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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 27, 2015 | 讞壮 讘讗讚专 转砖注状讛

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 25

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讜讻讬 诪住拽讬谞谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

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.

讜讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讛讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: And did they in fact not partake of teruma by Torah law? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hat they should not partake of the most sacred items [kodesh hakodashim]鈥 (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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬拽专讬 拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬拽专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讛讬讗 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: Neither did they partake of items called kodesh, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讘讘讘诇 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 讘住讜专讬讗 讜讞讬诇讜拽 诪转谞讜转 讘讻专讻讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

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 岣lla 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.

讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗祝 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 讙讜驻讛 诇转专讜诪讛 拽住讘专 讞诇讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪住拽讬谞谉 诪讞诇讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻讚讗驻讬讱 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 lifting of hands taught parallel to partaking of 岣lla? Just as with regard to partaking of 岣lla 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 岣lla itself establishes presumptive status only for teruma and not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate 岣lla from dough is by rabbinic law and the obligation to separate teruma is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from 岣lla, 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 岣lla today is an obligation by rabbinic law.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讜讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘住讜专讬讗 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖诇讜讞讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 诪讙讬注讬谉 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 专讗讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转

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.

讜讘讘诇 讻住讜专讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐

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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 诇讞诇讛 讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗祝 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 讙讜驻讛 诇讞诇讛 拽住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪住拽讬谞谉 诪转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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 岣lla. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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 岣lla but not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate teruma is by rabbinic law, and 岣lla is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from teruma, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to 岣lla, which is by Torah law.

讜讻讚讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讛专讬 砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘讞诇讛 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘转专讜诪讛

And the dispute with regard to the legal status of teruma and 岣lla 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 岣lla 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 岣lla 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 岣lla is by Torah law.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞诇讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讗诇 讛讗专抓 讗讬 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讬讻讜诇 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讛 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪专讙诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讘讘讬讗转 讻讜诇讻诐 讗诪专转讬 讜诇讗 讘讘讬讗转 诪拽爪转讻诐 讜讻讬 讗住拽讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗

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 岣lla is by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning 岣lla: 鈥淲hen you come into the land鈥rom the first of your dough you should separate teruma鈥 (Numbers 15:18鈥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: 鈥淲hen you come,鈥 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 岣lla 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,

诇讗讜 讻讜诇讛讜 住诇讜拽

not all of them ascended. Since the majority of the people did not come to the land, separating 岣lla was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讜讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 讜注讚讜转 注讚讜转 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讻讬 注讚讜转 诪讛 注讚讜转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗祝 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 注讚讜转 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞 讞讝拽讛 讻讞讝拽讛

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.

讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 砖拽专讗 讗讞专讬讜 诇讜讬 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽专讗 砖谞讬 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 诇讜讬 讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 砖拽专讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讛谉 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇诇讜讬讛 注诇 驻讬讜

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬转 [讗诪专 诇讬讛] 砖拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讗讬转讬讜 砖讞讬诇拽 注诇 讛讙专谞讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讙讜专谉 讘讟诇讛 讻讛讜谞讛

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鈥檚 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.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪注砖讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讗讬转讬讜 砖讞讬诇拽 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讙讜专谉 讘讟诇讛 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讚专 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 砖诪注转 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专 谞驻讞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛

On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yo岣nan. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi Yo岣nan. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar Nappa岣, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi Yo岣nan, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.

专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讞讚 讛注诇讛 讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讗讘讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讛注诇讛 讗讞 注诇 驻讬 讗讞讬讜 诇诇讜讬讛

The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya 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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讛注诇讛 讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讗讘讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讝讛 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 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 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诐 讗转讛 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 转讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讗诪讬谞讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛

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 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 转住转讬讬诐 讜诪讚专讘讬 讛注诇讛 讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讗讘讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛注诇讛 讗讞 注诇 驻讬 讗讞讬讜 诇诇讜讬讛

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 岣yya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘谉 讚诇讗 讚拽专讜讘 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讗讞 谞诪讬 拽专讜讘 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讗讞讬讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi 岣yya, 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 岣yya should accept the testimony in both cases or reject the testimony in both cases.

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

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

talking talmud_square

Ketubot 25: Are You Sure the Kohen Is a Kohen?

A focus on terumah, with the distinction of how that was applied in the land of Israel, as compared to...

Ketubot 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 25

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讛砖转讗 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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.

讜讗讬 讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛砖转讗 谞诪讬 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讜讻讬 诪住拽讬谞谉 诪转专讜诪讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讙讚讜诇讛 讞讝拽讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬讙讝专 诪砖讜诐 转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讙讝专讬谞谉

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.

讜讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 讗砖专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇讜 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诪拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讗讻讜诇 讛讗 讘转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讗讻讜诇

The Gemara asks: And did they in fact not partake of teruma by Torah law? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭hat they should not partake of the most sacred items [kodesh hakodashim]鈥 (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.

讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬拽专讬 拽讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 讜讻诇 讝专 诇讗 讬讗讻诇 拽讚砖 讜诇讗 讘诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬拽专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讜讘转 讻讛谉 讻讬 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讝专 讛讬讗 讘转专讜诪转 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 讘诪讜专诐 诪谉 讛拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 转讗讻诇

The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: Neither did they partake of items called kodesh, as it is written: 鈥淎nd 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: 鈥淎nd if a priest鈥檚 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讘讘讘诇 讜讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 讘住讜专讬讗 讜讞讬诇讜拽 诪转谞讜转 讘讻专讻讬谉 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 诇转专讜诪讛

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 岣lla 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.

讜讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗祝 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讗讻讬诇转 讞诇讛 讙讜驻讛 诇转专讜诪讛 拽住讘专 讞诇讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪住拽讬谞谉 诪讞诇讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇转专讜诪讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜讻讚讗驻讬讱 诇讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘谞谉

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 lifting of hands taught parallel to partaking of 岣lla? Just as with regard to partaking of 岣lla 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 岣lla itself establishes presumptive status only for teruma and not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate 岣lla from dough is by rabbinic law and the obligation to separate teruma is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from 岣lla, 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 岣lla today is an obligation by rabbinic law.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讜讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 讘讗专抓 讬砖专讗诇 讜讘住讜专讬讗 讜讘讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖砖诇讜讞讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 诪讙讬注讬谉 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 专讗讬讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转

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.

讜讘讘诇 讻住讜专讬讗 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讗 砖诇 诪爪专讬诐 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讘讬转 讚讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 砖诐

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.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 诇讞诇讛 讛讗 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 拽转谞讬 诪讛 讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗祝 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 讙讜驻讛 诇讞诇讛 拽住讘专 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讜讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讜诪住拽讬谞谉 诪转专讜诪讛 讚专讘谞谉 诇讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

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 岣lla. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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 岣lla but not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate teruma is by rabbinic law, and 岣lla is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from teruma, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to 岣lla, which is by Torah law.

讜讻讚讗砖讻讞讬谞讛讜 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讬讛讜砖注 讗砖讻讞转讬谞讛讜 诇专讘谞谉 讘讘讬 专讘 讚讬转讘讬 讜拽讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚专讘谞谉 讞诇讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 砖讛专讬 砖讘注 砖讻讬讘砖讜 讜砖讘注 砖讞讬诇拽讜 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘讞诇讛 讜诇讗 谞转讞讬讬讘讜 讘转专讜诪讛

And the dispute with regard to the legal status of teruma and 岣lla 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 岣lla 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 岣lla 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 岣lla is by Torah law.

讜讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讜 讗谞讗 讗讚专讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转专讜诪讛 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讞诇讛 讚专讘谞谉 讚转谞讬讗 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讗诇 讛讗专抓 讗讬 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讬讻讜诇 诪砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讛 砖谞讬诐 讜砖诇砖讛 诪专讙诇讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘讜讗讻诐 讘讘讬讗转 讻讜诇讻诐 讗诪专转讬 讜诇讗 讘讘讬讗转 诪拽爪转讻诐 讜讻讬 讗住拽讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗

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 岣lla is by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning 岣lla: 鈥淲hen you come into the land鈥rom the first of your dough you should separate teruma鈥 (Numbers 15:18鈥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: 鈥淲hen you come,鈥 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 岣lla 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,

诇讗讜 讻讜诇讛讜 住诇讜拽

not all of them ascended. Since the majority of the people did not come to the land, separating 岣lla was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law.

转讗 砖诪注 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讜讞讬诇讜拽 讙专谞讜转 讜注讚讜转 注讚讜转 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 讻讬 注讚讜转 诪讛 注讚讜转 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 讗祝 谞砖讬讗讜转 讻驻讬诐 诇讬讜讞住讬谉 诇讗 注讚讜转 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞 讞讝拽讛 讻讞讝拽讛

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.

讻讬 讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 砖拽专讗 讗讞专讬讜 诇讜讬 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 讗诪讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖拽专讗 砖谞讬 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 诇讜讬 讗讜 讘讞讝拽转 砖讛讜讗 讙讚讜诇 砖拽专讗 诇驻谞讬讜 讻讛谉 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇诇讜讬讛 注诇 驻讬讜

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.

讛讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜讞讝拽谞讬 讘讝讛 砖讛讜讗 讻讛谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讛 专讗讬转 [讗诪专 诇讬讛] 砖拽专讗 专讗砖讜谉 讘讘讬转 讛讻谞住转 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讗讬转讬讜 砖讞讬诇拽 注诇 讛讙专谞讜转 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讙讜专谉 讘讟诇讛 讻讛讜谞讛

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鈥檚 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.

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讛讜讜 讬转讘讬 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗转讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪注砖讛 诇拽诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 专讗讬转讬讜 砖讞讬诇拽 注诇 讛讙讜专谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗诐 讗讬谉 砖诐 讙讜专谉 讘讟诇讛 讻讛讜谞讛 讛讚专 讞讝讬讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讬砖讜转 讗诪专 砖诪注转 诪讬诇讬 讚讘专 谞驻讞讗 讜诇讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛

On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yo岣nan. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi Yo岣nan. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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 Yo岣nan. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar Nappa岣, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi Yo岣nan, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.

专讘讬 讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讞讚 讛注诇讛 讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讗讘讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜讞讚 讛注诇讛 讗讞 注诇 驻讬 讗讞讬讜 诇诇讜讬讛

The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi 岣yya 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.

转住转讬讬诐 讚专讘讬 讛注诇讛 讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讗讘讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讘讗 讜讗诪专 讘谞讬 讝讛 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 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 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讗诐 讗转讛 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 转讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 诇讗 转讗诪讬谞讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛

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 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讜 讗谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 砖讘讬讚讜 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 讘转专讜诪讛 讜讗讬谞讬 诪讗诪讬谞讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讛砖讬讗讜 讗砖讛 转住转讬讬诐 讜诪讚专讘讬 讛注诇讛 讘谉 注诇 驻讬 讗讘讬讜 诇讻讛讜谞讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讛注诇讛 讗讞 注诇 驻讬 讗讞讬讜 诇诇讜讬讛

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 岣yya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讘谉 讚诇讗 讚拽专讜讘 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讗讘讬讜 讗讞 谞诪讬 拽专讜讘 讛讜讗 讗爪诇 讗讞讬讜

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi 岣yya, 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 岣yya should accept the testimony in both cases or reject the testimony in both cases.

Scroll To Top