A great opportunity for the entire family, to share some thoughts on the daf ... the family feels united by discussing what the head of the house is studying.
I try to break it down so that everyone can understand it ....
You can copy and print this without my consent, since Torah belongs to all of us.....
See previous Daf Yoimie Snippets
This week's "Daf Yoimie Snippets Sponsored For the Refuah Shliemah of
צארטל בת אסתר מלכה
''דף י'א ''ראובן מול העדים
Page 11 Mesectas Kreesois
"Reuvein vs The Witnesses"
Eidim (witnesses) appeared at the Beit Din (court) and testified they saw Reuven
commit an aveira (transgression) b’shogeg (unknowingly), for which he was
chayav (liable) to sacrifice a Korban Chatat (Sin Offering).
If Reuven admits that he
committed the aveira, then he is obviously liable to offer a Korban Chatat.
But what
if Reuven disputes the testimony of the eidim and insists that he did not commit
any aveira?
Should Reuven be believed, despite the witness testimony he had
committed an aveira?
According to halacha, we indeed believe Reuven over the
testimony of the eidim, and he is patur (exempt) from offering a
Korban Chatat.
Why is Reuven patur?
If Reuven was a liar who
wanted to cast off his liability to offer a Korban Chatat, he could
have told the Beit Din that the eidim were correct (i.e., he had
committed the aveira), but that he had done so b’mayzid (on
purpose) and not b’shogeg as stated by the eidim.
A person
who commits an aveira b’mayzid is not obligated to bring
a Korban Chatat.
The eidim are unable to contradict such
a claim, because they have no way to prove what Reuven’s
intentions were in the moment of sin. Being that Reuven did not
make that simple claim, we conclude that he is not a liar. As such, we believe him that he did not commit any aveira.
Press "read more" right below to see rest of the dafim



















