Yevamot 175

Chapter 175

א מ"ט קא מחייבי רבנן אילימא משום דמהימן והא תרי בעלמא דאע"ג דקא מכחיש להו אינהו מהימני וקא פטרי רבנן אלא לאו משום דאישתיק ושתיקה כהודאה דמיא

1 on what grounds do the Rabbis declare the man liable?1 If it be suggested: Because he2 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!3 The reason4

ב אלא סברא היא מידי דהוה אחתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן ואתא עד אחד ואמר ברי לי דשומן הוא דמהימן

2 must consequently be5 because the accused remained silent, and silence is regarded as admission!6 [The fact], however, [is that this7 is arrived at] by8

ג מי דמי התם לא איתחזק איסורא הכא איתחזק איסורא דאשת איש ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים

3 a logical inference, this case being analogous to that of a piece of fat9 concerning which there is doubt as to whether it was of the forbidden,10 or of the permitted kind; if a single witness came and declared, 'l am certain that it was permitted fat', he is trusted.11 Are [the two cases] similar? There12

ד הא לא דמיא אלא לחתיכה דודאי חלב ואתא עד אחד ואמר ברי לי דשומן הוה דלא מהימן מי דמי התם אפי' אתו בי מאה לא מהימני הכא כיון דכי אתו בי תרי מהימני חד נמי להימניה מידי דהוה אטבל הקדש וקונמות

4 the prohibition13 was not established; here14 the prohibition of a married woman is established,15 and no question of sexual relationship [may be decided on the evidence of] less than two witnesses! This16

ה האי טבל היכי דמי אי דידיה משום דבידו לתקנו אלא דאחר מאי קסבר

5 is rather analogous17 to the case of a piece that was definitely forbidden fat;18 if a single witness came and declared, 'I am certain that it was permitted fat,' he is not believed.19 But are these cases, similar? In that case,20

ו אי קא סבר תורם משלו על של חברו אינו צריך דעת בעלים משום דבידו לתקנו ואי קסבר צריך דעת בעלים ואמר אנא ידענא ביה דמתקן היא גופה מנלן

6 should even a hundred witnesses come they would not be believed; in this case,16 however, since should two witnesses come they would be trusted, one witness also should be trusted! This16 is rather analogous to the cases of tebel,21 and consecrated and konam21

ז הקדש נמי אי קדושת דמים משום דבידו לפדותו אי קדושת הגוף אי דידיה משום דבידו לאיתשולי עליה אלא דאחר ואמר ידענא ביה דאיתשיל מריה עליה היא גופה מנלן

7 objects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">22 Whose tebel21 is here to be understood? If his own,23 [he would naturally be trusted] since it is in his power to make it fit for use;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">24

ח קונמות נמי אי קסבר יש מעילה בקונמות וקדושת דמים נחתא להו משום דבידו לפדותו ואי קסבר אין מעילה בקונמות ואיסור בעלמא הוא דרכיב להו אכתפיה אי דידיה משום דבידו לאיתשולי עליה

8 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;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">24 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 law25 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;26 but if an object has been consecrated,27

ט אלא דאחר ואמר אנא ידענא דאיתשיל מריה עליה היא גופה מנלן

9 [the objection may still be raised]: If it were his own23 [he would naturally be trusted] since it is within his right to ask for the disallowance of his vow;28 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 law29 derived? With reference to konam30

י אמר ר' זירא מתוך חומר שהחמרת עליה בסופה הקלת עליה בתחלה לא ליחמיר ולא ליקיל

10 objects also, if it is maintained that the law of trespass31 is applicable to konam objects and that the sanctity of their value32 descends upon them [it is obvious why one witness is trusted] since it is within his power to redeem them;33 and if it is maintained that the law of trespass31

יא משום עיגונא אקילו בה רבנן:

11 is not applicable to konam objects34 and that it is only a mere prohibition with which he is saddled35 [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;36 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 law37

יב תצא מזה ומזה וכו': אמר רב לא שנו אלא שניסת בעד אחד אבל ניסת על פי שני עדים לא תצא מחכו עליה במערבא אתא גברא וקאי ואת אמרת לא תצא לא צריכא דלא ידעינן ליה

12 derived? R. Zera replied:38 Owing to the rigidity of the disabilities39 that were later40

יג אי דלא ידעינן ליה בעד אחד אמאי תצא לא צריכא דאתו בי תרי ואמרי אנן הוינן בהדיה מכי נפק ועד השתא ואתון הוא דלא ידעיתו ליה דכתיב (בראשית מב, ח) ויכר יוסף את אחיו והם לא הכירוהו ואמר רב חסדא מלמד שיצא בלא חתימת זקן ובא בחתימת זקן

13 imposed upon her the law was relaxed in her favour at the beginning.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">41 Let there be, however, neither rigid disabilities nor a relaxation of the law! — In order [to avoid] perpetual desertion42 the Rabbis have relaxed the law in her favour.43 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.44

יד סוף סוף תרי ותרי נינהו

14 In the West45 they laughed at him. 'Her husband' [they remarked] comes, and there he stands, and you say: She need not leave!' — This46 [it may be replied] was required only in the case when the man47 was not known.48 If he49 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 him49 from the moment he left until now, but you it is who are unable to recognize him';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">50 as it is written, And Joseph knew his brethren but they knew him not,51 on which R. Hisda remarked: This teaches that he went forth without any marks52 of a beard and now he appeared with a full52 beard. But, after all, there are two53 against two

Previous Chapter Next Chapter