Ketuboth page 9

I would like to bring here the subject in Ketuboth page 9 and the approach of Rav Shmuel Rozovski of Ponovitch, and then to ask a question on that approach. Rav Shmuel brings Rabbainu Shimshon ben Avraham in Ketuboth page 75b (Tosphot first word "But"). He explains Rav Shimshon in certain way, and I think I can show that the explanation of Rav Shmuel is different than what R Shimshon means. The subject is the statement of R. Elazar that when the newly married husband of a woman says he found her to not be a virgin, the woman is then forbidden to him. The Gemara explains that this is because it is doubtful when she had sex. If before the engagement she is permitted. If after the engagement, she is forbidden. Since this is a doubt, she is forbidden. Tosphot asks on this should not she be permitted because a status of being permitted to a kohen? Answer there is a status quo against this. That is status of the body. R. Akiva Eiger asks, “she should be permitted because there are two statuses against one”, i.e., status of being permitted to a kohen, and status that now she has been found to not be a virgin, and therefore we push that back in time as far as possible just like the case of the mikve in Nida page 2. R Akiva answers his question in a certain way. But Rav Shmuel takes note that Tosphot asks the identical question in Ketuboth page 75 about a somewhat different case. There a woman was found to have a blemish, and we do not know when she got it, (before the engagement or after)? If after the engagement, then the engagement is valid. If before, then the engagement is invalid. There she would be in doubt if not for status of money. So Tosphot asks: but there are two statuses, i.e., behold a blemish is here, and the status of her not being married. Both push off the time she got the blemish to be before the engagement. Against that there is the status of the body that her body stayed the same until the last minute that we know about. So, she ought to be not married. Rabainu Shimshon says status of not being married is nothing compared with status of the body. R Shmuel Rozovski says R. Shimshon intends to say that status of law is nothing compared with status of the body. However, if this is what R Shimshon means, then this contradicts the Tosphot in Ketuboth page 9 and the Gemara Nida page 2. Tosphot holds status of the body and status of being permitted to kohen cancel each other in so far as the wife of a kohen will be forbidden by a doubt. If it would be the case that status of law is nothing compared with status of the body, then there would be nothing to stand against status of the body except status of now which both to Rav and Shmuel in Kidushin 79 cannot stand by itself before that of the body. Also, the gemara says the reason the pure food prepared on a mikve that was found lacking the proper volume is impure is because two statues against one, i.e., status of the person who dunked into in the mikve and status of now against status of the mikve. There both statuses worked together to make the food to be 100 percent impure, not impure because of doubt. And staus of the man being impure is status in law. There are more questions on this but I forgot most of them. Rather we must say that Rav Shimshon means the status of not being married is not a status at all. There is no such status. It is rather just an absence of status. That is how he answer the question in Ketuboth page 75, and that has no connection with out subject in Ketuboth page 9 where Tosphot deals with a status of being permitted to a kohen, and that is a status. And that has no connection with the gemara in Nida page 2 where the status of the person being impure until he has gone into the mikve is a status. So, now everything Tosphot stays makes perfect sense. In Ketuboth page 9, we have one status of the body against status of being permitted to a kohen, and they cancel each other so she is in doubt. In Nida, we have two statuses, one of now, and the other the person being impure, and thus they cancel the one status of the mikve, and so the food is a hundred percent impure, and that is not by doubt, but by certainty.----------------------------I would like to bring here the subject in כתובות page 9 and the approach of רב שמואל רוזובסקי and then to ask a question on that approach. ר' שמואל brings the ר' שמשון בן אברהם (רשב''א) in כתובות page ע''ה ע''ב (תוספות first word "But"). He explains ר’ שמשון in certain way, and I think I can show that the explanation of ר' שמואל is different than what ר' שמשון means. The subject is the statement of ר' אלעזר that when the newly married husband of a woman says he found her to not be a virgin, the woman is then forbidden to him. The גמרא explains that this is because it is doubtful when she had sex. If before the engagement, she is permitted. If after the engagement, she is forbidden. Since this is a doubt, she is forbidden. תוספות asks on this: should not she be permitted because a חזקה of being permitted to a כהן? Answer there is a חזקה against this. That is חזקה of the body. ר' עקיבא אייגר asks, “she should be permitted because there are two חזקהes against one”, i.e., חזקה of being permitted to a כהן, and חזקה that now she has been found to not be a virgin, and therefore we push that back in time as far as possible just like the case of the מקוה in נידה page 2. ר' אקיבא אייגר answers his question in a certain way. But רב שמואל רוזובסקי takes note that תוספות asks the identical question in כתובות page ע''ה ע''ב about a somewhat different case. There a woman was found to have a מום, and we do not know when she got it, (before the engagement or after)? If after the engagement, then the engagement is valid. If before, then the engagement is invalid. There she would be in doubt if not for חזקה of money. So תוספות asks: but there are two חזקות, i.e., הרי a blemish is here, and the חזקה of her not being married. Both push off the time she got the blemish to be before the engagement. Against that there is the חזקה of the body that her body stayed the same until the last minute that we know about. So, she ought to be not married. ר' שמשון says חזקה of not being married is nothing compared with חזקה of the body. ר' שמואל רוזובסקי says ר' שמשון intends to say that חזקה of law is nothing compared with חזקה of the body. However, if this is what ר' שמשון means, then this contradicts the תוספות in כתובות page ט' and the גמרא נידה page ב' ע''ב. תוספות holds חזקה of the body and חזקה of being permitted to כהן cancel each other in so far as the wife of a כהן will be forbidden by a doubt. If it would be the case that חזקה of law is nothing compared with חזקה of the body, then there would be nothing to stand against חזקה of the body except חזקה of now which both to רב and שמואל in קידושין דף ע''ט cannot stand by itself before that of the body. Also, the גמרא says the reason the טהרות prepared on a מקוה that was found lacking the proper volume is טמא is because two חזקות against one, i.e., חזקה of the person who טובל into in the מקוה and חזקה of השתא against חזקה מעיקרא of the מקוה. There both חזקות worked together to make the food to be 100 percent טמא, not טמא because of doubt. And חזקה of the man being טמא is חזקה in דין. There are more questions on this, but I forgot most of them. Rather, we must say that ר' שמשון means the חזקה of not being married is not a חזקה at all. There is no such חזקה. It is rather just an absence of חזקה. That is how he answer the question in כתובות page ע''ה, and that has no connection with our subject in כתובות page ט' where תוספות deals with a חזקה of being permitted to a כהן, and that is a חזקה. And that has no connection with the גמרא in נידה page 2 where the חזקה of the person being טמא until he has gone into the מקוה is a חזקה. So, now everything תוספות stays makes perfect sense. In כתובות page ט', we have one חזקה of the body against חזקה of being permitted to a כהן, and they cancel each other, so she is in doubt. In נידה, we have two חזקות, one of חזקת השתא , and the other the person being טמא, and thus they cancel the one חזקה of the מקוה, and so the food is a hundred percent טמא, and that is not by doubt, but by certainty.