Page 125 - EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.EFI-RAV ZILBERSTIN_VOL 8.1A

Pg: 125 - 4-Front 21-10-31

from the servant into a dish and then drew blood from the boy into
a dish. He then took a bone from the deceased [establishing which
was the son is beneficial for the deceased, therefore this was permit-
ted] and dipped it into the boy’s blood, which it absorbed. When he
dipped the bone into the servant’s blood it was not absorbed. Rav
Saadia ruled that the boy was the merchant’s son because a son’s
blood is absorbed by a bone from his father. The Elyah Rabbah asks
why Rabbi Banaah did not use this method in order to clarify which
was the son.

The Rashash explains that this method would have furnished con-
clusive proof whereas Rabbi Banaah was reluctant to clarify which
sons were the mamzerim, basing himself on a mishnah in maseches
Eduyos (8,7). The mishnah says,“There was another family of tainted
lineage (mishpachah pesulah) on the other side of the Jordan river,
and Ben Tzion [who had power and influence] forcibly ensured their
acceptance.” The Bartenura writes, “Out of consideration for the in-
dividuals involved the tanna does not specify the name of the tainted
family… to teach us how careful a person has to be to avoid deni-
grating his colleague and to be someone who ‘covers up that which
is shameful’ (Mishlei 12:16) – if the tanna went to such lengths in the
case of people who were actually pasul how much more careful must
we be over people who are kosher.”

Accordingly says the Rashash, Rabbi Banaah chose to clarify solely
to whom the assets belonged by employing the halachah of shuda
de’diena and to refrain from conclusively proving who the mamzerim
were. [It should be added that the Tosfos Yom Tov disagrees with the
Bartenura and writes the issue of slander (lashon hara) is irrelevant
here. On the contrary he argues, by suppressing their testimony, peo-
ple will be sin unintentionally while the witnesses sin intentionally.
The Yam Shel Shlomo (Kiddushin 4,2) too, argues that such testimo-
ny should not be withheld. Perhaps the Bartenura’s rationale is that
was a family of uncertain mamzerim who according to Torah law are
permitted, while Chazal too decreed that the status of a child who
was found abandoned or whose father is unknown, should not be
publicized.]

Reliability of Medical Testing for Paternity 2 109