Today’s daf is sponsored by Audrey Goldstein Levant in honor of her sister-in-law, Stacy Goldstein. “She is learning her first masechet with Hadran in Ottawa, Canada. Bubby Geri and I are so proud of you. Welcome to the club.”
Ketubot 25
July 31, 2022 | ג׳ באב תשפ״ב
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Summary
Ketubot 25
וְאֶלָּא, מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? מֵעִיקָּרָא אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן, הַשְׁתָּא אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the meaning of: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status? This is a standard case of presumptive status, as the practice of the priests remained as it was. There is nothing novel in the application of the principle of presumptive status in this case. The Gemara answers: Initially, in the Babylonian exile, they would partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by rabbinic law. Now, upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, they partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by Torah law: Grain, wine, and oil, based on their presumptive status.
וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן אֲכוּל, בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אֲכוּל. וְכִי מַסְּקִינַן מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין — בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא מַסְּקִינַן. וְאֶלָּא, מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — לָא גָּזְרִינַן.
And if you wish, say instead: Now too, upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, they partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by rabbinic law. However, of teruma taken from produce obligated by Torah law they may not partake. And when we elevate from teruma to lineage, this is only with regard to one who partakes of teruma by Torah law. However, in the case of one who partakes of teruma by rabbinic law, we do not elevate him to priestly lineage. The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the meaning of: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status? The Gemara answers: It means that although there is reason to issue a decree in Eretz Yisrael prohibiting consumption of teruma by rabbinic law, due to teruma that is forbidden by Torah law, we do not issue that decree because: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status.
וּבַתְּרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אֲכוּל? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״. מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים הוּא דְּלָא אֲכוּל, הָא בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֲכוּל!
The Gemara asks: And did they in fact not partake of teruma by Torah law? But isn’t it written: “That they should not partake of the most sacred items [kodesh hakodashim]” (Ezra 2:63), from which it may be inferred: It is of the most sacred items, i.e., offerings, that they did not partake; of teruma by Torah law, they did partake.
הָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא בְּמִידֵּי דְּאִיקְּרִי ״קֹדֶשׁ״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וְלָא בְּמִידֵּי דְּאִיקְּרִי ״קָדָשִׁים״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״, וְאָמַר מָר: בְּמוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים — לֹא תֹאכֵל.
The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: Neither did they partake of items called kodesh, as it is written: “And no common man may eat of kodesh” (Leviticus 22:10), referring to teruma, nor did they partake of items called kodashim, as it is written: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man, she shall not eat of terumat hakodashim” (Leviticus 22:12). The Master said that this means: Of that which is set aside from the offerings [kodashim] to the priests, i.e., the loaves of the thanks-offering and the breast and the shoulder, they may not partake. According to neither explanation can any proof be cited from the baraita as to whether or not one elevates from teruma or from the Priestly Benediction to lineage.
תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם בְּבָבֶל, וַאֲכִילַת חַלָּה בְּסוּרְיָא, וְחִילּוּק מַתָּנוֹת בִּכְרַכִּין. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, מַאי לָאו לְיוּחֲסִין? לָא, לִתְרוּמָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: Presumptive status for priesthood is established by the lifting of hands in Babylonia; by partaking of ḥalla in Syria; and by distributing priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, in the cities. In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, it establishes presumptive status for teruma.
וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דַּאֲכִילַת חַלָּה קָתָנֵי, מָה אֲכִילַת חַלָּה לְיוּחֲסִין — אַף נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין! לָא, אֲכִילַת חַלָּה גּוּפַהּ לִתְרוּמָה. קָסָבַר חַלָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, וּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וּמַסְּקִינַן מֵחַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן לִתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וְכִדְאָפֵיךְ לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t lifting of hands taught parallel to partaking of ḥalla? Just as with regard to partaking of ḥalla the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too with regard to the lifting of hands the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, partaking of ḥalla itself establishes presumptive status only for teruma and not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate ḥalla from dough is by rabbinic law and the obligation to separate teruma is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from ḥalla, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to teruma, which is by Torah law. And this explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, cited below, who reversed the opinion of the Rabbis and posited that ḥalla today is an obligation by rabbinic law.
תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְחִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּבְסוּרְיָא, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁלוּחֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מַגִּיעִין — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם רְאָיָה, אֲבָל לֹא חִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: Presumptive status for priesthood is established in Eretz Yisrael by the lifting of hands and distribution of teruma at the threshing floors. And in Syria and everyplace outside Eretz Yisrael that emissaries informing residents of the Diaspora of sanctification of the New Moon arrive, the lifting of hands constitutes proof of presumptive status for priesthood, as the court would investigate the lineage of everyone who recited the Priestly Benediction. But distribution of teruma at the threshing floors does not constitute proof of that status. Since there is no obligation of teruma by Torah law, the courts were not as resolute in examining the lineage of those to whom teruma was distributed.
וּבָבֶל כְּסוּרְיָא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין קְבוּעִין שָׁם.
And the status in Babylonia is like that in Syria, as there, too, there are permanent courts that examine the lineage of those reciting the Priestly Benediction. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even Alexandria of Egypt initially had the same status as Syria, due to the fact that there was a permanent court there ensuring that the lifting of hands was performed only by a priest.
קָתָנֵי מִיהַת נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, מַאי לָאו לְיוּחֲסִין? לָא, לְחַלָּה. הָא דּוּמְיָא דְּחִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת קָתָנֵי: מָה חִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת לְיוּחֲסִין, אַף נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין! לָא, חִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת גּוּפֵהּ לְחַלָּה. קָסָבַר תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, וְחַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וּמַסְּקִינַן מִתְּרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן לְחַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for ḥalla. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the halakha of lifting of hands taught parallel to the halakha of distribution of teruma at the threshing floors? Just as distribution of teruma at the threshing floors in Eretz Yisrael establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, distribution of teruma at the threshing floors establishes presumptive status only for ḥalla but not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate teruma is by rabbinic law, and ḥalla is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from teruma, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to ḥalla, which is by Torah law.
וְכִדְאַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַבָּנַן. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בְּבֵי רַב, דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, חַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ — נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּחַלָּה, וְלֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בִּתְרוּמָה.
And the dispute with regard to the legal status of teruma and ḥalla today is as in the incident where Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, found that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav, who were sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by rabbinic law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law, as during the seven years that the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan led by Joshua and during the seven years that they divided the land, they were obligated in ḥalla but were not obligated in teruma. Today, too, although there is no obligation to take teruma in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law.
וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — חַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם אֶל הָאָרֶץ״. אִי ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם״, יָכוֹל מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָהּ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְרַגְּלִים — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם״. בְּבִיאַת כּוּלְּכֶם אָמַרְתִּי, וְלֹא בְּבִיאַת מִקְצַתְכֶם. וְכִי אַסְּקִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא,
And I said to them: On the contrary, even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning ḥalla: “When you come into the land…from the first of your dough you should separate teruma” (Numbers 15:18–19). If the obligation is when you come, one might have thought that it took effect from the moment that two or three spies entered the land, therefore the verse states: “When you come,” from which it is derived that God is saying: I said that the obligation takes effect with the coming of all of you and not with the coming of some of you. Separating ḥalla is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people comes to Eretz Yisrael, and when Ezra took them up to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period,
לָאו כּוּלְּהוּ סְלוּק.
not all of them ascended. Since the majority of the people did not come to the land, separating ḥalla was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law.
תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְחִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת וְעֵדוּת. עֵדוּת חֲזָקָה הִיא? אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם כִּי עֵדוּת: מָה עֵדוּת לְיוּחֲסִין, אַף נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין! לָא: עֵדוּת הַבָּאָה מִכֹּחַ חֲזָקָה — כַּחֲזָקָהּ.
The Gemara cites proof from another baraita to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear: The presumptive status for priesthood is established by Lifting of the Hands for the Priestly Benediction, and by distribution of teruma at the threshing floors, and by testimony. The Gemara asks: Does testimony merely establish presumptive status? Testimony provides absolute proof of his status, not merely a presumption. Rather is it not that this is what the tanna is saying: Lifting of the Hands is like testimony, just as testimony that one is a priest elevates him to the priesthood for lineage, so too Lifting of the Hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, when the tanna is referring to testimony, he is stating that the legal status of testimony that is based on presumptive status is like that of presumptive status itself.
כִּי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה רָאִיתָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁקָּרָא רִאשׁוֹן בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן, אוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל? שֶׁקָּרָא אַחֲרָיו לֵוִי. וְהֶעֱלָהוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּיו.
As in the incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: That man established presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Rabbi Ami said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Ami: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Rabbi Ami asked him: Did he read first based on the presumptive status that he is a priest, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? The custom was that a priest would be called to the Torah first, unless there was a prominent Torah scholar among the worshippers. He said to Rabbi Ami: He read the Torah as a priest, as after him a Levite read the Torah. A Levite is called to the Torah second only when a priest is called first. And Rabbi Ami elevated him to the priesthood, on the basis of his statement.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא לֵוִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה רָאִיתָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁקָּרָא שֵׁנִי בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא לֵוִי, אוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל? שֶׁקָּרָא לְפָנָיו כֹּהֵן. וְהַעֲלֵהוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִלְוִיָּה עַל פִּיו.
The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a Levite. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I saw that he was called to the Torah and that he read second in the synagogue. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: Did he read second based on the presumptive status that he is a Levite, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? When there is no priest in the synagogue, people in the synagogue are called to the Torah in order of their prominence. Perhaps he was the second most prominent man in the synagogue. He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I am certain that he is a Levite, as a priest read the Torah before him. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi elevated him to Levite status, based on his statement.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה רָאִיתָ? [אֲמַר לֵיהּ] שֶׁקָּרָא רִאשׁוֹן בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְאִיתִיו שֶׁחִילֵּק עַל הַגֳּרָנוֹת? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם גּוֹרֶן, בָּטְלָה כְּהוּנָּה?
The Gemara relates another incident involving a certain man who came before Reish Lakish and said to Reish Lakish: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Reish Lakish said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Reish Lakish: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Reish Lakish, based on his opinion that one’s presumptive status as a priest can be established only on the basis of his receiving teruma, said to him: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Elazar said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The testimony that he read from the Torah first is sufficient.
זִימְנִין הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲתָא כִּי הָא מַעֲשֶׂה לְקַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רְאִיתִיו שֶׁחִילֵּק עַל הַגּוֹרֶן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם גּוֹרֶן, בָּטְלָה כְּהוּנָּה? הֲדַר חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּישׁוּת, אֲמַר: שָׁמְעַתְּ מִילֵּי דְּבַר נַפָּחָא, וְלָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ?
On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The Gemara relates that Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, as he understood that on the previous occasion, Rabbi Elazar was citing verbatim a ruling that he heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar Nappaḥa, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi Yoḥanan, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.
רַבִּי וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, חַד הֶעֱלָה בֵּן עַל פִּי אָבִיו לִכְהוּנָּה, וְחַד הֶעֱלָה אָח עַל פִּי אָחִיו לִלְוִיָּה.
The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya that one elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, and one elevated a brother to the Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother. It is unclear which of the Sages ruled in which case.
תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי הֶעֱלָה בֵּן עַל פִּי אָבִיו לִכְהוּנָּה, דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר: בְּנִי זֶה, וְכֹהֵן הוּא — נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אִם אַתָּה מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה — תַּאֲמִינוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. וְאִם אִי אַתָּה מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה — לֹא תַּאֲמִינוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה!
The Gemara notes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, as it is taught in a baraita that if one came and said: This is my son and he is a priest, his statement is deemed credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, but it is not deemed credible to marry a woman of superior lineage to him, as his testimony is not deemed credible for the purposes of lineage; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If you deem the father credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, deem him credible to marry a woman to his son. And if you do not deem him credible to marry a woman to him, do not deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma.
אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה — שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינִי מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה — שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים. וּמִדְּרַבִּי הֶעֱלָה בֵּן עַל פִּי אָבִיו לִכְהוּנָּה — רַבִּי חִיָּיא הֶעֱלָה אָח עַל פִּי אָחִיו לִלְוִיָּה.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, as it is within his purview to feed his son teruma, and one is deemed credible with regard to matters that are within his purview. But I do not deem him credible to marry a woman to his son, as it is not within his purview to marry a woman to his son, and therefore his testimony is not accepted. The Gemara determines: Indeed, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father. And from the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, clearly it is Rabbi Ḥiyya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.
וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, מַאי שְׁנָא בֵּן דְּלָא, דְּקָרוֹב הוּא אֵצֶל אָבִיו — אָח נָמֵי קָרוֹב הוּא אֵצֶל אָחִיו?!
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, what is different in the case of a son, where a father is not deemed credible because the son is a relative of his father, and therefore the father is disqualified from testifying about his son? A brother is also a relative of his brother, and therefore the brother should have been disqualified from testifying about his brother. Rabbi Ḥiyya should accept the testimony in both cases or reject the testimony in both cases.
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment. Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
Jill Shames
Jerusalem, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Catriella Freedman
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Wendy Dickstein
Jerusalem, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
Ketubot 25
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ? ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ.
The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the meaning of: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status? This is a standard case of presumptive status, as the practice of the priests remained as it was. There is nothing novel in the application of the principle of presumptive status in this case. The Gemara answers: Initially, in the Babylonian exile, they would partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by rabbinic law. Now, upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, they partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by Torah law: Grain, wine, and oil, based on their presumptive status.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
And if you wish, say instead: Now too, upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, they partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by rabbinic law. However, of teruma taken from produce obligated by Torah law they may not partake. And when we elevate from teruma to lineage, this is only with regard to one who partakes of teruma by Torah law. However, in the case of one who partakes of teruma by rabbinic law, we do not elevate him to priestly lineage. The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the meaning of: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status? The Gemara answers: It means that although there is reason to issue a decree in Eretz Yisrael prohibiting consumption of teruma by rabbinic law, due to teruma that is forbidden by Torah law, we do not issue that decree because: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status.
ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ? ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ!
The Gemara asks: And did they in fact not partake of teruma by Torah law? But isnβt it written: βThat they should not partake of the most sacred items [kodesh hakodashim]β (Ezra 2:63), from which it may be inferred: It is of the most sacred items, i.e., offerings, that they did not partake; of teruma by Torah law, they did partake.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ΄Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©ΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ·Χ Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ΄Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΉΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΦ³ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΉΧΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: Neither did they partake of items called kodesh, as it is written: βAnd no common man may eat of kodeshβ (Leviticus 22:10), referring to teruma, nor did they partake of items called kodashim, as it is written: βAnd if a priestβs daughter be married to a common man, she shall not eat of terumat hakodashimβ (Leviticus 22:12). The Master said that this means: Of that which is set aside from the offerings [kodashim] to the priests, i.e., the loaves of the thanks-offering and the breast and the shoulder, they may not partake. According to neither explanation can any proof be cited from the baraita as to whether or not one elevates from teruma or from the Priestly Benediction to lineage.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ. Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: Presumptive status for priesthood is established by the lifting of hands in Babylonia; by partaking of αΈ₯alla in Syria; and by distributing priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, in the cities. In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, it establishes presumptive status for teruma.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: But isnβt lifting of hands taught parallel to partaking of αΈ₯alla? Just as with regard to partaking of αΈ₯alla the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too with regard to the lifting of hands the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, partaking of αΈ₯alla itself establishes presumptive status only for teruma and not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate αΈ₯alla from dough is by rabbinic law and the obligation to separate teruma is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from αΈ₯alla, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to teruma, which is by Torah law. And this explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, cited below, who reversed the opinion of the Rabbis and posited that αΈ₯alla today is an obligation by rabbinic law.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨ΦΉΧΧ©Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: Presumptive status for priesthood is established in Eretz Yisrael by the lifting of hands and distribution of teruma at the threshing floors. And in Syria and everyplace outside Eretz Yisrael that emissaries informing residents of the Diaspora of sanctification of the New Moon arrive, the lifting of hands constitutes proof of presumptive status for priesthood, as the court would investigate the lineage of everyone who recited the Priestly Benediction. But distribution of teruma at the threshing floors does not constitute proof of that status. Since there is no obligation of teruma by Torah law, the courts were not as resolute in examining the lineage of those to whom teruma was distributed.
ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°Χ‘Φ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ.
And the status in Babylonia is like that in Syria, as there, too, there are permanent courts that examine the lineage of those reciting the Priestly Benediction. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even Alexandria of Egypt initially had the same status as Syria, due to the fact that there was a permanent court there ensuring that the lifting of hands was performed only by a priest.
Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ΅ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ. Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ.
In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for αΈ₯alla. The Gemara asks: But isnβt the halakha of lifting of hands taught parallel to the halakha of distribution of teruma at the threshing floors? Just as distribution of teruma at the threshing floors in Eretz Yisrael establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, distribution of teruma at the threshing floors establishes presumptive status only for αΈ₯alla but not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate teruma is by rabbinic law, and αΈ₯alla is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from teruma, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to αΈ₯alla, which is by Torah law.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ·: ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ. Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ’ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌ β Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
And the dispute with regard to the legal status of teruma and αΈ₯alla today is as in the incident where Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, found that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav, who were sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by rabbinic law, the obligation to separate αΈ₯alla is by Torah law, as during the seven years that the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan led by Joshua and during the seven years that they divided the land, they were obligated in αΈ₯alla but were not obligated in teruma. Today, too, although there is no obligation to take teruma in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate αΈ₯alla is by Torah law.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΆΧ₯Χ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ²ΧΦΆΧΧ΄. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦Φ·ΧͺΦ°ΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ’ΦΆΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ,
And I said to them: On the contrary, even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by Torah law, the obligation to separate αΈ₯alla is by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning αΈ₯alla: βWhen you come into the landβ¦from the first of your dough you should separate terumaβ (Numbers 15:18β19). If the obligation is when you come, one might have thought that it took effect from the moment that two or three spies entered the land, therefore the verse states: βWhen you come,β from which it is derived that God is saying: I said that the obligation takes effect with the coming of all of you and not with the coming of some of you. Separating αΈ₯alla is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people comes to Eretz Yisrael, and when Ezra took them up to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period,
ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ§.
not all of them ascended. Since the majority of the people did not come to the land, separating αΈ₯alla was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law.
ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ. Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ Φ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΈΧ: Χ’Φ΅ΧΧΦΌΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ· ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧΦΌ.
The Gemara cites proof from another baraita to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear: The presumptive status for priesthood is established by Lifting of the Hands for the Priestly Benediction, and by distribution of teruma at the threshing floors, and by testimony. The Gemara asks: Does testimony merely establish presumptive status? Testimony provides absolute proof of his status, not merely a presumption. Rather is it not that this is what the tanna is saying: Lifting of the Hands is like testimony, just as testimony that one is a priest elevates him to the priesthood for lineage, so too Lifting of the Hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, when the tanna is referring to testimony, he is stating that the legal status of testimony that is based on presumptive status is like that of presumptive status itself.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ? Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
As in the incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: That man established presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Rabbi Ami said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Ami: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Rabbi Ami asked him: Did he read first based on the presumptive status that he is a priest, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? The custom was that a priest would be called to the Torah first, unless there was a prominent Torah scholar among the worshippers. He said to Rabbi Ami: He read the Torah as a priest, as after him a Levite read the Torah. A Levite is called to the Torah second only when a priest is called first. And Rabbi Ami elevated him to the priesthood, on the basis of his statement.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ? Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ· ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a Levite. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I saw that he was called to the Torah and that he read second in the synagogue. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: Did he read second based on the presumptive status that he is a Levite, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? When there is no priest in the synagogue, people in the synagogue are called to the Torah in order of their prominence. Perhaps he was the second most prominent man in the synagogue. He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I am certain that he is a Levite, as a priest read the Torah before him. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi elevated him to Levite status, based on his statement.
ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ? [ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ] Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧ‘ΦΆΧͺ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ§ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ³Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ?
The Gemara relates another incident involving a certain man who came before Reish Lakish and said to Reish Lakish: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Reish Lakish said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Reish Lakish: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Reish Lakish, based on his opinion that oneβs presumptive status as a priest can be established only on the basis of his receiving teruma, said to him: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Elazar said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The testimony that he read from the Torah first is sufficient.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧͺΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ: Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ§ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧ, ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ? ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΌΧͺ, ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ Φ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ° ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ?
On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The Gemara relates that Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, as he understood that on the previous occasion, Rabbi Elazar was citing verbatim a ruling that he heard from Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar NappaαΈ₯a, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi αΈ€iyya that one elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, and one elevated a brother to the Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother. It is unclear which of the Sages ruled in which case.
ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ β Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara notes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, as it is taught in a baraita that if one came and said: This is my son and he is a priest, his statement is deemed credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, but it is not deemed credible to marry a woman of superior lineage to him, as his testimony is not deemed credible for the purposes of lineage; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi αΈ€iyya said to him: If you deem the father credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, deem him credible to marry a woman to his son. And if you do not deem him credible to marry a woman to him, do not deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ: ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ β Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧͺΦΌΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ’Φ±ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, as it is within his purview to feed his son teruma, and one is deemed credible with regard to matters that are within his purview. But I do not deem him credible to marry a woman to his son, as it is not within his purview to marry a woman to his son, and therefore his testimony is not accepted. The Gemara determines: Indeed, it may be concluded that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father. And from the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, clearly it is Rabbi αΈ€iyya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¦ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¦ΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ?!
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi αΈ€iyya, what is different in the case of a son, where a father is not deemed credible because the son is a relative of his father, and therefore the father is disqualified from testifying about his son? A brother is also a relative of his brother, and therefore the brother should have been disqualified from testifying about his brother. Rabbi αΈ€iyya should accept the testimony in both cases or reject the testimony in both cases.
Follow
