The mishna on 29a says that two brothers married two sisters, and the third was single, "mufneh" (and he did maamar, etc.) Why does the mishna specify that the third brother was b'davkeh single? Would it make any difference if he was a nasoi nuchris like in every other mishna?
Further, Tosafos on 31b comments that when the mishna says "three brothers married three unrelated woman" it would have been just as valid to say that one was single ("mufneh"). My question is: what is the advantage or disadvantage to the mishna stating that the third brother was "mufneh" rather than using the usual lashon of "nasoi nuchris"?
Yaakov Siegel, miami USA
The Nimukei Yosef (see also Tosfos Yom Tov and Tiferes Yisrael on the Mishnah) explains that it could have said "Nasuy Nochris" in this Mishnah as well. However, as opposed to the other Mishnayos where the fact that the man is married to a Nochris factors into the case, here the person can even be single. The point you raise from Tosfos (31b, DH "Sheloshah") is appropriate in that particular case. Being that the case can be stated in a short fashion, that all three brothers married three unrelated women, it is better to say it that way than to make the longer statement that one was not married at all. However, in our Mishnah the third brother has to be separated from the other two, in that he could either be single or be married to a Nochris (and not married to two sisters like the other two brothers). This is why the Mishnah chooses instead to say he is Mufneh, in order to show that the case here, unlike almost all of the other cases, could be talking about a Mufneh as much as someone who is married to a Nochris.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose
The mishna on 29a says that two brothers married two sisters, and the third was single, "mufneh" (and he did maamar, etc.) Why does the mishna specify that the third brother was b'davkeh single? Would it make any difference if he was a nasoi nuchris like in every other mishna?
Further, Tosafos on 31b comments that when the mishna says "three brothers married three unrelated woman" it would have been just as valid to say that one was single ("mufneh"). My question is: what is the advantage or disadvantage to the mishna stating that the third brother was "mufneh" rather than using the usual lashon of "nasoi nuchris"?
Yaakov Siegel, miami USA
Dear Yaakov
Hello there and thanks for your question. In the first case you mention it really would be the same if the third brother was also married, but it doesn't add in anyway to the Mishnah, thus no need to put in the extra wife for no reason. In the second case, that is probably what Tosfos is coming to say. Since there is no need for this third woman, the Tana could have stated that the third brother was not married. Why then does the Tana add the third woman? My suggestion is that the Tana always uses the shortest language necessary. In this case it is the shortest thing to say "Three brothers were married to three women who were no related to each other", instead of saying "Two brothers were married and a third was not".
All the best.
Y. Landy