Ketubot 25

ואלא מאי גדולה חזקה מעיקרא אכול בתרומה דרבנן השתא אכול בתרומה דאורייתא

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.

ואי בעית אימא השתא נמי בתרומה דרבנן אכול בתרומה דאורייתא לא אכול וכי מסקינן מתרומה ליוחסין בתרומה דאורייתא בתרומה דרבנן לא מסקינן ואלא מאי גדולה חזקה דאף על גב דאיכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא לא גזרינן

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.

ובתרומה דאורייתא לא אכול והא כתיב אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים מקדש הקדשים הוא דלא אכול הא בתרומה דאורייתא אכול

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.

הכי קאמר לא במידי דאיקרי קדש דכתיב וכל זר לא יאכל קדש ולא במידי דאיקרי קדשים דכתיב ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל ואמר מר במורם מן הקדשים לא תאכל

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.

תא שמע חזקה לכהונה נשיאות כפים בבבל ואכילת חלה בסוריא וחילוק מתנות בכרכין קתני מיהת נשיאות כפים מאי לאו ליוחסין לא לתרומה

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.

והא דומיא דאכילת חלה קתני מה אכילת חלה ליוחסין אף נשיאות כפים ליוחסין לא אכילת חלה גופה לתרומה קסבר חלה בזמן הזה דרבנן ותרומה דאורייתא ומסקינן מחלה דרבנן לתרומה דאורייתא וכדאפיך להו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבנן

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.

תא שמע חזקה לכהונה נשיאות כפים וחילוק גרנות בארץ ישראל ובסוריא ובכל מקום ששלוחי ראש חודש מגיעין נשיאות כפים ראיה אבל לא חילוק גרנות

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.

ובבל כסוריא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף אלכסנדריא של מצרים בראשונה מפני שבית דין קבועין שם

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.

קתני מיהת נשיאות כפים מאי לאו ליוחסין לא לחלה הא דומיא דחילוק גרנות קתני מה חילוק גרנות ליוחסין אף נשיאות כפים ליוחסין לא חילוק גרנות גופה לחלה קסבר תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן וחלה דאורייתא ומסקינן מתרומה דרבנן לחלה דאורייתא

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.

וכדאשכחינהו רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע לרבנן דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אשכחתינהו לרבנן בבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי אפילו למאן דאמר תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן חלה דאורייתא שהרי שבע שכיבשו ושבע שחילקו נתחייבו בחלה ולא נתחייבו בתרומה

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.

ואמינא להו אנא אדרבה אפילו למאן דאמר תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא חלה דרבנן דתניא בבואכם אל הארץ אי בבואכם יכול משנכנסו לה שנים ושלשה מרגלים תלמוד לומר בבואכם בביאת כולכם אמרתי ולא בביאת מקצתכם וכי אסקינהו עזרא

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,

לאו כולהו סלוק

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.

תא שמע חזקה לכהונה נשיאות כפים וחילוק גרנות ועדות עדות חזקה היא אלא לאו הכי קאמר נשיאות כפים כי עדות מה עדות ליוחסין אף נשיאות כפים ליוחסין לא עדות הבאה מכח חזקה כחזקה

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.

כי ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי אמי אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא כהן אמר ליה מה ראית אמר ליה שקרא ראשון בבית הכנסת בחזקת שהוא כהן או בחזקת שהוא גדול שקרא אחריו לוי והעלהו רבי אמי לכהונה על פיו

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.

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא לוי אמר ליה מה ראית אמר ליה שקרא שני בבית הכנסת בחזקת שהוא לוי או בחזקת שהוא גדול שקרא לפניו כהן והעלהו רבי יהושע בן לוי ללויה על פיו

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.

ההוא דאתא לקמיה דריש לקיש אמר ליה מוחזקני בזה שהוא כהן אמר ליה מה ראית [אמר ליה] שקרא ראשון בבית הכנסת אמר ליה ראיתיו שחילק על הגרנות אמר לו רבי אלעזר ואם אין שם גורן בטלה כהונה

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.

זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי יוחנן אתא כי הא מעשה לקמיה אמר ליה ריש לקיש ראיתיו שחילק על הגורן אמר ליה רבי יוחנן ואם אין שם גורן בטלה כהונה הדר חזייה לרבי אלעזר בישות אמר שמעת מילי דבר נפחא ולא אמרת לן משמיה

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.

רבי ורבי חייא חד העלה בן על פי אביו לכהונה וחד העלה אח על פי אחיו ללויה

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.

תסתיים דרבי העלה בן על פי אביו לכהונה דתניא הרי שבא ואמר בני זה וכהן הוא נאמן להאכילו בתרומה ואינו נאמן להשיאו אשה דברי רבי אמר לו רבי חייא אם אתה מאמינו להאכילו בתרומה תאמינו להשיאו אשה ואם אי אתה מאמינו להשיאו אשה לא תאמינו לאכול בתרומה

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.

אמר לו אני מאמינו להאכילו בתרומה שבידו להאכילו בתרומה ואיני מאמינו להשיאו אשה שאין בידו להשיאו אשה תסתיים ומדרבי העלה בן על פי אביו לכהונה רבי חייא העלה אח על פי אחיו ללויה

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 conclude 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.

ורבי חייא מאי שנא בן דלא דקרוב הוא אצל אביו אח נמי קרוב הוא אצל אחיו

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.