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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 1, 2022 | 讚壮 讘讗讘 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 26

讘诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 讝讻讜专谞讬 讻砖讗谞讬 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讜专讻讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜谞讬 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 讜讛驻砖讬讟讜谞讬 讗转 讻讜转谞转讬 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜谞讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣yya is speaking of a case where the brother speaks offhandedly in the context of a conversation about a different topic. It was understood from this that his brother is a Levite. This is similar to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was an incident involving a person who was speaking offhandedly and said: I remember when I was a child and still young enough to be carried on my father鈥檚 shoulder, and they took me out of school, and removed my cloak, and immersed me to purify me from any possible ritual impurity, so that I would be able to partake of teruma that evening.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 讜讞讘讬专讬 讘讚讬诇讬谉 诪诪谞讬 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜讻诇 讞诇讜转 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

And Rabbi 岣yya, who related that incident, concluded the story and related that the man said: And my friends distanced themselves from me, and would call me: Yo岣nan who partakes of 岣llot, as it was prohibited for his friends, who were non-priests, to eat 岣lla and teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to priesthood based on his statement. Just as one鈥檚 offhanded statement is reliable, so too, is the offhanded statement of one鈥檚 brother.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讻讱 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜讛讞讜诇拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Just as teruma establishes the presumptive status for priesthood, so too the first tithe establishes the presumptive status for priesthood. And one who receives a share of teruma in court does not establish the presumptive status of priesthood.

诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诇讜讬 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: First tithe is given to a Levite. How does it establish the presumptive status of priesthood? The Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in a baraita: Teruma is given to a priest, first tithe is given to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: First tithe is given to a priest as well. The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: To a priest as well. Did actually he say to a priest and not to a Levite? Since it is given to both a Levite and a priest, first tithe cannot establish the presumptive status of priesthood.

讗讬谉 讘转专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬拽专讜 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讞诇拽讜 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪注砖专 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转

The Gemara answers: Yes, first tithe can establish the presumptive status of priesthood. After Ezra penalized the Levites for failure to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, he decreed that the people should not give them first tithe. Although by Torah law first tithe may be given to both Levites and priests, after that decree, it was given only to priests. The Gemara asks: How can the presumptive status of priesthood be established? But perhaps in this case he was actually a Levite, and by happenstance they gave him first tithe. Rav 岣sda said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the father of that man established the presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza. As a 岣lal, who is disqualified from the priesthood, his legal status is that of an Israelite. And it was seen that the son himself received a share of first tithe at the threshing floor.

诇讜讬 讚诇讗讜 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪讜转专 诇讝专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讬住驻拽 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讘转讜专转 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛

Therefore, with regard to Levite status, it is clear that he is not a Levite, as his father is a priest. The Gemara asks: What then is there to say? Is it that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza? It is not necessary to say that according to the one who says that first tithe is forbidden to non-priests, they would not have given first tithe to the son of the divorc茅e, as his legal status is that of a non-priest. However, even according to the one who says that first tithe is permitted for non-priests, and therefore the fact that he received first tithe proves nothing, that halakha applies only to the fact that it is permitted for one to whom first tithe produce was distributed to provide it to non-priests. However, in the form of a share of first tithe at the threshing floor, one does not give it to a non-priest. Therefore, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, the fact that one receives a share at the threshing floor proves that he is a priest of unflawed lineage.

讜讛讞讜诇拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讻讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讞讜诇拽 转专讜诪讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 注诐 讗讞讬讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛

It is taught in the same baraita: And one who receives a share of teruma in court does not establish the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: If in court it does not establish the presumptive status, where does it establish the presumptive status? Isn鈥檛 court the place where matters are optimally clarified? Rav Sheshet said that this is what the tanna is saying: One who receives a share of teruma from his father鈥檚 property with his brothers in court as his portion of the inheritance, in doing so does not establish presumptive status of priesthood. Even if he is a 岣lal and therefore a non-priest, it could be that he owns the teruma as part of his inheritance.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讚讛谞讱 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讱 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that receiving teruma in court does not establish the presumptive status. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that from the fact that these brothers receive the teruma to partake of it, it can be deduced that that brother also receives the teruma to partake of it, the tanna therefore teaches us that these brothers receive the teruma to partake of it and that brother receives it to sell it. The fact that he may not eat the teruma does not prevent him from selling it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讻讜壮 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注专注专 讞讚 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注专注专 讞讚 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 注专注专 转专讬 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

搂 We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as they agree that one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness when there are no challengers. And if you would say that there is a difference between them in a case where there is a challenge posed by one witness, as Rabbi Eliezer holds: A challenge posed by one witness is sufficient to undermine one鈥檚 presumptive status of priesthood and two witnesses are required to overcome that challenge, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: An effective challenge requires two witnesses, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗

Rather, with what case are we dealing here? It is in a case where the father of that man established his presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and therefore we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood. And one witness came and said: I know that he is a priest of unflawed lineage,

讜讗住拽讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转

and therefore we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate the rumor. And then two witnesses came and said: He is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and then we downgraded him from the priesthood, as two witnesses negated the testimony of one witness. Then one witness came and said: I know that he is a priest of unflawed lineage. And everyone agrees that the two single witnesses join together and constitute two witnesses for the purpose of testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and fundamentally his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬讞砖 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞转讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗谞谉 讗讞转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗谞谉 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

And here it is with regard to concern that it will lead to contempt for the court that they disagree. The first tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: Once we downgraded him from the priesthood, we do not then elevate him. We are concerned that it will lead to contempt for the court, as the reversal in the court decisions create the impression that the court does not know what it is doing. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: We downgrade him from the priesthood and we then elevate him, and as for the possibility that it will lead to contempt for the court, we are not concerned about it. The primary concern is that the matter be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 讜转专讬 谞诪讬

Rav Ashi strongly objects: If so, if they disagree with regard to contempt for the court, why is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where the witnesses who testified that he is a priest of unflawed lineage came individually? If so, then even if two witnesses testify together that he is unfit for the priesthood, and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testify together that he is fit for the priesthood, and the court elevated him, the tanna鈥檌m would also disagree, as the same concern for contempt of court applies.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is with regard to whether two single witnesses join together and constitute two witnesses for the purpose of testimony that they disagree, and it is in the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita: The testimony of individual witnesses merges into the testimony of two witnesses only if the two of them saw the incident transpire together, as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimony merges even in a case where this witness saw the incident after that witness; however, the testimony of witnesses is validated in court only if the two of them testify together as one.

专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜

Rabbi Natan says: They need not even testify together, but even if the court hears the statement of this witness today, and when his fellow witness comes tomorrow the court hears his statement, their testimonies merge. Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, and therefore the testimony of the second witness cannot be merged with the testimony of the first witness and the person remains a 岣lal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the testimony of the two witnesses that he is a priest of unflawed lineage is merged, and his presumptive status of priesthood is restored, as it was already established that his father is a priest.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讞讘砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles due to a monetary offense committed by her husband, once she is released after he pays his debt, she is permitted to her husband, even if he is a priest. There is no concern that they violated her because their objective is to coerce the husband to pay his debt in exchange for her release. Were they to abuse her, it is possible that he would be unwilling to pay. However, if a woman was imprisoned due to a capital offense and sentenced to death, once she is released she is forbidden to her husband even if he is not a priest due to the concern that perhaps her captors violated her, and she acquiesced to one of them.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛

GEMARA: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said that Rav said: They taught this mishna only in a case where the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world, and the gentiles are law-abiding citizens. However, when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, a euphemism for dominance over the Jewish people, even a woman who was imprisoned due to a monetary offense is forbidden to her husband, as there is nothing preventing her jailers from violating her.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 讜专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讜专讬讞拽讜讛 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞转讛 讜注讚讬讛 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讛讗诪讬谞讜 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讗诇 转讗诪讬谞讜 砖讛讜专讛谞讛

Rava raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 8:2): Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, but her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral, deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral at all. In either case, she is permitted to her husband.

讜讛讗 讗砖拽诇讜谉 讚讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉 讜拽转谞讬

Rava asks: But this took place in Ashkelon, which is a place where the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, as it was a city of gentiles, and it is taught:

  • 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 26: A Woman in Ashkelon

Some historical context for kohanim and leviim, and who got to collect the terumah and ma'aser rishon when... Note the...

Ketubot 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 26

讘诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讬讛 诪住讬讞 诇驻讬 转讜诪讜 讜讗诪专 讝讻讜专谞讬 讻砖讗谞讬 转讬谞讜拽 讜诪讜专讻讘 注诇 讻转讬驻讜 砖诇 讗讘讗 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜谞讬 诪讘讬转 讛住驻专 讜讛驻砖讬讟讜谞讬 讗转 讻讜转谞转讬 讜讛讟讘讬诇讜谞讬 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诇注专讘

The Gemara answers: Rabbi 岣yya is speaking of a case where the brother speaks offhandedly in the context of a conversation about a different topic. It was understood from this that his brother is a Levite. This is similar to that which Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: There was an incident involving a person who was speaking offhandedly and said: I remember when I was a child and still young enough to be carried on my father鈥檚 shoulder, and they took me out of school, and removed my cloak, and immersed me to purify me from any possible ritual impurity, so that I would be able to partake of teruma that evening.

讜专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 诪住讬讬诐 讘讛 讜讞讘讬专讬 讘讚讬诇讬谉 诪诪谞讬 讜讛讬讜 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜讻诇 讞诇讜转 讜讛注诇讛讜 专讘讬 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬讜

And Rabbi 岣yya, who related that incident, concluded the story and related that the man said: And my friends distanced themselves from me, and would call me: Yo岣nan who partakes of 岣llot, as it was prohibited for his friends, who were non-priests, to eat 岣lla and teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to priesthood based on his statement. Just as one鈥檚 offhanded statement is reliable, so too, is the offhanded statement of one鈥檚 brother.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻砖诐 砖转专讜诪讛 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讻讱 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讞讝拽讛 诇讻讛讜谞讛 讜讛讞讜诇拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Just as teruma establishes the presumptive status for priesthood, so too the first tithe establishes the presumptive status for priesthood. And one who receives a share of teruma in court does not establish the presumptive status of priesthood.

诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讚诇讜讬 讛讜讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 转专讜诪讛 诇讻讛谉 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诇诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗讜诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 讗讬诪讜专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘谉 注讝专讬讛 讗祝 诇讻讛谉 诇讻讛谉 讜诇讗 诇诇讜讬 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara asks: First tithe is given to a Levite. How does it establish the presumptive status of priesthood? The Gemara answers: This is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught in a baraita: Teruma is given to a priest, first tithe is given to a Levite; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: First tithe is given to a priest as well. The Gemara asks: Say that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: To a priest as well. Did actually he say to a priest and not to a Levite? Since it is given to both a Levite and a priest, first tithe cannot establish the presumptive status of priesthood.

讗讬谉 讘转专 讚拽谞住讬谞讛讜 注讝专讗 讜讚诇诪讗 讗讬拽专讜 讜讬讛讘讜 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讞诇拽讜 诇讬讛 诇讚讬讚讬讛 诪注砖专 讘讘讬转 讛讙专谞讜转

The Gemara answers: Yes, first tithe can establish the presumptive status of priesthood. After Ezra penalized the Levites for failure to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, he decreed that the people should not give them first tithe. Although by Torah law first tithe may be given to both Levites and priests, after that decree, it was given only to priests. The Gemara asks: How can the presumptive status of priesthood be established? But perhaps in this case he was actually a Levite, and by happenstance they gave him first tithe. Rav 岣sda said: With what are we dealing here? It is a case where the father of that man established the presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza. As a 岣lal, who is disqualified from the priesthood, his legal status is that of an Israelite. And it was seen that the son himself received a share of first tithe at the threshing floor.

诇讜讬 讚诇讗讜 诇讜讬 讛讜讗 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 诇讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 讗住讜专 诇讝专讬诐 讚诇讗 讛讜讜 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪注砖专 专讗砖讜谉 诪讜转专 诇讝专讬诐 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讬住驻拽 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讘转讜专转 讞诇讜拽讛 诇讗 讬讛讘讬 诇讬讛

Therefore, with regard to Levite status, it is clear that he is not a Levite, as his father is a priest. The Gemara asks: What then is there to say? Is it that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza? It is not necessary to say that according to the one who says that first tithe is forbidden to non-priests, they would not have given first tithe to the son of the divorc茅e, as his legal status is that of a non-priest. However, even according to the one who says that first tithe is permitted for non-priests, and therefore the fact that he received first tithe proves nothing, that halakha applies only to the fact that it is permitted for one to whom first tithe produce was distributed to provide it to non-priests. However, in the form of a share of first tithe at the threshing floor, one does not give it to a non-priest. Therefore, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, the fact that one receives a share at the threshing floor proves that he is a priest of unflawed lineage.

讜讛讞讜诇拽 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛 讗讬 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 诇讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛 讛讬讻讗 讛讜讬讗 讞讝拽讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讛讞讜诇拽 转专讜诪讛 讘谞讻住讬 讗讘讬讜 注诐 讗讞讬讜 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 讗讬谞讛 讞讝拽讛

It is taught in the same baraita: And one who receives a share of teruma in court does not establish the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: If in court it does not establish the presumptive status, where does it establish the presumptive status? Isn鈥檛 court the place where matters are optimally clarified? Rav Sheshet said that this is what the tanna is saying: One who receives a share of teruma from his father鈥檚 property with his brothers in court as his portion of the inheritance, in doing so does not establish presumptive status of priesthood. Even if he is a 岣lal and therefore a non-priest, it could be that he owns the teruma as part of his inheritance.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讚讛谞讱 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讛谞讱 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗讬 诇讝讘讜谞讬

The Gemara asks: It is obvious that receiving teruma in court does not establish the presumptive status. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that from the fact that these brothers receive the teruma to partake of it, it can be deduced that that brother also receives the teruma to partake of it, the tanna therefore teaches us that these brothers receive the teruma to partake of it and that brother receives it to sell it. The fact that he may not eat the teruma does not prevent him from selling it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪注诇讬谉 诇讻讛讜谞讛 注诇 驻讬 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讻讜壮 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讬谞讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 注专注专 讞讚 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 住讘专 注专注专 讞讚 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 注专注专 转专讬 讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谉 注专注专 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐

搂 We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is identical to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as they agree that one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness when there are no challengers. And if you would say that there is a difference between them in a case where there is a challenge posed by one witness, as Rabbi Eliezer holds: A challenge posed by one witness is sufficient to undermine one鈥檚 presumptive status of priesthood and two witnesses are required to overcome that challenge, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: An effective challenge requires two witnesses, didn鈥檛 Rabbi Yo岣nan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚诪讜讞讝拽 诇谉 讘讗讘讜讛 讚讛讗讬 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜谞驻拽 注诇讬讛 拽诇讗 讚讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讗讜 讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗

Rather, with what case are we dealing here? It is in a case where the father of that man established his presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged about the son that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and therefore we downgraded him from the presumptive status of priesthood. And one witness came and said: I know that he is a priest of unflawed lineage,

讜讗住拽讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讜 讘讬 转专讬 讜讗诪专讬 讘谉 讙专讜砖讛 讜讘谉 讞诇讜爪讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讞转讬谞讬讛 讜讗转讗 注讚 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专 讬讚注谞讗 讘讬讛 讚讻讛谉 讛讜讗 讜讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转

and therefore we elevated him back to the priesthood, as one witness is sufficient to negate the rumor. And then two witnesses came and said: He is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a 岣lutza, and then we downgraded him from the priesthood, as two witnesses negated the testimony of one witness. Then one witness came and said: I know that he is a priest of unflawed lineage. And everyone agrees that the two single witnesses join together and constitute two witnesses for the purpose of testimony that he is a priest of unflawed lineage, and fundamentally his presumptive status of priesthood should be restored.

讜讛讻讗 讘诪讬讞砖 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讞转讬谞讬讛 诇讗 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉 诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 住讘专 讗谞谉 讗讞转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗谞谉 诪住拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜诇讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讬 讚讬谞讗 诇讗 讞讬讬砖讬谞谉

And here it is with regard to concern that it will lead to contempt for the court that they disagree. The first tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, holds: Once we downgraded him from the priesthood, we do not then elevate him. We are concerned that it will lead to contempt for the court, as the reversal in the court decisions create the impression that the court does not know what it is doing. And Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: We downgrade him from the priesthood and we then elevate him, and as for the possibility that it will lead to contempt for the court, we are not concerned about it. The primary concern is that the matter be determined based on the relevant testimonies.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讬 讜转专讬 谞诪讬

Rav Ashi strongly objects: If so, if they disagree with regard to contempt for the court, why is it necessary to establish the dispute in a case where the witnesses who testified that he is a priest of unflawed lineage came individually? If so, then even if two witnesses testify together that he is unfit for the priesthood, and the court downgraded him, and two witnesses testify together that he is fit for the priesthood, and the court elevated him, the tanna鈥檌m would also disagree, as the same concern for contempt of court applies.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讘诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇注讚讜转 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪爪讟专驻转 注讚 砖讬专讗讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 拽专讞讛 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讜讗讬谉 注讚讜转谉 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讘讘讬转 讚讬谉 注讚 砖讬注讬讚讜 砖谞讬讛诐 讻讗讞讚

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is with regard to whether two single witnesses join together and constitute two witnesses for the purpose of testimony that they disagree, and it is in the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m that they disagree, as it is taught in a baraita: The testimony of individual witnesses merges into the testimony of two witnesses only if the two of them saw the incident transpire together, as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣 says: Their testimony merges even in a case where this witness saw the incident after that witness; however, the testimony of witnesses is validated in court only if the two of them testify together as one.

专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜 砖诇 讝讛 讛讬讜诐 讜讻砖讬讘讗 讞讘讬专讜 诇诪讞专 砖讜诪注讬谉 讚讘专讬讜

Rabbi Natan says: They need not even testify together, but even if the court hears the statement of this witness today, and when his fellow witness comes tomorrow the court hears his statement, their testimonies merge. Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Kor岣, and therefore the testimony of the second witness cannot be merged with the testimony of the first witness and the person remains a 岣lal. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that the testimony of the two witnesses that he is a priest of unflawed lineage is merged, and his presumptive status of priesthood is restored, as it was already established that his father is a priest.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讞讘砖讛 讘讬讚讬 讙讜讬诐 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 诪讜转专转 诇讘注诇讛 注诇 讬讚讬 谞驻砖讜转 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛

MISHNA: In the case of a woman who was imprisoned by gentiles due to a monetary offense committed by her husband, once she is released after he pays his debt, she is permitted to her husband, even if he is a priest. There is no concern that they violated her because their objective is to coerce the husband to pay his debt in exchange for her release. Were they to abuse her, it is possible that he would be unwilling to pay. However, if a woman was imprisoned due to a capital offense and sentenced to death, once she is released she is forbidden to her husband even if he is not a priest due to the concern that perhaps her captors violated her, and she acquiesced to one of them.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讬讚 讬砖专讗诇 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 注诇 讬讚讬 诪诪讜谉 讗住讜专讛 诇讘注诇讛

GEMARA: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitz岣k said that Rav said: They taught this mishna only in a case where the authority of the Jewish people is dominant over the nations of the world, and the gentiles are law-abiding citizens. However, when the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, a euphemism for dominance over the Jewish people, even a woman who was imprisoned due to a monetary offense is forbidden to her husband, as there is nothing preventing her jailers from violating her.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讛注讬讚 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讻讛谉 讜专讘讬 讝讻专讬讛 讘谉 讛拽爪讘 注诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讘讗砖拽诇讜谉 讜专讬讞拽讜讛 讘谞讬 诪砖驻讞转讛 讜注讚讬讛 诪注讬讚讬诐 讗讜转讛 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讗诐 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖讛讜专讛谞讛 讛讗诪讬谞讜 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讜讗诐 讗讬 讗转诐 诪讗诪讬谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞住转专讛 讜砖诇讗 谞讟诪讗讛 讗诇 转讗诪讬谞讜 砖讛讜专讛谞讛

Rava raised an objection from a mishna (Eduyyot 8:2): Rabbi Yosei the priest and Rabbi Zekharya ben HaKatzav testified about a Jewish woman about whom witnesses testified that she was taken as collateral for a debt in Ashkelon. And the members of her family, who suspected that she engaged in intercourse there, distanced themselves from her, but her witnesses testified about her that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And the Sages said to the members of the family: If you deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral, deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated. And if you do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she neither entered into seclusion nor was violated, do not deem the witnesses credible to testify that she was taken as collateral at all. In either case, she is permitted to her husband.

讜讛讗 讗砖拽诇讜谉 讚讬讚 讗讜诪讜转 讛注讜诇诐 转拽讬驻讛 注诇 注爪诪谉 讜拽转谞讬

Rava asks: But this took place in Ashkelon, which is a place where the authority of the nations of the world is dominant over themselves, as it was a city of gentiles, and it is taught:

Scroll To Top