Clarification: And when the Gemara says regarding something that is not be'Yado that if he is not silent he (the witness) is not believed, that refers to a case which cannot be clarified ...

Clarification (cont.): But where it can - such as where he says to him 'There is a Sheretz in your Taharos' or 'A Nochri is pouring your wine; 'Come let me show you the Isur!', one is obligated to take his words into account and to go and check ...

Source: As the Gemara says (on Amud Beis) in the case of a Ba'al-Mum 'Take off your clothes and show us!'

Clarification: And when one appoints a Shali'ach to guard one's wine or to bring it from the cellar, he is believed ...

Reason: Because that is akin to be'Yado and to where one believes him like two witnesses, since he relies on him ...

Clarification (cont.): And we only need silence there where he did not make him (the witness) a Shali'ach.

Question: Did the Gemara not say earlier that 'If someone is Mekadesh with one witness, his Kidushin is not valid' - since 'Ein Davar she'be'Ervah Pachos mi'Shenayim'?

Answer: There, seeing as he did not betroth her in front of two witnesses, it is possible that he gave the money as a gift ...

Answer (cont.): Whereas here, intimacy is prohibited, irrespective of whether there are witnesses or not, and we only need the husband to know the truth.

Question: It implies here that one witness is believed, whereas in Maseches Sotah (Daf 3b) the Gemara states that 'A woman only becomes forbidden to her husband with Kinuy and S'tirah' (warning and seclusion) ...

Question (cont.): Implying that one requires (two) witnesses?

Answer: It speaks there where the husband is not silent; but where he is, one witness will suffice (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: Bearing in mind that he is silent, and 'Silence is akin to admission', why is she not forbidden to him? Why can he not make her a 'piece of Isur'?

Answer: According to Rava, the reason that Shosek is believed is not due to the principle 'Silence is akin to admission', but because, seeing as their are grounds to forbid him, he is believed ...

Answer (cont.): Consequently, since the Isur is not due to the testimony of the husband but of the witness, he is not believed, since 'One witness is not believed by a matter that concerns Ervah' (See Masores ha'Shas).

Explanation #1: Even though it was not the time of the Avodah, Rashi explains, the Gemara said earlier (on Daf 54a) that 'One may benefit from Bigdei Kehunah'.

Refutation: On the contrary, the Gemara there implies that the moment they were able to remove them, they were obligated to do so ...

Proof: From the fact that it says 'The Torah was not given to Mal'achei ha'Shareis', implying that it is forbidden to wear them unnecessarily?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that it is specifically the Tzitz that is permitted ...

Reason: Ssince the Torah writes in connection with it (in Sh'mos 28) "v'Hayah al Mitzcho Tamid" ...

Reason (cont.): Implying that it is permitted even outside the time of the Avodah - but not the other Begadim.

Conclusion: Note that Yanai was a Kohen from the seed of the Chashmona'im.

Clarification: Who said that she was captured - so how can the Gemara say that 'It was not found to be true'?

Question: To the contrary, asks Rashi, why do we not place two against two, and place Yanai's mother on a Vhezkas Kashrus ...

Source: As the Gemara says regarding Kohen, in Perek ha'Ishah she'Nis'arm'lah (Kesuvos, Daf 26b)?

Answer #1: That is what we would do if she came to Beis-Din to declare herself permitted, since she has a Chekas Kashrus ...

Answer #1 (cont.): But here it is her son who is being judged, and he has no such Chazakah, seeing as they were testifying that his birth was bi'Pesul, since they claim that his mother was captured before he was born.

Refutation: Nevertheless,why does the Chazakah of his mother, who did have a Chezkas Kashrus, notwork for him too ...

Proof: Since the Gemara says in the first Perek of Kesuvos (Daf 13a) 'The opinion that declares her Kasher, also declares her daughter Kasher'?

Answer #2: We only 'place two against two ... ' with regard to T'rumah de'Rabbanan, since two against two is a Safek de'Rabbanan, and there we are not strict ...

Answer #2 (cont.): Whereas by Yuchsin, which entails an Isur d'Oraysa, they are strict, and she is Asur mi'de'Rabbanan (See Masores ha'Shas).

Question: What is the Mashal teaching us, bearing in mind that even if it is known that he was Pasul when he performed the Avodah, his Avodah is Kasher, as is evident from the Pasuk that thee Gemara cites shortly ...

Question (cont.): Whereas in the equivalent case regarding Mikvah, if the initial measurement is found to have been incorrect, his Taharos are Tamei retroactively, even according to Rebbi Tarfon?

Answer: The Ri therefore explains that they argue over two issues - They argue over the retroactive status of Taharos that were done based on the Mikvah; one goes after the Chazakah of the Mikvah, the other, after the Chazakah of the person who Toveled

Answer (cont.): There where the shortcoming in the Mikvah is not known ...

Answer #2 (concl. [See Hagahos ve'Tziyunim]): [Alternatively, they also argue over a case where some time after a Tamei Toveled in the Mikvah, it became known that it had been lacking at that time, in which case his Taharos are Tahor retroactively - and that is the case to which the Mashal refers.

Answer (cont.): And they also argue in a case where, after the Kohen Toveled and did the Avodah, witnesses came and testified that the Mikvah had been lacking already before the Avodah ...

Answer (concl.): Rebbi Tarfon declares the Avodah Kasher, like a ben Gerushah and ben Chalutzah - and that is the case to which the Mashal refers.

Clarifying the Word: The Targum of "ve'HIfshit" (Vayikra 1) is "ve'Shalach".

Halachah: From here one can learn that anything that one witness is believed regarding anything that can be clarified, even if another witness contradicts him.

Question: At the beginning of the Masechta (Daf 4a) the Gemara said - "And she has no offspring (Zera)" (Vayikra 22); We only know Kasher offspring; from where do we know even offspring that are Pasul? Therefore the Torah writes ... ' ...

Question (cont.): Implying that the Lashon 'Zera' means specifically Kasher offspring?

Answer: It is different here, because "Zar'o" is superfluoanav' (and to his sons), seeing as the concept of 'B'ris Kehunah' is not applicable to girls.

Answer (cont.): And that explains why we Darshen from it even Pasul offspring ...

Answer (concl.): Whereas there it is not superfluous, since it speaks where he has a daughter just like where he has a son.

Clarification: The Ri explains that this S'tam Mishnah goes acording to Rebbi Shimon ha'Timni, who says at the end of Perek ha'Choletz (Yevamos, Daf 49a) that 'There is a Mamzer from CHyvei K'risus, but not from Chaayvei La'avin' ...

Clarification (cont.): And similarly he says here.

Halachah: Moreover the Ri maintains that the Halachah is like this S'tam ...

Implied Question: Even though there is another S'tam in Yevamos (Daf 92a) like Rebbi Akiva ...

Answer: Nevertheless this S'tam is the main one, since it is learnt in the location of the Halachos Pesukos of Kidushin.

Proof #1: We also find a similar S'tam in many other places, as the Gemara says there (Ibid. Daf 14b [for example]) 'It is obvious that the sons of CVhayvei La'avin are Kasher!'

Proof #2: And a Beraisa which states, in answer to the question 'What is a Mamzer? - wherever the Isur is an Isur Ervah and which is punishable by Kareis' - implying that there is only a Mamzer from Chayvei Kareis.