Ketubot 25bכתובות כ״ה ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Ketubot 25b"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
25bכ״ה ב

לאו כולהו סלוק

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

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

The Gemara cites proof from another baraita to resolve the dilemma. Come and hear: The presumptive status for priesthood is established by Lifting of the Hands for the Priestly Benediction, and by distribution of teruma at the threshing floors, and by testimony. The Gemara asks: Does testimony merely establish presumptive status? Testimony provides absolute proof of his status, not merely a presumption. Rather is it not that this is what the tanna is saying: Lifting of the Hands is like testimony, just as testimony that one is a priest elevates him to the priesthood for lineage, so too Lifting of the Hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, when the tanna is referring to testimony, he is stating that the legal status of testimony that is based on presumptive status is like that of presumptive status itself.

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

As in the incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Ami and said to him: That man established presumptive status before me that he is a priest. Rabbi Ami said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Ami: I saw that he was called to the Torah and read first in the synagogue. Rabbi Ami asked him: Did he read first based on the presumptive status that he is a priest, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? The custom was that a priest would be called to the Torah first, unless there was a prominent Torah scholar among the worshippers. He said to Rabbi Ami: He read the Torah as a priest, as after him a Levite read the Torah. A Levite is called to the Torah second only when a priest is called first. And Rabbi Ami elevated him to the priesthood, on the basis of his statement.

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

The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain man who came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: That man established the presumptive status before me that he is a Levite. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: What did you see that led you to that conclusion? He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I saw that he was called to the Torah and that he read second in the synagogue. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: Did he read second based on the presumptive status that he is a Levite, or was it based on the presumptive status that he is a great man? When there is no priest in the synagogue, people in the synagogue are called to the Torah in order of their prominence. Perhaps he was the second most prominent man in the synagogue. He said to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: I am certain that he is a Levite, as a priest read the Torah before him. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi elevated him to Levite status, based on his statement.

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

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

זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דר' יוחנן אתא כי הא מעשה לקמיה א"ל ריש לקיש ראיתיו שחילק על הגורן א"ל ר' יוחנן ואם אין שם גורן בטלה כהונה הדר חזייה לר"א בישות אמר שמעת מילי דבר נפחא ולא אמרת לן משמיה

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

רבי ור' חייא חד העלה בן ע"פ אביו לכהונה וחד העלה אח ע"פ אחיו ללויה

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

תסתיים דר' העלה בן ע"פ אביו לכהונה דתניא הרי שבא ואמר בני זה וכהן הוא נאמן להאכילו בתרומה ואינו נאמן להשיאו אשה דברי רבי אמר לו ר' חייא אם אתה מאמינו להאכילו בתרומה תאמינו להשיאו אשה ואם אי אתה מאמינו להשיאו אשה לא תאמינו לאכול בתרומה

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

א"ל אני מאמינו להאכילו בתרומה שבידו להאכילו בתרומה ואיני מאמינו להשיאו אשה שאין בידו להשיאו אשה תסתיים ומדרבי העלה בן ע"פ אביו לכהונה ר' חייא העלה אח ע"פ אחיו ללויה

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: I deem him credible to enable his son to partake of teruma, as it is within his purview to feed his son teruma, and one is deemed credible with regard to matters that are within his purview. But I do not deem him credible to marry a woman to his son, as it is not within his purview to marry a woman to his son, and therefore his testimony is not accepted. The Gemara determines: Indeed, it may be conclude that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father. And from the fact that it is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi who elevated a son to priesthood on the basis of the statement of his father, clearly it is Rabbi Ḥiyya who elevated a brother to Levite status on the basis of the statement of his brother.

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

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