The gemara says that according to R' yehuda we don't beleive reuven to testify that shimon is a kohen because we are worried about "gomlin", that they made a deal to testify for each other, but that is only by a d'oraysa concern, however when 2 merchants enter a city R' Yehuda says one is beleived to testify for the other since d'mai is only d'rabonon (really the concept of d'mai hikilu is more than just a safek d'rabonon). However, the gemara asks a contradiction in the Rabonon as well, who hold that by the merchants they are not beleived, but to testify for each other that the other is a kohen, they are beleived. The gemara answer "b'sheklei umnaso b'yado". Rashi and Tosafos argue: Rashi holds that generally the Rabbonon are not concerned for gomlim, just that the case of the merchants is a special circumstance where there is an indication that even the one who is claiming his food is not mesukan, seems like he is planning on selling, so we are concerned for gomlin. However, Tosafos seems to understand that the Rabbonon are concerned for gomlin unless there is an indication that reuven's testimony about shimon is truthful such as a circumstance where reuven is taking precautions to avoid tumah. It comes out that in a standard case with no indication one way or the other, there is a machlokes rashi and tosafos whether the rabbonon are concerned for gomlin.
No comments:
Post a Comment