Ketubot 25a — the Talmud in English

And

we ask: If we hold that even though ordinarily we are concerned lest they raise [a person] from the raising of the hands and from teruma to lineage, here we are not concerned, because

their presumption is poor,

then what is the meaning of “great is the presumption”

that Rabbi Yosei said? Surely there is no reason to cancel their presumption, since there is no concern lest they raise them to lineage .

And we answer: This is why we need Rabbi Yosei’s novelty, that the presumption is great, because

at first they ate

only

rabbinic teruma,

for they were in the Diaspora, and outside the Land teruma applies only by rabbinic law, but

now,

when they went up to the Land,

they ate teruma by Torah law,

and therefore their presumption was effective.

And the Gemara brings another possibility for answering what we asked according to the one who says, “one raises from teruma to lineage”: What did Nehemiah accomplish with his enactment? Surely if they eat teruma, they will come to raise them to lineage?

And if you wish, say:

actually,

now as well,

when they went up to the Land, only

rabbinic teruma —

such as the teruma of tree fruit and the teruma of vegetables, which are rabbinic even in the Land —

they ate,

but

Torah teruma —

that is, the teruma of grain, wine, and oil —

they did not eat.

And

therefore it is not difficult according to the one who says that one raises from teruma to lineage, because

when we raise from teruma to lineage,

it is specifically

with Torah teruma,

but

with rabbinic teruma we do not raise,

and here Nehemiah permitted them only [to eat] rabbinic teruma, and therefore we are not concerned lest as a result of this they come to raise them to lineage .

And

we ask: If he permitted them only with rabbinic teruma —

then what is the meaning of “great is the presumption”

that Rabbi Yosei said? Surely now there is no reason to cancel their presumption, since there is no concern lest they raise them from rabbinic teruma to lineage.

And we answer: This is why Rabbi Yosei taught us that “the presumption is great,” to say:

that although there is room to decree

and prohibit them even with rabbinic teruma —

because of

the concern lest they come to feed them also

Torah teruma,

nevertheless

we do not decree,

because the presumption is great.

And

we ask: Is it only with rabbinic teruma that they ate, and

with Torah teruma they did not eat?

But it is written,

there in Ezra —

“who may not eat of the most sacred things,”

and we infer: specifically

of the most sacred things

that is, the sacred things of the Temple —

they did not eat, but with Torah teruma they ate!

and not as we said above, that they ate only with rabbinic [teruma]?

And we answer:

this is what he said

to them, Nehemiah:

Do not

eat

anything called “sacred,”

that is, teruma,

as it is written

concerning it, in the language of “sacred”:

“and no non-priest may eat sacred food,” and not anything called “sacred things,”

that is, the breast and thigh of peace offerings, which are eaten by the wives of the priests and their slaves,

as it is written

concerning them, in the language of “sacred things”:

“and if a priest’s daughter is married to a non-priest, she may not eat of the sacred things,” and the Master said:

that this verse deals

with what is lifted from the sacred things

that is, the breast and thigh, concerning which the law is that a priest’s daughter who marries a non-priest, becomes widowed, and has no offspring, returns to her father’s house with regard to eating teruma, but with regard to what is lifted from the sacred things

she may not eat.

And with this Nehemiah told them that they should not eat, and that they should eat only rabbinic teruma, as we answered above.

And concerning this the Gemara says:

Come

and

hear

what we learned in a beraita: What is the

presumption

that suffices to raise [a person]

to priesthood?

One who was established for

the raising of the hands in Babylonia,

one who sees him testifies about him everywhere that he is a priest, and they accept testimony from him, since in Babylonia there is a yeshiva and a permanent court, and they investigate those who raise their hands; surely they investigated and found that he is a priest.

And

likewise, one who was established for

eating challa in Syria,

they testify about him everywhere that he is a priest. And this tanna holds that the conquest of an individual, by which King David conquered Aram-Zoba, is called a conquest, and we are not concerned that someone who is not a priest will eat challa there; but in Babylonia, eating challa is not proof, since its obligation there is only rabbinic, and they are not so exacting concerning it .

And

likewise, one who was established as participating in

the distribution of priestly gifts

of the priesthood, such as the foreleg and the cheeks

in the cities,

even though the gifts are not forbidden to non-priests, nevertheless, were he not a priest, he would not be so brazen as to pose as a priest in a place where there are many passersby and it is common that they recognize him; therefore they testify about him that he is a priest.

And we prove:

at any rate, it teaches

in the beraita that

the raising of the hands

is proof for raising [a person] to priesthood,

is it not

that one raises from the raising of the hands

to lineage?

And we reject this:

No!

The beraita speaks

with regard

to the matter of

teruma,

for one who sees a person raising his hands in Babylonia testifies about him in order to feed him teruma , but not with regard to lineage.

And we ask:

but

the raising of the hands, concerning which we say that one raises,

analogous to

the raising

of eating challa, it teaches,

and

just as

the law of raising that is stated concerning

eating challa

enables one to raise him

to lineage,

for if it were for eating teruma, it would be obvious, since challa itself is teruma, and he has already been established as eating it;

so too

the law of raising that is stated concerning

the raising of the hands,

enables one to raise him

to lineage?

And we raise an objection:

No!

I can always say to you that even the law of “raising” stated concerning

eating challa itself,

enables one only to raise him

to teruma.

And as for what we asked, that if it is effective only for teruma, it is obvious, since he has already been established as eating challa, whose law is like teruma?

We shall explain:

this tanna holds

the tanna of the beraita that

challa nowadays is rabbinic, and teruma is by Torah law. And

the beraita teaches that

we raise from

the presumption of eating

rabbinic challa, to

eating

Torah teruma.

And

it will be explained later in the discussion that what may be asked against this law—that the obligation of teruma nowadays is by Torah law and challa is rabbinic—from the words of the Rabbis that will be brought below, who said the opposite, that the obligation of challa is by Torah law and teruma is rabbinic, will be resolved

as Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua reversed for them

the words of

the Rabbis,

for they too held this way.

And the Gemara expands:

Come

and

hear,

what we learned in a beraita: What is the

presumption

that suffices to raise from it

to priesthood?

One who was established for

the raising of the hands

in the Land of Israel, one raises him to priesthood, since in the Land there are permanent courts that investigate the lineages of the priests,

and

likewise, one who was established as participating in

the distribution of granaries

of teruma

in the Land of Israel.

And at this point we considered that the reason is that teruma is by Torah law, and since there is a sin punishable by death in it, people are careful concerning it; and we say that were he not a priest, he would not eat teruma.

And

the law is not so

in Syria and in every place where the messengers of the New Moon arrive

to announce the sanctification of the month, that is, a journey of fifteen days outside the Land.

And there the law is that only

the raising of the hands

is

proof

for priesthood, because there are permanent courts there,

but not the distribution of granaries,

since their teruma is rabbinic; and in Syria as well this tanna holds that the conquest of an individual by which David conquered Aram-Zoba is not a conquest, and it is obligated in teruma only by rabbinic law.

And Babylonia

with regard to this

is like Syria.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even Alexandria of Egypt, formerly [in the past]

its law was likewise, to raise from the raising of the hands to lineage,

because the court

was

established there.

But now, since there are no permanent courts there, the raising of the hands is not proof.

And Rabbi Shimon teaches us that even if nowadays a place is found in which there is a permanent court, the raising of the hands in that place will be proof of priesthood. Ritba.

And the Gemara analyzes:

at any rate, it teaches

in the beraita that

the raising of the hands

is a presumption for priesthood.

Is it not

the intention of the beraita to teach that this presumption is effective even

for lineage?!

And from here there is proof for the one who says that one raises from the raising of the hands to lineage.

And we reject this:

No!

The intention of the beraita is to teach that the presumption of the raising of the hands is effective

for

raising him with regard to eating

challa.

And we ask:

but

the beraita that taught the presumption of the raising of the hands

analogous to

the presumption of

the distribution of granaries, it teaches.

And

just as

the presumption of

the distribution of granaries

is effective even to raise him

to lineage, so too

the presumption of

the raising of the hands

is effective to raise him

to lineage,

and not as we answered above, that it speaks only with regard to eating challa?

And we answer:

No!

Actually, even the presumption of

the distribution of granaries itself

is effective only

for

the matter of eating

challa.

And what is difficult for you—that it is obvious, for if he was established as distributing teruma at the granary, he was surely established as eating challa, since challa too is teruma?

Your answer is:

this tanna holds

the tanna of the beraita, that

teruma nowadays

its obligation is

rabbinic, and challa

its obligation is

by Torah law, and

this matter the tanna taught us:

we raise from

the presumption of eating

rabbinic teruma to Torah challa.

And

this law was explained

when he met

when he met

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua the Rabbis.

And this was the incident:

For Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: I met

I met

the Rabbis, in the house of Rav [in the beit-midrash],

in the beit-midrash,

who were sitting and saying: Even according to the one who says

that the obligation of

teruma nowadays

is only

rabbinic,

nevertheless the obligation of

challa

is

by Torah law!

And their reason was —

for

during

seven

years

during which they conquered

Israel the Land,

and

years

during which they apportioned it, they became obligated in challa,

because concerning challa it is stated, “when you come to the Land”—the verse changed its language from all other arrivals, in all of which it says, “when you come” or “when He brings you,” whereas here it says, “when you come”; and the Sages expounded: Once they entered the Land, they immediately became obligated in challa.

But they did not become obligated in teruma,

because concerning teruma it says, “your grain,” and the Sages expounded: “your grain,” which is designated for you; and until they completed inheriting the Land, it was not considered grain designated for them .

And the Rabbis held that nowadays as well they are obligated in challa by Torah law, because challa depends on dwelling in the Land, even though they had not yet conquered it; but with teruma they are obligated only rabbinically, since “your grain,” designated for you, is not considered so until the time when they conquered the Land.

And

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said that

I said to them

to the Rabbis:

I

hold that

on the contrary! Even according to the one who says that teruma nowadays is by Torah law,

nevertheless, the obligation of

challa

is

rabbinic!

And the reason is because

it was taught

in a beraita, to explain what is stated in the Torah —

“When you come to the Land.”

And we consider concerning it: What did the verse teach us by saying, “When you come”?

If

it is to say that it is sufficient

with your coming

—any coming into the Land—in order to become obligated in challa.

This is not so! For is it

possible

that already

from when they entered it [the Land], only

—the land—only

two or three spies

would already become obligated in challa?!

Rather, certainly

the verse says, “When you come,”

to say that only

with the coming of all of you did I say

that you would become obligated in challa,

and not with the coming of some of you!

Thus far the beraita.