Kiddushin

‘Bestiality was committed with your ox,’ and he is silent, he is believed.1 And a Tanna supports it: Or [an ox] with which a transgression was committed, or which had killed [a person] on the testimony of one witness, or by admission of its owner, he [the one witness] is believed.2 How is this ‘on the testimony of one witness’ meant? If the owner admits, then it is ‘by admission of the owner’? Hence it surely means that he is silent. Now, it is necessary.3 For if he told us this first one, [I would argue:] if he were not certain thereof himself, since he [otherwise] sacrifices4 hullin in the Temple Court, he would not bring [an offering].5 But as for ‘Your clean food has been defiled,’ we might say, the reason of his silence was that it is fit for him when he himself is unclean.6 And if we were told of this: that is because he causes him a loss whilst he is clean;7 but as for bestiality having been committed with his ox, he may say [to himself]. ‘Not all oxen are for the altar.’8 Thus all are necessary. The scholars propounded: What if his wife [is charged with having] committed adultery on the testimony of one witness, and he [the husband] is silent?9 — Abaye said: He is believed;10 Raba said: He is disbelieved, because it is a sexual matter, and no sexual matter can be established by less than two.11 Abaye said: Whence do I know12 it? For there was a certain blind man who used to recite Baraithas in systematic order before Mar Samuel. One day it was late, but he did not come; so he sent a messenger for him. While the messenger was going by one road, he came by another. When the messenger returned, he stated that his [the blind man's] wife had committed adultery. When he came before Mar Samuel he said to him, ‘If you believe him, go and divorce13 her; if not, do not divorce her.’ Now surely, ‘if you believe him’ means that he is not a robber?14 And Raba?15 — If you believe him as two [witnesses],16 go and divorce her; if not, do not divorce her. Abaye also said: Whence do I know it? Because it was taught. It once happened that King Jannai17 went to Kohalith in the wilderness18 and conquered sixty towns there. On his return he rejoiced exceedingly and invited all the Sages of Israel. Said he to them, ‘Our forefathers ate mallows19 when they were engaged on the building of the [second] Temple; let us too eat mallows in memory of our forefathers.’ So mallows were served on golden tables, and they ate. Now, there was a man there, frivolous, evilhearted and worthless, named Eleazar son of Po'irah, who said to King Jannai. ‘O King Jannai, the hearts of the Pharisees20 are against thee.’ ‘Then what shall I do?’ ‘Test them21 by the plate between thine eyes.’22 So he tested them by the plate between his eyes. Now, an elder, named Judah son of Gedidiah, was present there. Said he to King Jannai. ‘O King Jannai! let the royal crown suffice thee, and leave the priestly crown to the seed of Aaron.’ (For it was rumoured that his mother had been taken captive in Modi'im.)23 Accordingly, the charge was investigated, but not sustained,24 and the Sages of Israel25 departed in anger.26 Then said Eleazar b. Po'irah to King Jannai: ‘O King Jannai! That is the law even for the most humble man in Israel, and thou, a King and a High Priest, shall that be thy law [too]!’27 ‘Then what shall I do?’ ‘If thou wilt take my advice, trample then, down.’28 ‘But what shall happen with the Torah?’ ‘Behold, it is rolled up and lying in the corner: whoever wishes to study. Let him go and study!’ Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Immediately a spirit of heresy was instilled into him,29 for he should have replied. ‘That is well for the Written Law;30 but what of the Oral Law?’31 Straightway, the evil burst forth32 through Eleazar son of Po'irah,33 all the Sages of Israel were massacred, and the world was desolate until Simeon b. Shetah came and restored the Torah to its pristine [glory].34 Now, how was it?35 Shall we say that two testified that she was captured and two that she was not? what [reason] do you see to rely upon the latter rely upon the former?36 Hence it must surely mean [that her captivity was attested] by one witness, and the reason [that his evidence was rejected] was that two rebutted him; but otherwise, he would have been believed.37 And Raba? [He will reply:] After all, there were two against two, but it is as R. Aba b. R. Manyomi said [elsewhere]: that it refers to witnesses of refutation [hazamah]; so here too, there were witnesses of refutation.38 Alternatively, this agrees with R. Isaac, who said: They substituted a bondmaid for her.39 Raba said: transgression was committed’ refers to bestiality in Bek. 41a; in Zeb. 70b it is a general term including bestiality. remains hullin. Hence this man would not be silent, thus admitting it, if the witnesses were false. for a ritually clean person. divorce his wife. p. 397, n. 13. [Friedlaender, I, JQR (N.S.) IV. pp. 443ff assigns the whole incident to Alexander Jannai]. literally and explains: make them stand on their feet by wearing the plate on which the Divine Name is inscribed.] woman he would not be eligible for the priesthood. sentenced him to flagellation, in accordance with the law of slander; but Eleazar urged that this was altogether inadequate in view of Jannai's exalted position, and proved that they secretly held with the slanderer (Goldschmidt). — In fact, the status of a person is taken into account when bodily injury is sustained (B.K. 83b), but not for slander. not committed to writing but preserved by oral tradition. children from the age of five or six. In B.B. 21a this is ascribed to Joshua son of Gamala, whereas in J. Keth. chapter VIII. end, it is attributed to Simeon b. Shetah. The latter was probably afraid to move himself in the matter, knowing that his actions were suspected by the Sadducees, and so he put himself in the background and worked through Joshua, who was persona grata with the ruling party. The whole Baraitha is carefully analysed and discussed in Halevi, Doroth, I, 3, pp. 397ff witnesses could not be ignored (Tosaf.). particular date were with us then elsewhere.’ In that case the second witnesses were always believed; v. B.K. 72b. capture of one whom they thought to be Hyrcanus's mother, and another two attested that it was a bondmaid.