POINT BY POINT SUMMARY
Prepared by Rabbi P. Feldman
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
Ask A Question on the daf
Previous daf Kidushin 66
KIDUSHIN 66 - sponsored by a generous grant from an anonymous
donor. Kollel Iyun Hadaf is indebted to him for his
encouragement and support and prays that Hashem will repay him
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).
(b) (Abaye): Reuven tells Shimon 'Your produce became Tamei';
Shimon is silent - Reuven is believed.
2. Inference: Had Shimon not contradicted him, Reuven
would have been believed.
1. Support (Beraisa): Reuven tells Shimon 'You became
Tamei'; Shimon says, 'I did not' - Shimon is exempt.
(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).
2. Inference: Had Shimon not contradicted him, Reuven
would have been believed.
1. Support (Beraisa): One witness testifies that an
animal had relations with or killed a person, or the
owner says this - he is believed.
(d) It is necessary to teach all 3 cases.
2. Question: What is the case of 1 witness?
(i) Suggestion: If the owner admits - this was taught
3. Answer: Rather, the owner was quiet.
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);
(e) Question: Reuven told Shimon that Shimon's wife had
adultery (forbidding her to Shimon); Shimon was quiet -
what is the law?
(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.
(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.
(i) Rejection (Rava): No - it means, if you trust him as 2
witnesses, you must divorce her.
2. Suggestion: This means, if you do not think he is a
thief (i.e. a blatant falsifier).
(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
1. Eliezer ben Po'ira (a lowlife, to Yanai): Chachamim
(k) Rejection (Rava): Really, 2 witnesses testified that she
had been captured.
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
(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.
5. Eliezer: King Yanai - a commoner may bear such
indignity, but not you, a king and Kohen Gadol!
(ii) Chachamim angrily left the banquet.
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
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!
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
2) ON WHAT BASIS IS A SINGLE WITNESS BELIEVED?
(a) (Rava): We learn that 1 witness is not believed from the
3) PROBLEMATIC LINEAGE
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;
(b) Question: What is the source that if a Chalal served in
the Mikdash, what he offered is acceptable?
(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
8. Question: What is the case of a blemished Kohen,
that 1 witness can testify about him?
(ii) R. Tarfon accepted R. Akiva's argument.
(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
(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'.
(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
(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)
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
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.