1)

(a)Abaye also rules that if someone remains silent when one witness testifies that his ox was raped by a human, the witness is believed, in which case it is forbidden to be brought as a Korban. It is not stoned though, because we Darshen in Bava Kama that the ox, like its owner, requires two witnesses before it can be put to death.

(b)This too, he proves from a Beraisa, which rules that, if either the owner admits or one witness testifies that an animal had relations with a person or killed someone he is believed.

(c)Abaye proves his ruling from there because a case of one witness can only speak when the owner is silent. In the event that he admitted, it is synonymous with the owner's admission (as we already learned).

2)

(a)Abaye has just issues three parallel rulings. Despite having taught us that one witness is believed in the case of ...

1. ... 'Achalta Chelev', he nevertheless needs to repeat it by 'Nitme'u Taharosecha'. Otherwise, we would have confined his ruling to the former, where a person would not deign to bring Chulin to the Azarah, whereas in the case of the latter, his silence is due to the fact that he is able to eat his Tamei food when he is Tamei, and the loss, which is therefore minimal, does not bother him.

2. ... 'Nitme'u Taharosecha', he nevertheless needs to repeat it by 'Shorcha Nirva' since we would otherwise have restricted his ruling to the former, which he loses at least, in the days that he is Tahor, but not in the latter, since not all animals go on the Mizbe'ach anyway, and the loss is miniscule.

(b)According to Abaye, if a man remains silent in face of one witness, who testifies that his wife committed adultery, the witness is believed and his wife is forbidden. Rava however, maintains that the witness is not believed, due to the principle 'Ein Davar shebe'ervah Pachos mi'Shenayim' (anything to do with adultery and incest requires two witnesses).

(c)Abaye proved his ruling from the case of the blind man who used to arrange Beraisos in front of Shmuel, and who once sent a Shali'ach after him to hasten his arrival, because he was late for his session.

(d)When the Shali'ach, who missed the blind man, because he arrived by a different route, returned, he testified that his wife had committed adultery.

3)

(a)Shmuel ruled that if the blind man believed the witness, he should divorce her; otherwise not.

(b)According to Abaye, what Shmuel meant was that if he knew that the witness was not disqualified from testifying, he should divorce his wife (since she did not deny the witnesses claim).

(c)Rava however, would have interpreted it to mean that if he believed him like two witnesses, he should divorce her (since in his heart, he knew that she had committed adultery).

4)

(a)Abaye further proves his opinion from an episode with King Yanai, who arranged a thanksgiving party in honor of Hash-m upon his return from Kuchlis in the desert to give vent to the happiness he felt at having captured sixty cities.

(b)He called for the Chachamim to inform them of his decision to eat Meluchim, a vegetable known as 'Kekukli', to commemorate the construction of the second Beis ha'Mikdash, since, due to their abject poverty, that was all they could afford then.

(c)Elazar ben Po'irah was an evil, scheming trouble-maker who informed the King that the Perushim (the equivalent of the modern Chareidim) had turned against him.

5)

(a)When Yanai followed Elazar ben Po'irah's advice and wore the Tzitz of the Kohen Gadol, Yehudah ben Gedidyah challenged him on the basis of evidence that his mother had been captured, and was therefore Pasul from the Kehunah (in which case, Yanai's father had married her illegally), and he (Yanai) was Pasul too.

(b)The Chachamim did not immediately disqualify Yanai from the Kehunah, because they were unable to substantiate the evidence, as we will see shortly.

(c)'Vayibadlu Chachmei Yisrael b'Za'am' means that the Chachamim left the King in a state of rage.

(d)When ...

1. ... Elazar ben Po'irah advised the King to kill all the Chachamim he retorted that Torah would then be in jeopardy of being forgotten.

2. ... Elazar ben Po'irah replied that one could place the Torah in a corner, and whoever wanted, could come and study it, he should have retorted that if that true of the written Torah, who would transmit the traditions of the oral Torah.

(e)Rav Nachman accused him of Apikorsus for giving total prominence to the written Torah (displaying the beliefs of the Tzedokim).

6)

(a)Yanai ha'Melech subsequently took his cue from Elazar ben Po'irah and massacred all the Chachmei Yisrael.

(b)The Torah-world remained desolate until Shimon ben Shetach revived it. He managed to escape by virtue of the fact that he was the brother of the Queen (Alexandra Salome) who was complicit in his escape.

7)

(a)Abaye tried to prove from that episode that one witness is believed to testify that a woman committed adultery by virtue of the fact were it not for the two witnesses who testified that Yanai's mother had not been captured, she would have been disqualified through the testimony of the first single witness.

(b)It could not have been a matter of two witnesses against two ('T'rei u'T'rei'), he claimed because then why would the Chachamim have accepted the testimony of the second pair over and above that of the first.

(c)Rava countered Abaye's proof, by establishing it even by two sets of witnesses only the second pair declared the first pair Zomemin (i.e. that they had been with them in another location when they claimed to have witnessed the capture). And in such a case, the Torah believes the second pair.

(d)Alternatively, he cites Rebbi Yitzchak, who said 'Shifchah Hichnisu Tachtehah' meaning that the second set of witnesses testified that in fact, a slave-girl had been smuggled in to take the place of Yanai's mother, and that she had been rescued, before the captors had a chance to do anything to her. Consequently, it was not a case of 'T'rei u'Trei'.

8)

(a)Abaye tries to bring another proof from the Mishnah in Mikva'os. In the case of the pool of water of Diskim which had been known to contain forty Sa'ah of water, but which was one day found to be lacking, Rebbi Tarfon declared all the people and vessels who had Toveled there up to that moment, Tahor on the basis of the Chazakah that it was known to have been Kosher. Consequently, he assumed it to be Kosher up to the moment it was discovered to be Pasul.

(b)Rebbi Akiva maintained that on the contrary, we place the person (or vessel) that Toveled (and that was known to be Tamei), on a Chezkas Tamei, which cannot be removed through a Safek Tevilah.

(c)Rebbi Tarfon compared the case to a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah who was serving on the Mizbe'ach when he discovered that he was Pasul (whose Avodah the Torah validates) whereas Rebbi Akiva compared it to a Ba'al Mum (whose Avodah under the same circumstances, the Torah declares invalid).

9)

(a)Rebbi Akiva took up Rebbi Tarfon's challenge as to which of the two Mikvah is more similar, and presented two similarities to a Ba'al Mum, one of them, because, unlike a ben Gerushah ... , both can become Pasul via one witness. The other similarity is that both are an intrinsic Psul, unlike that of a ben Gerushah and a ben Chalutzah, whose Psul comes from his mother.

(b)Reacting to Rebbi Akiva's explanation Rebbi Tarfon exclaimed that to separate from Rebbi Akiva, was to separate from life itself.

(c)Rava ...

1. ... knows that when Rebbi Akiva said 'Ba'al Mum Pesulo b'Yachid', he meant that the man was silent, and not that he contradicted him because if he contradicted him, we would not believe the witness.

2. ... proves from here that one witness is not believed in a case of Ervah because in the equivalent case, Rebbi Akiva required two witnesses by a ben Gerushah ... . One would not suffice, even though the Kohen himself was silent (as we just explained).

3. ... explains the difference between that case and the case of Mikvah, where one witness is believed because of the principle 'Ed Echad Ne'eman b'Isurim'.

(d)Abaye counters this proof. He argues that we might even believe the single witness in the case of a Ba'al Mum, even if the Kohen himself contradicts him because we can ask the Kohen concerned to undress and prove that he is not blemished (and until he does, the witness is believed).

10)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas "v'Hayesah Lo u'le'Zar'o Acharav" that the Avodah of a Kohen is Kosher b'Di'eved even if he is Pasul (if he did not know at the time that he was a Chalal, not l'Chatchilah, i.e., because it is obvious that a Chalal is disqualified from performing the Avodah).

(b)The same thing ...

1. ... Avuhah di'Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in v'Zos ha'Berachah (in connection with the tribe of Levi) "Barech Hash-m Cheilo u'Fo'Al Yadav Tirtzeh" that even the Avodah of someone whose Kehunah is profaned (a Chalal) is Kosher b'Di'eved.

2. ... Rebbi Yanai learns from the Pasuk in Ki Savo "u'Vasa El ha'Kohen asher Yiheyeh ba'Yamim ha'Heim" which, if not to teach us that however the Kohen appears in those days (even if he is a Chalal), is not telling us anything, since the statement itself is obvious.

(c)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel (who Darshens "Shalom" as if the Torah had written "Shalem") learns from the Pasuk in Pinchas (in connection with Pinchas) "Lachen Emor, Hin'ni Nosen lo Es B'risi Shalom" that only when a Kohen is complete may he perform the Avodah, but not when he is a Ba'al Mum.

(d)In spite of the fact that "Shalom" is written with a 'Vav', he Darshens the word in this way because the 'Vav' is broken, explains Rav Nachman, enabling us to Darshen it as if it was a 'Yud'.

(e)From the Pasuk "Ach El ha'Paroches Lo Yavo" we disqualify a Ba'al Mum l'Chatchilah, whereas the previous Pasuk comes to disqualify his Avodah even b'Di'eved (in the way that we explained earlier regarding a Chalal).

11)

(a)Sometimes a child goes after the father, sometimes after whichever of the parents is Pasul and sometimes after the mother. According to our Mishnah, it goes after...

1. ... the father whenever the Kidushin is valid and there is no sin involved.

2. ... whichever one is Pasul whenever the Kidushin is valid and a sin is involved.

3. ... the mother whenever the Kidushin is not valid at all (neither with the man whom she 'married' nor with anybody else).

(b)According to the Tana, the child is a Mamzer whenever Kidushin is not valid with him, but it would be valid with somebody else.

(c)The examples of ...

1. ... 'Yesh Kidushin v'Ein Aveirah' are a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael who married a Kohen, Levi or Yisrael.

2. ... 'Ein lah Alav Kidushin, Aval Yesh lah Al Acherim Kidushin are any of the Chayavei Kerisus.

3. ... 'Ein lah Lo Alav v'Lo Al Acherim Kidushin are the child of a Shifchah Kena'anis or of a Nochris.

(d)Some of the examples of 'Yesh Kidushin v'Yesh Aveirah' are an Almanah l'Kohen Gadol and a Gerushah and Chalutzah l'Kohen Hedyot. The remaining four are a Mamzeres or a Nesinah to a Yisrael, and a bas Yisrael to a Mamzer or to a Nasin.