The Rosh in Makos (1:13) quotes the Ra'avad who asks, why does the gemara say that a witness who is a relative of the areiv cannot testify on a loan. We should use the concept of פלגינן דיבורא and believe the witness for the borrower, but not for the areiv? The Ra'avad explains that any witness who is a relative is subject to the rule of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה and we don't apply the concept of פלגינן דיבורא. It is only when a person testifies about himself where we say that since he is relative to himself and doesn't qualify as a witness at all, we believe him only about the other person. Without qualifying as a witness, we can't apply the rule of עדות שבטלה מקצתה בטלה כולה. With this the Ra'avad explains the hava amina that we shouldn't say palginan dibura when testifying about his wife committing adultery, and concludes that we do believe the husband to testify about the adulterer. The gemara thought that the relationship between a husband and wife isn't strong enough to give her the status of "himself", therefore he would qualify as an invalid witness as he would when he testifies about all other relative, invalidating the entire testimony. The gemara concludes that since we view אשתו כגופו, it is literally as if he were testifying about himself and not a witness at all, so we are entitled to apply the concept of palginan dibura. This approach is very different than Rashi's peshat in the gemara 10a who explains the hava amina that rather than invalidating his testimony on the adulterer, we validate his testimony even regarding the wife. Rashi understands that we knew all along that we accept his testimony on the adulterer and the whole discussion is whether we kill the wife also. Tosafos also explains like rashi.
No comments:
Post a Comment