Édut isá / veszáfrá lá

The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabba, who said that the reason is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, let us require two witnesses to testify about this, just as is the case with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. The Gemara answers: One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witness is sufficient.

עד אחד נאמן באיסורין‎—One witness is believed concerning prohibitive acts.

OVERVIEW
An עד אחד is believed to testify on matters of איסור והיתר‎. He can testify that this piece of meat is כשר and not נבילה, or whether this מקוה has the proper שיעור or not, etc. There is a qualification to this rule. If there is a חזקת איסור, then (it is questionable if) an ע"א is [not] believed to contradict the חזקת איסור‎. Were he to testify regarding a woman, whom we know that she was married, that she is now divorced, we may not accept his testimony. This qualification itself is subsequently qualified. An ע"א can be believed even when he contradicts a חזקת איסור, if he is capable of rectifying and removing the איסור‎. He can say that he was מפריש תרומה from this grain, even though there is a חזקת איסור טבל on it, nevertheless he is believed to say that he was מפריש תרומה since it is בידו to be מפריש תרומה‎. In regards to a שליח הגט who says בפ"נ that it was written לשמה, this seems to be the regular case of ע"א נאמן באיסורין, where there is no איתחזק איסורא‎ – we do not assume the גט was written שלא לשמה, and it is not בידו of the שליח\עד to write the גט לשמה‎.
-----------------------
פירוש הקונטרס שהרי האמינה התורה כל אחד ואחד‎ –
רש"י explains; where do we see that ע"א נאמן באיסורין for the תורה believes every individual –
על הפרשת תרומה ושחיטה וניקור הגיד וחלב‎ –
Concerning separating תרומה, ritual slaughtering of an animal, removal of forbidden sinews (גיד הנשה) and veins, and forbidden fats of an animal. A person, who is invited to a friend’s house to eat, may do so on the say so of the host that the food is kosher, and none of the abovementioned items presents any problem. Even though there are no two witnesses that the host was מפריש תרומה or the meat was נשחט properly etc. We believe the testimony of the single host. This proves that ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎.
תוספות comments on sרש"י' explanation:
ולא היה לו להזכיר הפרשת תרומה ושחיטה דבהנהו נאמן אף על גב דאיתחזק איסורא‎ –
However, רש"י should not have mentioned תרומה ושחיטה among the items he listed to prove ע"א נאמן באיסורין, for in these two items he is believed even though there is a חזקת איסור originally on the food. This is highly unusual that an ע"א should be believed when איתחזק איסורא‎. Therefore we must say the reason why an ע"א is נאמן by תרומה ושחיטה even though that it is איתחזק איסורא, is –
משום דבידו לתקנם‎ –
Because the ע"א has the capability to correct this איסור, by being מפריש תרומה and being שוחט the בהמה‎ –
כמו שפירש הקונטרס בסמוך והכי אמר בהאשה רבה (יבמות פח,א) –
as רש"י will shortly comment. And similarly this is said in פרק האשה רבה‎. Therefore, this type of ע"א נאמן באיסורין where it is בידו לתקנם has no bearing on our case of the שליח testifying that it was written לשמה, where he does not have any capability at all to change the לשמה status of the גט‎.
תוספות challenges his own assumption that שחיטה is בידו לתקן:
ושחיטה אף על גב דהשתא אין בידו לתקנו‎ –
and concerning שחיטה, which תוספות claimed that רש"י should not have included it since it is בידו, תוספות asks, even though that presently, when he is serving the meat, he is no longer capable to correct the problem of נבילה, so why is he נאמן, since it is איתחזק איסורא‎?
תוספות answers, that nevertheless since –
מעיקרא היה בידו לשחוט‎ –
Originally he was capable of שחיטה (either by himself or arranging for someone else to be שוחט), that is sufficient to be considered בידו לתקנו‎. תוספות offers proof for his contention –
דאם לא כן אמאי מהימן כיון דאיתחזק איסורא‎ –
For if you will not agree that this is considered בידו, but rather insist that it must be בידו now, then why indeed is anyone solely believed that this is בשר שחוטה, since it was איתחזק איסורא. One cannot say that indeed the only way that one is permitted to eat meat is only if two people will testify that it was נשחט properly –
דלא מצינו בשום מקום שיצטרך בגדול אחד עומד על גביו‎ –
For we do not find it mentioned anywhere that there is a requirement that another adult should be standing together with the שוחט, so that we can have two witnesses testifying that it is בשר שחוטה‎. Therefore that proves that we do not require that it be בידו now, rather it is sufficient that originally it was בידו‎.
תוספות continues to prove his point, indicating a possible rebuttal to this logic:
One may challenge תוספות proof by saying that the נאמנות of בידו is only if it is בידו now, and not if it was only previously בידו, and the reason why we may eat on the testimony of the שוחט, is because there is a רוב (a ‘majority) that tells us it was נשחט properly, namely that the רוב people that are שוחט are competent שוחטים‎. Therefore it has nothing to do with the נאמנות of an ע"א, but rather on account of רוב‎. תוספות responds that this is not so, for there is a נאמנות of an ע"א by שחיטה even when we cannot utilize this רוב‎ –
ומעשים בכל יום דמהימן‎ –
And it is an everyday occurrence that the שוחט alone is believed (on account that it was previously בידו).
ואף על גב דלא שייך רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן‎ –
Even in a situation where this rule that ‘most people who frequent at places of שחיטה are competent שוחטים’ does not apply –
כגון שנחתך כל הראש ואין בית השחיטה ניכר‎ –
If for instance the entire head was cut off and the place of שחיטה cannot be discerned, nevertheless if someone claims that he was שוחט it properly, he is believed. In this case we cannot say that the reason he is believed is because רוב מצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן; for we do not know that this animal was נשחט, since its head was severed and we cannot tell if it was נשחט or not. This proves that the only נאמנות is because he is an ע"א, and regardless that there was a חזקת איסור מחיים on this animal nevertheless he is now נאמן to say that it was נשחט properly, since previously it was בידו that he could be שוחט the animal properly.
תוספות asks an additional question:
ומה שאנו סומכין על הנשים בשחיטה אף על פי שאין יודעות הלכות שחיטה‎ –
And the reason why we depend on women concerning שחיטה, i.e. if a woman serves meat we trust her that it is בשר שחוטה, even thoughthey do not know the laws of שחיטה, therefore seemingly it is not בידה, not now and not previously, for they do not know how to be שוחט‎. The question is how can we depend on them, for they are only an ע"א, and it is איתחזק איסורא‎?
תוספות replies:
כיון שבידה ללמוד לשחוט או להשכיר אחרים שישחטו לה כבידה דמי‎ –
Since she is capable of learning how to be שוחט (the שחיטה of a woman is a שחיטה כשרה) or she is capable of hiring others (valid שוחטים) that they do the שחיטה for her, this is considered as if it is בידה‎. It is not necessary that the persons themselves do the שחיטה‎. If, for instance, (s)he can see to it that the food is prepared in a כשר manner it is considered בידו‎.
תוספות asks:
ואם תאמר ומנלן דעד אחד נאמן באיסורין‎ –
And if you will say; from where do we derive this דין that ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎. We have proof that ע"א נאמן באיסורין from ניקור הגיד וחלב, however what is the source מן התורה that ע"א נאמן באיסורין‎.
תוספות answers:
ויש לומר דגמרינן מנדה דדרשינן בפרק המדיר (כתובות עב,א) וספרה לה לעצמה‎ –
And one can say; that we derive it from הלכות נדה, for we have a דרשה in פרק המדיר that when the תורה states, concerning a זבה; ‘and she shall count for her(self)’ the דרשה of the word לה is to be understood, that she may count it by herself, and she will be believed to say that the required seven days have passed and she was טובלת and is טהורה‎. We see that we believe an ע"א, that she is טהורה‎.
תוספות poses a question:
ואם תאמר אם כן אפילו איתחזק איסורא‎ –
And if you will say; if we are deriving the דין of ע"א נאמן באיסורין from נדה, then an ע"א should be believed even in a case where it is איתחזק איסורא‎. When the אשה sees דם she becomes a נדה (or זבה), and is בחזקת איסור, and nevertheless she is believed to say that she is טהורה against a חזקת איסור‎.
תוספות responds:
ויש לומר דאינה בחזקת שתהא רואה כל שעה‎ –
And one can say; that there is no חזקה by this woman that she will continually see דם, on the contrary, she will see דם naturally only for a limited period and then cease seeing דם‎ –
וכשעברה שבעה טהורה ממילא ולא איתחזק איסורא‎ –
And once the seven days pass and she is not seeing דם, as is the natural state of affairs, that דם נדה does not last seven days, she becomes טהורה automatically and therefore there is no real חזקת איסור, as opposed to טבל for instance, where the איסור טבל will not go away on its own, only if you are מפריש תרו"מ, here however the איסור will automatically disappear in the allotted time when she will not see דם‎. Therefore when she says that her seven days of נדה have passed, she is not testifying against any חזקת איסור, for we expect the seven days to pass at one point or another; she is merely informing us that the time is now.
There is still a question remaining: After the seven days passed she is still בחזקת איסור נדה, since she was not טובלת‎. How can we believe her that she is completelyטהורה, against this חזקת איסור‎?! To which תוספות responds in his conclusion:
וגם בידה לטבול‎ –
And concerning the completion of her טהרה‎ – she is certainly capable of being טובלת in a מקוה, and as was stated earlier, that when it is בידו, then an ע"א is believed even against a חזקת איסור‎.

SUMMARY
The proof that ע"א נאמן באיסורין, in a situation similar to a שליח הגט who is testifying that it was written לשמה, can be derived from the fact that people are נאמן on ניקור הגיד and חלב‎. For in those two instances there is no חזקת איסור on this meat that it is either גיד הנשה or חלב‎. The fact that people are believed for הפרשת תרומה and שחיטה is irrelevant to our discussion here, since in both those cases there is a חזקת איסור, and the reason the ע"א is נאמן, is only because it is בידו‎. This cannot apply to our case of שליח הגט, where it is definitely not בידו to write the גט לשמה‎.
The נאמנות of בידו is not limited to a situation where it is only presently בידו; it applies even if it was בידו in the past. This explains why people are נאמן to state that this meat is שחוטה, since in the past they were capable of either themselves being שוחט the animal properly or hiring others to be שוחט properly.
We derive the rule of ע"א נאמן באיסורין, from the פסוק concerning a [זבה] (נדה), which says וספרה לה, that the woman can count by herself and tell us when she is a טהורה, we see from here that even one person is believed to testify that there is no איסור‎.
We cannot assume that since by a נדה she was בחזקת איסור once she saw דם, therefore the fact that she is believed to say she is a טהורה, proves that an ע"א is נאמן even against a חזקת איסור‎. This is incorrect for the חזקת איסור by a נדה is a חזקה that will automatically become nullified as soon as she ceases to see דם, which is the natural state of affairs, therefore her testimony that she is no longer seeing דם, is not contradicting any חזקה; and we subsequently believe her that she was טובל, even though she is still בחזקת איסור נדה (even after seven days), because in regards to טבילה, it is obviously בידה‎.

THINKING IT OVER
1. Why is בידו believed even if איתחזק איסורא‎? Is it because בידו removes the איתחזק איסורא, or because בידו is a special נאמנות‎?
2. How shall we explain the difference between the בידו of a שוחט in the past, to the בידה of a woman concerning שחיטה‎?
3. How can we derive ע"א נאמן באיסורין from נדה, perhaps by נדה she is believed because it is הפה שאסר הפה שהתיר (she had the option of not informing anyone that she is a נדה)?

When the one with a discharge becomes purified of his discharge, he shall count off seven days for his purification, wash those clothes, and bathe his body in fresh water; then he shall be pure.

When she becomes purified of her discharge, she shall count off seven days, and after that she shall be pure.

The Gemara asks: One can say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions in a case such as where there is a piece of fat, and it is uncertain if it is forbidden fat [ḥelev] and uncertain if it is permitted fat. In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, as there is no presumption that it is forbidden. Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible.

MISHNA:And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom. The Mishna explains: And who is categorized as a woman who violates the precepts of Moses? This includes cases such as when she feeds him food that has not been tithed, or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the legal status of a menstruating woman, or she does not separate a portion of dough to be given to a priest [ḥalla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows.

§ The mishna stated: Or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the status of a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he knows about her that she is a menstruating woman, he should abstain. And if he does not know, then he should rely on her. Because Rav Ḥinnana bar Kahana said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that a menstruating woman can count the days for herself, and that she is trusted to testify that she did so? As it is stated: “Then she shall count to herself seven days” (Leviticus 15:28). “To herself” means by herself, and she may be trusted that she did so. If so, why can’t the husband trust his wife that she is not a menstruating woman?

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the Sage purified the blood for me by ruling that it did not qualify as menstrual blood, and he went and asked him, and it was found that her claim was a lie. And if you wish, say instead that this is similar to that which Rav Yehuda said, as Rav Yehuda stated: If she is known by her neighbors to be a menstruating woman, her husband is flogged if he has relations with her, due to the prohibition against cohabiting with a menstruating woman. In this case, she was known by her neighbors to be a menstruating woman, but she had not told her husband. She then engaged in sexual intercourse with him, and he subsequently discovered her status from her neighbors.

Rather, this is evidently based on logical reasoning: Just as it is in the case of a piece of meat about which it is uncertain if it is forbidden fat and uncertain if it is of permitted fat, and there is no way of clarifying which it is, and one witness comes and says: It is clear to me that it is permitted fat, the halakha is that he is deemed credible. Here too, the testimony of a single witness can resolve the uncertainty.

...

...

...

...

We may not appoint a woman as king. When describing the monarchy, the Torah employs the male form of the word king and not the female.
This principle also applies to all other positions of authority within Israel. Only men should be appointed to fill them.

"a king": and not a queen.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira would deal with converts and assign them to positions of authority. Similarly, Rabba bar Avuh would deal with them. In the West, Eretz Yisrael, they would not establish even an appointee over measurements from them, as they extended the prohibition against appointing a convert as a king to include all positions of power. In Neharde’a, they would not establish even an appointee over irrigation of the city fields from them.

...