Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) IS SILENCE EQUIVALENT TO AN ADMISSION?

(a) (Abaye): Reuven tells Shimon 'You ate Chelev'; Shimon is silent - Reuven is believed.

1. Support (Mishnah): Reuven tells Shimon 'You ate Chelev'; Shimon says, 'I did not eat' - Shimon is exempt (from a sacrifice).
2. Inference: Had Shimon not contradicted him, Reuven would have been believed.

(b) (Abaye): Reuven tells Shimon 'Your produce became Tamei'; Shimon is silent - Reuven is believed.

1. Support (Beraisa): Reuven tells Shimon 'You became Tamei'; Shimon says, 'I did not' - Shimon is exempt.
2. Inference: Had Shimon not contradicted him, Reuven would have been believed.

(c) (Abaye): Reuven tells Shimon 'A man had relations with your ox'; Shimon is silent - Reuven is believed (to forbid the ox from being a sacrifice).

1. Support (Beraisa): One witness testifies that an animal had relations with or killed a person, or the owner says this - he is believed.
2. Question: What is the case of 1 witness?

(i) Suggestion: If the owner admits - this was taught separately!

3. Answer: Rather, the owner was quiet.

(d) It is necessary to teach all 3 cases.

1. If we would only hear by Chelev - one might have thought, a person would not be silent unless he really transgressed (since it is forbidden to bring an unnecessary sin-offering);

(i) But he might be silent when told that his food is Tamei, since he can still eat it when he is Tahor.

2. If we heard by Tum'ah - one might have thought, he would not be silent unless it was true, for he would prefer to eat his food when he is Tahor;

(i) But he might be silent when told that a man had relations with his animal, since he does not plan to bring all his animals as sacrifices - we hear, in all cases, his silence is as an admission.

(e) Question: Reuven told Shimon that Shimon's wife had adultery (forbidding her to Shimon); Shimon was quiet - what is the law?
(f) Answer #1 (Abaye): Reuven is believed.
(g) Answer #2 (Rava): He is not believed - matters of Ervah (forbidden relations) require 2 witnesses.
(h) (Abaye): We may learn from the blind man (Reuven) that used to learn in front of Shmuel. One day, he was late; they sent a messenger to get him. Reuven came on his own on a different path; the messenger returned and said that Reuven's wife had adultery.

1. Shmuel (to Reuven): If you believed the messenger, you must divorce your wife; if not, not.
2. Suggestion: This means, if you do not think he is a thief (i.e. a blatant falsifier).

(i) Rejection (Rava): No - it means, if you trust him as 2 witnesses, you must divorce her.
(j) (Abaye): We may learn that 1 witness is believed from the case with King Yanai. After conquering 60 cities, he was very happy; he invited the Chachamim to a banquet of vegetables, in memory of the builders of the second Beis ha'Mikdash.

1. Eliezer ben Po'ira (a lowlife, to Yanai): Chachamim detest you!
2. Yanai: How can I know?
3. Eliezer: Wear the Tzitz (the head-plate of the Kohen Gadol) and see their reaction. Yanai did this.
4. Yehudah ben Gedidyah (a Chacham): King Yanai, it suffices that you are king - do not presume to be a Kohen.

(i) He did not consider him a Kohen, because it was said Yanai's mother was captured (before Yanai was born, disqualifying her to a Kohen); the matter was investigated, it was found not to be true.
(ii) Chachamim angrily left the banquet.

5. Eliezer: King Yanai - a commoner may bear such indignity, but not you, a king and Kohen Gadol!
6. Yanai: What should I do?
7. Eliezer: Kill them!
8. Yanai: What will happen to Torah?
9. Eliezer: The Sefer Torah will remain for anyone that wants to learn.

(i) (Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak): At this point, he became a heretic - he should have answered, 'What will happen to oral Torah?'

10. Yanai killed (virtually) all the Chachamim; the world was desolate until Shimon ben Shetach restored Torah to its greatness.
11. (The support for Abaye's opinion) Question: What was the case (that it was said his mother was captured, but it was found to be false)?

(i) Suggestion: If 2 witnesses said she was captured, and 2 said she was not - why do we rely on the latter ones (to say it was found to be false)?

12. Answer #1: Rather, 1 witness said she was captured.

(i) If not that 2 witnesses later contradicted him, 1 witness would have been believed!

(k) Rejection (Rava): Really, 2 witnesses testified that she had been captured.

1. Answer #2 (to question 12\): The case is, the first witnesses were Huzmu (the latter witnesses testified that the first witnesses were not at the place where they claimed to have seen the testimony), therefore we rely on the latter ones.
2. Answer #3 (R. Yitzchak): The latter witnesses testified that his mother was switched right away with a slave and escaped from captivity - she was never alone with the captors to become disqualified from Kehunah.

2) ON WHAT BASIS IS A SINGLE WITNESS BELIEVED?

(a) (Rava): We learn that 1 witness is not believed from the following Mishnah.

1. (Mishnah - R. Tarfon): There was a certain Mikveh that had a Chazakah of having the required amount of water. It was measured and found to be lacking - anything that contacted something that was immersed in the Mikveh is Tahor;

(i) R. Akiva says, it is Tamei.

2. R. Tarfon: The Mikveh had a Chazakah of being full - if in doubt if it was lacking at the time the people or vessels immersed, don't assume it was lacking!
3. R. Akiva: A person that immersed in the Mikveh had a Chazakah of being Tamei - if in doubt if he became Tahor (for perhaps the Mikveh was lacking), don't assume he became Tahor!
4. R. Tarfon: A parable: this is as a Kohen that was offering sacrifices on the Altar, and it became known that he was born to a divorcee or Chalutzah (which makes him a Chalal (disqualified)) - what he offered is acceptable.
5. R. Akiva: No - it is as a Kohen that was offering sacrifices on the Altar, and it became known that he was blemished - what he offered is not acceptable.
6. R. Tarfon: Is our case more comparable to a Kohen found to be a Chalal, or one found to be blemished?
7. R. Akiva: One witness can testify that a Mikveh is invalid, and also that a Kohen is blemished - these are more comparable, for 2 witnesses are needed to testify that a Kohen is a Chalal.

(i) Also - a Mikveh that is lacking and a blemished Kohen - these are disqualified because of themselves, unlike a Chalal, who is disqualified on account of others (his mother).
(ii) R. Tarfon accepted R. Akiva's argument.

8. Question: What is the case of a blemished Kohen, that 1 witness can testify about him?

(i) Suggestion: If the Kohen denies the blemish - 1 witness is not believed!

9. Answer: Rather, the Kohen is silent - and the Mishnah said, by a Chalal, 2 witnesses are needed! (This concludes the proof that 1 witness is not believed.)

(i) Rejection (Abaye): Really, the Kohen denies the blemish; 1 witness is believed, for if the Kohen is telling the truth, he must show us that he has no blemish.
(ii) This is the meaning of 'a Mikveh that is lacking and a blemished Kohen are disqualified because of themselves, we do not learn from a Chalal, who is disqualified by others'.

(b) Question: What is the source that if a Chalal served in the Mikdash, what he offered is acceptable?
(c) Answer #1 (Rav Yehudah): "(Kehunah) will be to (Aharon) and his seed" - whether Kosher or disqualified seed;
(d) Answer #2 (Shmuel's father): "Hash-m blesses Cheilo (His legion), and the work of His hands will be acceptable" - even Chalalim, their service is accepted.
(e) Answer #3 (R. Yanai) Question: "You will come to the Kohen that will be in those days" - why must it say 'that will be in those days'?!

1. Answer: This refers to a Kohen that was Kosher, and then found to be a Chalal.

(f) Question: What is the source that if a blemished Kohen served in the Mikdash, what he offered is unacceptable?
(g) Answer (Rav Yehudah): "I (Hash-m) give to (Pinchas) My covenant of Shalom - when he is Shalem, not lacking.
(h) Question: But it says "Shalom"!
(i) Answer (Rav Nachman): The 'Vov' of "Shalom" is written broken (hinting that we read the word as if there was no Vav).

(a) (Mishnah): In any permitted marriage, the lineage of the child is determined by the father;

1. This is the daughter of a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael that married a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael.

(b) Any forbidden marriage in which Kidushin takes effect, the lineage of the child is determined by the (more) blemished parent;

1. This is a widow that married a Kohen Gadol, or a divorcee or Chalutzah to a regular Kohen, a Mamzeres or Nesinah to a Yisrael, or a Bas Yisrael to a Mamzer or Nasin.

(c) Any case where Reuven cannot Mekadesh Leah, but other men can Mekadesh her - children of Reuven and Leah are Mamzerim;

1. This is any of the forbidden incestuous relations.

(d) Any case where no one can Mekadesh Sally - her children are as her.

1. This is when she is a slave or Nochris.