Question

"And if after she married, witnesses came," etc.:
Abuh of Shmuel said: "She did not marry" means not that she actually married, but rather 6 once she was permitted to marry, even though she had not actually married. But doesn’t it teach, "she need not leave"? "She need not leave" means from her original permission.
The Rabbis taught: If she said, 7 "I was taken captive, but I am pure, and I have witnesses that I am pure," we do not say, "Let us wait until the witnesses come," but rather we permit her immediately. If they permitted her to marry and afterward witnesses came and said, "We do not know," she does not leave. 8 But if witnesses of defilement came, then even if she has several children, she must leave.

Those captive women who came to Nehardea—Abuh of Shmuel seated guards with them. Shmuel said to him: "Until now, who was guarding them?" He said to him: "If they were your daughters, would you be treating them with such disregard?" It was an error that goes forth from a ruler. And the daughters of Master Shmuel were taken captive, and they were brought up to the Land of Israel. They stationed their captors outside, and they entered the study hall of Rabbi Hanina. This one said, "I was taken captive, but I am pure," and that one said, "I was taken captive, but I am pure," and he permitted them. In the end their captors came in. Rabbi Hanina said: 9 "They are daughters of one who issues halakhic rulings." It was revealed that they were the daughters of Master Shmuel.

Ritva
"Would you be treating them with such disregard":    This is difficult for us, for Shmuel was certainly saying something reasonable, so why was he punished? One can say that Abuh of Shmuel had permitted them before he saw their captors, and so it was a case of "I was taken captive, but I am pure." And if you say that he saw their captors as well, he still permitted them based on the reasoning that once she was permitted to marry [she remains permitted], and he meant to permit them from that point onward. And Shmuel did not know that his father had permitted them beforehand. Alternatively, even if he did know, he did not agree with him. Therefore he said, "Until now, who was guarding them?" Since there are witnesses of captivity, they are presumed defiled. And because he said it in that language, his father was upset and said to him, "If they were your daughters," etc.

Hello Rabbi Michi,
I would be glad if you could help me understand the Ritva on the above passage. The Talmud begins with the story of those captive women. The Ritva asks why Shmuel was punished—after all, his question seems justified. If I understand correctly, he is asking his father what the point of the guarding is, since they are considered defiled because they are captives. And his father rebukes him for that.
He raises several possibilities to explain what the case was:
1. Shmuel’s father permitted them to marry before he saw the captors, and therefore he placed guards over them from then on.
2. He permitted them to marry even after he saw the captors.
Shmuel did not know that he had permitted them, and therefore he asked his father what the point of the guarding was.
3. He knew, but disagreed with his father.
It follows that according to the Ritva’s explanation, Shmuel’s father’s view is that captive women may be permitted as long as no testimony was given that they were taken captive, even if the captors are present, or if the judge has not yet seen them.

If my explanation is indeed correct, then does the Talmudic phrase "an error that goes forth from a ruler" refer to the fact that Shmuel’s daughters were taken captive and ended up in that same situation, and his daughters tell the captors to wait outside, and they say to Rabbi Hanina, "I was taken captive, but I am pure"? Then afterward the captors come in, but they remain pure because they had already been permitted to marry—and this is exactly the ruling of Shmuel’s father, in contrast to the son’s view. And is the message of the story Shmuel’s lack of sensitivity in being stringent in such cases, as a result of which his daughters were taken captive and were saved thanks to the grandfather’s ruling, contrary to the son’s ruling? Is this explanation reasonable / correct? Thank you very much.