Ketubot 25b (כה:) — the Talmud in English

And from here Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, proved that nowadays the obligation of ḥalla is rabbinic, since

when he brought them up Ezra

[he brought up]

brought up those who ascended with him from the exile to build the Second

Temple, !(pamud.bmp "precise column location")

not all of them ascended with him; most of the people remained in Babylonia, as it is written in Ezra: “The entire assembly [that ascended from Babylonia consisted of only] forty thousand”—that is, only forty thousand people ascended to Eretz Yisrael. And since most of the people remained in Babylonia, this was not considered “the arrival of all of you,” and they became obligated in ḥalla only by rabbinic decree.

[went up with him], and most of the people remained in Babylonia. As it is written in Ezra: “The entire assembly [that came up from Babylonia consisted of only] forty thousand,” meaning that only forty thousand people went up to the Land of Israel. Since most of the people remained in Babylonia, this was not considered “the arrival of all of you,” and they became obligated to separate challa only by rabbinic law.

The Gemara further discusses the law of presumptive status with regard to the priesthood:

Come

and

hear what we learned in a beraita: What is the

presumptive status

that

is sufficient to elevate a person

to the priesthood?

One who has an established status of

raising his hands, and

participating in the

distribution of the grain offerings, and testimony.

And we challenge this: Is

testimony a presumptive status?

Is it not clear evidence, and superior to a presumptive status?

And we prove:

Rather, is this not what it is saying

in the beraita: The presumptive status of

raising the hands

is effective

like testimony.

And

just as testimony

is effective to elevate a person

to genealogical status, so

the presumptive status of

raising the hands

is effective to elevate a person

to genealogical status.

And from here there is proof for the one who says: “One may elevate a person from raising his hands to genealogical status.”

And we reject this:

No!

Actually, one may never elevate a person from raising his hands to genealogical status. The beraita is speaking of elevating him from raising his hands to the status of one eligible to receive ḥalla. And concerning what we challenged—that testimony constitutes completely conclusive evidence, even for genealogical status—it must be explained that the beraita is speaking of

testimony that derives its force from a presumptive status,

meaning that they testified concerning him that he had an established status with regard to matters that elevate a person to the priesthood. Such testimony has force only

like a presumptive status,

which cannot elevate a person to genealogical status, but only to the status of one eligible to receive ḥalla.

And it is like that incident that occurred:

like that man who came before Rabbi Ami,

to testify concerning the lineage of another person, and

said to him: “I have an established presumption concerning this man that he is a priest!”

He said to him

Rabbi Ami:

What did you see

that led you to say this?

He said to him

the witness: Because

he was called first

to the Torah

in the synagogue, with the presumption that he was a priest.

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Or

perhaps he was in fact an Israelite, and the reason they called him first to the Torah was that no priest was present. And the reason they called him to ascend by the designation “priest” was that

he had the presumption of being distinguished

in Torah wisdom. For we say in tractate Gittin that Rav would call sages “priests” when no priest was present.

The witness said to him: My evidence that he is a priest is because

they called

him to the Torah

with a Levite called after him,

whereas ordinarily, when no priest is present and an Israelite is called in his place, a Levite is not called after him, but another Israelite is called. Had he not been a priest, they would not have called a Levite after him .

And Rabbi Ami elevated him to the priesthood—

that is, he allowed him to eat teruma and ḥalla

on the basis of his word,

the word of that witness, but not with regard to genealogical status .

The Gemara further proves that a synagogue-based presumptive status is effective to elevate a person to Levite status—

from the incident involving

that man who came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

to testify concerning the lineage of another person, and

said to him: “I have an established presumption concerning this man that he is a Levite!”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him

:

What did you see

that led you to say this?

He said to him

the witness: Because

he was called second

to the Torah

in the synagogue, with the presumption that he was a Levite.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him:

Or

perhaps he was an Israelite, and the reason he was called second to the Torah was that neither a priest nor a Levite was present, and those called to the Torah were called according to their order of importance. He was called second because

he had the presumption of being distinguished

in Torah wisdom over the person called after him?

The witness said to him: My proof that he is a Levite is because

they called

him to the Torah

with a priest called before him,

whereas ordinarily, when no Levite is present, the priest is called twice and then an Israelite is called . Here, the priest was called only once, and afterward they called him; from here there is proof that he is a Levite.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi elevated him to Levite status—

that is, he gave him the first tithe as a Levite—

on the basis of the word

of that witness.

Another case from which the Gemara discusses presumptive status with regard to the priesthood:

The case of

that man who came before Reish Lakish

to testify concerning a person’s priestly status, and

said to him: “I have an established presumption concerning this man that he is a priest!”

He said to him

Reish Lakish:

What did you see

that led you to say this?

He said to him

the witness: I saw him

called first

to the Torah

in the synagogue.

He said to him

Reish Lakish:

Did you see

him

that man

distribute the produce at the threshing floor? Reish Lakish erred in thinking that without testimony concerning the distribution of the produce at the threshing floor, he could not be established as a priest.

Reish Lakish erred in thinking that without testimony about the distribution at the threshing floors, a person could not be established as a priest.

Rabbi Elazar said to

Reish Lakish:

And if there is no

local grower of grain who makes a

threshing floor

and gives teruma to a priest,

is the

presumptive status of

the priesthood nullified?!

Surely testimony that he was called first to the Torah in the synagogue is certainly sufficient.

At that time Reish Lakish did not accept Rabbi Elazar’s words. But

sometimes Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar would sit

together

before Rabbi Yohanan,

and

a case like this one occurred,

in which someone testified that he had seen a person called first in the synagogue,

before

Reish Lakish.

And

Reish Lakish said to him:

Did you

see

him distribute the produce at the threshing floor?

Rabbi Yohanan said to

Reish Lakish, using the same wording that Rabbi Elazar had used to him—

“If there is no threshing floor, is the priesthood nullified?”

Reish Lakish turned back —

[turned his face], and

and looked angrily at Rabbi Elazar because he understood that Rabbi Elazar had heard the expression “If there is no threshing floor, and so on” from Rabbi Yohanan, but had not quoted it to him in Rabbi Yohanan’s name.

[looked at him unfavorably], because he understood that Rabbi Elazar had heard the statement “And if there is no threshing floor, and so on” from Rabbi Yohanan, but had not attributed it to him.

And he

said

to him: Did you

hear the words of Bar Nappaha the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who was called “Bar Nappaha” because of his beauty

[the words of Rabbi Yohanan, who was called “son of the blacksmith” because of his beauty]

and did not tell us in his name?!

Had you told me them in the name of Rabbi Yohanan, I would have retracted my statement, and I would not have erred in this matter now.

The Gemara brings another discussion concerning the reliability of testimony regarding the priesthood:

If someone testified concerning his son that he is a priest, is he believed to elevate him to the priesthood?

And there was a dispute concerning this law between

Rabbi and Rabbi Hiyya. One

elevated a son on the basis of

the testimony of

his father to the priesthood, and one

elevated a brother on the basis of

the testimony of

his brother to Levite status,

but in the case of the father’s testimony, he did not deem him reliable to elevate the son to the priesthood. The Gemara will later explain why it is different in the case of a brother, whom he deemed reliable to elevate a person on his word.

The Gemara is uncertain: Who was the one who elevated a son on the basis of his father’s testimony, and who was the one who elevated a brother on the basis of his brother’s testimony?

And we resolve it:

It can be concluded that

[the matter can be resolved] that

Rabbi

was the one who

elevated a son on the basis of

the testimony of

his father to the priesthood.

And our proof is from that

which was taught

in a beraita:

Behold,

a person came before us, and his lineage was unknown to us, until

there came

one witness

and said: “This is my son, and he is a priest!”

And we rule: He is

believed to feed him teruma,

on the basis of his testimony, because one may elevate a person to the status of eating teruma on the basis of the testimony of a single witness. And Rabbi holds that one may not elevate a person from teruma to genealogical status; therefore, there is no concern that they will subsequently elevate him from the status of eating teruma to genealogical status.

But he is not believed to arrange a wife for him

on the basis of his testimony, because we are concerned that he may be a mamzer. He is not believed even in combination with another witness, since he is a relative and disqualified from testimony. The Gemara will later explain why he is believed to feed him teruma despite being a relative.

These are

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Hiyya said to

Rabbi: In either case,

if you deem him reliable to feed him teruma

despite his being a relative,

deem him reliable

also

to arrange a wife for him

in combination with another witness;

and if you do not deem him reliable to arrange a wife for him

because he is a relative,

do not deem him reliable

also

to eat teruma ?

?

He said to him

Rabbi said to Rabbi Hiyya: The reason that

I deem him reliable to feed him teruma

despite his being a relative is

that it is in his power to feed him teruma

even without a court, since he is a priest and everyone gives him a portion of teruma. And since he could feed him teruma himself, he can likewise say that he is a priest for this purpose.

And

the reason that

I do not deem him reliable to arrange a wife for him

is that he is a relative and disqualified from testimony. He is not believed by means of a migo, as he is with regard to teruma, because

it is not in his power to arrange a wife for him

without a court confirming that he is not a mamzer .

And from this beraita

it can be concluded that Rabbi was the one who elevated a son on the basis of his father’s testimony to the priesthood.

[the matter can be resolved] that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was the one who raised a son on the basis of his father’s testimony to priestly status.

And since

we resolved

that Rabbi elevated a son on the basis of his father to the priesthood,

we can likewise resolve

that Rabbi Hiyya

was the one who

elevated a brother on the basis of his brother to Levite status.

And we challenge this:

And

according to

Rabbi Hiyya,

who elevated a brother on the basis of his brother’s testimony to Levite status,

why is it different with regard to a son, that you did not

deem his father reliable to testify concerning him, because

he is a relative with regard to his father,

whereas

a brother is also a relative with regard to his brother;

how, then, did you elevate him on the basis of his brother’s testimony?