לכבוד ידי"נ הרב ר' חיים יהושע בן אפרים הכהן אוסטין שליט"א לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיו!!
לכבוד ידי"נ הרב ר' יוסף עזרא בן אסתר ג'ספין שליט"א לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיו!!
הנושא את האשה ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה שדהו והוא אומר לא כי אלא עד שלא ארסתיך והיה מקחי מקח טעות רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר אומרים נאמנת
היו בה מומין ועודה בבית אביה האב צריך להביא ראיה שמשנתארסה היו בה מומין הללו ונסתחפה שדהו
רבא אמר רישא כאן נמצאו וכאן היו
דהא איתרע ליה שנמצאו ברשותו הילכך אזלינן בתר חזקת ממון
והיא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי התם נמצאת ריעותא ברשות הבעל שנשאה ולא מצא לה בתולים
ולכך נאמנת לרבן גמליאל דלא איתרע חזקת רשות האב
ואיירי בענין שיכול להיות שנאנסה תחת בעלה
דאי בענין שודאי לא נאנסה משנשאת אף על גב שנכנסה לרשות הבעל איתרע לה חזקת רשות האב הואיל דודאי ברשות אביה נאנסה.
לכבוד ידי"נ הרב ר' יוסף עזרא בן אסתר ג'ספין שליט"א לברכה והצלחה בכל מעשי ידיו!!
The Mishna says in Ksubos 12b:
הנושא את האשה ולא מצא לה בתולים היא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי ונסתחפה שדהו והוא אומר לא כי אלא עד שלא ארסתיך והיה מקחי מקח טעות רבן גמליאל ורבי אליעזר אומרים נאמנת
There is a case of one who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me I was raped, and his, [i.e., her husband’s], field was inundated, [meaning that it is his misfortune that she is not a virgin, as she was raped after betrothal]. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible.
The conclusion of the Gemara is that their rationale is that she is believed because she has a ברי - she is sure and he is only a maybe. And in addition, she has a מיגו that she could have said מוכת עץ אני [she lacks her בתולים because she was hit by wood] or a חזקת הגוף that she started as a בתולה.
The Mishna later [75a], says:
If she has blemishes and she is still in her father’s house, as she has not yet gotten married, the father must bring proof that these blemishes appeared on her after she became betrothed, and therefore his field was flooded, i.e., it is the husband’s misfortune, since she developed the problem after the betrothal
The Gemara explains the Mishna:
רבא אמר רישא כאן נמצאו וכאן היו
Rava said, in the first clause of the mishna, where the blemishes were discovered while she was still in her father’s house, the assumption is that since they were discovered here, they were also created here. In other words, since the blemishes were found while she was still in her father’s house, there is a presumption that they were also present at the earlier stage, prior to the betrothal. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the father who claims the blemishes developed at a later stage.
Tosfos writes [ע"ה: ד"ה רישא]
ולא מצי למימר השתא העמד רשות האב על חזקתו
We can't say "establish her father's reshus on his chazaka" meaning we can't establish her on her חזקת הגוף that she has no blemishes when she was in her father's domain [the language of Tosfos "רשות האב על חזקתו" is apparently not precise because her father has no חזקה in her so it must be referring to the חזקת הגוף she had in her father's domain. So wrote the תוספות הרא"ש]
Answer: It has a Re'usa (weakness), since [the Mumim] were found in his Reshus. Therefore, we follow the Chezkas Mamon of the husband.
והיא אומרת משארסתני נאנסתי התם נמצאת ריעותא ברשות הבעל שנשאה ולא מצא לה בתולים
Distinction: When she says "I was raped after Eirusin", there the Re'usa was found in her husband's Reshus. He married her, and did not find Besulim in her;
ולכך נאמנת לרבן גמליאל דלא איתרע חזקת רשות האב
Therefore, she is believed according to R. Gamliel, for there is no Re'usa in the Chazakah or her father's Reshus;
ואיירי בענין שיכול להיות שנאנסה תחת בעלה
The case is, it is possible that she was raped after Nisu'in.
דאי בענין שודאי לא נאנסה משנשאת אף על גב שנכנסה לרשות הבעל איתרע לה חזקת רשות האב הואיל דודאי ברשות אביה נאנסה.
Proof: If it was in a way that surely she was not raped after Nisu'in, even though she entered her husband's Reshus, the Chazakah of her father's Reshus was weakened, since surely she was raped in her father's Reshus.
In other words the ריעותא of פתח פתוח that was found in the רשות of the husband after marriage relates only to this רשות and is not a ריעותא vis a vis the other רשות. According to this, Rava argues with our sugya which explains that she is believed because of her ברי together with her חזקת הגוף and מיגו.
Asked the Hafla'ah [Ksubos 9a], according to Rava that we say "כאן נמצא כאן היה", when a man claims "פתח פתוח מצאתי", why is the woman permitted to him because of the ספק ספיקא [safek maybe she wasn't married when she had relations, safek maybe she was raped]? If there is a duration of time that would have allowed her to have had ביאה after נישואין, we shouldn't assume that it happened before the נישואין, because the rule is "כאן נמצא כאן היה" - it happened in THIS domain, just like we say with regard to משארסתני נאנסתי?!!
The Beis Yaakov [written, ostensibly, by a girl who displayed exceptional Talmudic acumen, - the ONLY traditional sefer of complex Talmudic and Halachic analysis in history penned by a woman - in Even Haezer 68-7] answered that "כאן נמצא כאן היה" is effective only with regard to monetary matters. In such cases, the discussion revolves around the question of ביטול רשות, and the ramification is whether the sale or קידושין is valid or nullified. Since the discussion is about which domain [רשות] she is in, we say that since the ריעותא was in this רשות we don't assume that it happened in the other רשות and thus there ביטול of the previous רשות. However, when it comes to איסורים where the issue at hand is not ביטול רשות, we don't say כאן נמצא כאן היה, and we have a valid doubt about the previous רשות. Therefore, only when it comes to the כתובה when we are discussing whether it was a מקח טעות [and the issue is what רשות she is in] we say כאן נמצא כאן היה, whereas with respect to the question of whether she is forbidden to her husband, we don't say כאן נמצא כאן היה and we have a valid doubt as to whether she had ביאה before her נישואין.
To summarize - when it comes to validity of sale, the issue is determining in what רשות the event in question happened, which allows us to nullify the halachic import of her previous רשות. However, when it comes to איסורים, that is not the question, which "opens the door" [pun intended] to assume that the event happened in the previous רשות.
The Beis Yaakov proved this from the Gemara [Ksubos 66b] which says that when one buys an animal and it is a טריפה, since the טריפות where found while in the רשות of the buyer, we say "כאן נמצא כאן היה" and we can't nullify the transaction because of מקח טעות. Nevertheless, we say that all of the milk made earlier [when still in the possession of the seller] is forbidden as ספק חלב טריפה - "doubtful milk that may have come from a טריפה". That is what the Rashba says [Chullin 11b] who writes that when an animal is found to be טריפה after שחיטה, all the cheeses that were made from its milk are forbidden מספק, because only with respect to ביטול רשות we say כאן נמצא כאן היה but when it comes to איסורים, the ספק definitely came about earlier.
INTERESTING!! We are talking about the same question of "טריפות", yet we assume the disease happened at different times with respect to the rules of business and Kashrus.
However, the Haflaah cites the Magen Avraham [467-21] who says that with respect to איסורים we also say כאן נמצא כאן היה, so the question resurfaces - why do we permit her with ספק ספיקא when she says פתח פתוח and not say that she is forbidden because כאן נמצא כאן היה?
Asked the Hafla'ah [Ksubos 9a], according to Rava that we say "כאן נמצא כאן היה", when a man claims "פתח פתוח מצאתי", why is the woman permitted to him because of the ספק ספיקא [safek maybe she wasn't married when she had relations, safek maybe she was raped]? If there is a duration of time that would have allowed her to have had ביאה after נישואין, we shouldn't assume that it happened before the נישואין, because the rule is "כאן נמצא כאן היה" - it happened in THIS domain, just like we say with regard to משארסתני נאנסתי?!!
The Beis Yaakov [written, ostensibly, by a girl who displayed exceptional Talmudic acumen, - the ONLY traditional sefer of complex Talmudic and Halachic analysis in history penned by a woman - in Even Haezer 68-7] answered that "כאן נמצא כאן היה" is effective only with regard to monetary matters. In such cases, the discussion revolves around the question of ביטול רשות, and the ramification is whether the sale or קידושין is valid or nullified. Since the discussion is about which domain [רשות] she is in, we say that since the ריעותא was in this רשות we don't assume that it happened in the other רשות and thus there ביטול of the previous רשות. However, when it comes to איסורים where the issue at hand is not ביטול רשות, we don't say כאן נמצא כאן היה, and we have a valid doubt about the previous רשות. Therefore, only when it comes to the כתובה when we are discussing whether it was a מקח טעות [and the issue is what רשות she is in] we say כאן נמצא כאן היה, whereas with respect to the question of whether she is forbidden to her husband, we don't say כאן נמצא כאן היה and we have a valid doubt as to whether she had ביאה before her נישואין.
To summarize - when it comes to validity of sale, the issue is determining in what רשות the event in question happened, which allows us to nullify the halachic import of her previous רשות. However, when it comes to איסורים, that is not the question, which "opens the door" [pun intended] to assume that the event happened in the previous רשות.
The Beis Yaakov proved this from the Gemara [Ksubos 66b] which says that when one buys an animal and it is a טריפה, since the טריפות where found while in the רשות of the buyer, we say "כאן נמצא כאן היה" and we can't nullify the transaction because of מקח טעות. Nevertheless, we say that all of the milk made earlier [when still in the possession of the seller] is forbidden as ספק חלב טריפה - "doubtful milk that may have come from a טריפה". That is what the Rashba says [Chullin 11b] who writes that when an animal is found to be טריפה after שחיטה, all the cheeses that were made from its milk are forbidden מספק, because only with respect to ביטול רשות we say כאן נמצא כאן היה but when it comes to איסורים, the ספק definitely came about earlier.
INTERESTING!! We are talking about the same question of "טריפות", yet we assume the disease happened at different times with respect to the rules of business and Kashrus.
However, the Haflaah cites the Magen Avraham [467-21] who says that with respect to איסורים we also say כאן נמצא כאן היה, so the question resurfaces - why do we permit her with ספק ספיקא when she says פתח פתוח and not say that she is forbidden because כאן נמצא כאן היה?
