Ketubot 25b — the Talmud in English

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

when he brought them up

he brought up

Ezra

those who came up with him from the exile to build the Second Temple,

not all of them went up

[they went up with him], and most of the people remained in Babylonia, as it is written in Ezra: “The entire assembly [who came up from Babylonia numbered only] forty thousand,” that is, only forty thousand people went up to the Land. And since most of the people remained in Babylonia, it is not considered “the coming of all of you,” and they became obligated in challa only rabbinically.

The Gemara further discusses the law of presumptive status for the priesthood:

Come

and

hear

what we learned in a beraita: What is the

presumptive status

that suffices to elevate him

to the priesthood?

One who was established for

the raising of the hands, and

for participating in

the division of the granaries, and testimony.

And we challenge: Is

testimony a presumptive status?

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

And we prove:

Rather, is it not that this is what it says

in the beraita—that the presumptive status of

the raising of the hands

is effective

like testimony. And

And

just as testimony

is effective to elevate

to lineage, so too

the presumptive status of

the raising of the hands

is effective to elevate

to lineage.

And from here there is proof for the one who says: “One elevates from the raising of the hands to lineage.”

And we reject this:

No!

Actually, one does not elevate from the raising of the hands to lineage, and the beraita is speaking of elevating from the raising of the hands to challa. And regarding what we challenged—that testimony is complete evidence even for lineage—it should be explained that it is speaking of

testimony that comes by virtue of presumptive status,

that is, they testified about him that he had been established for matters that elevate to the priesthood, and this testimony has only the force

of presumptive status,

from which one elevates not to lineage but only to challa.

And it is like that incident that occurred—

for there was that man who came before Rabbi Ami,

to testify about the lineage of another person, and

he said to him: “I have established this man as a priest!”

He said to him

Rabbi Ami:

What did you see

that made you 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 raised him first to the Torah was that no priest was there; and the reason they called him to ascend by the name “priest” was because

with the presumption that he was great

in wisdom. And we say in tractate Gittin that Rav would call sages by the name “priests” when no priest was present.

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

they called

him to the Torah

after him a Levite,

whereas ordinarily, in a place where there is no priest and they raise an Israelite in his place, they do not call a Levite after him, but another Israelite; and had he not been a priest, they would not have raised a Levite after him.

And Rabbi Ami elevated him to the priesthood—

that is, to feed him teruma and challa

on his word

of that witness, but not to lineage.

The Gemara further proves that the presumptive status of the synagogue is effective to elevate to the Levite status—

from the incident of

that man who came before Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi,

to testify about the lineage of another person, and

said to him: “I have established this man as a Levite!”

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

said to him:

What did you see

that made you 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 went up second to the Torah was that no priest or Levite was there, and they raised those called up according to their order of importance; and he went up second because

with the presumption that he was great

in wisdom, greater than the one who went up after him?

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

they called

him to the Torah

before him a priest,

whereas ordinarily, in a place where there is no Levite, the priest is called twice and afterward an Israelite, and here the priest was called only once, and afterward they raised him; from here there is proof that he is a Levite.

And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi elevated him to the Levite status—

that is, to give him the first tithe as a Levite—

on his word

of that witness.

Another case from which the Gemara discusses presumptive status for the priesthood is brought:

Of

that man who came before Reish Lakish

to testify about a person for the priesthood, and

said to him: “I have established this man as a priest!”

He said to him

Reish Lakish:

What did you see

that made you 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 person

who divided at the granary? Reish Lakish erred in saying that without testimony about the division at the granary, he may 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 are no

grain growers there in his place who make a

granary

and give 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 certainly suffices.

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

sometimes they were sitting

Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar

before Rabbi Yohanan,

and

a case like this came,

in which one 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) who divided at the granary?

Rabbi Yohanan said

to Reish Lakish, in the same wording that Rabbi Elazar had said to him—

“And if there is no granary, is the priesthood nullified?”

Reish Lakish then

[turned his face] and

looked at Rabbi Elazar with hostility

[looked at him with an evil eye], because he understood that Rabbi Elazar had heard the wording “And if there is no granary, etc.” from Rabbi Yohanan, but had not said it to him in his name.

And he

said

to him: Did you

hear the words of the son of the blacksmith

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

and did not tell us in his name?!

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

The Gemara brings another discussion concerning trustworthiness regarding the priesthood:

If one testified about his son that he is a priest, is he trustworthy to elevate him to the priesthood?

And they disagreed about this law:

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 the Levite status,

but regarding the father’s testimony, he did not deem him trustworthy to elevate him to the priesthood. And below it explains: What is different about a brother, that he deemed him trustworthy to elevate him on his word?

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

And we resolve it:

It can be determined

[resolve it],

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: that he

is trustworthy to feed him teruma,

on the basis of his testimony, because one elevates to the eating of teruma on the basis of one witness; and Rabbi holds that one does not elevate from teruma to lineage, and therefore there is no concern that afterward they might elevate him from teruma to lineage.

And he is not trustworthy to marry him to a woman

on the basis of his testimony, because we are concerned that he may be a mamzer; and even together with another witness he is not trustworthy, since he is a relative and disqualified from testimony. And below it explains why he is trustworthy to feed him teruma despite being a relative.

These are

the words of Rabbi.

Rabbi Hiyya said to him

Rabbi: It follows either way:

If you deem him trustworthy to feed him teruma

despite his being a relative,

deem him trustworthy

also

to marry him to a woman

together with another witness;

and if you do not deem him trustworthy to marry him to a woman

because he is a relative,

do not deem him trustworthy

also

to eat teruma.

?

He said to him

Rabbi to Rabbi Hiyya: The reason that

I deem him trustworthy 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 apportions teruma to him. And since he can feed him teruma himself, he can also say that he is a priest for this purpose.

And

the reason that

I do not deem him trustworthy to marry him to a woman

is because he is a relative and disqualified from testimony, and he is not trustworthy by a migo, as regarding teruma, because

it is not in his power to marry him to a woman

without a court that confirms that he is not a mamzer.

And from this beraita

it can be determined

[resolve it] that Rabbi was the one who elevated a son on the basis of his father’s testimony to the priesthood.

And from

the fact that we resolved that

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

we also resolve that

Rabbi Hiyya

was the one who

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

And we challenge:

And

according to

Rabbi Hiyya,

who elevated a brother on the basis of his brother to the priesthood,

what is different about a son, that he did not

deem his father trustworthy to testify about him, because

he is a relative with respect to his father,

whereas

a brother too is a relative with respect to his brother;

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