Kiddushin 66a — the Talmud in English

Your ox was sodomized

by a person, and behold, it is disqualified for sacrifice,

and the other remains silent, he is deemed credible,

because the silence of the owner is considered like an admission.

And the tanna teaches this also

in the Mishna in Bekhorot: “And these are those concerning which one does not slaughter [the firstborn], neither in the Temple [because they are not fit for sacrifice] nor in the country [because they are not permitted for eating like other firstborn animals with blemishes]:

and concerning which

in the firstborn

a transgression was performed

it was sodomized,

and which killed

the ox a person, and there are no witnesses concerning the matter, but

on the basis of one witness or on the basis of the owners

[he is deemed credible.

This word is not written in the Mishna there].

That is, although a firstborn in which a transgression was performed, and which killed a person, is disqualified for sacrifice and is permitted for eating, nevertheless, if the matter is known only on the basis of one witness, or on the basis of the owners, it is not fit for sacrifice, and, on the other hand, it is not permitted for eating either.

But

this “

on the basis of one witness”

that it is disqualified through him for sacrifice

what are the circumstances!?

If the owners admit

to the matter, this cannot be said, for if so, it is difficult: behold,

this is “

on the basis of the owners”

for we already learned in the Mishna that the firstborn is disqualified for sacrifice on their basis, so why do I need further “on the basis of one witness”?!

Rather, is it not necessarily that the Mishna is dealing with a case

such as

that he is silent,

the owner, and so we have learned that the witness is deemed credible when the owner remains silent.

And it is necessary,

Abaye had to inform us in all these circumstances that the silence of the owners is considered like an admission!

For if he had informed us

only

this first one

only his first statement, concerning the witness who testified to him, “You ate forbidden fat”—that the offering is valid if he remained silent—for then I would say that it is valid because

if it were not that he was certain within himself that he had committed

a transgression [if he were not certain within himself that he had committed a transgression], surely

he would not have brought non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard

[he would not have brought non-sacred food into the Temple courtyard], and therefore the offering that he brought is valid.

But

when one witness said to him, “

Your ritually pure things have become impure,”

we would say

[I would say]:

The reason that he is silent

is because

he thinks: “

He can use it during his days of ritual impurity,”

that is: he is not silent because he admits the words of the witness, but because he does not care, for even according to the witness, those things that became impure are fit for him to eat when he is ritually impure.

And if he had informed us

only

this,

the case of “Your ritually pure things have become impure,” and he had not informed us of this law also concerning “

Your ox was sodomized,” then I would say: The reason that his silence is considered like an admission concerning “Your ritually pure things have become impure” is

because, in the end,

he is causing him a loss

of the ritually pure things

during his days of ritual purity

when he cannot eat them because they became impure—

But

when he said to him, “

Your ox was sodomized,”

I would say that his silence is not considered like an admission, because

he might

say

[the owner in his heart]: “

Are all oxen standing for the altar?”

All oxen are not destined for sacrifice, and he does not care that his ox has been disqualified as an offering.

And therefore

it is necessary

for Abaye to inform us in all these three circumstances that his silence is considered like an admission.

A question was raised before them: His wife committed adultery on the testimony of one witness,

when one witness said to him: “Your wife committed adultery, and she is forbidden to you,”

and he remains silent,

the husband,

what is the law!

Abaye said: He is deemed credible

the witness, and she is forbidden to him.

Rava said: He is not deemed credible,

because

it is a matter concerning marital relations, and there is no matter concerning marital relations with fewer than two.

Abaye further said: From where do I derive it,

from where did I learn according to my reasoning?

That

there was an incident involving

a certain blind man who would arrange beraitot

before Mar Shmuel; one day it became late for him

the blind man

and he did not come, so he sent

Shmuel

a messenger after him

the blind man;

while the messenger was going

to the blind man’s house,

he came by one road

the blind man

by another

road;

when the messenger came

from the blind man’s house,

he said

to the blind man: “

Your wife committed adultery”;

he came before Mar Shmuel.

[An incident involving a blind man who was accustomed to arranging beraitot before Shmuel. One day that blind man was late in coming, and Shmuel sent a messenger after him to hurry him to come. The messenger went by one road to the blind man’s house, while at that same time the blind man went by another road to Shmuel’s study hall. When the messenger returned from the blind man’s house, he testified to the blind man concerning his wife, that she had committed adultery at that time, and the blind man came before Shmuel to ask about his law, whether she was permitted to him].

He said to him

Shmuel said to that blind man:

If he is credible to you

the witness [if he is credible to you], then

go and divorce her

[go and give her a bill of divorce],

but if not

he is not credible to you, then

you shall not take her out

you shall not take your wife out! And Abaye proved from this incident that one witness is deemed credible concerning adultery when the other remains silent:

Is it not

that this was Shmuel’s intention:

If he is credible to you that he is not a robber

if he is credible to you that he is not a robber and is fit for testimony, then you shall take her out; and if he is not credible to you that he is not a robber, then you shall not take your wife out—thus, if the witness is fit for testimony, he is deemed credible.

And the Gemara explains:

And Rava

who holds that he is not deemed credible would say to you: This is what Shmuel said:

If he is credible to you as two witnesses, go and divorce her, but if not, do not take her out,

if this witness is credible to you as two witnesses, then take her out, and if not, do not; and if so, there is no proof from this incident that the testimony of an ordinary one witness is sufficient.

And

he said

further, Abaye: From where do I derive it,

from where did I learn according to my reasoning? From that

which was taught:

An incident involving King Yannai, who went to

the province of

Kokhlet

[that was its name]

which was in the desert, and conquered there sixty fortresses, and upon his return he rejoiced with great rejoicing, and summoned all the sages of Israel.

He said to them

Yannai to the sages of Israel:

Our ancestors used to eat salty plants

[they are types of vegetables, and are the food of poor people],

when they were occupied with building the Temple

the Second Temple, and because they were poor,

we too shall eat salty plants as a remembrance of our ancestors,

that is: we shall eat them in remembrance of the poverty that existed, and to give thanks to the Holy One, blessed is He, that now He has caused us to succeed and made us wealthy—

And they brought up

at that meal that they made after the victory

salty plants on tables of gold, and they ate.

And there was

a

certain

man

who was a scoffer,

possessing

an evil heart, and

a

worthless man, and his name was Elazar ben Poera.

And Elazar ben Poera said to King Yannai:

King Yannai!

Know that

the hearts of the Pharisees

[he meant the sages of Israel] are

against you,

that is: they are your enemies, and they do not rejoice in your joy!

Yannai said to Elazar:

And what shall I do

in order to prove that what you say is indeed so?

Elazar said to Yannai, who was also the High Priest:

Stand before them with the frontplate between your eyes,

that is: place the sacred frontplate upon your forehead, and you will see that they will protest against you being a priest, although you are descended from Aaron [for Yannai was from the priests of the Hasmonean dynasty].

And indeed

Yanai erected for them

for the Sages of Israel

the frontplate that was between his eyes.

And

there was one elder there, and Yehuda ben Gedidya was his name, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yanai:

King Yanai! Your royal crown is sufficient for you [you have enough with the royal crown],

and

leave the crown of priesthood to

the rest of

the descendants of Aaron;

and therefore he said so, even though he too was of the descendants of Aaron, because

they would say

about Yanai:

his mother

of Yanai

was captured in Modi'in

before she married his father, and a captive woman is disqualified by rabbinic decree from the priesthood, out of concern that she had relations with a gentile who disqualifies her from the priesthood; and Yanai, her son, who was born from a priest who had relations with a captive woman, is a ḥalal by rabbinic decree, and is not fit for the crown of priesthood.

And the matter was investigated,

Yanai gave an instruction to investigate and examine the matter, whether it was indeed as they said, but it

was not found,

it was not possible to prove the matter; and below it explains this.

And the Sages of Israel separated in Yanai’s anger,

that is: the Sages of Israel separated themselves from Yanai because of his anger.

And Elazar ben Po'ira said to King Yanai: King Yanai!

Is it possible that

a common Israelite is thus his law,

to endure his disgrace and not take revenge,

and

even

you,

who are

a king and High Priest, thus is your law,

to endure your disgrace without taking revenge on them?!

Yanai said to Elazar:

And what shall I do

to them, to the Sages of Israel?

Elazar said to King Yanai:

If you heed my counsel, crush them!

Yanai said to Elazar:

And what will become of the Torah,

if I kill the Sages of Israel?

Elazar said to Yanai:

Behold,

the Torah scroll is

rolled up and placed in a corner,

and the mitzvot are written within it;

whoever wishes to learn should come and learn,

that is: what need is there for the Sages of Israel, when the Torah is before us and they can learn from it?

Yanai was silent and did not answer him, and acted according to his counsel—as follows—except that, in the course of bringing the beraita, the Gemara brings the words of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Immediately heresy was cast into him,

into Yanai,

heresy

for he should have said

to Elazar ben Po'ira:

This works for the Written Torah,

indeed, whoever wishes to learn should come and learn; but

the Oral Torah,

which is transmitted by tradition from generation to generation through the Sages of Israel—

what?!

Who, after all, will transmit the Oral Torah if the Sages of Israel are killed?

And the Gemara continues to bring the continuation of the beraita:

Immediately the evil sprouted

through Elazar ben Po'ira, and they killed—

by the agency of Yanai—

all the Sages of Israel.

And the world was desolate [desolate from Torah],

until

until Shimon ben Shetaḥ came,

who had escaped from Yanai’s sword,

and restored the Torah to its former state.

And from here Abaye proves his position.

For

what are the circumstances?

What is the intention of the beraita that they investigated but did not find—that Yanai’s mother had been captured?!

If you say,

perhaps you will say:

two said, “She was captured,” and two said, “She was not captured”, [two witnesses testified that his mother had been captured, and two testified that she had not been captured]—this cannot be said, because:

If so, why did we learn, “And the matter was investigated and was not found,” which implies that they held him to have the presumption of fitness?! For

what have you seen that you rely on these? Rely on those [what did you see that you rely on the two witnesses who say that his mother was not captured, when, on the other hand, you have the two witnesses who confirm that his mother was captured], and because of the uncertainty we should have disqualified him from the priesthood?!

why do you see fit to rely on these? Rely on those [why do you see fit to rely on the two witnesses who say that his mother was not taken captive, when you can instead rely on the two witnesses who affirm that she was taken captive],

and because of the uncertainty, we should have disqualified him from the priesthood?!

Rather,

it was necessarily the case that there was

one witness

testifying about her capture, and two contradicted him, and therefore they declared him fit. And from here Abaye proves his position, that when one witness says, “Your wife committed adultery,” and he remains silent, the witness is trusted.

And the reason is that two contradicted him [it implies that they did not trust the witness for this reason, because two contradicted him],

and one witness is considered nothing where there are two.

If not so,

but if two had not come and contradicted him, then

he is trusted,

and we have learned according to Abaye’s position that one witness is trusted concerning a matter of sexual relations when the litigant remains silent.

And Rava—

who disagrees and holds that one witness is not trusted concerning a matter of sexual relations, even when the other remains silent—would say to you:

Actually,

this was never testimony of one that was contradicted by two; rather, it was contradictory testimony of

two and two,

two testifying that his mother was captured, and two nullifying this testimony.

However, the contradiction was not through denial, for if so, the question would arise: what have you seen that you rely on these? Rely on those

! And

the incident was

as Rav Adda bar Minyomi said

regarding another matter, that they established it

with disqualified witnesses.

Here too, with disqualified witnesses.

That is, those two who nullified the testimony disqualified the first witnesses, saying about them: “You were with us at that time when you testify concerning the capture of Yanai’s mother, and you cannot testify about it at all.” And we rely on these who disqualify them, because the Torah trusted witnesses of disqualification more than the first witnesses.

And if you wish, say

to explain the incident of Yanai according to Rava’s view,

as Rabbi Yitzḥak!

For Rabbi Yitzḥak said: They brought in a maidservant in her place.

Two other witnesses came and said: “We were with her all the time, and when the captors wished to take her in order to disqualify her, we brought them a maidservant in her place; and she remains in her fitness.”

Rava said,

who holds that one witness concerning a matter of sexual relations is not trusted, even when the other remains silent: