Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Vav, Part 3

 

Introduction

In today s sugya Rava provides tannaitic support for his position that when it comes to sexual matters, two witnesses are always necessary.

 

אמר רבא מנא אמינא לה דתנן אמר ר’ שמעון מעשה במגורה של דסקים ביבנה שהיתה עומדת בחזקת שלימה ומדדו ונמצאת חסירה כל טהרות שנעשו על גבה היה ר’ טרפון מטהר ור’ עקיבא מטמא

 

Rava said: From where do I know this? As it was taught: R. Shimon said: It once happened that the water reservoir of Diskim in Yavneh, which stood in the presumption of being full, was measured and found lacking. Everything which had been rendered pure through it: R. Tarfon declared pure and R. Akiva pure.

 

Rava will quote a long baraita that will eventually prove his point. The baraita refers to a reservoir (a small one it seems) that had been used as a mikveh but then turned out not to have enough water in it. Can we assume that when people or things which had been immersed in it were immersed, the mikveh was already lacking? R. Tarfon rules leniently that which was immersed in it is assumed to be pure. R. Akiva rules stringently everything is impure.

 

אמר רבי טרפון מקוה זה בחזקת שלם הוא עומד מספק אתה בא לחסרו אל תחסרנו מספק

אמר רבי עקיבא אדם זה בחזקת טמא הוא עומד מספק אתה בא לטהרו אל תטהרנו מספק

 

R. Tarfon said: This mikveh stands in the presumption of being full, and you come to declare it lacking on the basis of a doubt. Do not declare it lacking because of a doubt.

R. Akiva said: This man stands in the presumption of being impure, and you wish to declare him pure on the basis of doubt. Do not purify him on the basis of a doubt.

 

R. Tarfon notes that the assumption is that the mikveh is full. It remains under the presumption of being full until it can be proved lacking. In contrast, R. Akiva looks at the person the person is assumed impure until it can be proven that he is pure.

 

אמר רבי טרפון משל לעומד ומקריב על גבי המזבח ונודע שהוא בן גרושה או בן חלוצה שעבודתו כשירה

אמר רבי עקיבא משל לעומד ומקריב ע"ג המזבח ונודע שהוא בעל מום שעבודתו פסולה

אמר רבי טרפון אתה דימיתו לבעל מום ואני דמיתיו לבן גרושה או לבן חלוצה נראה למי דומה אי דומה לבן גרושה ולבן חלוצה נדוננו כבן גרושה או כבן חלוצה אם דומה לבעל מום נדוננו כבעל מום

 

R. Tarfon said: This may be compared to one [a kohen] who stood and sacrificed on the altar, and it became known that he was the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah, in which case his service is [retrospectively] fit.

R. Akiva said: This may be compared to one who stood and sacrificed on the altar, and it became known that he was [physically] blemished, in which case his service is [retrospectively] unfit.

R. Tarfon said: You have compared it to a man with a blemish, while I have compared it to the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah. Let us then consider, to whom is it similar: if it is similar to the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah, we shall judge it like [the law] of a son of a divorced woman or a halutzah; if it is similar to a man with a blemish, we shall judge it like [the law] of one who has a blemish.

 

R. Tarfon and R. Akiva now muster other comparisons the case of a priest who was serving in the Temple and discovered to be unfit either because his mother was not fit to marry a priest or because he has a blemish. If it was discovered that his mother was not fit because she was a divorcee or a halutzah, then his earlier service is not disqualified. But if it is discovered that he has a blemish, his earlier service is unfit.

 

התחיל רבי עקיבא לדון מקוה פסולו ביחיד ובעל מום פסולו ביחיד ואל יוכיח בן גרושה ובן חלוצה שפסולו בשנים

דבר אחר מקוה פסולו בגופו בעל מום פסולו בגופו ואל יוכיח בן גרושה ובן חלוצה שפסולו מאחרים אמר ליה ר’ טרפון עקיבא כל הפורש ממך כפורש מן החיים

 

R. Akiva began to argue: the unfitness of a mikveh is by one, and the unfitness of a man with a blemish is by one; hence let not the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah prove it, since his unfitness [must be attested] by two.

Another interpretation: the unfitness of a mikveh is in itself, and that of a man with a blemish is in himself: let not the son of a divorced woman or a halutzah prove it, seeing that his unfitness is through others.

R. Tarfon to him: Akiva! Whoever separates himself from you is as though he separated himself from life!

 

R. Akiva now argues that the case of the mikveh is more similar to the case of a priest who is discovered to have a blemish. In both cases, the disqualification can be attested to by one witness, whereas a divorce or halitzah must be attested to by two witnesses. Furthermore, the disqualification of a mikveh or that of a priest with a blemish is inherent in the mikveh or the priest. There is something physically different between a mikveh with enough water and one without enough water.

But when it comes to the disqualification of a priest whose mother is a divorcee is due to the mother, not the priest.

R. Tarfon admits the superiority of R. Akiva s argument. What a modest guy! And that R. Akiva sure is smart!

 

האי בעל מום שפסולו ביחיד היכי דמי אי דקא מכחיש ליה מי מהימן אלא דשתיק ודכותיה גבי בן גרושה ובן חלוצה דשתיק וקתני מקוה פסולו ביחיד ובעל מום פסולו ביחיד ואל יוכיח בן גרושה ובן חלוצה שפסולו בשנים

 

Now, this case of a man with a blemish, whose unfitness is by one, what is the case?

If he contradicts him, is he [the witness] believed! Rather, it must mean that he is silent, and similarly, in the case of a son of a divorced woman or of a halutzah, he is also silent; and it is taught: The unfitness of a mikveh is by one, and the unfitness of a man with a blemish is by one; but let not the son of a divorced woman or of a halutzah prove it, since his unfitness [must be attested] by two!

 

Rava now shows how he can prove that in sexual matters, two witnesses are always necessary. It is not sufficient to have one witness plus the silence of the accused. In the case of the blemish, where one witness is sufficient, it must be that the priest himself does not protest. Otherwise, one witness would not be believed. By analogy, in the case of the woman being a divorcee, there must be two witnesses, even if the priest is silent. The priest would not be disqualified if there was one witness and he was silent. This is proof for Rava.

ואביי אמר לעולם דקא מכחיש ליה ודקאמרת אמאי מהימן דאמר ליה שלח אחוי והיינו דקתני מקוה פסולו בגופו ובעל מום פסולו בגופו ואל יוכיח בן גרושה ובן חלוצה שפסולו מאחרים

 

And Abaye could say to you: After all, it means that he contradicts him; yet as to your argument. Why is he believed? Because he can say to him, Strip, and I will show you [the blemish].

And that is meant when it is taught: The unfitness of a mikveh is in itself and the unfitness of a man with a blemish is in himself, but let not the son of a divorced woman or a haluzah prove it, whose unfitness is through others.

 

Abaye argues back that both cases deal with a situation in which the priest argues that he is not blemished. So why is the witness believed? Because the witness could tell the priest to take off his clothing and prove his point. And indeed, this is how Abaye would interpret the last clause. The unfitness of a blemished priest is provable by his own body.

Now when it comes to two witnesses who testify that the mother is a divorcee or halutzah, they are necessary because the priest contradicts them. But if one came, he would be believed, so long as the priest does not contradict him. Thus Abaye can maintain his opinion that one witness is believed in cases of sexual matters as long as the accused does not contradict.