 'their son' we can learn from 'mother's brother' (see Maharsha), nevertheless, they themselves we do not know. And it is coming to teach us that 'a husband is like his wife' in these matters.

וכן כולם איצטריכו, אי משום אינהו גופייהו אי משום 'בניהם וחתניהם'

(h) Explanation #2 (Part 2): And so it is with regard to all the cases; each one requires mentioning, either intrisically or because of 'their sons and their sons-in-law'.

ז"ה הדבו"ר נראה לי מיות"ר.

(i) Comment: This Dibur seems to be [largely] redundant.