כתובות כה

כתובות כה

וְאֶלָּא, מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? מֵעִיקָּרָא אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן, הַשְׁתָּא אֲכוּל בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

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.

וְאִי בָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַשְׁתָּא נָמֵי בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן אֲכוּל, בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אֲכוּל. וְכִי מַסְּקִינַן מִתְּרוּמָה לְיוּחֲסִין — בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, בִּתְרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן — לָא מַסְּקִינַן. וְאֶלָּא, מַאי גְּדוֹלָה חֲזָקָה? דְּאַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיגְזַר מִשּׁוּם תְּרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — לָא גָּזְרִינַן.

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.

וּבַתְּרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אֲכוּל? וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים״. מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים הוּא דְּלָא אֲכוּל, הָא בִּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא אֲכוּל!

The Gemara asks: And did they in fact not partake of teruma by Torah law? But isn’t it written: “That they should not partake of the most sacred items [kodesh hakodashim]” (Ezra 2:63), from which it may be inferred: It is of the most sacred items, i.e., offerings, that they did not partake; of teruma by Torah law, they did partake.

הָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא בְּמִידֵּי דְּאִיקְּרִי ״קֹדֶשׁ״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכׇל זָר לֹא יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ״, וְלָא בְּמִידֵּי דְּאִיקְּרִי ״קָדָשִׁים״, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבַת כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִיא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל״, וְאָמַר מָר: בְּמוּרָם מִן הַקֳּדָשִׁים — לֹא תֹאכֵל.

The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: Neither did they partake of items called kodesh, as it is written: “And no common man may eat of kodesh” (Leviticus 22:10), referring to teruma, nor did they partake of items called kodashim, as it is written: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man, she shall not eat of terumat hakodashim” (Leviticus 22:12). The Master said that this means: Of that which is set aside from the offerings [kodashim] to the priests, i.e., the loaves of the thanks-offering and the breast and the shoulder, they may not partake. According to neither explanation can any proof be cited from the baraita as to whether or not one elevates from teruma or from the Priestly Benediction to lineage.

תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם בְּבָבֶל, וַאֲכִילַת חַלָּה בְּסוּרְיָא, וְחִילּוּק מַתָּנוֹת בִּכְרַכִּין. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, מַאי לָאו לְיוּחֲסִין? לָא, לִתְרוּמָה.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: Presumptive status for priesthood is established by the lifting of hands in Babylonia; by partaking of ḥalla in Syria; and by distributing priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, in the cities. In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, it establishes presumptive status for teruma.

וְהָא דּוּמְיָא דַּאֲכִילַת חַלָּה קָתָנֵי, מָה אֲכִילַת חַלָּה לְיוּחֲסִין — אַף נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין! לָא, אֲכִילַת חַלָּה גּוּפַהּ לִתְרוּמָה. קָסָבַר חַלָּה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, וּתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וּמַסְּקִינַן מֵחַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן לִתְרוּמָה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וְכִדְאָפֵיךְ לְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַבָּנַן.

The Gemara asks: But isn’t lifting of hands taught parallel to partaking of ḥalla? Just as with regard to partaking of ḥalla the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too with regard to the lifting of hands the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, partaking of ḥalla itself establishes presumptive status only for teruma and not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate ḥalla from dough is by rabbinic law and the obligation to separate teruma is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from ḥalla, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to teruma, which is by Torah law. And this explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, cited below, who reversed the opinion of the Rabbis and posited that ḥalla today is an obligation by rabbinic law.

תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְחִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּבְסוּרְיָא, וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁשְּׁלוּחֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ מַגִּיעִין — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם רְאָיָה, אֲבָל לֹא חִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת.

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.

וּבָבֶל כְּסוּרְיָא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: אַף אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרִיָּא שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּית דִּין קְבוּעִין שָׁם.

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.

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם, מַאי לָאו לְיוּחֲסִין? לָא, לְחַלָּה. הָא דּוּמְיָא דְּחִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת קָתָנֵי: מָה חִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת לְיוּחֲסִין, אַף נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין! לָא, חִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת גּוּפֵהּ לְחַלָּה. קָסָבַר תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, וְחַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. וּמַסְּקִינַן מִתְּרוּמָה דְּרַבָּנַן לְחַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.

In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for ḥalla. The Gemara asks: But isn’t the halakha of lifting of hands taught parallel to the halakha of distribution of teruma at the threshing floors? Just as distribution of teruma at the threshing floors in Eretz Yisrael establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, distribution of teruma at the threshing floors establishes presumptive status only for ḥalla but not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate teruma is by rabbinic law, and ḥalla is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from teruma, which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to ḥalla, which is by Torah law.

וְכִדְאַשְׁכְּחִינְהוּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַבָּנַן. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אַשְׁכַּחְתִּינְהוּ לְרַבָּנַן בְּבֵי רַב, דְּיָתְבִי וְקָאָמְרִי: אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה בַּזְּמַן הַזֶּה דְּרַבָּנַן, חַלָּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא. שֶׁהֲרֵי שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּיבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִילְּקוּ — נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בְּחַלָּה, וְלֹא נִתְחַיְּיבוּ בִּתְרוּמָה.

And the dispute with regard to the legal status of teruma and ḥalla today is as in the incident where Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, found that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav, who were sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by rabbinic law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law, as during the seven years that the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan led by Joshua and during the seven years that they divided the land, they were obligated in ḥalla but were not obligated in teruma. Today, too, although there is no obligation to take teruma in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law.

וְאָמֵינָא לְהוּ אֲנָא: אַדְּרַבָּה, אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר תְּרוּמָה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא — חַלָּה דְּרַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם אֶל הָאָרֶץ״. אִי ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם״, יָכוֹל מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסוּ לָהּ שְׁנַיִם וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְרַגְּלִים — תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּבוֹאֲכֶם״. בְּבִיאַת כּוּלְּכֶם אָמַרְתִּי, וְלֹא בְּבִיאַת מִקְצַתְכֶם. וְכִי אַסְּקִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא,

And I said to them: On the contrary, even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning ḥalla: “When you come into the land…from the first of your dough you should separate teruma” (Numbers 15:18–19). If the obligation is when you come, one might have thought that it took effect from the moment that two or three spies entered the land, therefore the verse states: “When you come,” from which it is derived that God is saying: I said that the obligation takes effect with the coming of all of you and not with the coming of some of you. Separating ḥalla is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people comes to Eretz Yisrael, and when Ezra took them up to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period,

לָאו כּוּלְּהוּ סְלוּק.

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

תָּא שְׁמַע: חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם וְחִילּוּק גֳּרָנוֹת וְעֵדוּת. עֵדוּת חֲזָקָה הִיא? אֶלָּא לָאו, הָכִי קָאָמַר: נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם כִּי עֵדוּת: מָה עֵדוּת לְיוּחֲסִין, אַף נְשִׂיאוּת כַּפַּיִם לְיוּחֲסִין! לָא: עֵדוּת הַבָּאָה מִכֹּחַ חֲזָקָה — כַּחֲזָקָהּ.

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.

כִּי הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה רָאִיתָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁקָּרָא רִאשׁוֹן בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן, אוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל? שֶׁקָּרָא אַחֲרָיו לֵוִי. וְהֶעֱלָהוּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּיו.

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.

הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא לֵוִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה רָאִיתָ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: שֶׁקָּרָא שֵׁנִי בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא לֵוִי, אוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת שֶׁהוּא גָּדוֹל? שֶׁקָּרָא לְפָנָיו כֹּהֵן. וְהַעֲלֵהוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לִלְוִיָּה עַל פִּיו.

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.

הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוּחְזְקַנִי בָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא כֹּהֵן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מָה רָאִיתָ? [אֲמַר לֵיהּ] שֶׁקָּרָא רִאשׁוֹן בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: רְאִיתִיו שֶׁחִילֵּק עַל הַגֳּרָנוֹת? אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם גּוֹרֶן, בָּטְלָה כְּהוּנָּה?

The Gemara relates another incident involving a certain man who came before Reish Lakish and said to Reish Lakish: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Reish Lakish said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Reish Lakish: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Reish Lakish, based on his opinion that one’s presumptive status as a priest can be established only on the basis of his receiving teruma, said to him: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Elazar said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The testimony that he read from the Torah first is sufficient.

זִימְנִין הָווּ יָתְבִי קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲתָא כִּי הָא מַעֲשֶׂה לְקַמֵּיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: רְאִיתִיו שֶׁחִילֵּק עַל הַגּוֹרֶן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְאִם אֵין שָׁם גּוֹרֶן, בָּטְלָה כְּהוּנָּה? הֲדַר חַזְיֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בִּישׁוּת, אֲמַר: שָׁמְעַתְּ מִילֵּי דְּבַר נַפָּחָא, וְלָא אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ?

On another occasion Rabbi Elazar and Reish Lakish sat before Rabbi Yoḥanan. A matter similar to that incident, where one testified that another is a priest based on his reading the Torah first, came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to the person who testified: Did you see that he received a share of teruma at the threshing floor? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Reish Lakish: And if there is no threshing floor there, does the priesthood cease to exist? The Gemara relates that Reish Lakish turned and looked at Rabbi Elazar harshly, as he understood that on the previous occasion, Rabbi Elazar was citing verbatim a ruling that he heard from Rabbi Yoḥanan. Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Elazar: You heard a statement of bar Nappaḥa, the son of a blacksmith, an epithet for Rabbi Yoḥanan, and you did not say it to us in his name? Had you done so, I would have accepted it from you then.

רַבִּי וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, חַד הֶעֱלָה בֵּן עַל פִּי אָבִיו לִכְהוּנָּה, וְחַד הֶעֱלָה אָח עַל פִּי אָחִיו לִלְוִיָּה.

The Gemara relates with regard to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Ḥiyya that one elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, and one elevated a brother to the Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother. It is unclear which of the Sages ruled in which case.

תִּסְתַּיֵּים דְּרַבִּי הֶעֱלָה בֵּן עַל פִּי אָבִיו לִכְהוּנָּה, דְּתַנְיָא: הֲרֵי שֶׁבָּא וְאָמַר: בְּנִי זֶה, וְכֹהֵן הוּא — נֶאֱמָן לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי חִיָּיא: אִם אַתָּה מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה — תַּאֲמִינוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. וְאִם אִי אַתָּה מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה — לֹא תַּאֲמִינוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה!

The Gemara notes: It may be concluded that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is the one who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, as it is taught in a baraita that if one came and said: This is my son and he is a priest, his statement is deemed credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, but it is not deemed credible to marry a woman of superior lineage to him, as his testimony is not deemed credible for the purposes of lineage; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: If you deem the father credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, deem him credible to marry a woman to his son. And if you do not deem him credible to marry a woman to him, do not deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma.

אָמַר לוֹ: אֲנִי מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה — שֶׁבְּיָדוֹ לְהַאֲכִילוֹ בִּתְרוּמָה, וְאֵינִי מַאֲמִינוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה — שֶׁאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לְהַשִּׂיאוֹ אִשָּׁה. תִּסְתַּיֵּים. וּמִדְּרַבִּי הֶעֱלָה בֵּן עַל פִּי אָבִיו לִכְהוּנָּה — רַבִּי חִיָּיא הֶעֱלָה אָח עַל פִּי אָחִיו לִלְוִיָּה.

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 concluded that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father. And from the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, clearly it is Rabbi Ḥiyya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא, מַאי שְׁנָא בֵּן דְּלָא, דְּקָרוֹב הוּא אֵצֶל אָבִיו — אָח נָמֵי קָרוֹב הוּא אֵצֶל אָחִיו?!

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Ḥiyya, what is different in the case of a son, where a father is not deemed credible because the son is a relative of his father, and therefore the father is disqualified from testifying about his son? A brother is also a relative of his brother, and therefore the brother should have been disqualified from testifying about his brother. Rabbi Ḥiyya should accept the testimony in both cases or reject the testimony in both cases.