יבמות 88:1 — Soncino English Talmud

on what grounds do the Rabbis declare the man liable? If it be suggested: Because he is believed; surely [here it may be objected], even in the case of two witnesses, who in all other cases are trusted though the accused contradicts them, the Rabbis have exempted him! The reason must consequently be because the accused remained silent, and silence is regarded as admission! [The fact], however, [is that this is arrived at] by a logical inference, this case being analogous to that of a piece of fat concerning which there is doubt as to whether it was of the forbidden, or of the permitted kind; if a single witness came and declared, 'l am certain that it was permitted fat', he is trusted. Are [the two cases] similar? There the prohibition was not established; here the prohibition of a married woman is established, and no question of sexual relationship [may be decided on the evidence of] less than two witnesses! This is rather analogous to the case of a piece that was definitely forbidden fat; if a single witness came and declared, 'I am certain that it was permitted fat,' he is not believed. But are these cases, similar? In that case, should even a hundred witnesses come they would not be believed; in this case, however, since should two witnesses come they would be trusted, one witness also should be trusted! This is rather analogous to the cases of tebel, and consecrated and konam objects. Whose tebel is here to be understood? If his own, [he would naturally be trusted] since it is in his power to make it fit for use; if, however, it is that of another person, [the question may still be urged], what view is here adopted: If it is maintained that a man who sets apart priestly dues for his neighbours' produce out of his own does not require the owner s consent [it is quite obvious why the witness is here trusted] since it is in his power to make it fit for use; and if it is maintained that the owner's consent is required and that the witness declares, 'I know that he has made it fit for use', whence is this very law derived? As regards consecrated objects also, if it was a consecration of the value of an object [it is obvious why one witness is trusted] since it is in his power to redeem it; but if an object has been consecrated, [the objection may still be raised]: If it were his own [he would naturally be trusted] since it is within his right to ask for the disallowance of his vow; if, however, it belonged to another man, and the witness declared, 'I know that its owner has asked for the disallowance of his vow', whence is this very law derived? With reference to konam objects also, if it is maintained that the law of trespass is applicable to konam objects and that the sanctity of their value descends upon them [it is obvious why one witness is trusted] since it is within his power to redeem them; and if it is maintained that the law of trespass is not applicable to konam objects and that it is only a mere prohibition with which he is saddled [the question may be urged]: If any such object was his own [it is natural that he should be trusted] since it is within his power to ask for the disallowance of his vow; if, however, it belonged to another man, and the witness declared, 'I know that its owner has asked for the disallowance of his vow, whence is this very law derived? R. Zera replied: Owing to the rigidity of the disabilities that were later imposed upon her the law was relaxed in her favour at the beginning. Let there be, however, neither rigid disabilities nor a relaxation of the law! — In order [to avoid] perpetual desertion the Rabbis have relaxed the law in her favour. MUST … LEAVE THE ONE AS WELL AS THE OTHER etc. Rab stated: This was taught only in respect [of a woman] who married on the evidence of a single witness, but if she married on the strength of the evidence of two witnesses, she need not leave. In the West they laughed at him. 'Her husband' [they remarked] comes, and there he stands, and you say: She need not leave!' — This [it may be replied] was required only in the case when the man was not known. If he is unknown, why is she to leave [her second husband] even where she only married on the evidence of a single witness? This is required only in the case where two witnesses came and stated, 'We were with him from the moment he left until now, but you it is who are unable to recognize him'; as it is written, And Joseph knew his brethren but they knew him not, on which R. Hisda remarked: This teaches that he went forth without any marks of a beard and now he appeared with a full beard. But, after all, there are two against two^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ

^ᵃnote:To an offering, if he did not contradict the evidence.
^ᵇnote:The one witness.
^ᶜnote:Because his word is more than the evidence of two witnesses. How much more then should he be trusted when the evidence is only that of one witness!
^ᵈnote:For the obligation of a sin-offering in the first clause.
^ᵉnote:Lit., 'but not'.
^ᶠnote:The original question then arises again: Whence is it proved that the evidence of one witness is admissible?
^ᵍnote:Cf. supra n. 12.
^ʰnote:Lit., 'but'.
^ⁱnote:Which someone has eaten.
^ʲnote:For the unwitting eating of which a sin-offering is incurred.
^ᵏnote:Cf. Git. 2b.
^ˡnote:Where the nature of the fat is in doubt.
^ᵐnote:Of the piece.
^ⁿnote:The case of the woman spoken of in our Mishnah.
^ᵒnote:The doubt extending only to the question as to whether by the death of the husband this prohibition had been removed.
^ᵖnote:The case of the woman spoken of in our Mishnah
^ᵠnote:Lit., 'this is not like, but'.
^ʳnote:Which someone has eaten.
^ˢnote:The question, therefore, remains whence is it inferred that the evidence of one witness is admissible.
^ᵗnote:Where the forbidden nature of the fat is established.
^ᵘnote:V. Glos.
^ᵛnote:Where the evidence of a single witness is accepted though the prohibitions were established. From such a case that of the woman in our Mishnah may reasonably be inferred.
^ʷnote:That of the witness.
^ˣnote:He can at any moment set apart the priestly dues and thus render the produce fit for everybody's consumption Such an argument is, of course, inapplicable to the case in our Mishnah.
^ʸnote:That the evidence of a single witness is accepted in such a case.
^ᶻnote:Objects of which the value only has been consecrated [H] completely lose their sanctity on redemption. Cf. supra n. 9.
^ᵃᵃnote:[H] consecrated for the altar. Such cannot be redeemed.
^ᵃᵇnote:A learned man may under certain conditions disallow the vow, and the object would consequently lose its sanctity. Cf. supra p. 597, n. 9.
^ᵃᶜnote:That the evidence of a single witness is accepted in such a case.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃᵉnote:Me'ilah, v. Glos.
^ᵃᶠnote:Which is consecrated for Temple purposes.
^ᵃᵍnote:Cf. supra p. 597, n. 9.
^ᵃʰnote:Konam being regarded as a vow only, which the man has to fulfil by paying to the Temple treasury the value of the object which itself remains unconsecrated.
^ᵃⁱnote:Lit., 'that rides upon his shoulder'.
^ᵃʲnote:V. supra note 2.
^ᵃᵏnote:V. supra note 2.
^ᵃˡnote:To the question raised supra to the admissibility of the evidence of a single witness in the case of the woman in our Mishnah.
^ᵃᵐnote:Loss of kethubah, usufruct, etc.
^ᵃⁿnote:If her husband returns.
^ᵃᵒnote:By permitting her to marry on the evidence of a single witness. Knowing the disabilities to which she would be subject should her first husband return, she takes every precaution to verify the evidence of the one witness.
^ᵃᵖnote:[H] lit., 'holding fast', description of a deserted woman who remains tied to her absent husband.
^ᵃᵠnote:And allowed her to marry on the strength of the evidence of one witness.
^ᵃʳnote:It is now assumed that Rab referred to the second husband,
^ᵃˢnote:Palestine.
^ᵃᵗnote:Rab's ruling.
^ᵃᵘnote:Her first husband.
^ᵃᵛnote:To have been her husband.
^ᵃʷnote:The first husband.
^ᵃˣnote:Because he left while still young and now he has attained to manhood. Such evidence is accepted if the evidence of the husband's death was given by one witness only. It is not accepted, however, where it is contradictory to the evidence of two witnesses on the basis of whose testimony the woman had married her second husband.
^ᵃʸnote:Gen. XLII, 8.
^ᵃᶻnote:Construct of [H] 'mark' or 'stamp'. [H] 'The mature manly expression which the beard gives, full manhood' (Jast.).
^ᵇᵃnote:Witnesses.