## Kiddushin Daf 66a

###### Kiddushin 66a:1
[Kiddushin 66a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:1)

״שׁוֹרְךָ נִרְבַּע״ וְהַלָּה שׁוֹתֵק – נֶאֱמָן, וְתַנָּא תּוּנָא: וְשֶׁנֶּעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה, וְשֶׁהֵמִית עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד אוֹ עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים – נֶאֱמָן. הַאי ״עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד״, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּקָא מוֹדוּ בְּעָלִים, הַיְינוּ ״עַל פִּי הַבְּעָלִים״, אֶלָּא לָאו דְּשָׁתֵיק?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Your ox was used** by a man **for an act of bestiality** and is therefore unfit for an offering, **and the other,** the owner of the ox, **is silent,** the witness is **deemed credible. And the *tanna*** of the mishna also **taught** (*Bekhorot* 41a): **And** with regard to an animal **that was used for a transgression** or **that killed,** if this is attested to **by one witness or by the owner,** he is **deemed credible.** The Gemara clarifies this case: **What are the circumstances** of **this** case of the mishna, where the knowledge is established **by one witness? If the owner admits** to the claim, **this is** the same as: **By the owner. Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where** the owner remains **silent?**


###### Kiddushin 66a:2
[Kiddushin 66a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:2)

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָךְ קַמַּיְיתָא, אִי לָאו דְּקִים לֵיהּ בְּנַפְשֵׁיהּ דַּעֲבַד – חוּלִּין בַּעֲזָרָה לָא הֲוָה מַיְיתֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **And** each of these statements of Abaye is **necessary. As, had he taught us** only **that first** case, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: **Were it not** for the fact **that he himself** was **convinced that he had committed** a transgression, **he would not** commit the transgression of **bringing a non-sacred** animal **to** the Temple **courtyard** on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission.


###### Kiddushin 66a:3
[Kiddushin 66a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:3)

אֲבָל ״נִטְמְאוּ טׇהֳרוֹתֶיךָ״ – מֵימָר אָמְרִינַן: הַאי דְּשָׁתֵיק – דְּסָבַר, חֲזֵי לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טוּמְאָתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But** if the witness said: **Your ritually pure** foods **were rendered ritually impure,** and the accused was silent, **we would say:** The reason **that** he is **silent** and refrains from denying the claim is **that he thinks** he is not suffering any significant loss, as the food **is fit for him** to eat **on his days of ritual impurity,** because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods.


###### Kiddushin 66a:4
[Kiddushin 66a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:4)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא מַפְסֵיד לֵיהּ בִּימֵי טׇהֳרָתוֹ, אֲבָל ״שׁוֹרוֹ נִרְבַּע״ מֵימָר אָמַר: כֹּל השְׁווֹרִים לָאו לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ קָיְימִי, צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And had** Abaye **taught us** only the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason **this** witness is deemed credible is **that he causes him a loss on his days of ritual purity,** and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. **But** in the case of: **His ox was used** by a man **for an act of bestiality,** the owner of the ox **can say** with regard to his animal: **Not all the oxen stand** ready to be sacrificed **as** an offering on the **altar.** Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore **necessary** for Abaye to specify all these cases.


###### Kiddushin 66a:5
[Kiddushin 66a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִשְׁתּוֹ זִינְּתָה בְּעַד אֶחָד וְשׁוֹתֵק, מַהוּ? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: נֶאֱמָן. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. הָוֵי דָּבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה, וְאֵין דָּבָר שֶׁבְּעֶרְוָה פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If a husband is told **by one witness** that **his wife committed adultery, and** the husband remains **silent, what is** the *halakha*? **Abaye said:** The witness is **deemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.** Why not? Because **it is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matter** of testimony **for forbidden sexual relations** that can be attested to by **fewer than two** witnesses.


###### Kiddushin 66a:6
[Kiddushin 66a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:6)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּהָהוּא סַמְיָא דַּהֲוָה מְסַדַּר מַתְנְיָיתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל. יוֹמָא חַד נְגַהּ לֵיהּ וְלָא הֲוָה קָאָתֵי. שַׁדַּר שְׁלִיחָא אַבָּתְרֵיהּ. אַדְּאָזֵיל שְׁלִיחַ בַּחֲדָא אוֹרְחָא, אֲתָא אִיהוּ בַּחֲדָא. כִּי אֲתָא שָׁלִיחַ, אָמַר: אִשְׁתּוֹ זִינְּתָה. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּמָר שְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי מְהֵימַן לָךְ – זִיל אַפְּקַהּ, וְאִי לָא – לָא תַּפֵּיק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: From where do I say** this claim of mine? It happened **that** there was **a certain blind man who would review *mishnayot* before Mar Shmuel. One day** the blind man **was late for him and was not arriving.** Mar Shmuel **sent a messenger after him** to assist him. **While** the **messenger was going** to the blind man’s house **by one way,** the blind man **arrived** at the house of study **by a different** route, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. **When** the **messenger came** back, **he said** that he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that **his wife committed adultery.** The blind man **came before Mar Shmuel** to inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel **said to him: If** this messenger **is trusted by you, go** and **divorce her, but if not, do not divorce** her.


###### Kiddushin 66a:7
[Kiddushin 66a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:7)

מַאי לָאו אִי מְהֵימַן עֲלָךְ דְּלָאו גַּזְלָנָא הוּא? וְרָבָא: אִי מְהֵימַן לָךְ כְּבֵי תְרֵי – זִיל אַפְּקַהּ, וְאִי לָא – לָא תַּפְּקַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye comments: **What, is it not** correct to say that this means that **if he is trusted by you that he is not a thief** but is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. **And Rava** explains that Mar Shmuel meant: **If** he **is trusted by you like two** witnesses, **go** and **divorce her, but if not, do not divorce** her. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof.


###### Kiddushin 66a:8
[Kiddushin 66a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:8)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מְנָא אָמֵינָא לַהּ, דְּתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בִּינַאי הַמֶּלֶךְ שֶׁהָלַךְ לְכוּחְלִית שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר, וְכִיבֵּשׁ שָׁם שִׁשִּׁים כְּרַכִּים, וּבַחֲזָרָתוֹ הָיָה שָׂמֵחַ שִׂמְחָה גְּדוֹלָה. וְקָרָא לְכׇל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אָמַר לָהֶם: אֲבוֹתֵינוּ הָיוּ אוֹכְלִים מְלוּחִים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהָיוּ עֲסוּקִים בְּבִנְיַן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַף אָנוּ נֹאכַל מְלוּחִים זֵכֶר לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ. וְהֶעֱלוּ מְלוּחִים עַל שׁוּלְחָנוֹת שֶׁל זָהָב, וְאָכְלוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye said: From where do I say** this claim of mine? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **An incident** occurred **with King Yannai, who went to** the region of **Koḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoiced** with **a great happiness** over his victory. **And he** subsequently **summoned all the Sages of the Jewish people** and **said to them: Our ancestors** in their poverty **would eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate.**


###### Kiddushin 66a:9
[Kiddushin 66a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:9)

וְהָיָה שָׁם אֶחָד, אִישׁ לֵץ לֵב רַע וּבְלִיַּעַל, וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פּוֹעֵירָה שְׁמוֹ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פּוֹעֵירָה לְיַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ: יַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ, לִבָּם שֶׁל פְּרוּשִׁים עָלֶיךָ. וּמָה אֶעֱשֶׂה? הָקֵם לָהֶם בַּצִּיץ שֶׁבֵּין עֵינֶיךָ. הֵקִים לָהֶם בַּצִּיץ שֶׁבֵּין עֵינָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And there was one** person **present, a scoffer,** a man of **an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,** the Sages, **are against you.** In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: **And what shall I do** to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: **Have them stand by** wearing **the frontplate between your eyes.** Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. **He had** the Pharisees **stand by** wearing **the frontplate between his eyes.**


###### Kiddushin 66a:10
[Kiddushin 66a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:10)

הָיָה שָׁם זָקֵן אֶחָד וִיהוּדָה בֶּן גְּדִידְיָה שְׁמוֹ, וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה בֶּן גְּדִידְיָה לְיַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ: יַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ! רַב לְךָ כֶּתֶר מַלְכוּת, הַנַּח כֶּתֶר כְּהוּנָּה לְזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אִמּוֹ נִשְׁבֵּית בְּמוֹדִיעִים. וַיְבוּקַּשׁ הַדָּבָר וְלֹא נִמְצָא. וַיִּבָּדְלוּ חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּזַעַם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Now **there was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,** i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. **Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.** The Gemara explains this last comment: **As they would say** that Yannai’s **mother was taken captive in Modi’in,** and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a *ḥalal*. **And the matter was investigated and was not discovered,** i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. **And the Sages of Israel were expelled in** the king’s **rage,** due to this rumor.


###### Kiddushin 66a:11
[Kiddushin 66a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:11)

וַיֹּאמֶר אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פּוֹעֵירָה לְיַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ: יַנַּאי הַמֶּלֶךְ, הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁבְּיִשְׂרָאֵל כָּךְ הוּא דִּינוֹ, וְאַתָּה מֶלֶךְ וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל כָּךְ הוּא דִּינָךְ? וּמָה אֶעֱשֶׂה? אִם אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ לַעֲצָתִי: רוֹמְסֵם. וְתוֹרָה מָה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ? הֲרֵי כְּרוּכָה וּמוּנַּחַת בְּקֶרֶן זָוִית, כָּל הָרוֹצֶה לִלְמוֹד יָבוֹא וְיִלְמוֹד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.** In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. **But you are a king and a High Priest.** Is **this your judgment** as well? Yannai replied: **And what should I do?** Elazar responded: **If you listen to my advice, crush them.** Yannai countered: **But what will become of the Torah?** He retorted: **Behold,** it **is wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.** We have no need for the Sages.


###### Kiddushin 66a:12
[Kiddushin 66a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:12)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מִיָּד נִזְרְקָה בּוֹ מִינוּת, דַּהֲוָה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר: תִּינַח תּוֹרָה שֶׁבִּכְתָב, תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה מַאי? מִיָּד: וַתּוּצַץ הָרָעָה עַל יְדֵי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן פּוֹעֵירָה, וַיֵּהָרְגוּ כׇּל חַכְמֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם מִשְׁתּוֹמֵם, עַד שֶׁבָּא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטַח וְהֶחְזִיר אֶת הַתּוֹרָה לְיוֹשְׁנָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interjects: **Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected into** Yannai, **as he should have said** to Elazar ben Po’ira: This **works out well** with regard to **the Written Torah,** as it can be studied by all on their own, but **what** will become of **the Oral Torah?** The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The *baraita* continues: **Immediately, the evil** arose and **caught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolate** of Torah **until Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its former** glory. This completes the *baraita*.


###### Kiddushin 66a:13
[Kiddushin 66a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:13)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּבֵי תְרֵי אָמְרִי: ״אִישְׁתְּבַאי״ וּבֵי תְרֵי אָמְרִי: ״לָא אִישְׁתְּבַאי״ – מַאי חָזֵית דְּסָמְכַתְּ אַהָנֵי, סְמוֹךְ אַהָנֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye asks: **What are the circumstances** of this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? **If we say that two** witnesses **said** that **she was taken captive, and two** others **said** that **she was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on these** who said that she was not taken captive? Instead, **rely on these** who said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false.


###### Kiddushin 66a:14
[Kiddushin 66a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:14)

אֶלָּא בְּעֵד אֶחָד, וְטַעְמָא דְּקָא מַכְחֲשִׁי לֵיהּ בֵּי תְרֵי, הָא לָאו הָכִי מְהֵימַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be referring **to one witness** who testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. **And the reason** that the lone witness is not deemed credible is only **that he is contradicted by the** other **two,** from which it may be inferred that **if not for that** fact, **he would be deemed credible.** This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind.


###### Kiddushin 66a:15
[Kiddushin 66a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:15)

וְרָבָא: לְעוֹלָם תְּרֵי וּתְרֵי, וְכִדְאָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר רַב מִנְיוֹמֵי: בְּעֵדֵי הֲזָמָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, בְּעֵדֵי הֲזָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rava** could reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: **Actually,** one can say that there were **two** witnesses who testified that she was captured **and two** who testified that she was not, **and** the case was decided **in accordance with that** which **Rav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi says** in a different context, that it is referring **to conspiring witnesses.** The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. **Here too,** it is referring **to** witnesses who rendered the first set **conspiring witnesses.**


###### Kiddushin 66a:16
[Kiddushin 66a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:16)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא כִּדְרַבִּי יִצְחָק, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק: שִׁפְחָה הִכְנִיסוּ תַּחְתֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** that this is **in accordance with** the version of the story stated **by Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replaced** Yannai’s mother **with a maidservant.** The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set.


###### Kiddushin 66a:17
[Kiddushin 66a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Kiddushin/r/66a:17)

אָמַר רָבָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava says:**