Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 30, 2022 | 讘壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in loving memory of her beloved mother-in-law Bernice R. Cohen Schwartz, 专讞诇 讘讬诇讗 讘转 专’ 砖诇讜诐 讞讬讬诐 讜讚专讬讬讝注 讙谞住讛, who celebrated her 99th birthday this year and is being buried today in NY. “She loved learning; always wanted to study Talmud as a girl and wasn’t allowed to. May her neshama have an aliyah.”

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jane Shapiro in honor of Nina Black, her in-law and daf yomi friend. “May we be able to celebrate more Smachot together, including Siyum HaShas.”

讗讬诪讗 诇讗

say no, his claim is not accepted.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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.

谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讜讗诐 诪砖谞砖讗转 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转爪讗

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞砖讘讜

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.

讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞砖讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉

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鈥檚 presumptive status as a priest.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜讞讘专讬 讻讛谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛

搂 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛讞诪专讬谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇注讬专 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖诇讬 讞讚砖 讜砖诇 讞讘专讬 讬砖谉 砖诇讬 讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉 讜砖诇 讞讘专讬 诪转讜拽谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谉

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讘讚诪讗讬 讛拽讬诇讜 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉

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鈥檌m 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鈥檃retz tithe their produce. The ordinance of the Sages classifying produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讘砖讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜

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 岣ma bar Ukva said in another context that it is referring to a case where one has the tools of his trade in his hand.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜

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.

讜讛讬讻讗 讗转诪专 讚专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讚专 砖讛谞讬讞 拽讚讬专讜转讬讜 讜讬专讚 诇砖转讜转 (诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讬讗讜专) 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara asks: And where is the solution of Rabbi 岣ma 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讘砖讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚 讛讻诇 诪诪砖诪砖转 讘讛谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Both these inner pots and those outer pots are ritually impure? Rabbi 岣ma bar Ukva said: That baraita is referring to a case where the tools of the potter鈥檚 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: Both these inner pots and those outer pots are ritually pure? Rabbi 岣ma bar Ukva said: That baraita is referring to a case where the tools of the potter鈥檚 trade are not in his hand, indicating that he does not intend to sell his pots. Therefore, strangers will not touch them at all.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

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鈥檚 trade are in his hand, all the vessels are impure, and when the tools of the potter鈥檚 trade are not in his hand, all the vessels are pure.

讚住诪讬讻讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讞讬驻讜驻讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna is referring to a case where the tools of the potter鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 诪砖讟专讜转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 讞转诪转讬 注讚 诪讗谉 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 诇讜讬转讬 诪谞讛 诪驻诇讜谞讬 讜讞转讬诪讜 住讛讚讬 诪讗讬 讗诪谞讛 砖讘砖讟专 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉

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 岣sda. One said: One elevates from documents to priestly lineage, and one said: One does not elevate.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 诪谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉

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.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚注讜谉 诪讬转讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专 注砖讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚诪讬转讗讻诇讗 讘爪谞注讗 讗讘诇 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讚讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞砖 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 诪谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗

There is a dispute with regard to the halakhic ruling between Rav 岣sda and Rabbi Avina. One said: One elevates from the Priestly Benediction to lineage, and one said: One does not elevate. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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 岣sda and Rabbi Avina.

讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讘谞讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讘讬讛 讘谞讬 讛拽讜抓 讘谞讬 讘专讝讬诇讬 讗砖专 诇拽讞 诪讘谞讜转 讘专讝讬诇讬 讛讙诇注讚讬 讗砖讛 讜讬拽专讗 注诇 砖诪诐 讗诇讛 讘拽砖讜 讻转讘诐 讛诪转讬讞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讜讬讙讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛转专砖转讗 诇讛诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 注讚 注诪讜讚 讻讛谉 诇讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Ezra 2:61鈥63).

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛专讬 讗转诐 讘讞讝拽转讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讬讬转诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讙讜诇讛 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪注诇讬谉 诪谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚驻专住讬 讬讚讬讬讛讜 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜

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.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讬注 讞讝拽讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬注 讞讝拽讬讬讛讜

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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

talking talmud_square

Ketubot 24: Could Kohanim Collude?

What happens when 2 people claim that each other is a kohen? Is that sufficient, or is a third person...

Ketubot 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 24

讗讬诪讗 诇讗

say no, his claim is not accepted.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛谞讬 转专转讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诪诪讜谞讗 讗讘诇 讗砖转 讗讬砖 讚讗讬住讜专讗 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

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.

谞砖讘讬转讬 讜讟讛讜专讛 讗谞讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讜讗诐 诪砖谞砖讗转 讘讗讜 注讚讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 诇讗 转爪讗

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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗住讬驻讗 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗专讬砖讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞砖讘讜

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.

讜砖转讬 谞砖讬诐 砖谞砖讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 谞讬讞讜砖 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讻谉 砖谞讬 讗谞砖讬诐 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉

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鈥檚 presumptive status as a priest.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗谞讬 讻讛谉 讜讞讘专讬 讻讛谉 谞讗诪谉 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖讬讛讜 砖诇砖讛 砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛 讜砖谞讬诐 诪注讬讚讬谉 注诇 讝讛

搂 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.

诇诪讬诪专讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讞讬讬砖 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬 诇讙讜诪诇讬谉 讜讛讗 讗讬驻讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讛讜 讚转谞谉 讛讞诪专讬谉 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇注讬专 讜讗诪专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 砖诇讬 讞讚砖 讜砖诇 讞讘专讬 讬砖谉 砖诇讬 讗讬谞讜 诪转讜拽谉 讜砖诇 讞讘专讬 诪转讜拽谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪谉

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鈥檛 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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讜讞诇驻转 讛砖讬讟讛 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转讬驻讜讱 讘讚诪讗讬 讛拽讬诇讜 专讜讘 注诪讬 讛讗专抓 诪注砖专讬谉 讛谉

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鈥檌m 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鈥檃retz tithe their produce. The ordinance of the Sages classifying produce purchased from an am ha鈥檃retz 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 拽砖讬讗 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉 讗讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讘砖讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜

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 岣ma bar Ukva said in another context that it is referring to a case where one has the tools of his trade in his hand.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘砖讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜

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.

讜讛讬讻讗 讗转诪专 讚专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讗讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛拽讚专 砖讛谞讬讞 拽讚讬专讜转讬讜 讜讬专讚 诇砖转讜转 (诪讬诐 诪谉 讛讬讗讜专) 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转

The Gemara asks: And where is the solution of Rabbi 岣ma 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讟诪讗讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讘砖讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讚 讛讻诇 诪诪砖诪砖转 讘讛谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Both these inner pots and those outer pots are ritually impure? Rabbi 岣ma bar Ukva said: That baraita is referring to a case where the tools of the potter鈥檚 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.

讜讛转谞讬讗 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 讟讛讜专讜转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 注讜拽讘讗 讘砖讗讬谉 讻诇讬 讗讜诪谞讜转讜 讘讬讚讜

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in another baraita: Both these inner pots and those outer pots are ritually pure? Rabbi 岣ma bar Ukva said: That baraita is referring to a case where the tools of the potter鈥檚 trade are not in his hand, indicating that he does not intend to sell his pots. Therefore, strangers will not touch them at all.

讜讗诇讗 讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛驻谞讬诪讬讜转 讟讛讜专讜转 讜讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讟诪讗讜转 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

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鈥檚 trade are in his hand, all the vessels are impure, and when the tools of the potter鈥檚 trade are not in his hand, all the vessels are pure.

讚住诪讬讻讗 诇专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讜诪砖讜诐 讞讬驻讜驻讬 专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐

The Gemara answers: The tanna of the mishna is referring to a case where the tools of the potter鈥檚 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 讘诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 诪砖讟专讜转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 讞转诪转讬 注讚 诪讗谉 拽讗 诪住讛讬讚 注讬诇讜讬讛

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.

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗谞讬 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 诇讜讬转讬 诪谞讛 诪驻诇讜谞讬 讜讞转讬诪讜 住讛讚讬 诪讗讬 讗诪谞讛 砖讘砖讟专 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗讻讜诇讛 诪讬诇转讗 拽讗 诪住讛讚讬 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉

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 岣sda. One said: One elevates from documents to priestly lineage, and one said: One does not elevate.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诪讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 诪谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讜转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉

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.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚注讜谉 诪讬转讛 讛讬讗 讗讘诇 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讚讗讬住讜专 注砖讛 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

转讬讘注讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚诪讬转讗讻诇讗 讘爪谞注讗 讗讘诇 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讚讘驻专讛住讬讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讻讜诇讬 讛讗讬 诇讗 诪讞爪讬祝 讗讬谞砖 谞驻砖讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗

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.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗 讞讚 讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 讜讞讚 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇专讘讗 诪讛讜 诇讛注诇讜转 诪谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜专讘讬 讗讘讬谞讗

There is a dispute with regard to the halakhic ruling between Rav 岣sda and Rabbi Avina. One said: One elevates from the Priestly Benediction to lineage, and one said: One does not elevate. Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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 岣sda and Rabbi Avina.

讛诇讻转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗谞讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜诪讘谞讬 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讘谞讬 讞讘讬讛 讘谞讬 讛拽讜抓 讘谞讬 讘专讝讬诇讬 讗砖专 诇拽讞 诪讘谞讜转 讘专讝讬诇讬 讛讙诇注讚讬 讗砖讛 讜讬拽专讗 注诇 砖诪诐 讗诇讛 讘拽砖讜 讻转讘诐 讛诪转讬讞砖讬诐 讜诇讗 谞诪爪讗讜 讜讬讙讗诇讜 诪谉 讛讻讛讜谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讛转专砖转讗 诇讛诐 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 注讚 注诪讜讚 讻讛谉 诇讗讜专讬诐 讜转讜诪讬诐

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k 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: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (Ezra 2:61鈥63).

讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛专讬 讗转诐 讘讞讝拽转讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讬讬转诐 讗讜讻诇讬诐 讘讙讜诇讛 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讛讙讘讜诇 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪注诇讬谉 诪谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讛谞讬 讻讬讜谉 讚驻专住讬 讬讚讬讬讛讜 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜

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.

砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚专讬注 讞讝拽讬讬讛讜 讚讗讬 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注诇讬谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讻诇讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讗转讬 诇讗住讜拽讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚专讬注 讞讝拽讬讬讛讜

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.

Scroll To Top