Previous daf

1)

(a) Abaye also rules that if someone remains silent when one witness testifies that his ox was raped by a human, the witness is believed. The ramifications of this ruling are - that the animal is forbidden to be brought as a Korban. It is not stoned however, because we Darshen in Bava Kama that the ox, like its owner, requires two witnesses before it can be put to death.

(b) Here too, he proves this from a Beraisa, where the Tana says that, if either the owner admits or one witness testifies that an animal had relations with a person or killed someone - he is believed.

(c) Abaye proves his ruling from there - because the case of one witness must speak when the owner was silent. In the event that he admitted, it would be synonymous with that of the owner's admission.

(a) Abaye just taught us three Dinim on the same theme. Having taught us that one witness is believed in the case of ...

1. ... 'Achalta Cheilev', he nevertheless needs to repeat it by 'Nitme'u Taharosecha'. Otherwise, we would have confined his ruling to the former, where a person would not deign to bring Chulin to the Azarah, whereas in the case of the latter, his silence is due to the fact that he is able to eat his Tamei food when he is Tamei, and the loss, which is therefore minimal, does not bother him.
2. ... 'Nitme'u Taharosecha', he nevertheless needs to repeat it by 'Shorcha Nirva' - since we would otherwise have restricted his ruling to the former, which he loses at least, in the days that he is Tahor, but not in the latter, since not all animals go on the Mizbe'ach anyway, and the loss is minimal.

(b) According to Abaye, if a man remains silent in face of one witness, who testifies that his wife committed adultery, the witness is believed and his wife is forbidden. According to Rava - the witness is not believed, due to the principle 'Ein Davar she'be'Ervah Pachos mi'Shenayim'.

(c) According to Abaye, if a man remains silent in face of one witness, who testifies that his wife committed adultery, the witness is believed and his wife is forbidden. Rava proves his ruling from the case of the blind man who used to arrange Beraisos in front of Shmuel, and who once sent a Sheli'ach after him - to hasten his arrival, because he was late for his session.

(d) When the Sheli'ach, who missed the blind man, because he arrived by a different route, returned, he testified - that his wife had committed adultery?

(a) Shmuel ruled - that if the blind man believed the witness, he should divorce her; otherwise not.

(b) If he did not mean that if he trusted him like any other witness, he should divorce his wife (a proof for Rava's opinion), then what he meant was - that if he believed him like two witnesses, he should divorce her (since in his heart, he knew that she had committed adultery).

(a) Abaye proves his opinion from an episode with King Yanai, who arranged a thanksgiving party in honor of Hashem upon his return from Kuchlis in the desert - to give vent to the happiness he felt at having captured sixty cities.

(b) He called for the Chachamim - to inform them of his decision to eat Meluchim, a vegetable known as 'Kekukli', to commemorate the construction of the second Beis Hamikdash, since, due to their abject poverty, that was all they could afford then.

(c) Elazar ben Po'irah was an evil, scheming trouble-maker - who informed Yanai that the Perushim (the equivalent of the modern Chareidim) had it in for him.

(a) When Yanai followed Elazar ben Po'irah's advice and wore the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol, Yehudah ben Gedidyah challenged him - on the basis of evidence that his mother had been captured, and was therefore Pasul to Kehunah (in which case, Yanai's father had married her illegally), and so was *he*.

(b) The Chachamim did not immediately disqualify Yanai from the Kehunah, because they were unable to substantiate the evidence, as we will see shortly.

(c) 'Vayibadlu Chachmei Yisrael be'Za'am' means - that the Chachamim left the King in a state of rage.

(d) When ...

1. ... Elazar ben Po'irah advised him to kill all the Chachamim - he retorted that Torah would then be in jeopardy of being forgotten.
2. ... Elazar ben Po'irah replied that one could place the Torah in a corner, and whoever wanted, could come and study it, he should have retorted - that this was all very well re. the written Torah, but who would transmit the traditions of the oral Torah. Rav Nachman accused him of Apikorsus for giving total prominence to the written Torah (the mark of the Tzedokim).

(a) Yanai Hamelech subsequently took his cue from Elazar ben Po'irah - and massacred all the Chachmei Yisrael.

(b) The Torah-world remained desolate until Shimon ben Shetach revived it. He managed to escape - by virtue of the fact that he was the brother of the Queen (Alexandra Salome) who hid him.

(a) Abaye tried to prove from here that 'Ishto Zinsah be'Eid Echad ve'Shasak' is believed - by virtue of the fact were it not for the two witnesses who testified that she had not been captured, Yanai's mother would have been disqualified through the testimony of the first single witness.

(b) It could not have been a matter of 'T'rei u'T'rei' (a clash of two pairs of witnesses) he figured - because then why would the Chachamim have accepted the testimony of the second pair over and above that of the first?

(c) Rava countered Abaye's proof, by establishing it even by two sets of witnesses - only the second pair declared the first pair Zomemin (i.e. that they had been with them in another location when they claimed to have witnessed the capture). And in such a case, the Torah believes the second pair.

(d) Alternatively, he cites Rebbi Yitzchak, who said 'Shifchah Hichnisu Tachtehah' meaning - that the second set of witnesses testified that in fact, a slave-girl in her place had been smuggled in to take her place, and that she had been rescued, before the captors had a chance to do anything to her. Consequently, it was not a case of 'T'rei u'Trei'.

8)

(a) Abaye tries to bring another proof from the Mishnah in Mikva'os. In a case of the pool of water of Diskim which had been known to contain forty Sa'ah of water, but which was one day found to be lacking, Rebbi Tarfon declares all the people and vessels who had Toveled there up to that moment, Tahor - on the basis of the Chazakah that it was known to have been Kasher. Consequently, we assume it to be Kasher up to the moment it is discovered to be Pasul.

(b) Rebbi Akiva said - that on the contrary, we place the person (or vessel) that Toveled (and that was known to be Tamei), on a Chezkas Tamei, which cannot be removed through a Safek Tevilah.

(c) Rebbi Tarfon compared the case to a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah who was serving on the Mizbe'ach when he discovered that he was Pasul (whose Avodah the Torah validates) - Rebbi Akiva compares it to a Ba'al Mum (whose Avodah under the same circumstances, the Torah declares invalid).

(a) Rebbi Akiva took up Rebbi Tarfon's challenge as to which of the two Mikveh is more similar, and presented two similarities to a Ba'al Mum, one of them, because, unlike a ben Gerushah ... , both become Pasul via one witness. The other similarity is - that both are an intrinsic P'sul, unlike that of a ben Gerushah and a ben Chalutzah, whose P'sul comes from his mother.

(b) Rebbi Tarfon reacted to Rebbi Akiva's explanation - by exclaiming that to separate from Rebbi Akiva, is to separate from life itself.

(c) Rava ...

1. ... knows that when Rebbi Akiva says 'Ba'al Mum Pesulo be'Yachid, he means that the man is silent, and not that he contradicts him - because if he contradicted him, we would not believe the witness.
2. ... proves from here that one witness is not believed in a case of Ervah - because in the equivalent case, Rebbi Akiva requires two witnesses by a ben Gerushah ... . One will not suffice, even though the Kohen himself is silent (as we just explained).
3. ... explains the difference between that case and that of Mikveh - believing one witness in the latter case because of the principle 'Eid Echad Ne'eman be'Isurim'.

(d) Abaye counters this proof. He argues that we might even believe the single witness in the case of a Ba'al Mum, even if the Kohen himself contradicts him - because we can ask the Kohen concerned to undress and prove that he is not blemished (and until he does, the witness is believed).

(a) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "ve'Haysah Lo *u'le'Zar'o* Acharav" - that ('Bein Zar'o Kasher, Bein Zar'o Pasul [meaning a Chalal]) Bedieved at least (i.e. if he did not know at the time that he was a Chalal, because it is obvious that he is not permitted to serve Lechatchilah, since the Torah calls him a "Chalal") his Avodah is Kasher.

(b)

1. Avuhah di'Shmuel learns the same thing from the Pasuk "Barech Hashem *Cheilo* u'Fo'al Yadav Tirtzeh" - that even the Avodah of someone whose Kehunah is profaned (Chalalin, since the Torah is referring to the tribe of Levi) is Kasher (Bedieved).
2. And Rebbi Yanai learns it from the Pasuk "u'Vasa el ha'Kohen Asher Yihyeh ba'Yamim ha'Hem" - which, if not to teach us that however the Kohen appears in those days (even if he is a Chalal), is not telling us anything, since the statement itself is obvious.

(c) Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel (who Darshens "Shalom" as if the Torah had written "Shalem") learns from the Pasuk "Lachesn Emor, Hineni Nosen Lo es B'risi Shalom" - that only when a Kohen is complete may he perform the Avodah, but not when he is a Ba'al Mum. In spite of the fact that "Shalom" is written with a 'Vav', he Darshens the word in this way, because the 'Vav' is broken, explains Rav Nachman, enabling us to Darshen it as if it was a 'Yud'.

(d) From the Pasuk "Ach el ha'Paroches Lo Yavo" - we disqualify a Ba'al Mum Lechatchilah, whereas the previous Pasuk comes to disqualify his Avodah even Bedieved (in the way that we explained earlier).

(a) Sometimes a child goes after the father, sometimes after whichever of the parents is Pasul and sometimes after the mother. According to our Mishnah, it go after...

1. ... the father - whenever the Kidushin is valid and there is no sin involved.
2. ... whichever one is Pasul - whenever the Kidushin is valid and there is a sin.
3. ... the mother - whenever the Kidushin is not valid at all (neither with the man whom she 'married' nor with anybody else.

(b) According to the Tana of our Mishnah, the child is a Mamzer - whenever Kidushin is not valid with him, but it would be valid with somebody else.

(c) The examples of ...

1. ... 'Yesh Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah' - are a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael who married a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael.
2. ... 'Ein Lah Alav Kidushin, Aval Yesh Lah al Acherim Kidushin - are any of the Chayvei K'riysus.
3. ... 'Ein Lah Lo Alav ve'Lo al Acherim Kidushin - are the child of a Shifchah Cana'anis or of a Nochris.

(d) Some of the examples of 'Yesh Kidushin ve'Yesh Aveirah' are an Almanah le'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah and Chalutzah le'Kohen Hedyot. The remaining four are - a Mamzeres and a Nesinah to a Yisrael, and a bas Yisrael to a Mamzer and a Nasin.