An Ignorant Person's Recognition

The Mishna (Daf Yomi: Gittin 27a) had stated: If an agent (who was bringing a get) lost the get and found it immediately, it is still valid. However, if he found it after some time, it cannot be used (for we are concerned that it fell from someone else and it is not the get which he lost). If he found the get in a chafisah or in a deluskema (types of containers), or if he recognizes the get, it is valid.

Rashi explains that if the agent himself found the get (not in a container) and he recognizes it, the get is valid.

Other Rishonim understand the Mishna to mean that the get is valid if he recognizes the container.

The Rashba writes that the get will be valid if the agent found it and claims that he recognizes it. This is true even if the agent is an ignorant person. That which the Gemora says below that an ignorant person cannot be trusted that he recognizes the get is only true when someone else found it and the agent is trying to claim it from him. There, we suspect that he is lying. However, if he himself found the get, he is trusted that he recognizes it, for he has a migu (believe me what I am saying, for if I would want to lie, I could have said a better lie); he could have said that he never lost it in the first place. (The Ritva seems to say that the ignorant person is believed even without the migu.)

The Ramban writes that it is only with respect to a lost article that we do not trust an ignorant person when he claims that he recognizes it. However, with regards to a get, which is a prohibitory matter, he is trusted. (The Magid Mishnah explains that this is because one witness is believed with respect to prohibitory matters.)

There are two glaring questions on the Ramban. Firstly, the Gemora below states explicitly that to return it to someone who claims that he recognizes it by sight, it is only to a Talmudic scholar who would be trusted, but not any ordinary person!? Secondly, a get should be regarded as a davar she’b’ervah, a matter with respect to relations, and two witnesses are required for testimony involving such matters!?

The Toras Gittin answers the first question as follows: When the Gemora states that an ordinary person will not be trusted that he recognizes the get, that is only with respect to the monetary issues of the get; however, with respect to the prohibitions stemming from the get, he will be trusted.

The Maharam Schick answers the second question: The halacha is if a father said, “I accepted a kiddushin for my daughter, but I do not know from whom,” and a fellow comes to us and says that it was him, he is believed and she is married to him. The Ran explains that although ordinarily, a davar she’b’ervah requires two witnesses, here it doesn’t, for his testimony is not in contrast with any preexisting status quo; it is merely a clarification as to whom the father accepted the kiddushin from. One person is sufficient for this. So too, here, the one witness is not testifying on the divorce; rather, he is clarifying for us as to who this get belongs to.

The Oneg Yom Tov answers this question by saying that the concern for two Yosef ben Shimon’s in the same city is only a Rabbinical one, and therefore, although it is a davar she’b’ervah, only one witness is required.

Read more!

Believing the Am Ha’aretz on Shabbos

Rabbi Nosson said that the halacha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in respect to terumas ma’aser of d’mai (the Rabbis considered produce from an am ha’aretz as possible tevel because some of them did not separate ma’aser; in this case, the ma’aser was separated, and then, the terumas ma’aser, which is a tenth from the ma’aser that goes to the kohen, fell back into the produce; since there was not enough produce remaining to nullify the terumas ma’aser, which has the same halachic status as terumah, the entire mixture become forbidden for consumption by a non-kohen; Rabbi Shimon Shezuri rules that we can ask the am ha’aretz if he indeed separated ma’aser initially, and if he answers in the affirmative, we may rely on him even during the weekdays; this is because most am ha’aratzim do separate ma’aser and in cases which involve a substantial loss, we believe them).

Rashi explains why the Mishna states that the am ha’aretz is believed even on weekdays. This is because of the following halacha: If one would have produce on Shabbos that he purchased from an am ha’aretz, and he had forgotten to separate ma’aser from it prior to Shabbos (and it is forbidden to do so on Shabbos); he may ask the am ha’aretz if he indeed separated the ma’aser, and he would be believed. This is because there is a mitzvah of Shabbos enjoyment (oneg Shabbos). He must however, separate the ma’aser after Shabbos before continuing to eat from this produce. Rashi in Chullin (75b) writes that it is on account of honoring Shabbos. Maharsha writes that the two are identical explanations.

Tosfos writes that the reason we believe the am ha’aretz on Shabbos is because the am ha’aretz can feel the fear of Shabbos as well, and he is afraid to lie.

There is a practical halachic difference between the two reasons. According to Rashi, one may ask the am ha’aretz during the week and his affirmative answer will allow one to eat from this produce on Shabbos because there is a mitzvah to honor Shabbos. According to Tosfos, he will only be believed if he is asked on Shabbos.

The Gemora (Yevamos 93) relates the following incident: Rabbi Yannai used to have a sharecropper that would bring a basket of fruit every Erev Shabbos. One Erev Shabbos, the sharecropper did not arrive on time. Rebbi Yannai relied on the fruit that he knew the sharecropper would eventually bring, and counted them in his taking of Terumos and Ma’asros. Rebbi Chiya endorsed his action by citing the following verse: “In order that you should learn to fear Hashem all of the days,” and stating that the verse indicates that this includes Shabbos and Yom Tov.

Rashi explains: One should ensure that his requirement of having pleasure on Shabbos should not be disturbed because of the prohibition of eating tevel (produce which has not been tithed yet). Take precautionary measures to remove the prohibition in order that the produce can be consumed and enjoyed.

Rabbi Yosef Lieberman in his sefer, Mishnas Yosef comments that this verse is also teaching us how one has to have a fear of Hashem on Shabbos and Yom Tov, even more than he does during the weekdays, for the laws of Shabbos are like mountains hanging on a hair, for they have few Scriptural allusions, but many halachos. It is extremely easy to stumble and transgress one of the many prohibitions on Shabbos.

Furthermore, he writes that these are days of pleasure and enjoyment; a time that is vulnerable for sin, like the Tur (O”C 529) writes. One should sit on Shabbos with a tremendous trepidation so that he does not inadvertently sin on Shabbos. And one who attempts to purify himself, Hashem will assist him.

The Gemora says elsewhere that one does not need to be concerned about eating d’mai on Shabbos because we can ask the am ha’aretz, and we are confident that he will not lie on Shabbos.

I once heard from Rav Shmuel Feivelson the following explanation: Shabbos is a sampling of the World to Come. We are basking in the presence of the Shechinah. It is impossible to lie when the truth is staring you straight in the face.

Read more!