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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 1, 2022 | ื“ืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืคืดื‘

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • 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 26

ื‘ืžืกื™ื— ืœืคื™ ืชื•ืžื• ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืกื™ื— ืœืคื™ ืชื•ืžื• ื•ืืžืจ ื–ื›ื•ืจื ื™ ื›ืฉืื ื™ ืชื™ื ื•ืง ื•ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืชื™ืคื• ืฉืœ ืื‘ื ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื•ื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืกืคืจ ื•ื”ืคืฉื™ื˜ื•ื ื™ ืืช ื›ื•ืชื ืชื™ ื•ื”ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื•ื ื™ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœืขืจื‘

The Gemara answers: Rabbi แธคiyya 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 fatherโ€™s 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืกื™ื™ื ื‘ื” ื•ื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ ื‘ื“ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื• ืงื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ื›ืœ ื—ืœื•ืช ื•ื”ืขืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ืคื™ื•

And Rabbi แธคiyya, who related that incident, concluded the story and related that the man said: And my friends distanced themselves from me, and would call me: Yoแธฅanan who partakes of แธฅallot, as it was prohibited for his friends, who were non-priests, to eat แธฅalla and teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to priesthood based on his statement. Just as oneโ€™s offhanded statement is reliable, so too, is the offhanded statement of oneโ€™s brother.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืฉื ืฉืชืจื•ืžื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื›ืš ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื–ืงื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ื”ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื–ืงื”

ยง 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.

ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ืœื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืœื•ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืืฃ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืœืœื•ื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจ

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.

ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืงื ืกื™ื ื”ื• ืขื–ืจื ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืงืจื• ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื• ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืœืŸ ื‘ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ื—ืœืงื• ืœื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžืขืฉืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื’ืจื ื•ืช

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 แธคisda 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 แธฅalutza. As a แธฅalal, 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.

ืœื•ื™ ื“ืœืื• ืœื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืื• ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื–ืจื™ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื–ืจื™ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืกืคืง ืœื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ื—ืœื•ืงื” ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื”

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 แธฅalutza? 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 divorcรฉe, 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.

ื•ื”ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื” ื”ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื—ื•ืœืง ืชืจื•ืžื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืื‘ื™ื• ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื–ืงื”

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? Isnโ€™t 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 fatherโ€™s 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 แธฅalal and therefore a non-priest, it could be that he owns the teruma as part of his inheritance.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื“ื”ื ืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ื ืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื”ืื™ ืœื–ื‘ื•ื ื™

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืœื™ืŸ ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืขืจืขืจ ื—ื“ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขืจืขืจ ื—ื“ ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืขืจืขืจ ืชืจื™ ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืขืจืขืจ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ื

ยง 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 oneโ€™s 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, didnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืœืŸ ื‘ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืื• ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื™ื“ืขื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื

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 แธฅalutza, 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,

ื•ืืกืงื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื• ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื™ื“ืขื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœืขื“ื•ืช

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 แธฅalutza, 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.

ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ื—ืฉ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ืœื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืื ืŸ ืื—ืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื ืŸ ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชืจื™ ื•ืชืจื™ ื ืžื™

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 tannaโ€™im would also disagree, as the same concern for contempt of court applies.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื‘ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœืขื“ื•ืช ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“

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 tannaโ€™im 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 Korแธฅa 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

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 Korแธฅa, and therefore the testimony of the second witness cannot be merged with the testimony of the first witness and the person remains a แธฅalal. 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื ื—ื‘ืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื™ื“ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืชืงื™ืคื” ืขืœ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืชืงื™ืคื” ืขืœ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื”

GEMARA: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืจื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงืฆื‘ ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื•ืจื”ื ื” ื‘ืืฉืงืœื•ืŸ ื•ืจื™ื—ืงื•ื” ื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ืชื” ื•ืขื“ื™ื” ืžืขื™ื“ื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื ืืชื ืžืืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืจื”ื ื” ื”ืืžื™ื ื• ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืื™ ืืชื ืžืืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืืœ ืชืืžื™ื ื• ืฉื”ื•ืจื”ื ื”

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.

ื•ื”ื ืืฉืงืœื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืชืงื™ืคื” ืขืœ ืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ืงืชื ื™

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:

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

  • 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 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

ื‘ืžืกื™ื— ืœืคื™ ืชื•ืžื• ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื“ื ืื—ื“ ืฉื”ื™ื” ืžืกื™ื— ืœืคื™ ืชื•ืžื• ื•ืืžืจ ื–ื›ื•ืจื ื™ ื›ืฉืื ื™ ืชื™ื ื•ืง ื•ืžื•ืจื›ื‘ ืขืœ ื›ืชื™ืคื• ืฉืœ ืื‘ื ื•ื”ื•ืฆื™ืื•ื ื™ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืกืคืจ ื•ื”ืคืฉื™ื˜ื•ื ื™ ืืช ื›ื•ืชื ืชื™ ื•ื”ื˜ื‘ื™ืœื•ื ื™ ืœืื›ื•ืœ ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœืขืจื‘

The Gemara answers: Rabbi แธคiyya 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 fatherโ€™s 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืกื™ื™ื ื‘ื” ื•ื—ื‘ื™ืจื™ ื‘ื“ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืžืžื ื™ ื•ื”ื™ื• ืงื•ืจื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื•ื›ืœ ื—ืœื•ืช ื•ื”ืขืœื”ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ืคื™ื•

And Rabbi แธคiyya, who related that incident, concluded the story and related that the man said: And my friends distanced themselves from me, and would call me: Yoแธฅanan who partakes of แธฅallot, as it was prohibited for his friends, who were non-priests, to eat แธฅalla and teruma. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi elevated him to priesthood based on his statement. Just as oneโ€™s offhanded statement is reliable, so too, is the offhanded statement of oneโ€™s brother.

ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืฉื ืฉืชืจื•ืžื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื›ืš ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื—ื–ืงื” ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ื•ื”ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื–ืงื”

ยง 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.

ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ื“ืœื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ื“ืชื ื™ื ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืœื•ื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืฃ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืื™ืžื•ืจ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืจื™ื” ืืฃ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ืœื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืœื ืœืœื•ื™ ืžื™ ืืžืจ

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.

ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืชืจ ื“ืงื ืกื™ื ื”ื• ืขื–ืจื ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื™ืงืจื• ื•ื™ื”ื‘ื• ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืœืŸ ื‘ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ื—ืœืงื• ืœื™ื” ืœื“ื™ื“ื™ื” ืžืขืฉืจ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื’ืจื ื•ืช

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 แธคisda 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 แธฅalutza. As a แธฅalal, 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.

ืœื•ื™ ื“ืœืื• ืœื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืื• ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ืœื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืœื–ืจื™ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื• ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื” ืืœื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืžืขืฉืจ ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจ ืœื–ืจื™ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืกืคืง ืœื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืชื•ืจืช ื—ืœื•ืงื” ืœื ื™ื”ื‘ื™ ืœื™ื”

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 แธฅalutza? 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 divorcรฉe, 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.

ื•ื”ื—ื•ืœืง ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื–ืงื” ืื™ ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื” ื”ื™ื›ื ื”ื•ื™ื ื—ื–ืงื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื”ื—ื•ืœืง ืชืจื•ืžื” ื‘ื ื›ืกื™ ืื‘ื™ื• ืขื ืื—ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื” ื—ื–ืงื”

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? Isnโ€™t 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 fatherโ€™s 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 แธฅalal and therefore a non-priest, it could be that he owns the teruma as part of his inheritance.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ื ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžื“ื”ื ืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื”ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื”ื ืš ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ื”ืื™ ืœื–ื‘ื•ื ื™

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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžืขืœื™ืŸ ืœื›ื”ื•ื ื” ืขืœ ืคื™ ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืขืจืขืจ ื—ื“ ืื™ื›ื ื‘ื™ื ื™ื™ื”ื• ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืขืจืขืจ ื—ื“ ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืขืจืขืจ ืชืจื™ ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืขืจืขืจ ืคื—ื•ืช ืžืฉื ื™ื

ยง 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 oneโ€™s 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, didnโ€™t Rabbi Yoแธฅanan say: Everyone agrees that there is no effective challenge with fewer than two witnesses?

ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืžื•ื—ื–ืง ืœืŸ ื‘ืื‘ื•ื” ื“ื”ืื™ ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื ืคืง ืขืœื™ื” ืงืœื ื“ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ืื• ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื™ื“ืขื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื

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 แธฅalutza, 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,

ื•ืืกืงื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื• ื‘ื™ ืชืจื™ ื•ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื‘ืŸ ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืืชื ืขื“ ืื—ื“ ื•ืืžืจ ื™ื“ืขื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื“ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื•ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœืขื“ื•ืช

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 แธฅalutza, 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.

ื•ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžื™ื—ืฉ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื ืกื‘ืจ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื—ืชื™ื ื™ื” ืœื ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื•ืจื‘ืŸ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ืกื‘ืจ ืื ืŸ ืื—ืชื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืื ืŸ ืžืกืงื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื•ืœื–ื™ืœื•ืชื ื“ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืฉื™ื ืŸ

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.

ืžืชืงื™ืฃ ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชืจื™ ื•ืชืจื™ ื ืžื™

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 tannaโ€™im would also disagree, as the same concern for contempt of court applies.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื‘ืžืฆื˜ืจืคื™ืŸ ืœืขื“ื•ืช ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื•ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ื”ื ื™ ืชื ืื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืฆื˜ืจืคืช ืขื“ ืฉื™ืจืื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืงืจื—ื” ืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื–ื” ืื—ืจ ื–ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื“ื•ืชืŸ ืžืชืงื™ื™ืžืช ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืขื™ื“ื• ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื›ืื—ื“

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 tannaโ€™im 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 Korแธฅa 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.

ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืฉืœ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืฉื™ื‘ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืœืžื—ืจ ืฉื•ืžืขื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

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 Korแธฅa, and therefore the testimony of the second witness cannot be merged with the testimony of the first witness and the person remains a แธฅalal. 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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืืฉื” ืฉื ื—ื‘ืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ื’ื•ื™ื ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื‘ืขืœื” ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื ืคืฉื•ืช ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื”

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืœื ืฉื ื• ืืœื ืฉื™ื“ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืชืงื™ืคื” ืขืœ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืื‘ืœ ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืชืงื™ืคื” ืขืœ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืžืžื•ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื‘ืขืœื”

GEMARA: Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื›ืจื™ื” ื‘ืŸ ื”ืงืฆื‘ ืขืœ ื‘ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื”ื•ืจื”ื ื” ื‘ืืฉืงืœื•ืŸ ื•ืจื™ื—ืงื•ื” ื‘ื ื™ ืžืฉืคื—ืชื” ื•ืขื“ื™ื” ืžืขื™ื“ื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืืžืจื• ืœื”ื ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื ืืชื ืžืืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืจื”ื ื” ื”ืืžื™ื ื• ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืื ืื™ ืืชื ืžืืžื™ื ื™ื ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืฉืœื ื ื˜ืžืื” ืืœ ืชืืžื™ื ื• ืฉื”ื•ืจื”ื ื”

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.

ื•ื”ื ืืฉืงืœื•ืŸ ื“ื™ื“ ืื•ืžื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืชืงื™ืคื” ืขืœ ืขืฆืžืŸ ื•ืงืชื ื™

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