Ketubot 25a (כה.) — the Talmud in English

And

we raise an objection: If we hold that even though generally we are concerned that people might elevate someone from the status of those who recite the Priestly Blessing and from teruma to matters of lineage, here we are not concerned, because their presumption has been weakened,

why then does Rabbi Yosei say,

“But what is meant by ‘great is presumptive status’”?

There is no reason whatsoever to invalidate their presumption, since there is no concern that they will elevate them to matters of lineage .

And we answer: This is why Rabbi Yosei’s novel teaching that presumptive status is powerful is necessary: because

at first they ate

only

teruma by rabbinic ordinance,

as they were in the Diaspora, and in the Diaspora teruma applies only by rabbinic ordinance. But

now,

when they ascended to Eretz Yisrael,

they eat teruma by Torah law,

and therefore their presumptive status was effective.

The Gemara presents another possibility for answering the objection raised against the one who says that one elevates someone from teruma to matters of lineage: What benefit did Nehemiah’s enactment provide? If they eat teruma, will they not come to elevate them to matters of lineage?

And if you wish, say:

Actually,

now too,

when they ascended to Eretz Yisrael, they eat only

teruma by rabbinic ordinance—

such as the teruma of tree fruit and the teruma of vegetables, which are subject to rabbinic ordinance even in Eretz Yisrael—

they eat,

but

teruma by Torah law—

i.e., the teruma of grain, wine, and oil—

they do not eat.

And

this is not difficult for the one who says that one elevates someone from teruma to matters of lineage, because

when we elevate someone from teruma to matters of lineage,

it is specifically

teruma by Torah law;

but

we do not elevate someone from teruma by rabbinic ordinance,

and here Nehemiah permitted them to eat only teruma by rabbinic ordinance. Therefore, we are not concerned that as a result they might come to elevate them to matters of lineage .

And

we object: If he permitted them to eat only teruma by rabbinic ordinance,

then what is meant by ‘great is presumptive status’

which Rabbi Yosei stated? There is currently no reason whatsoever to invalidate their presumption, since there is no concern that people will elevate them from teruma by rabbinic ordinance to matters of lineage.

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

that although there is reason to enact a decree

and prohibit them even from teruma by rabbinic ordinance

because of

the concern that people might come to feed them even

teruma by Torah law,

nevertheless

we do not enact such a decree,

because presumptive status is powerful.

And

we object: Do they eat only teruma by rabbinic ordinance, while

they do not eat teruma by Torah law?

But it is written,

in Ezra,

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

and we infer: It is specifically

the most sacred things

—i.e., sacrificial food in the Temple—that

they do not eat; but they do eat teruma by Torah law!

This is contrary to what we said above, that they eat only teruma by rabbinic ordinance.

And we answer:

This is what

Nehemiah said to them:

Do not

eat

anything called sacred,

namely, teruma,

as it is written

concerning it, using the term “sacred”:

“And no non-priest may eat sacred food”; but not anything called sacred things,

namely, the breast and thigh of peace offerings, which may be eaten by the wives and slaves of priests,

as it is written

concerning them, using the term “sacred things”:

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

This verse is speaking

of that which is raised from the sacred offerings,

namely, the breast and thigh. In their case, the law is that when a priest’s daughter marries a non-priest and is widowed without children, she returns to her father’s household with regard to eating teruma, but she

may not eat that which is raised from the sacred offerings.

This is what Nehemiah told them they may not eat; they may eat only teruma by rabbinic ordinance, as we answered above.

And concerning this matter the Gemara says:

Come

and

hear

what we learned in a beraita: What constitutes

presumptive status

sufficient to elevate a person

to the priesthood?

One who has an established status of

reciting the Priestly Blessing in Babylonia:

anyone who sees him may testify about him wherever he is that he is a priest, and testimony from him is accepted, since there was a yeshiva and a permanent court in Babylonia, and they investigated those who recited the Priestly Blessing. They certainly investigated and found that he was a priest.

And

likewise, one who has an established status of

eating ḥalla in Syria:

testimony may be given about him wherever he is that he is a priest. This tanna held that the individual conquest by which King David conquered Aram-Zobah is considered a conquest, and we are not concerned that a non-priest might eat ḥalla there. But in Babylonia, eating ḥalla is not proof, since its obligation there is only by rabbinic ordinance, and people are not so scrupulous about it .

And

likewise, one who has an established status of participating in the

distribution of the priestly gifts,

such as the foreleg and cheeks,

in the cities,

even though these gifts are not forbidden to non-priests, nevertheless, were he not a priest, he would not be so brazen as to present himself as a priest in a place where many passersby are found and it is common for people to recognize him. Therefore, testimony may be given about him that he is a priest.

And we prove:

In any event, it teaches

in the beraita that

the recitation of the Priestly Blessing

is evidence sufficient to elevate a person to the priesthood.

Is it not

that one elevates a person from reciting the Priestly Blessing

to matters of lineage?

And we reject this:

No!

The beraita is speaking

with regard

to

teruma:

one who sees a person raising his hands in Babylonia may testify about him in order to allow him to eat teruma , but not with regard to matters of lineage.

And we object:

But

the recitation of the Priestly Blessing, concerning which we say that one elevates a person, is taught

analogously to

the elevation associated with

eating ḥalla,

and

just as

the law of elevation stated with regard to

eating ḥalla

serves to elevate him

to matters of lineage—for if it referred merely to eating teruma, it would be obvious, since ḥalla itself is teruma and he already has an established status of eating it—

since if it were only for eating teruma, this would be obvious, as challa itself is teruma and he already has an established practice of eating it;

so too

the law of elevation stated with regard to

the recitation of the Priestly Blessing

serves to elevate him

to matters of lineage.

And we refute this:

No!

Actually, I can say to you that even the law of “elevation” stated with regard to

eating ḥalla itself

serves only to elevate him

to teruma.

And as for what we objected—that if it serves only for teruma, this is obvious, since he already has an established status of eating ḥalla, whose law is like that of teruma—

we explain it as follows:

This tanna

of the beraita holds that

ḥalla nowadays is rabbinic, while teruma is by Torah law. And

the beraita teaches that

we elevate a person from

an established status of eating

ḥalla by rabbinic ordinance to

eating

teruma by Torah law.

And

it will be explained later in the discussion that the difficulty with this ruling—that the obligation of teruma nowadays is by Torah law, while that of ḥalla is rabbinic—in light of the statement of the Rabbis cited below, who said the opposite, that ḥalla is required by Torah law and teruma by rabbinic ordinance, will be resolved

as Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua reversed them for

the statement of

the Rabbis,

as they too held this view.

The Gemara expands upon the matter:

Come

and

hear,

what we learned in a beraita: What constitutes

presumptive status

sufficient to elevate a person from it

to the priesthood?

One who has an established status of

reciting the Priestly Blessing

in Eretz Yisrael is elevated to the priesthood, since there are permanent courts in Eretz Yisrael that investigate the lineage of priests;

and

likewise, one who has an established status of participating in the

distribution of teruma at the threshing floors

of teruma

in Eretz Yisrael.

The initial assumption now is that the reason is that teruma is required by Torah law, and since its violation carries the punishment of death at the hands of Heaven, people are careful about it. We therefore say that had he not been a priest, he would not eat teruma.

And

the law is not the same

in Syria, or in any place reached by the messengers of the New Moon

to announce the sanctification of the month—i.e., within a journey of fifteen days outside Eretz Yisrael.

And there the law is that only

the recitation of the Priestly Blessing

is

evidence

of priestly status, because there are permanent courts there,

but not the distribution at the threshing floors,

since their teruma is subject to rabbinic ordinance. Moreover, even in Syria this tanna holds that the individual conquest by which David conquered Aram-Zobah is not considered a conquest, and Syria is obligated in teruma only by rabbinic ordinance.

Babylonia

with regard to this matter is

like Syria.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Also Alexandria of Egypt, at first

[that is, in the past,] was subject to this law, so that one could be elevated from reciting the Priestly Blessing to matters of lineage,

because the court

was

permanent there.

But now, when there are no permanent courts there, reciting the Priestly Blessing is not evidence.

Rabbi Shimon teaches us that even if a place is found nowadays in which there is a permanent court, reciting the Priestly Blessing in that place will be evidence of priestly status. Ritba.

And the Gemara analyzes the beraita closely:

In any event, it teaches

that

the recitation of the Priestly Blessing

constitutes presumptive status for the priesthood.

Is it not

the intention of the beraita to teach that this presumptive status is effective even

for matters of lineage?!

This would constitute proof for the one who says that one elevates a person from reciting the Priestly Blessing to matters of lineage.

And we reject this:

No!

The intention of the beraita is to teach that the presumptive status of reciting the Priestly Blessing is effective

for

elevating him with regard to eating

ḥalla.

And we object:

But

the beraita, which teaches the presumptive status of reciting the Priestly Blessing,

analogously to

the presumptive status of

distribution at the threshing floors,

and

just as

the presumptive status of

distribution at the threshing floors

is effective even to elevate him

to matters of lineage, so too

the presumptive status of

reciting the Priestly Blessing

is effective to elevate him

to matters of lineage,

contrary to what we answered above, that it speaks only with regard to eating ḥalla?

And we answer:

No!

Actually, even the presumptive status of

distribution at the threshing floors itself

is effective only

for

eating

ḥalla.

And if this is difficult for you—surely it is obvious: If he has an established status of distributing teruma at the threshing floor, he certainly has an established status of eating ḥalla, since ḥalla is also teruma—

your answer is that

this tanna

of the beraita

holds that teruma nowadays

is required by

rabbinic ordinance, while ḥalla

is required by

Torah law, and

the tanna teaches us this point:

we elevate a person from

an established status of eating

teruma by rabbinic ordinance to ḥalla by Torah law.

And

this ruling was explained

when he encountered

[met]

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua the Rabbis.

And this was the incident:

As Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said: I encountered

[I met]

the Rabbis in Rav’s house

[in the beit-midrash],

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

that the obligation of

teruma nowadays

is only

by rabbinic ordinance,

nevertheless the obligation of

ḥalla

is

by Torah law!

And their reasoning was:

For

during

seven

years,

while Israel conquered

the land, and during

seven

years

while they apportioned it, they were obligated in ḥalla,

because with regard to ḥalla it is stated, “When you enter the land”—the verse changed its wording from that used for all other entries, in which it says either “when you enter” or “when He brings you,” whereas here it says, “when you enter.” The Sages expounded: Once they entered the land, they immediately became obligated in ḥalla.

But they were not obligated in teruma,

because with regard to teruma it is stated, “your grain,” and the Sages expounded: “your grain” means grain that is uniquely yours. Until they completed taking possession of the land, it was not considered grain uniquely theirs .

The Rabbis held that even nowadays ḥalla is required by Torah law, because ḥalla depends on dwelling in the land, even though they had not yet conquered it. But teruma is required only by rabbinic ordinance, since “your grain,” grain uniquely yours, applied only once they had conquered the land.

And

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua said that

I said to them

[to the Rabbis]:

I

hold

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

nevertheless, the obligation of

ḥalla

is

by rabbinic ordinance!

And the reason is

that it was taught

in a beraita, explaining what is stated in the Torah:

“When you enter the land.”

And we inquire: What does the verse teach by saying, “When you enter”?

If

it is to say that it is sufficient for

your entering

the land in any manner to become obligated in ḥalla—

that cannot be so! Is it

possible

that already

when they entered it

[the land], only

two or three spies

would become obligated in ḥalla?!

Rather, certainly

the Torah says, “When you enter”

to teach

that I said you become obligated only when all of you enter

with regard to ḥalla,

and not when only some of you enter!

This concludes the beraita.