ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
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 in kind.
(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.
(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'.
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
(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
(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
(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
(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
(b) The Chachamim did not immediately disqualify Yanai from the Kehunah,
because they were unable to substantiate the evidence, as we will see
(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
(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
(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'.
(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
(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
(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.
(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).
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
(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.
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).
(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
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.
(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
(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.
2. ... whichever one is Pasul - whenever the Kidushin is valid and there is
3. ... the mother - whenever the Kidushin is not valid at all (neither with
the man whom she 'married' nor with anybody else.
(c) The examples of ...
1. ... 'Yesh Kidushin ve'Ein Aveirah' - are a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael who
married a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael.
(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.
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.