hebrew
1)

Seeing as the word "Eid" is singular, why does the Torah need to add "Echad"?

1.

Rashi: To teach us that whenever the Torah writes "Eid" without the word "Echad", it means two witnesses, 1 even though the word "Eid" implies one witness. 2


1

Refer to Bamidbar 5:13:153:1,2 and note as to why we don't learn from a Binyan Av that everywhere else it also means one witness? Also, we could learn from "ve'Eid Echad Lo Ya'aneh" (Bamidbar 35:30), "Lo Yumas Al-Pi Eid Echad" (17:6) and from "Lo Sa'aneh Eid Shaker" (Sh'mos 20:13) ? since surely one witness is not permitted to lie!

2

See Torah Temimah, note 34.

2)

What are the implications of the word "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish"?

1.

Sifri: It implies that, although one witness is not believed to testify on behalf of (or against) a man, he is believed to testify on behalf of a woman ? that her hssband died, to authorize her to remarry. 1


1

See Torah Temimah, note 36. Moshav Zekenim: The reason for this leniency is because, due to the stringencies that we place on her at the end (if she remarried and her husband is foound to be alive) - in the form of thirteen heavy penalties - we allow her to remarry, on the knowledge that she is bound to clarify that he really died before she remarries.

3)

What are the implications of the words "le'Chol Avon u'le'Chol Chatas, le'Chol Chet asher Yecheta"?

1.

Rashi and Targum Yonasan #1: It implies that, although one witness is not believed to implicate the accused regarding Malkos or Misah or to obligate him to pay, he is believed to obligate him to make a Shevu'ah 1 where the defendant denies owing the claimant money. 2

2.

Targum Yonasan #2: It implies 3 that, although one witness is not believed to implicate the accused regarding Malkos or to obligate him to pay, he is believed to prevent a Sotah from drinking the water should he testify that she is guilty. 4

3.

Sifri: "le'Chol Avon" incorporates Makos; "le'Chol Chatas" - Korbanos; "le'Chol Chet" - elevating a Kohen to the Kehunah or relegating him from the Kehunah; 5 "asher Yecheta - "Dinei Mamonos'. 6


1

See Peirush Yonasan and Na'ar Yonasan. See also Torah Temimah, note 37.

2

See Hadar Zekenim.

3

It seems that Targum Yonasan extrapolates this from "be'Chol Chet asher Yecheta".

4

See Na'ar Yonasan.

5

See Torah Temimah, note 38.

6

Oznayim la'Torah: Dinei Nefashos we already know from the Pasuk earlier - 17:6. See Oznayim la'Torah, who also explains why Rashi deviates from the D'rashah of the Sifri.

4)

Why does the Torah insert the (othwerwise superfluous) words "be'Chol Chet asher Yecheta"?

1.

Sifri: To incorporate in the La'av one witness who testifies on a woman. 1

2.

Refer to 19:5:2:2 and note 1.


1

Refer to 19:15:1.1:1.

5)

Is someone who witnessed his fellow-Jew commiting adultery permitted to testify in case another witness turns up - like he does if he saw the new moon?

1.

Pesachim, 113b: No! Because the testimony of only one witness achieves nothing 1 and is considered Motzi-Shem-Ra.


1

See Torah Temimah, note 33.

6)

What are the connotations of the phrase "al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim ... "?

1.

Rashi #1: It implies a. that the witnesses must verbalize their testimony, and not write it on a piece of paper and send it to Beis-Din, 1 and b. that Beis-Din must hear the testimony from the mouth of the witnesses and not from the mouth of a translator. 2

2.

Rashi #2 (in Yevamos, 117a): It teaches us that a woman is not believed to authorize her husband's heirs to inherit the property of her husband on whose death she is testifying, even though she is believed with regard to herself remarrying. 3

3.

Ritva (in Kesuvos, 22b): It teaches us that the principle 'Shesikah ke'Hoda'ah' (Silence is akin to admission') does not apply to witnesses, and that the witnesses (each witness) are therefore obligated to verbalize their testimony. 4

4.

Yerushalmi Yoma, 6:1: It teaches us via a Gezeirah Shavah "Sh'nei" "Ve'amdu Sh'nei ha'Anashim" - in Pasuk 17 - that women and Ketanim are not eligible to judge or to testify. 5


1

See Sifsei Chachamim and Torah Temimah, note 39, who elaborates. See Oznayim la'Torah who explains why this is Pasul and why a creditor may nevertheles claim his debt with a Sh'tar.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 40.

3

See Torah Temimah, note 42.

4

See Torah Temimah, note 41.

5

See Torah Temimah, note 44.

7)

What role do the witnesses play in financial matters? Can a transaction be finalized without them?

1.

Kidushin, 65b: When Mar Zutra and Rav Ada Saba divided their property without witnesses, Rav Ashi told them that their transaction was final and that they were not permitted to retract (without mutual consent) because, with regard to financial transactions, witnesses are only required to prevent one of the partners from subsequently lying.

8)

Having written "Lo Yakum Eid Echad be'Ish", why does the Torh need to insert ""al-Pi Sh'nei Eidim ? Yakum Davar"?

1.

Rashi in Yevamos, 117a: To teach us that, although a woman who testifies that her husband died is believed regarding herself, she is not believed vis-a-vis her chifren, to allow them to inherit their father's property ? for which two witneses are required. 1

2.

Yerushalmi Yoma, 6:1: To teaxh us via a Gezeirah Shavah "Sh'nei" "Sh'nei" from Pasuk 17, that a woman and a Katan are not eligible to judge or to testify. 2


1

See Torah Temimah, note 42, who explains the difference.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 44.

9)

Seeing as two witnesses suffice, why does the Torah add "O Sheloshah Eidim"?

1.

Bava Basra, 119b: To teach us that, although two witnesses will suffice for a regular Get, a Get Mekushar requires three. 1

2.

Makos, 5b #1: To teach us that, just as three witnesses can render two Zom'min, so too can two render three Zom'min. 2

3.

Makos, 5b #2 (citing R. Shimon): To compare three witnesses to two - inasmuch as, just as two witnesses can only be sentenced to death if they have both been declared Zom'min, so too, three witnesses can only be sentenced to death if all three have both been declared Zom'min,

4.

Makos, 5b #3 (citing R. Akiva: To compare three witnesses to two - inasmuch as, just as two witnesses are disqualified if one of them is a relative of the accused, so too, do three 3 - and even a hundred, which we learn from the word "Eidim", which is otherwise superfluous.


1

See Torah Temimah, note 46.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 47. The Torah Temimah comments that all the current D'rashos are derived from the fact that the Torah writes "Eidim" twice, and which all therefore should conclude 'Talmud Lomar "Eidim" "Eidim".

3

But only three witnesses, as implied by "Yakum Davar" - 'bi'Mekaymei Davar'' otherwise the murderer and the rapist, who also witnessed the murder, would disqualify the testimony. See Torah Temimah, citing Makos, 6a, and note 51 & 52.

10)

Why does the Torah insert the (otherwise superfluous) word "Yakum Davar"?

1.

Bava Kama, 70b: In order to extrapolate "Davar", 've'Lo Chatzi Davar' - to teach us that if two witnesses 1 testifythat a girl has one pubic hair on her back and two other witnesses, that she has one hair on her stomach, their testimony is invalid and she is still a Ketanah.

2.

Makos, 6a (according to R. Akiva): Bearing in mind that if one of three witness is Pasul, the entire testimony is disqualified, neither the murderer nor the victim disqualify the testimony, 2 since "Yakum Davar" pertains exclusively to the witnesses. 3


1

See Torah Temimah, note 50.

2

See Torah Temimah, note 51.

3

See Torah Temimah, note 52.

11)

The Gemara in Sotah states that "Eid Echad" teaches that elsewhere, "Eid" means two. Why can we not learn this via a Binyan Av from the following Pasuk "Eid Chamas", which certainly means two witnesses, since it is discussing Misah (See Pasuk 21)?

1.

Because there are four Pesukum ('Arba'ah Kesuvim ha'Ba'im ke'Echad') which teach us that "Eid" is one witness. Tosfos (Kidushin 35a DH 'Ela') says that Shnei 1 Kesuvim are like an exclusion; they teach that this does not apply elsewhere. And an exclusion is stronger than a Binyan Av (PF)

2.

The Moshav Zekenim (in Bamidbar 5:13) stated that in "Lo Yakum?", the word "Echad" is superfluous. If 'Eid' would always mean one, the Torah should have omitted it, since there is nothing superfluous in the Pasuk "Eid Chamas" (PF).


1

Surely the same applies to three or four Kesuvim. Here, the Moshav Zekenim left this difficult. Perhaps he holds like Rashi (35a DH u'Meshani), that we cannot extrapolate from Sh'nei Kesuvim to anywhere else (PF)

Sefer: Perek: Pasuk:
Month: Day: Year:
Month: Day: Year:

KIH Logo
D.A.F. Home Page
Sponsorships & DonationsReaders' FeedbackMailing ListsTalmud ArchivesAsk the KollelDafyomi WeblinksDafyomi CalendarOther Yomi calendars