Ketubot 24b (כד:) — the Talmud in English

And

here too

we will establish that our Mishna is referring

to

a potter

who has his tools of the trade in his possession,

so that it is evident that he is going from place to place to sell pottery. Therefore, we are concerned that there may be reciprocal testimony, but in general we are not concerned about reciprocal testimony.

And we explain:

And where was

this statement

of Rabbi Hama bar Ukva

stated, concerning a craftsman who has his tools of the trade in his possession?

It was stated with regard to that which we learned

in tractate Tohorot:

“The potter,

who makes earthenware pots and is a haver, one who is careful that his utensils not become impure,

who left his pots

in the public domain

and went down to drink,”

and he is concerned that perhaps the garments of ammei ha’aretz touched his pots and rendered them impure, since the Sages decreed ritual impurity upon the garments of ammei ha’aretz—the

inner

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

pure,

as it is certain that the garments of passersby in the public domain did not touch them.

But the outer

pots, which are adjacent to the public domain, are

impure,

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

And

we found this difficult:

But

was it not

taught

in a beraita:

“These”—

i.e., the inner pots—

“and these”—

i.e., the outer pots—are

impure,”

which is unlike the aforementioned Mishna, which distinguished between the inner pots and the outer pots?

With regard to this difficulty,

Rabbi Hama bar Ukva said:

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

to

a craftsman

who has his tools of the trade in his possession,

and it is evident that he intends to sell his pots. Therefore, we render them impure—

because everyone handles them

and the ammei ha’aretz certainly touched them.

And

we found this difficult:

But

was it not

taught

in a beraita:

“These and these

—i.e., the inner and the outer pots—are

pure,”

which is unlike 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 referring

to

a craftsman

who does not have his tools of the trade in his possession,

and therefore we are not concerned that the ammei ha’aretz may have touched them.

And

we still find this difficult:

But that which we learned

in the aforementioned Mishna of Tohorot:

“The inner pots are pure,

and the outer pots are impure.” How is this possible?

If it is referring to a craftsman who has his tools of the trade in his possession, in either case they should all be impure; and if it is referring to a craftsman who does not have his tools of the trade in his possession, in either case they should all be pure.

And we answer: The Mishna is in fact referring to one who does not have his tools of the trade in his possession. And as for your difficulty—if so, why are the outer pots impure? The answer is: Because

it

is referring to a case where the potter’s shop

is adjacent

to the public domain,

and

he places his pots within the public domain.

And

therefore the outer pots were rendered impure—

because of the rubbing

of passersby in the

public domain,

whereas the inner pots, against which passersby in the public domain do not rub, are pure.

The Gemara returns to explain the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis as to whether a person is deemed credible when he says about another, “He is a priest,” in order to permit him to partake of teruma:

And if you wish, say instead: Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis disagree with regard to whether one may advance from teruma to matters of lineage.

That is to say, Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is not, in fact, that he is concerned about reciprocal testimony.

Rather, he holds that even with regard to teruma alone, a single witness is not believed, because we are concerned that another person who sees him partaking of teruma will say that he is certainly a priest, and will testify concerning him elsewhere, leading people to deem him fit even with regard to matters of lineage.

And the Rabbis hold that we are not concerned about this, and therefore a single witness is deemed credible to permit him to partake of teruma alone. And if you say: The difficulty concerning the Rabbis nevertheless remains: Why are we not concerned about reciprocal testimony, as we are with regard to demai, where the Rabbis are concerned about reciprocal testimony?

It must be said that according to the Rabbis, we still require the Gemara’s earlier answer: There the case involves a craftsman who has his tools of the trade in his possession, and therefore we are concerned about reciprocal testimony. Tosafot.

The amoraim raised a dilemma in the beit-midrash:

They raised a dilemma before them:

A promissory note that comes before the judges, in which the title “priest” is written with regard to one of the litigants,

what is

the law concerning advancing that litigant to an established presumption of priesthood

by

virtue of the evidentiary force of

documents,

and permitting him to marry

into families of established lineage?

And they discuss and analyze:

What are the circumstances

in which there is testimony in a document with regard to priesthood?

If you say

that it is referring to a case

where it is written in it

[in the document]

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

that is, one of the witnesses to the document wrote the title “priest” about himself, and we are uncertain whether one may advance him from this testimony to matters of lineage.

In this case, it is certainly impossible to say that we advance him from the document with regard to matters of lineage, because

who testified concerning him?

Who is testifying that he is a priest, so as to advance him to matters of lineage by virtue of this testimony? Rather,

it is necessary

to say that it is referring to a case

where it is written in it

[in the document]

“I, so-and-so the priest, borrowed one hundred dinars from so-and-so,” and the witnesses signed

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

What

is the law? Do

the witnesses testify concerning the monetary matter recorded in the document

alone, whereas they do not testify concerning the borrower’s lineage,

or perhaps they testify concerning the entire matter,

and there is testimony even with regard to the borrower’s lineage, so that he may be advanced to matters of lineage by virtue of this testimony?

Rav Huna and Rav Hisda

disagreed over this uncertainty.

One said: One may advance

from documents to matters of lineage;

and one said: One may not advance

from documents to matters of lineage. And it was not clarified for us which one holds that one may advance and which one holds that one may not advance.

The amoraim raised another uncertainty concerning the law of “advancing”:

They raised a dilemma before them:

A person comes before us, and his lineage is unknown to us, and a single witness comes and testifies concerning him that he is a priest.

What

is the law as to whether he may raise his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction? Are we concerned that perhaps people will subsequently come

to advance

him

from

the presumption of

raising his hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage,

or not?

And we analyze it:

This uncertainty should arise

as to

the one who says that one may advance from teruma to matters of lineage,

[namely, Rabbi Yehuda above],

and this uncertainty should arise

even

according to the one who says that one may not advance

from teruma to matters of lineage [namely, the Rabbis above].

And the Gemara explains:

This uncertainty should arise according to the one who says that one may advance

from teruma to matters of lineage. Perhaps, although from teruma one advances to matters of lineage—that is, we are concerned that perhaps another person who sees him partaking of teruma will testify concerning him that he is a priest—perhaps

this applies only to teruma,

where we are concerned for this reason

because it is punishable by death,

and the observer says: Had he not been a priest, he would not have partaken of teruma.

But raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction,

which

involves only a prohibition derived from a positive mitzva,

we are not

concerned that people may come to advance him to matters of lineage.

Or perhaps it is no different,

and here too there is concern that they may advance him to matters of lineage.

And likewise,

this uncertainty should arise according to the one who says that one may not advance

from teruma to matters of lineage. Perhaps

this applies only

when we are not concerned that the observer may come to testify concerning him that he is a priest specifically with regard to

teruma, which is eaten privately,

and people will not see him partaking of teruma,

but

with regard to

raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction, which is done publicly,

when he raises his hands, we are concerned that the observer will say:

“If he were not a priest, a person would not be so brazen as

to raise his hands when he is not a priest,” and he will come to testify concerning him that he is a priest.

Or perhaps it is no different,

and even with regard to raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction we are not concerned, and we permit him to raise his hands on the basis of the testimony of a single witness.

And the Gemara says that

Rav Hisda and Rabbi Avina disagreed over this uncertainty.

One said: One may advance

from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage, and therefore he may not be permitted to raise his hands except on the testimony of two witnesses.

And one said: One may not advance

from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage, and he may be permitted to raise his hands on the testimony of a single witness.

With regard to this matter,

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said to Rava: What is the law as to advancing from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage?

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

He said to him,

Rava said to Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak: Is this matter not

the subject of a dispute between Rav Hisda and Rabbi Avina,

as stated above?

Rav Naḥman said to Rava: Nevertheless,

what is the halakha?

Rava said to him—

Rava said:

I know a Mishna

from which it is clear with whom the halakha agrees—

I know it.

And which one is it?

As it was taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: Great is presumption!

One may rely upon it fully. Rashi. And from where is this derived?

As it is stated (Ezra 2),

with regard to the count of those who ascended to Eretz Yisrael in the days of Ezra:

“And from the sons of the priests

who ascended to Eretz Yisrael:

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

his sons

by their name; these

priests

sought their genealogical records

[their documents establishing their priestly lineage]

but they were not found, and they were disqualified

[disqualified]

from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha

[he is Nehemiah son of Hacaliah]

said to them:

What shall their status be?

“That they should not eat of the most sacred things

—i.e., from the sacred offerings of the Temple—

until a priest arises with the Urim and the Tumim,”

that is, until the coming of the Messiah. But he did not prohibit them from partaking of teruma, which they had been accustomed to eat in the Diaspora.”

And the Mishna explains:

He said to them,

Nehemiah said:

“You are still in your presumptive status! What did you eat in the Diaspora? The sacred offerings of the country’s borders!”

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

“So too here,”

when you ascend to Eretz Yisrael, even though you did not find your documents establishing your priestly lineage, you will still partake

of the sacred offerings of the country’s borders,

because we rely upon your presumption that you have partaken of them until now. And from here it follows that presumption is powerful. This concludes the Mishna.

And

from here Rava proved to Rav Naḥman that the halakha was decided that one may not advance from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage, because

if it enters your mind

that

one may advance from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage,

then surely

these,

the priests, the sons of Barzillai,

once they spread out their hands,

as Nehemiah had left them with their presumption, and they used to raise their hands in the Diaspora,

people would come to advance them

to matters of lineage. And what benefit was there in Nehemiah’s enactment prohibiting them from partaking of the sacred offerings of the Temple? Would not one who saw them raising their hands testify concerning them that they were priests? Rather, it is certainly the case that we are not concerned that people will advance someone from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage.

And we reject this: In fact, we are concerned that people will advance someone from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage. However, with regard to the priests, the sons of Barzillai, we are not concerned, because

here it is different, as their presumption was weakened

—their presumption was undermined, since everyone sees that while the other priests partake of the sacred offerings of the Temple, these do not partake of them. Therefore, we are not concerned that people will advance them from raising the hands to recite the Priestly Benediction to matters of lineage.

And we prove this answer:

For if you do not say so,

that here it is different because their presumption was weakened, you will have a difficulty even

according to the one who says that one may advance from teruma to matters of lineage.

After all, these priests partake of teruma, and

once they partake of teruma, people will come to advance them

to matters of lineage. For according to his view, one may advance from teruma to matters of lineage, so what benefit was there in Nehemiah’s enactment?

Rather, is it not

as we answered above, that here it is different

because their presumption was weakened,

since it is evident that there is an aspect of disqualification among them, and we are not concerned that people will advance them to matters of lineage.