Page 124 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 124 - 4-Front 21-10-31

that it wasn’t sufficient proof to determine which one was the son and
that the ruling was based on shuda de’diena, is thus very convincing.

It seems that the Rashash too, must agree that this proof is insuf-
ficient to establish the other brothers’ status as mamzerim and when
he writes that their brazenness proves that they were mamzerim, he is
referring to the halachah known as yakir. As is known, a father is be-
lieved to establish his son’s status as tainted by virtue of the law of ya-
kir, as the Sages interpret in maseches Yevamos (47a):“‘yakir, he should
acknowledge him’ [i.e. his son’s firstborn status] (Devarim 21,17) – he
shall acknowledge him [i.e. his status as kosher or otherwise] to oth-
ers.” The Shulchan Aruch too (Even Ha’ezer 4, 29) rules, “A father
who says that one of his sons is not his is trustworthy to disqualify
him, and he is a certain mamzer.” Therefore, since the husband [in the
gemara in Bava Basra] believed his wife’s story that nine of the sons
were mamzerim and it was just unclear which they were, conclusive
testimony was unnecessary for establishing this and compelling logic
and a strong likelihood suffice. Full testimony is only necessary when
seeking to disqualify an individual who has a presumption of kashrus,
but in order to clarify which person is kosher and which is not a sin-
gle witness suffices, as explained by the Ran in Kiddushin (27a of the
Dapei HaRif, s.v. amar Rav,) as well as by the Pnei Yehoshua and the
Shev Shmaitsa. According to this the Rashash’s question as to why
we shouldn’t explain that Rabbi Banaah fully established who was the
true son, is understandable.

Now, the Rashash assigns the Rashbam’s reluctance to explain
that Rabbi Banaah’s method furnished conclusive proof to a question
posed by the Elyah Rabbah (568,15). The Elyah Rabbah asks why
Rabbi Banaah did not use a method employed by Rav Saadia Gaon
to clarify the identity of the son of a merchant who had traveled with
his servant and died, whereupon the servant presented himself as
the merchant’s son and inherited his property. When the merchant’s
wife found out about this she took her young child and came before
the king, claiming that this child was the merchant’s son and that the
person posing as his son was actually his servant. The king asked Rav
Saadia to establish which of them was the son. Rav Saadia drew blood

108 1 Medical-Halachic Responsa of Rav Zilberstein