Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Vav, Part 2
Introduction
This section contains Abaye s proof that one witness is believed in sexual matters.
The story that Abaye cites is a famous aggadah about the origins of the antagonism between the Pharisees and a Jewish king, here King Yannai. There is even a parallel to the story in Josephus (Antiquities 13.288-300) although many of the details are different. This, along with other passages, serves scholars as proof that although the rabbis did not read Josephus s works (which were all written in Greek) there are stories that were transmitted orally and adopted by both Josephus and the rabbis. Many scholars have discussed this passage, and there is even an entire book on Josephus and the Rabbis (in Hebrew).
ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל
אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו
Abaye also said: From where do I know this? Because it was taught: It once happened that King Yannai went to Kohlit in the wilderness and conquered sixty towns there. On his return he rejoiced greatly and invited all the sages of Israel.
He said to them, Our ancestors ate mallows when they were occupied with the building of the Temple; let us too eat mallows in memory of our ancestorys. So mallows were served on golden tables, and they ate.
Alexander Yannai (or Yannaeus) was the second Hasmonean king and ruled from 103-76 B.C.E. The story begins with him returning to Jerusalem to celebrate a military victory, and acting with proper fashion in front of the sages.
והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך
ומה אעשה
הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך
הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו
Now, there was a man there, a scoffing, evil-hearted and worthless man, and Elazar son of Poirah. And Elazar son of Poirah said to King Yannai, Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees are set against you.
Then what shall I do?
Test them with the frontlet between your eyes.
So he tested them with the frontlet between his eyes.
The evil man, Elazar, wants to bring a conflict between Yannai and the Pharisees, who are imagined by this story to be the leaders of the Jewish people. He wants Yannai to do something with the tzitz the frontlet that the high priests would wear.
היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם
There was an elder there named Yehudah son of Gedidiah. He said to King Yannai, King Yannai! The royal crown is enough for you. Leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron. (For it was rumored that his mother had been taken captive in Modi’im.)
The matter was investigated, but not confirmed, and the Sages of Israel departed in anger.
Elazar s instigation has its proper effect. The sages do not think that Yannai should be high priest. There seem to be two reasons for this. First of all, one should not be priest and king. This is too much power in the hands of one individual. Second of all, if Yannai s mother was taken captive, then she is not fit to marry a priest, nor are her children priests. While this charge could not be substantiated, the sages still depart in anger.
ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך
ומה אעשה
אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם
ותורה מה תהא עליה
הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד
Then Elazar b. Poirah to King Yannai: King Yannai! Even for the lowest person in Israel, thus is his ruling, and you, a King and a High Priest, should that be your law too?
Then
what shall I do?
If you would take my advice, crush them.
But what shall happen with the Torah?
Behold, it is bound up and lying in the corner: whoever wishes to study, let him go and study!
Elazar now urges Yannai to crush the sages/Pharisees. Yannai is hesitant. Without the sages, what would happen to the Torah? Elazar cynically responds that we do not need the sages. The Torah is there, anyone who wants can come and learn it.
אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Immediately a spirit of heresy was cast into him, for he should have replied, That is well for the Written Law; but what of the Oral Law?
A much later amora interpolates into the story that Yannai s response is heretical for it assumes that the Torah is limited to the Written Torah. The Oral Torah requires the sages, and if Yannai destroys them, it will be lost.
מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה
Immediately, the evil burst forth through Elazar son of Poirah, and all the Sages of Israel were massacred, and the world was desolate until Shimon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah as of old.
Yannai massacres the rabbis, but the Oral Torah is saved by Shimon b. Shetach.
The story s end seems to be, at least partially, an explanation as to why we know of so few sages from an early period. After all, if the Oral Torah was given on Sinai, then we should have rabbis from a much earlier period. One explanation, the one given in our story, is that there was a break in the transmission of Oral Torah, and that all of the sages were massacred. Shimon b. Shetach restored the Torah to where it was, and thus our Torah is legitimate. But still, there was a break.
היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני
אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן
What was the precise case? If we say that two testified that she was captured and two that she was not? Why would you rely on these rely on these?
Rather it must mean there was one witness, and the reason [that his evidence was rejected] was that two contradicted him; but otherwise, he would have been believed.
Abaye now explains how this story is proof that one witness is believed. This seems to be puzzling after all, according to the story there was no evidence that Yannai s mother was taken captive.
Evidently all agree, there were two witnesses that said Yannai s mother was not taken captive. So how many witnesses said that she was taken captive? If there were two, then why were the latter believed to say she was not taken captive, maybe the former should have been believed. This would at least be enough to cast a doubt on his lineage.
Therefore, there must have been one witness who said she was taken captive. The one witness was not believed because two contradicted him. But if two did not contradict him, then the one would have been believed.
Thus one witness is believed in sexual matters (this is a sexual matter, because the issue is the possibility that she was raped).
ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה
And Rava? [He could say to you]: After all, there were two against two, but it follows R. Aba b. R. Manyomi who said [elsewhere]: that it refers to witnesses of refutation [hazamah]; so too here, there were witnesses of refutation.
Rava says that this is not simply a case of contradicting witnesses. The second witnesses refute the very possibility of the first witnesses knowing that Yannai s mother was taken captive. For instance they say that the first witnesses were elsewhere when they say they saw the event. This is called hazamah which is a special category in which the second witnesses are believed. Thus we do not need to say that there was only one witness.
ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה
Alternatively, this agrees with R. Yitzchak, who said: They substituted a handmaiden for her.
R. Yitzchak says that when the Jews saw that Yannai s mother was going to be taken captive, they sent a female slave to take her place (reminds me of the movie Dave). Thus Yannai s mother was not really taken captive and therefore Yannai can remain the high priest.