Ketubot 24
אֵימָא לָא.
say no, his claim is not accepted.
וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָנֵי תַּרְתֵּי, מִשּׁוּם דְּמָמוֹנָא, אֲבָל אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, דְּאִיסּוּרָא — אֵימָא לָא.
And if the tanna taught us these two cases, one might have thought that the claim is deemed credible due to the fact that the cases involve monetary matters; however, in the case of a married woman who claims that she was divorced, which is a ritual matter, say no, she is not deemed credible. Therefore, it was necessary for the tanna to teach us all three cases.
״נִשְׁבֵּיתִי וּטְהוֹרָה אֲנִי״ לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: ״וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּשֵּׂאת בָּאוּ עֵדִים — הֲרֵי זוֹ לֹא תֵּצֵא״.
The Gemara asks: With regard to the case where one says: I was taken captive and I am pure, why do I need the tanna to teach that case? There is no novel element in that ruling, as it is merely another application of the same principle. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught that case due to the fact that the tanna sought to teach based on it: And if the witnesses came after she married, this woman need not leave her husband.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַסֵּיפָא, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַרֵישָׁא — מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: ״שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ״.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who teaches this halakha in reference to the latter clause of the mishna with regard to a woman taken captive. However, according to the one who taught this halakha in reference to the first clause of the mishna, with regard to a woman who claimed that she was married and divorced, what is there to say? According to that opinion, the ruling with regard to a woman taken captive who claims that she remained pure is superfluous. If a woman is deemed credible in the case where the concern is that she is a married woman, she is all the more so deemed credible when the concern pertains to a less severe prohibition, that of a woman who was violated in captivity marrying a priest. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught the superfluous halakha that a woman claiming that she was taken captive and remained pure is deemed credible as an introduction, due to the fact that he sought to subsequently teach the case of two women who were taken captive.
וּ״שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֶׁנִּשְׁבּוּ״ לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא נֵיחוּשׁ לְגוֹמְלִין, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need the tanna to teach the case of two women who were taken captive? What novel element is introduced in that case that did not exist in the case of one woman? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: Let us be concerned for collusion between the women, that each would testify for the benefit of the other, the tanna therefore teaches us that this is not a concern.
״וְכֵן שְׁנֵי אֲנָשִׁים״ לְמָה לִי? מִשּׁוּם דְּקָא בָּעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: And why do I need the tanna to teach the following case: And likewise two men, each testifying that the other is a priest? He already taught that if two women each testify that the other is pure, they are deemed credible. The Gemara answers: The tanna taught the superfluous halakha with regard to two men as an introduction, due to the fact that he sought to subsequently teach the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, concerning whether or not the testimony of a single witness is deemed credible to establish another’s presumptive status as a priest.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲנִי כֹּהֵן וַחֲבֵרִי כֹּהֵן״ — נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה: שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה, וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה, שְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם מְעִידִין עַל זֶה.
§ The Gemara elaborates: The Rabbis taught in a baraita: In the case of two men, each of whom says: I am a priest and my counterpart is a priest, each is deemed credible with regard to enabling his counterpart to partake of teruma. But he is not deemed credible with regard to establishing his presumptive status as a priest of unflawed lineage for the purpose of his marrying a woman until there are three people, the two claiming to be priests and an additional witness, so that there are two witnesses testifying with regard to the status of this person and two witnesses testifying with regard to the status of that person. Rabbi Yehuda says: Each is not deemed credible even with regard to enabling his counterpart to partake of teruma until there are three men, so that there are two witnesses testifying with regard to this person and two witnesses testifying with regard to that person.
לְמֵימְרָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה חָיֵישׁ לְגוֹמְלִין, וְרַבָּנַן לָא חָיְישִׁי לְגוֹמְלִין? וְהָא אִיפְּכָא שָׁמְעִינַן לְהוּ, דִּתְנַן: הַחַמָּרִין שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָעִיר, וְאָמַר אֶחָד מֵהֶן: שֶׁלִּי חָדָשׁ, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵרִי יָשָׁן: שֶׁלִּי אֵינוֹ מְתוּקָּן, וְשֶׁל חֲבֵרִי מְתוּקָּן — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמָן.
The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda is concerned for collusion between them, and the Rabbis are not concerned for collusion? But didn’t we learn that they said the opposite? As we learned in a mishna: In a case where there were donkey drivers who entered a city, and one of them said: My produce is new from this year’s crop, and it is not yet completely dry and therefore of lower quality, and the produce of my counterpart is old and dry and therefore more durable; or if he said: My produce is not tithed and the produce of my counterpart is tithed, he is not deemed credible. Presumably, there is collusion between the two merchants. In this city, one denigrates the quality of his own produce, enhancing his credibility, while praising the quality of the produce of his counterpart; and his counterpart says the same in the next city that they enter. And Rabbi Yehuda says: He is deemed credible, as apparently he is not concerned for collusion between the merchants.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה אָמַר רַב: מוּחְלֶפֶת הַשִּׁיטָה. אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם לָא תֵּיפוֹךְ. בִּדְמַאי הֵקֵילּוּ, רוֹב עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מְעַשְּׂרִין הֵן.
Rav Adda bar Ahava said that Rav said: The attribution of the opinions is reversed in one of the mishnayot, so that the opinions of the tanna’im are consistent in both the case of the priests and the case of the donkey drivers. Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse the attribution, and the fact that Rabbi Yehuda accepts the claim of the donkey driver is because with regard to doubtfully tithed produce [demai] the Sages were lenient, because most amei ha’aretz tithe their produce. The ordinance of the Sages classifying produce purchased from an am ha’aretz as doubtfully tithed produce and requiring its tithing is based on a far-fetched concern. Therefore, testimony of any sort is sufficient to permit its consumption. However, as a rule, Rabbi Yehuda is concerned about collusion.
אָמַר רָבָא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא, דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא? אֶלָּא: דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אַדְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְשַׁנֵּינַן. דְּרַבָּנַן אַדְּרַבָּנַן לָא קַשְׁיָא, כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא, בְּשֶׁכְּלֵי אוּמָּנוּתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ,
Rava said: Is that to say that the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is difficult, but the contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis is not difficult? Clearly, the contradiction between the rulings of the Rabbis in the respective mishnayot is difficult. Rather, the contradiction between one statement of Rabbi Yehuda and another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is not difficult, as we explained above that Rabbi Yehuda was lenient with regard to doubtfully tithed produce. The contradiction between one statement of the Rabbis and another statement of the Rabbis is also not difficult. Fundamentally, the Rabbis are not concerned for collusion between the two parties. However, in the case of donkey drivers they are concerned, as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said in another context that it is referring to a case where one has the tools of his trade in his hand.
הָכָא נָמֵי בְּשֶׁכְּלֵי אוּמָּנוּתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.
Here too, it is referring to a case where the second donkey driver comes with the tools of his trade in his hand, clearly indicating that he too came to sell his produce. Therefore, when the other driver praises his produce, there is room for concern that there was collusion and that in the next city their roles will be reversed. However, when there is no proof of collusion, the Rabbis were not concerned.
וְהֵיכָא אִתְּמַר דְּרַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא — אַהָא, דִּתְנַן: הַקַּדָּר שֶׁהִנִּיחַ קְדֵירוֹתָיו וְיָרַד לִשְׁתּוֹת (מַיִם מִן הַיְאוֹר) — הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת, וְהַחִיצוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And where is the solution of Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva stated? It is stated concerning that which we learned in a mishna (Teharot 7:1): In the case of a potter who fashioned his vessels in ritual purity, and abandoned his pots, and descended to drink water from the river, there is concern that in his absence ritually impure people came into contact with his pots. The inner pots are pure, and the outer pots are impure.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ טְמֵאוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא: בְּשֶׁכְּלֵי אוּמָּנוּתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיַּד הַכֹּל מְמַשְׁמֶשֶׁת בָּהֶן.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Both these inner pots and those outer pots are ritually impure? Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said: That baraita is referring to a case where the tools of the potter’s trade are in his hand, indicating that he intends to sell his pots. Since all potential buyers touch pots when examining them before purchase, the concern is that among those people there is one who is ritually impure.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ טְהוֹרוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָא: בְּשֶׁאֵין כְּלֵי אוּמָּנוּתוֹ בְּיָדוֹ.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in another baraita: Both these inner pots and those outer pots are ritually pure? Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva said: That baraita is referring to a case where the tools of the potter’s trade are not in his hand, indicating that he does not intend to sell his pots. Therefore, strangers will not touch them at all.
וְאֶלָּא הָא דִּתְנַן: הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת טְהוֹרוֹת וְהַחִיצוֹנוֹת טְמֵאוֹת, הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
The Gemara asks: But if so, the ruling in the mishna: The inner pots are pure and the outer pots are impure, under what circumstances can this case be found? When the tools of the potter’s trade are in his hand, all the vessels are impure, and when the tools of the potter’s trade are not in his hand, all the vessels are pure.
דִּסְמִיכָא לִרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, וּמִשּׁוּם חִיפּוּפֵי רְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים.
The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna is referring to a case where the tools of the potter’s trade are not in his hand. However, he leaves his pots adjacent to the public domain, and in an area demarcated from the public domain due to the stakes or other objects that are placed on the sides of the public domain to distance passersby from the walls of the private domain, and due to crowding, people will be pushed to the sides and inadvertently render the outer pots impure. They do not pass close to the inner pots and will not touch the pots to examine them, because they are not for sale.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבָּנַן בְּמַעֲלִין מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין קָמִיפַּלְגִי.
The Gemara proceeds to cite an additional resolution to the contradiction between the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, with regard to collusion in terms of the presumptive status of priests and in terms of produce merchants. And if you wish, say instead that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis in the matter of presumptive priestly status is unrelated to collusion. Rather, it is with regard to whether one elevates one who eats teruma to the presumptive status of priesthood for the purpose of lineage that they disagree. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one elevates from teruma to lineage and therefore requires full-fledged testimony by two witnesses to enable the person to partake of teruma. The Rabbis maintain that one does not elevate from teruma to lineage, and each matter is considered separately. For the purpose of partaking of teruma, any testimony is sufficient; for the purpose of lineage, full-fledged testimony by two witnesses is required.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לְהַעֲלוֹת מִשְּׁטָרוֹת לְיוּחֲסִין? הֵיכִי דָּמֵי: אִילֵּימָא דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ ״אֲנִי פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן חָתַמְתִּי עֵד״ — מַאן קָא מַסְהֵיד עִילָּוֵיהּ?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to elevating from documents indicating that one is a priest, to priestly lineage? The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If you say that it is written in the document: I, so-and-so, a priest, signed as a witness, in that case who is testifying about him that he is a priest? He is the only source asserting his priesthood.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״אֲנִי פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן לָוִיתִי מָנֶה מִפְּלוֹנִי״ וַחֲתִימוּ סָהֲדִי, מַאי? אַמָּנֶה שֶׁבַּשְּׁטָר קָא מַסְהֲדִי, אוֹ דִלְמָא אַכּוּלַּהּ מִילְּתָא קָא מַסְהֲדִי. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב חִסְדָּא, חַד אָמַר: מַעֲלִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מַעֲלִין.
The Gemara answers: No, this halakha is necessary in a case where it is written in the document: I, so-and-so, a priest, borrowed one hundred dinars from so-and-so, and witnesses signed the document, what is the halakha? Do the witnesses testify only concerning the loan of one hundred dinars in the document? Or, perhaps they testify concerning the entire matter and confirm with their signatures that every detail written in the document is true, including the fact that the borrower is a priest. With regard to the halakhic ruling, there is a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda. One said: One elevates from documents to priestly lineage, and one said: One does not elevate.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מַהוּ לְהַעֲלוֹת מִנְּשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין? תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלִין מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין, וְתִיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַעֲלִין.
A dilemma was raised before the Sages: What is the halakha with regard to elevating from the lifting of hands for the Priestly Benediction to priestly lineage? Is the presumptive status of a person who recites the Priestly Benediction in the synagogue that of a priest in terms of lineage as well? The Gemara notes: Raise the dilemma according to the one who said: One elevates from teruma to lineage; and raise the dilemma according to the one who said: One does not elevate from teruma to lineage.
תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלִין: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּרוּמָה, דַּעֲוֹן מִיתָה הִיא. אֲבָל נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, דְּאִיסּוּר עֲשֵׂה — לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא.
The Gemara notes: Raise the dilemma according to the one who said: One elevates from teruma to lineage. In his opinion, perhaps this applies only to teruma, where a non-priest who partakes of teruma performs a transgression whose punishment is death at the hand of Heaven. One would not partake of teruma and risk that punishment if he were not a priest. However, with regard to the Priestly Benediction, where a non-priest who recites it violates a prohibition stated as a positive mitzva, no, one cannot be certain that one would not recite the blessing if he were not a priest. Therefore, one does not elevate from the lifting of hands to priestly lineage. Or, perhaps there is no difference, and in both cases because there is a transgression involved one can assume that he would not risk performing a transgression were he not a priest.
תִּיבְּעֵי לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מַעֲלִין: הָנֵי מִילֵּי תְּרוּמָה דְּמִיתְאַכְלָא בְּצִנְעָא, אֲבָל נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, דִּבְפַרְהֶסְיָא — אִי לָאו כֹּהֵן הוּא, כּוּלֵּי הַאי לָא מַחְצִיף אִינָשׁ נַפְשֵׁיהּ. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא.
Raise the dilemma according to the one who said: One does not elevate from teruma to lineage. In his opinion, perhaps this applies only to teruma that is eaten in private. Therefore, a non-priest might partake of teruma when he believes that no one is watching. However, with regard to the lifting of hands, which is recited in public [parhesya], if one is not a priest, he would not be insolent to the extent that he would comport himself like a priest in public. Therefore, although partaking of teruma is not a clear indicator that he is a priest, reciting the Priestly Benediction is a clear indicator. Or perhaps, there is no difference, and due to the concern lest a non-priest partake of teruma in private and recite the Priestly Benediction in public, neither action can facilitate elevating the person to the presumptive status of a priest in terms of lineage.
רַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבִּי אֲבִינָא, חַד אָמַר: מַעֲלִין, וְחַד אָמַר: אֵין מַעֲלִין. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק לְרָבָא: מַהוּ לְהַעֲלוֹת מִנְּשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא וְרַבִּי אֲבִינָא.
There is a dispute with regard to the halakhic ruling between Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Avina. One said: One elevates from the Priestly Benediction to lineage, and one said: One does not elevate. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What is the halakha with regard to elevating from the lifting of hands to lineage? Rava said to him: There is a dispute between Rav Ḥisda and Rabbi Avina.
הִלְכְתָא מַאי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֲנָא מַתְנִיתָא יָדַעְנָא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּמִבְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי חֳבַיָּה בְּנֵי הַקּוֹץ בְּנֵי בַרְזִילַּי אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִבְּנוֹת בַּרְזִילַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי אִשָּׁה וַיִּקָּרֵא עַל שְׁמָם. אֵלֶּה בִּקְשׁוּ כְתָבָם הַמִּתְיַחְשִׂים וְלֹא נִמְצָאוּ וַיְגֹאֲלוּ מִן הַכְּהוּנָּה. וַיֹּאמֶר הַתִּרְשָׁתָא לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים עַד עֲמוֹד כֹּהֵן לְאוּרִים וְתוּמִּים״.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak asked Rava: What is the halakha? Rava said to him: I know and base the halakhic ruling on a baraita, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei says: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status, as one may rely upon it in determining halakhic practice, as it is stated: “And of the children of the priests: The children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought their register of the genealogy, but it was not found; therefore were they deemed tainted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them that they should not partake of the most sacred items, until there stood up a priest with Urim VeTummim” (Ezra 2:61–63).
אָמַר לָהֶם: הֲרֵי אַתֶּם בְּחֶזְקַתְכֶם. בַּמֶּה הֱיִיתֶם אוֹכְלִים בַּגּוֹלָה — בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל, אַף כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי הַגְּבוּל. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַעֲלִין מִנְּשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין, הָנֵי כֵּיוָן דְּפָרְסִי יְדַיְיהוּ — אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקִינְהוּ!
Rabbi Yosei explains: Nehemiah said to the priests whose status was uncertain: You maintain your presumptive status. Of what did you partake in the Babylonian exile? It was the consecrated items eaten in the outlying areas, i.e., teruma. Here too, you may continue to partake of the consecrated items eaten in the outlying areas, but you may not partake of offerings, with regard to which you have no presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: And if it enters your mind to say that one elevates from the lifting of hands to lineage, they will come to elevate those priests whose status was uncertain to priestly status in terms of lineage, since they lifted their hands and recited the Priestly Benediction in exile.
שָׁאנֵי הָכָא דְּרִיעַ חֶזְקַיְיהוּ. דְּאִי לָא תֵּימָא הָכִי, לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲלִין מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין: כֵּיוָן דְּאָכְלִי בִּתְרוּמָה אָתֵי לְאַסּוֹקִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא לָאו, מִשּׁוּם דְּרִיעַ חֶזְקַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara answers: Here it is different. There was no concern lest they elevate them to lineage because their presumptive status was undermined by the fact that they did not partake of offerings like the other priests. As, if you do not say that one relies on the fact that their status was undermined, according to the one who said: One elevates from teruma to lineage, since they partake of teruma, there should be concern lest they come to elevate them to lineage. Rather, is the reason that this is not a concern not due to the fact their presumptive status was undermined, and it is clear to all that there is uncertainty with regard to their status as priests? However, one may not infer from the time of Nehemiah to a time when all priests eat teruma and recite the Priestly Benediction, and there is no factor that indicates that they are anything less than full-fledged priests. Perhaps, then, one elevates from teruma and from the lifting of hands to lineage.
