GITIN 10 - Dedicated by HaGaon HaRav Yosef and Ruthie Pearlman of London, England. May Hashem bless them with good health and all their needs, and may they enjoy many years of Nachas and joy from their wonderful family.


TOSFOS DH "Ki Katani"

תוס' ד"ה "כי קתני"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why these cases do not have to do with Kidushin, and why the date is not deemed a common denominator between these types of Gitin.)

כל הני ליתנהו בקידושין דמוליך ומביא בגט משום עיגונא אבל כאן אם תרצה לא תקבל הנך קדושין


Explanation: All of these do not have to do with Kidushin. Bringing and taking a Get are due to not wanting to make it difficult for a woman to get remarried. However, here she does not have to take the Kidushin if she does not want it.

ועד כותי לא שייך בקדושין דבגט הוא דמכשירינן כדלקמן משום דעדי הגט אין חותמין זה בלא זה דאי לאו דכותי חבר הוה לא הוה מחתים ליה מקמיה אבל בקדושין חותמין זה בלא זה דלא שייך למיגזר משום כולכם


A Kusi witness is not possible by Kidushin. Only by Get is this kosher as stated later. This is because the witnesses of a Get only sign the document together. Accordingly, unless this Kusi was a religious Kusi, the regular Yisrael would not have allowed him to sign on top of his signature (see Rashi 10b, DH "Zos Omeres"). However, by Kidushin they could sign one without the other, and it is therefore impossible to make a decree because of "all of you" (explained immediately below, and on 10b).

דגבי גט גזרינן שמא יאמר כולכם חתומו ואם יחתמו זה בלא זה לאחר שחתמו בו שנים ויתנוהו לאשה ותסבור שהיא מגורשת ותלך ותנשא ובעל קפיד אבל בקידושין אין לחוש אם תסבור שהיא מקודשת והא לא שכיחא שתקבל קדושין מאחר כיון שסבורה להיות מקודשת


Regarding Get we decree that the person might say "all of you should sign," and if they sign without each other, after two people sign and they give it to the women she will think she is divorced. She will go and remarry, while her husband was stringent that she should only be divorced if all of these people signed. However, regarding Kidushin there is no such suspicion if she will think she is married. It is also unlikely she will accept Kidushin from someone else (and therefore really be married to him), being that she thinks that she is married to the first person.

וכן ערכאות כיון דאיכא עדי מסירה ישראל כשר בקדושין אע"פ שחותמין עובדי כוכבים דליכא למיחש דילמא אתי למיסמך עלייהו דלא אתי לידי תקלה במה שסבורה להיות מקודשת כדפירשנו


By courts of Nochrim as well, being that there are Jewish witnesses the Kidushin is kosher, even though Nochrim signed on the document. There is no cause for concern that people will come to rely on the document, as nothing will happen if they do rely on it to think she is married.

וא"ת והאיכא זמן ששוו גיטי נשים לשחרורי עבדים כדאמרי' בפרק ד' אחין (יבמות דף לא:) והא עבדא איכא דקני בכספא ואיכא דקני בשטרא ותקון רבנן זמן ובשחרורי עבדים איירי


Question: Isn't there the date in the document, which is similar both regarding the Get of women and slaves? (Note: Accordingly, why isn't this listed as one of the things that these two types of Gitin have in common (9a)?) This is as stated in Yevamos (31b) that a slave is bought sometimes with money and sometimes with a document, and the Rabbanan said that the date must be written in the document. This last statement is talking about the document freeing the slave.

ולא כמו שפירש שם בקונטרס שטר מכירת עבד דא"כ הוה מצי למפרך מקרקעות וכל שטרות ועוד דאותו אינו נפסל כשאין בו זמן אלא בשטר שחרור איירי שנפסל בלא זמן כמו גיטי נשים


This is unlike the explanation of Rashi there that this last part is discussing a slave being bought. If so, the Gemara could have asked from land or any document (see Gemara in Yevamos ibid.). Additionally, a document of purchasing a slave is valid when it does not have a date, unlike a document when a slave is freed which is invalid, just as the Get of a woman is invalid without a date.

וי"ל דכיון שרגילין לעשות זמן בכל שטרות לא תניא הכא.


Answer: Being that a date on a document is something common done on all documents (whether or not it makes the document invalid if it is not done), it is not listed as a common concept shared by these two types of Gitin.


TOSFOS DH "b'Shelichus"

תוס' ד"ה "בשליחות"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains the Gemara's answer.)

פי' בקונטרס והכי קתני בזו שוו גיטי נשים ושחרורי עבדים ששליח זה נעשה שליח אצלו בע"כ ואם רצה הבעל חוזר מה שאין כן בקדושין דאע"ג דחוזר לאו דומיא דהני הוא


Explanation #1: Rashi explains, the Beraisa therefore means that these Gitin are the same as the messenger can be made a messenger against the will of the recipient. If the husband/master wants, he can retract. This is unlike Kidushin, where even if he retracts it is not similar (as the messenger of the prospective husband cannot force her to accept Kidushin against her will, see Rashba).

ואין נראה דאי מיירי בשליחות בעל כורחייהו רבנן נמי מודו דחוזר בעבד ואין זכין לו בעל כורחו


Question: This does not seem correct. If it is referring to a messenger against his will, the Rabbanan agree that a person who sends a messenger to free a slave can retract the Get, and that the Get cannot be acquired for him by someone else against his will.

ונראה כפר"ח דכיון דבעבד ואשה איכא שליחות בעל כורחייהו הוה אמינא דאין יכול לחזור דכיון דבא ליד השליח כאילו בא לידה דמי כיון שאין יכולים לעכב אבל קידושין דאין בע"כ פשיטא דחוזר ומילתא דליתא בקדושין היינו דליתא חידוש בקדושין


Explanation #2: It seems the correct approach is that of the Rach. He says that since there is a concept of sending a messenger against their will by a woman and a slave, one would think that the husband/master cannot retract the Get once he has given it to the messenger. One would presume that once it gets to the hand of the messenger, it is as if it has already reached her hand, being that they cannot prevent receiving it. However, being that a woman can decide not to accept Kidushin, it is obvious that a person who sends Kidushin to a woman can retract the Kidushin before she accepts it. When the Gemara says this is something that does not apply to Kidushin, it means that there is no novelty in this topic regarding Kidushin.

וקשה ליתני דשוו לבע"כ והוו ארבע אפי' לרבנן.


Question: This is difficult. The Mishnah should say that they are similar in that they both can be done against the recipient's will. This would mean that there are four things that they are similar in even according to the Rabbanan (according to those who hold like Rebbi Meir (see 9b and Tosfos DH "b'Eidei") it would be five).


TOSFOS DH "Matzas Kusi"

תוס' ד"ה "מצת כותי"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how one can eat the Matzah of a Kusi if Chazal forbade us from eating their bread.)

ואם תאמר הלא גזרו על פתן כדאמרינן בפירקי דרבי אליעזר (פ' לח) לפי שהיו מבטלין בנין בית המקדש בימי עזרא וקתני התם מכאן אמר רבי אליעזר כל האוכל פת כותי כאילו אוכל בשר חזיר ותניא נמי בפ"ק דחולין (דף יג.) גבי מין פתו פת כותי


Question: Didn't Chazal decree that their bread cannot be eaten? The reasoning is given in Pirkei d'Rebbi Eliezer (ch. 38) that they were trying to delay the building of the Beis Hamikdash in the times of Ezra. It is taught there that Rebbi Eliezer stated that whoever eats the bread of a Kusi is as if he is eating pig's meat. We also learned in Chulin (13a) that the bread of a heretic is like the bread of a Kusi.

ואור"ת דמיירי בעיסת ישראל שעשה כותי מצה ממנה


Answer: Rabeinu Tam explains that this is referring to the dough of a Jew that a Kusi made into Matzah.

וא"ת אמאי יוצא בה ידי חובה דילמא לא שמרה לשם מצה דחשידי אלפני עור וגו'


Question: Why does one fulfill his Mitzvah with such Matzah? Perhaps the Kusi did not watch it for the sake of making it into Matzah, as he is suspected of transgressing the prohibition of Lifnei Iver?

וי"ל כגון דקים לן דאין לכותי מצה אחרת שיוכל לצאת בה ידי חובתו כדמשמע בריש חולין (דף ד.) קוטע ראשו של אחד מהן ונותנו לו אכלו מותר לאכול משחיטתו.


Answer: The case is where we know that the Kusi has no other Matzah that he can use to fulfill his Mitzvah. This is as the Gemara says in Chulin (4a), that if one cuts off the head of one (of the slaughtered birds in a Kusi's possession) and gives it to him to eat and he eats it, one can eat from his Shechitah. (Note: This is because while he himself would not eat from unkosher Shechitah, he would give it to others. His eating it himself is a sign that this batch of birds that he slaughtered is kosher.)


Tosfos DH "v'Adam"

תוס' ד"ה "ואדם"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the Tosefta adds that we can fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzah with it on Pesach.)

זו אף זו קתני


Implied Question: If the bread of a Kusi is permitted, why does the Tosefta also have to say that we can fulfill the Mitzvah of Matzah with it on Pesach?

ואשמעינן דבקיאין בשימור לשם מצה.


Answer: The style of the Tosefta is "this, and even this." The second part of the Tosefta is teaching us that they are indeed experts at the watching required for the sake of making Matzas Mitzvah (and therefore one can use their Matzah for Matzas Mitzvah on Pesach).


TOSFOS DH "Ee Tana Kama"

תוס' ד"ה "אי תנא קמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos thoroughly analyzes many angles of the argument between the Tana Kama and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.)

אור"י דמשמע דלת"ק מהניא כתיבה לחודיה אע"ג דלא אחזוק מדלא קאמר את"ק אי דאחזוק כו' כדקאמר ארשב"ג


Explanation: The Ri states that the Tana Kama implies that the fact that a Mitzvah is written in the Torah itself, even if the Kusim are not established as being careful about it, has the status of something about which they are credible. This is evident by the fact that the Gemara does not ask on the Tana Kama like it does on Rebbi Shimon ben Gamliel, "If they are established etc."

וא"כ פשיטא ליה לש"ס דמצה לא אחזוק פירוש אין ידוע אי אחזוק דאי מצה כתיבה ואחזוק מנא ליה לש"ס דכתיבה לחודיה מהניא לתנא קמא


If so, it must have been obvious to the Gemara that they were not established regarding Matzah, meaning, that there is no specific information that they were particularly careful about Matzah. If Matzah is a Mitzvah that is written in the Torah and about which they are careful, how does the Gemara know that the Tana Kama holds they are credible regarding any Mitzvah that is written in the Torah (without knowing that they are established to be careful about that Mitzvah)?

וכן משמע בפרק קמא דחולין (דף ד.) דמעיקרא מוקי פלוגתייהו בכתיבה ולא אחזוק דלת"ק מהניא ולרשב"ג לא מהניא ופריך האי כל מצוה שהחזיקו בה אם החזיקו בה מיבעי ליה משמע דלא ידיע לן אי אחזוק בה מדקאמר אם אחזוק בה מיבעי ליה


This is also implied in Chulin (4a). The Gemara there originally establishes the argument between the Tana Kama and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel regarding a case of a Mitzvah written in the Torah where it is not specifically known that they are careful about that Mitzvah. According to the Tana Kama they are believed, while according to Rabban Shimon they are not. The Gemara proceeds to ask, if this is their argument, then Rabban Shimon's statement, "any Mitzvah that they are careful about," should in fact read, "if they are careful about it!" This implies that Rabban Shimon would not believe them if we do not know for certain that they are careful, as the Gemara says that he should say, "if they are careful" (see below).

וקשה דלמאי דמסיק התם דאחזוק בלא כתיבה איכא בינייהו דלתנא קמא לא מהני ורשב"ג לטפויי אתא למימר דמהני מנא ליה דלא מהני לת"ק כיון דכתיבה לחודיה מהני אע"ג דלא מהני לרשב"ג כדמשמע הכא כ"ש דמהני חזקה לחודה דעדיפא דמהני אף לרשב"ג


Question: This is difficult according to the Gemara's conclusion that their argument is in a case where they are known to be careful but the Mitzvah is not written in the Torah. According to the Tana Kama they are not believed, while Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is adding that they are believed. However, how do we know that the Tana Kama will hold that they are not believed? Being that a Mitzvah written in the Torah makes them believed even though they are not believed based on this alone according to Rabban Shimon as the Gemara implies, certainly if it is known they are careful about any Mitzvah they should be believed! This is especially in light of the fact that this factor alone makes them believed according to Rabban Shimon.

ודוחק לומר אע"ג דממילתא דתנא קמא אין להוכיח דלא מהני חזקה לחודיה מכל מקום יש לדקדק מרשב"ג דאתא לטפויי חזקה לחודה מכלל דלתנא קמא לא מהני


It is difficult to say that even though it cannot be proven from the Tana Kama that specific knowledge that they are careful about a Mitzvah does not help (if the Mitzvah is not written in the Torah), it is possible to deduce that Rabban Shimon is coming to add this point. This implies that the Tana Kama argues that in such a case they would not be believed.

ונראה לר"י דלמסקנא דהתם מצה כתיבה והחזיקו בה והשתא יש להוכיח מתנא קמא גופיה דחזקה לחודה לא מהניא מדנקט מצה דכתיבה ואחזוק דאי חזקה לחודה מהניא הוה ליה למינקט שחיטה דליכא אלא חזקה לחודה


Answer: It appears to the Ri that according to the Gemara's conclusion that Matzah is a case which is both written in the Torah and they are known to be careful about, this position (in the paragraph above) can be proven to be the position of the Tana Kama. This is why the Beraisa discussed Matzah that is both. If the Tana Kama held that they are believed regarding a Mitzvah that they are known to be careful about (without it being written in the Torah), the Tosefta should have given Shechitah as an example of such a Mitzvah.

ואם תאמר אם כן מנא ליה דכתיבה לחודה מהני לתנא קמא כיון דמצה כתיבה ואחזוק


Question: According to the above, how do we know that if a Mitzvah is written in the Torah the Tana Kama holds that they are believed? Being that the Tana Kama only addressed Matzah which is a Mitzvah that is both written in the Torah and about which it is known that they are careful, how do we know that if a Mitzvah is written in the Torah alone the Tana Kama holds they are believed?

ויש לומר מדלא מפרש בהדיא מצת כותי מותרת הואיל והחזיקו בה משמע דלא הוי טעמא אלא משום דכתיבה שהוא טעם הידוע לכל בלא שום פירוש


Answer: The fact that the Tana Kama does not explicitly say that the Matzah of a Kusi is permitted because they are known to be careful about it implies that the reason is because it is written in the Torah. This is the reasoning that everyone would assume (why they would be believed) when such a statement is made (by the Tana Kama that Matzas Kusi is permitted) without explanation.

ואם תאמר כיון דלתנא קמא חזקה לחודה לא מהניא מנא לן דכתיבה לחודיה לא מהניא לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דפריך אי אחזוק כו' דילמא כתיבה עדיפא דמהני אפי' לתנא קמא וכל שכן דמהני לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל


Question #1: According to the Tana Kama, the fact that it is known that they are careful about a Mitzvah does not help. Accordingly, how do we know that if a Mitzvah is written in the Torah it is not reason enough that they should believed according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and instead the Gemara asks "if they are known to be careful etc.?" Perhaps the fact that it is written in the Torah is better than they being known to be careful, as this alone helps according to the Tana. Therefore, this should certainly help according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

ועוד במסקנא דחולין הוה ליה למימר אחזוק בדלא כתיבה נמי איכא בינייהו מדלא קאמר נמי משמע כתיבא לחודה מהניא לכולי עלמא


Question #2: Additionally, according to the conclusion of the Gemara in Chulin (4a) the Gemara should say that they also argue regarding a Mitzvah that they are known to be careful about that is not written in the Torah. The fact that the Gemara does not make this distinction implies that if it is written in the Torah alone they are believed according to everyone.

ויש לומר דמספקא ליה להש"ס אי פליג רשב"ג אתנא קמא בכתיבה ולא אחזוק מדלא קאמר כל מצוה שכתובה או שהוחזקו בה


Answer: The Gemara is in doubt whether Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel argues on the Tana Kama in a case where the Mitzvah is written in the Torah but it is not known that they are careful regarding its laws. This is evident from the fact that the Gemara did not say that "any Mitzvah that is either written or they are known to be careful about etc."

אע"ג דאיכא למימר דמכל שכן שמעינן ליה דהא לתנא קמא כתיבה מהניא ולא חזקה אפ"ה מספקא ליה להש"ס דילמא לרבן שמעון בן גמליאל גריעא כתיבה מחזקה מדלא פירש בהדיא


Even though it is possible to say that this is a Kal v'Chomer, as the Tana Kama holds that if it is written in the Torah they are believed but if they are known to be careful they are not believed, even so the Gemara is in doubt. This is because it is possible that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that being written in the Torah is not as good of a reason that they should be believed as is knowing that they are careful about a certain Mitzvah, as he does not talk about this explicitly.

ולהכי לא קאמר התם אחזוק בדלא כתיבה נמי איכא בינייהו משום דכתיבה ולא אחזוק מספקא ליה אי פליג רבן שמעון בן גמליאל כדפירשנו.


This is the reason why the Gemara in Chulin (ibid.) doesn't say that if it is known that they are careful about a Mitzvah but it is not written in the Torah is also dependent on the argument between the Tana Kama and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. This is because it is unclear to the Gemara if Rabban Shimon would argue, as we have just explained.




תוס' ד"ה "אי לאו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains why the verification of this one witness does not mean there is really only one witness on the document.)

תימה אם כן כוליה שטרא מתקיים אפומא דחד ישראל דחתים לבסוף


Question: This is difficult, as if so the entire reliability of the document is based on one Jew who signed at the end of the document!

ויש לומר דאין לחוש כיון דהאי כותי כשר מדאורייתא דגרי אמת הן.


Answer: This is not a problem. Being that this Kusi is a kosher witness according to Torah law as they are essentially true converts, he is by letter of the law a kosher witness in his own right.


TOSFOS DH "Rava Amar"

תוס' ד"ה "רבא אמר"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos explains how Rava understands the position of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.)

ולדידיה דאחזוק בהא ולא אחזוק בהא.


Explanation: According to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel they are believed to be careful about signing on Gitin, but not about other documents. (Note: When giving this explanation, the Tosfos Rid explains that because they were careful about Eishes Ish (the status of married women) he believed their signatures on Gitin.)


TOSFOS DH "Chaspa b'Alma"

תוס' ד"ה "חספא בעלמא"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos discusses why the Gemara thinks that this document is invalid when done by Nochrim.)

פירש בקונטרס דהוה מצי לשנויי בעדי מסירה ור' אלעזר היא אלא דשינויא דחיקא הוא דהא לעיל פרכינן עלה מדסיפא רבי שמעון בשטתו דרבי אלעזר מכלל דרישא לאו רבי אלעזר


Explanation #1: Rashi explains that the Gemara could have answered that the case is where there were witnesses that the document was given over, and it is according to Rebbi Elazar (that these witnesses effect the transaction). However, this would have been a difficult answer. This is because the Gemara earlier (bottom 9b) said that Rebbi Shimon (in the second part of our Mishnah) was according to Rebbi Elazar, implying that the first part of the Mishnah (the Tana Kama) was not according to Rebbi Elazar.

וקשה דאדרבה תירוץ דבעדי מסירה ור' אלעזר נשאר לפי המסקנא דמשני כי קתני מילתא דליתא בקדושין דאי בלא עדי מסירה וכרבי מאיר אפילו בקדושין פסלינן ערכאות מדאורייתא


Question: This explanation of Rashi is difficult. On the contrary, the explanation that there were witnesses and the Tana Kama holds like Rebbi Elazar remains in the Gemara's conclusion, where the Gemara answers that the list in the Beraisa (9a-b) only includes concepts that do not have to do with Kidushin. If we would say that this document was without witnesses observing the transaction and according to Rebbi Meir (who holds that such witnesses do not effect a transaction), even Kidushin is unfit when done in such courts according to Torah law. (Note: Therefore, it is clear that even the Tana Kama holds like Rebbi Elazar, and Rashi's reason falls away.)

ואור"י דכי היכי דפסלי' בגט אף בעדי מסירה ושמות מובהקים משום דלמא אתי למיסמך עלייהו בלא עדי מסירה ישראל


Explanation #2: The Ri states that we say that a Get done by a Nochri court is invalid even if there are Jewish witnesses for the giving of the Get. Moreover, even if the names of those who signed are obviously those of Nochrim in order that no one will come to rely on their testimony without Jewish witnesses about the giving of the Get, it is still invalid.

הכי נמי פסלינן בשטר מתנה ולא תיקנו חכמים להאמינם אלא בשטרי מלוה ומכר שהן לראיה ואין נעשה על פי עדותן שום קנין אבל שטר מתנה אין כשר לקנות בו מדאורייתא אלא א"כ יש עדים כשרים בשעת מסירה


Accordingly, we also invalidate a gift document (done in a Nochri court). The Chachamim only decreed that we believe their loan and sale documents that are used as proofs, and their testimony does not effect any transaction. However, a gift document done in their courts cannot be used to acquire according to Torah law, unless there are kosher Jewish witnesses when the document is given over.

ואפילו אם נאמר ששטר מתנה שחתמו בו ישראל כשר לקנות בו בלא עדי מסירה היינו משום שידוע ע"י עדי חתימה שהן כשרים מן התורה שבא השטר מיד הנותן ליד המקבל וכן כשר בהודאת נותן שהוא כק' עדים


Even if we will say that a gift document that has a Jew signed on it can be used to effect a transaction without witnesses that it was given over, this is because it is known through the signed witnesses who are kosher according to Torah law that the giver of the gift gave the document to the recipient. It is also valid if the giver admits he gave the gift, which is equal to one hundred witnesses.

אבל בשטר שחותמין בו עובדי כוכבים שאין בו לא עדי מסירה ולא עדי חתימה שכשרים להעיד ולא הודאת בע"ד לא חשוב שטר לקנות על ידו ולא הוי אלא חספא בעלמא


However, a document that has Nochrim signed on it, that does not have kosher witnesses for the giving of the document nor kosher witnesses signed on the document, and the giver does not admit, is not considered a document that effects a transaction and is like a piece of earthenware.

אבל אין לומר דלהכי חשיב ליה חספא בעלמא משום דמתניתין כיילא שטר מתנה בהדי שאר שטרות דכשרים אפילו כתיבתן וחתימתן עובדי כוכבים דהשתא לא מהני עדי מסירה מידי


Implied Question: However, it is not possible to say that (when our Gemara asks) this is like earthenware, (it is doing so) because our Mishnah lumped together gift documents with other documents that are kosher even if they were written and signed by Nochrim. This is because witnesses that the document was given over will clearly not help. (Note: The Tosfos Ha'Rosh explains Tosfos' implied question in the following manner. One might suggest that the Gemara's question was the following. Being that Nochrim cannot acquire (anything) through a document transaction, their writing of a document should invalidate the document from having the full powers of a gift document that effects transactions, even if there were kosher witnesses for the giving of the document. Accordingly, Rebbi Elazar should say such a document is invalid because even kosher witnesses of the giving of the document do not make it effective, and certainly Rebbi Meir would say it is ineffective because their signatures are invalid. This explanation answers the Maharam's difficulty with Tosfos.)

דהא בברייתא דבסמוך כולל יחד כל השטרות דכשרים בערכאות ואפילו גיטי נשים ואפי' הכי לא מכשרינן בגיטין אלא בכתיבת ישראל ובעדי מסירה ובשאר שטרות כשר בכל ענין ר"י.


Answer: The Beraisa later (11a) includes all of the documents that are kosher when done in a Nochri court, even Gitin given to women, and even so it only says that a Get given to women is kosher when it is written by a Jew and when the witnesses of the giving of the Get are Jewish. Other documents are kosher even without this. (Note: This implies that certainly other documents can be valid when written by Nochrim, especially if witnesses of the giving over of the document are Jewish. It should be noted that the Tosfos Ha'Rosh defends the explanation given in (d) above.)


TOSFOS DH "v'Ha Lav"

תוס' ד"ה "והא לאו"

(SUMMARY: Tosfos suggests different question that the Gemara could have asked.)

ה"מ למיפרך הא לאו בני עדות נינהו.


Implied Question: The Gemara could have similarly asked, "they are not fit to testify?" (Note: Why didn't the Gemara choose this question instead? The fact that Tosfos does not give a reason why the Gemara chose the other question instead, as he does in many other places (i.e. Chagigah 18a, DH "Mah Rishon" and Bava Kama 3b, DH "Toldah") implies somewhat that Tosfos did not have a good answer as to why the Gemara chose the other question.)