Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Heh, Part 6

 

Introduction

This sugya is about cases where two witnesses are not necessary.

 

מר זוטרא ורב אדא סבא בני דרב מרי בר איסור פליג ניכסייהו בהדי הדדי

אתו לקמיה דרב אשי אמרו ליה (דברים יט, טו) על פי שני עדים אמר רחמנא דאי בעי למיהדר לא מצי הדרי בהו ואנן לא הדרי או דלמא לא מקיימא מלתא אלא בסהדי

אמר להו לא איברו סהדי אלא לשקרי

 

Mar Zutra and R. Ada the elder, sons of R. Mari b. Issur, divided their property between them. They went before R. Ashi and asked him: When the Torah said: on the basis of two witnesses . . . shall a matter be established, (Deuteronomy 19:15) is it so that they [the litigants] cannot retract if they wish, and we do not want to retract; or perhaps, a transaction can be established only by witnesses?

He said to them: Witnesses were created only against liars.

 

Mar Zutra and R. Ada want their division of property to be finalized without the need for witnesses. So they ask R. Ashi whether witnesses are there just to prevent people from changing their mind and therefore, if they waive the need for witnesses, the contract can exist without witnesses. He agrees that it can.

 

אמר אביי אמר לו עד אחד אכלת חלב והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא אמר לו עד אחד אכלת חלב והלה אומר לא אכלתי פטור טעמא דאמר לא הא אישתיק מהימן

 

Abaye said: If one witness says to a person, You ate forbidden fat and he is silent, he [the witness] is believed.

Now, a Tanna supports this: If one witness says to a person, You ate forbidden fat and he replies, I did not eat, he is not liable. The reason [he is not liable is he said], I did not, but if he is silent, he is believed.

 

One witness is believed to make the other person liable for bringing a sacrifice for accidentally eating forbidden fat, as long as the other person does not disagree. But if the other person protests, one witness would not be sufficient.

 

ואמר אביי אמר לו עד אחד נטמאו טהרותיך והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא עד אחד אומר נטמאו והלה אומר לא נטמאו פטור טעמא דאמר לא הא אישתיק מהימן

Abaye also said: If one witness says to a person, Your clean [food] has been defiled and he is silent, he [the witness] is believed.

Now, a Tanna supports this: If one witness declares, They have been defiled, and he [their owner] replies, They have not been defiled, he is not liable.

The reason [he is not liable is he said], They are not, but if he is silent, he is believed.

 

This is the same tradition but about purity instead of being about eating forbidden food.

 

ואמר אביי אמר לו עד אחד שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן

האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק

 

And Abaye said: If one witness says to him, Bestiality was committed with your ox, and he is silent, he is believed.

And a Tanna supports it: Or [an ox] with which a transgression was committed, or which killed [a person] on the testimony of one witness, or by admission of its owner, he [the one witness] is believed.

This on the testimony of one witness what is the case? If the owner admits, then it is by admission of the owner ? Hence it surely means that he is silent.

 

Again, this is the same law. One witness is sufficient to lend a certain amount of credibility to the idea that bestiality had been committed with the ox. The result of this is that the ox will not be able to be sacrificed. Had there been two witnesses, the ox would be stoned.

 

וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו

 

Now, it is necessary [to teach all of these cases]. For if he taught us this first one, [I would argue:] if he were not certain [that he ate forbidden fat], in which case he would be sacrificing hullin in the Temple Court, he would not bring [an offering].

But as for, Your pure food has been defiled, we might say, the reason of his silence was that it is fit for him when he is unclean.

 

Having stated essentially the same law three times, the Talmud now asks why Abaye needs to be so repetitive.

When it comes to the you ate forbidden fat statement, we can say that his silence means he agrees, for if he did not eat forbidden fat, and then brought a sacrifice after being told he did, he would be sacrificing a non-sacred, hullin, animal in the Temple. This is another sin and we don t think he wants to sin. Therefore, he must agree that he ate forbidden fat.

But when someone says his pure food has been defiled he might not care so much because he can eat this food when he is defiled. Thus, his silence might not mean anything. Therefore, Abaye teaches us that even in this case, the witness is believed.

 

ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא

 

And if we were told this: that is because he causes him a loss while he is clean, but as for bestiality having been committed with his ox, he may say [to himself], Not all oxen are for the altar. Thus all are necessary.

 

If we had learned about the case of defiled food, we might have thought that in the case of the ox with which bestiality was committed the silence is not acquiescence, the owner might have been quiet because he does not really care if the ox cannot be sacrificed. Therefore, Abaye (and the baraita) had to teach this case as well.