Kiddushin 66: How Many Witnesses?

How many witnesses are required when a transgression might disrupt a betrothal?  In order to understand the possible answers to this question, the rabbis consider similar questions.  How many witnesses are required when an animal is disqualified due to sexual activity with a person?  How many witnesses are required regarding a wife's adulterous behaviour?  How many witnesses are required to dethrone a king based on witnessing his mother's change of status? 

Generally speaking, two witnesses are required in these cases.  Why would the rabbis ever allow only one witness?  We are given the example of a blind man who is told that another scholar found that man's wife with another man.  Should he believe what another person has seen?  He is advised to divorce his wife if he takes the opinion of the witness to be as good as two witnesses.  If not, he should not divorce his wife.  Notes teach us that the rabbis took into account a number of other issues, including whether the man and his wife had been arguing recently, in which case he might be more likely to divorce her based on the testimony of a single witness.  

We are introduced to King Yannai, also known as the Hasmonean King Alexander Yannai who married his deceased brother's wife in accordance with the laws of yevamot and chalitza.  Yannai was a great leader who hosted huge celebrations after his victories in war.  He invited critiques at one of these feasts, and he was told that he should not be king, for his mother had been taken captive.  This would change her status and she would no longer be eligible to marry a priest.  Thus Yannai, also the high priest, was told to step down.

Yannai was already frustrated with the Pharisees, or the Sages' interpretations and halacha.  He was turning toward the Sadducees, who interpreted Torah law more literally.  This particular situation was a perfect example of his frustrations.  To have one's parentage and also one's position questioned - right after winning significant battles and offering everyone a feast - would arouse anger in any leader.  Yannai even poured water on his feet instead of the Altar, leading to his being pelted with etrogim, followed by a row that ended with thousands of people killed.

One of the rabbis' questions is whether or not witnesses are required at all to disqualify a consecrated object.  For example, if there are less than 40 se'a of water in a mikvah, it is disqualified.  But who is required to witness that transgression?  What IS witnessing, anyway?  Can't a person simply know something?  When are two witnesses truly required?

Personally I am powerfully drawn to this line of questioning in the Talmud.  So much of what the rabbis teach is a clear distinction between 'this' and 'that'.  To acknowledge the 'in between'; the cracks in the system, so to speak, is incredibly satisfying.

At the end of our daf, a new Mishna teaches us about patrilineal and matrilineal descent.  We are told that when a betrothal is valid and when there is no transgression of Torah law (ie. people marry people who are permitted to them), we follow patrilineal descent.  When there is a valid betrothal but there has been a transgression of Torah law (for example, a priest marries a widow), children will inherit the status of the parent with a 'blemish'.  Finally, in any case where a woman can marry some Jews but not others, the children of her union will be called mamzerim.  

We will have our hands full with the Gemara through tomorrow's daf, I'm certain.