Ketubot 24b — the Talmud in English

And

here too

let us establish our Mishna

with

a potter

whose tools of his trade are in his hand,

and the matter is recognizable, that he is going from place to place to sell pottery; therefore we are concerned about reciprocal testimony, but in general we are not concerned about reciprocal testimony.

And we explain:

And where was this

that

Rabbi Hama bar Ukva

speaks of a craftsman whose tools of his trade are in his hand?

With regard to that which we learned

in tractate Taharot:

“The potter,

who makes earthenware pots, who is a “fellow,” careful that his vessels should not become impure,

who left his pots

in the public domain

and went down to drink,

and he is concerned lest the garments of ignoramuses touched his pots and rendered them impure, because the Sages decreed impurity upon the garments of ignoramuses—the

inner

pots, which are not actually adjacent to the public domain—

are pure,

for certainly the garments of passersby in the public domain did not touch them.

And the outer

ones, which are adjacent to the public domain—

are impure,

lest the garments of passersby in the public domain rubbed against them as they walked.”

And

we found difficult:

d

o

a beraita

teach:

“These”—

that is, the inner ones—

“and these”—

that is, the outer ones—

“are impure,”

and not like the aforementioned Mishna, which distinguished between the inner pots and the outer ones?

And concerning this difficulty

Rabbi Hama bar Ukva said:

The beraita that teaches, “These and these are impure,” is speaking

of a

craftsman

whose tools of his trade are in his hand,

and it is recognizable that he intends to sell his pots; therefore we render them impure—

because everyone’s hand handles them,

and certainly ignoramuses touched them.

And

we found difficult:

d

o

a beraita

teach:

“These and these

that is—the inner and the outer ones—

are pure,”

and not like the aforementioned beraita, which teaches that these and these are impure?

Rabbi Hama bar Ukva said:

The beraita that teaches, “These and these are pure,” is speaking

of a

craftsman

whose tools of his trade are not in his hand,

and therefore we are not concerned lest ignoramuses touched them.

And

it is still difficult for us:

But that which we learned

in the aforementioned Mishna of Taharot:

“The inner ones are pure,

and the outer ones are impure.” How can you find this?

For if it is speaking of a craftsman whose tools of his trade are in his hand, in either case they are impure; and if it is speaking of a craftsman whose tools of his trade are not in his hand, in either case they are pure.

And we answer: In fact, it is speaking when his tools of his trade are not in his hand. And as for what is difficult for you—if so, why are the outer ones impure?—your answer is: because

it

is speaking in this Mishna when

adjacent

the potter’s shop

to the public domain,

and he places his pots within the public domain,

and

therefore they rendered the outer ones impure—

because of the rubbing [the

friction] of passersby in the

public domain,

but the inner ones, against which passersby in the public domain do not rub—are pure.

And the Gemara returns to explain the dispute between Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis, whether a person is trusted to say about another, “He is a kohen,” in order to permit him with regard to teruma:

And if you wish, say: Rabbi Judah and the Rabbis disagree concerning raising from teruma to lineage.

That is to say—in fact, the reason for Rabbi Judah is not because he is concerned about reciprocal testimony.

Rather, he holds that one witness is not trusted even with regard to teruma alone, because we are concerned lest another person who sees him eating teruma say that he is certainly a kohen, and testify about him elsewhere, and they will come to validate him even with regard to lineage.

And the Rabbis hold: We are not concerned for this, and therefore one witness is trusted to permit him with regard to teruma alone. And if you say: The difficulty still applies to the Rabbis: Why are we not concerned about reciprocal testimony, as with regard to demai, where the Rabbis are concerned about reciprocal testimony?

It must be said that according to the Rabbis we still need the Gemara’s earlier answer—that there it is speaking of a craftsman whose tools of his trade are in his hand, and therefore we are concerned about reciprocal testimony. Tosafot.

The amoraim were uncertain in the beit-midrash:

They raised a dilemma:

A promissory note that comes before the judges, and the title “kohen” is written in it regarding one of the litigants,

what is the law concerning raising

the litigant to the presumption of priesthood

from

the force of the testimony in

documents,

and permitting him to marry

into lineage?

And we discuss and deliberate:

What are the circumstances

in which there is testimony in a document concerning priesthood?

If you say

that it is speaking

that it is written in it [in the document]

[in the document],

“I, so-and-so the kohen, signed as a witness”—

that is, one of the witnesses to the document wrote about himself the title “kohen,” and we are uncertain whether one raises from this testimony to lineage.

In this case certainly it cannot be said that we raise from the document with regard to lineage, because

who testifies about him?

Who is the one testifying about him that he is a kohen, to raise him to lineage by virtue of this testimony? Rather,

it is necessary

that it is speaking

that it is written in it [in the document]

[in the document],

“I, so-and-so the kohen, borrowed one hundred zuz from so-and-so,” and the witnesses signed

as testimony on this document. And here we are uncertain—

what?

Whether

it is the monetary matter in the document that they testify about,

the witnesses to the document, but they do not testify concerning the lineage of the borrower,

or perhaps, they testify about the entire matter,

and there is testimony also concerning the lineage of the borrower, and it is possible to raise him to lineage by virtue of this testimony?

And they disagreed concerning this uncertainty,

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda.

One said: One raises

from documents to lineage,

and one said: One does not raise

from documents to lineage; and it was not clarified for us who holds that one raises and who holds that one does not raise.

The amoraim were further uncertain concerning the law of “raising”:

They raised a dilemma:

A person comes before us, and his lineage is not known to us, and one witness comes and testifies about him that he is a kohen,

what is the law

that he should raise his hands? Are we concerned lest afterward they come

to raise

him

from

the presumption of

raising of the hands to lineage,

or not?

And we consider:

Should

this uncertainty be raised

according to the one who says that one raises from teruma to lineage,

[that is, Rabbi Judah above],

and should

it be raised also

according to the one who says that one does not raise

from teruma to lineage? [That is, the Rabbis above.]

And the Gemara explains:

It should be raised according to the one who says that one raises

from teruma to lineage: Perhaps, although from teruma one raises to lineage [that is, we are concerned lest another person who sees him eating teruma testify about him as a kohen], perhaps

this applies to teruma,

we are concerned for this, because

it is subject to the punishment of death,

and the observer says: Had he not been a kohen, he would not have eaten teruma.

But raising of the hands, which

only

a prohibition of positive commandment

is involved in,

we are not

concerned lest they come to raise him to lineage.

Or perhaps, it is no different,

and here too there is concern lest they raise him to lineage.

And likewise,

it should be raised according to the one who says that one does not raise

from teruma to lineage: Perhaps

this applies

in that we are not concerned lest the observer come to testify about him that he is a kohen specifically with regard to

teruma, which is eaten privately,

and they will not see him eating teruma,

but

with regard to

raising of the hands, which is public,

he raises his hands, we are concerned lest the observer say:

“If he were not a kohen, a person would not be so brazen as to raise his hands

when he is not a kohen,” and he will come to testify about him that he is a kohen.

Or perhaps, it is no different,

and even with regard to raising the hands we are not concerned, and we permit him to raise his hands on the basis of one witness.

And we say in the Gemara that they disagreed concerning this uncertainty,

Rav Hisda and Rabbi Avina.

One said: One raises

from raising the hands to lineage, and therefore one may not permit him to raise his hands except on the basis of two witnesses.

And one said: One does not raise

from raising the hands to lineage, and we permit him to raise his hands on the basis of one witness.

And concerning this matter,

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said to Rava: What is the law concerning raising from raising the hands to lineage?

That is, are we concerned that one who sees a person raising his hands will come to testify about him that he is a kohen, as above?

He said to him

Rava to Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak: Is this matter not

a dispute between Rav Hisda and Rabbi Avina,

above?

Rav Nahman said to Rava: Even so,

what is the halakha?

He said to him,

Rava:

I know a Mishna

from which it is clear according to whom the halakha is

decided.

And which is it?

For it is taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: Great is presumption!

One should rely upon it well. Rashi. And from where?

As it is said (Ezra 2), concerning the number of those who ascended to the Land in the days of Ezra,

concerning the number of those who ascended to the Land:

“And of the sons of the kohanim

who ascended to the Land:

the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called

their sons

by their name. These

kohanim

sought their genealogical record,

[their record of lineage to the priesthood],

but it was not found, and they were disqualified

[removed]

from the priesthood, and the Tirshata

[that is, Nehemiah son of Hacaliah]

said to them:

What shall their status be?

“That they should not eat of the most holy things

—that is, of the holy things of the Temple—

until a kohen should arise with the Urim and Thummim,”

that is, until the coming of the Messiah; but with regard to teruma, which they were accustomed to eat in the exile, he did not prohibit them.”

And the Mishna explains:

He said to them,

Nehemiah:

“You are in your presumption! With what were you eating in the exile? With the holy things of the border!”

That is, with teruma, which applies also outside the Temple and Jerusalem.

“So here too,”

when you ascend to the Land, even though you did not find your record of lineage to the priesthood, you will still eat

of the holy things of the border,

because we rely upon your presumption that you have eaten until today. And from here, that great is presumption. Thus far the Mishna.

And

from here Rava proved to Rav Nahman that the halakha was decided that one does not raise from raising the hands to lineage, because

if it enters your mind

that

one raises from raising the hands to lineage,

but is it not the case that

these

kohanim, the sons of Barzillai,

since they spread out their hands,

for Nehemiah left them in their presumption, and in the exile they raised their hands,

it would come to raise them

to lineage? And what benefit did Nehemiah’s enactment provide, by prohibiting them from the holy things of the Temple, when the observer who sees them raising their hands will testify about them that they are kohanim? Rather, certainly we are not concerned that one will raise from raising the hands to lineage.

And we reject this: In fact, we are concerned that one will raise from raising the hands to lineage; rather, with regard to the kohanim, the sons of Barzillai, we are not concerned because

here is different, for their presumption was weakened—

their presumption was weakened, since everyone sees that the other kohanim eat of the holy things of the Temple, whereas these do not eat; therefore we are not concerned that they will raise them from raising the hands to lineage.

And we prove this answer:

For if you do not say so,

that here is different because their presumption was weakened, it will be difficult for you even

according to the one who says that one raises from teruma to lineage: Are these kohanim not eating teruma, and

since they eat teruma

it would come to raise them? For according to his view, one raises from teruma to lineage; and what benefit did Nehemiah’s enactment provide?

to matters of lineage. According to that view, one may advance from teruma to matters of lineage, so what did Nehemiah accomplish with his enactment?

Rather, is it not

as we explained above, that here it is different

because their presumption was weakened,

since it is recognizable that there is an aspect of disqualification in them, we are not concerned that they will raise them to lineage.