Ketubot 26a — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Here we are dealing

with one speaking innocently,

who did not come specifically in order to testify; rather, from his words we understood that he was his brother.

And

ki ha

this is like the incident that occurred, in which a person was elevated to the status of priesthood on the basis of the reliability of one speaking innocently:

as Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said—

There was an incident involving one person who was speaking innocently and said: “I remember, when I was a child, and was carried on my father’s shoulders, and they took me out of school ,

and they stripped off my little tunic and immersed me

in order

“to eat teruma in the evening,”

And Rabbi Hiyya concludes it,

and added to the words of Rav Yehuda—that the same person said

“And my companions kept apart from me

so that they would not render me impure,

and they would call me Yohanan, eater of loaves.” And Rabbi elevated him to the priesthood on the basis of his statement,

and from here there is proof that one speaking innocently is trusted to elevate him to the priesthood with regard to eating teruma.

Tanya

in a beraita:

Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Just as

eating

teruma —

is an indication of priesthood, so

eating

first tithe—

is an indication of priesthood.

And one who divides

teruma

in court—

the Gemara understood that the beraita intends to say: one who divides teruma on the basis of the permanent court in that city—

it is not an indication.

And later the Gemara will object: If in court it is not an indication, where is it an indication?

And we object: What is the meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s statement that

first tithe

is an indication of priesthood? Is it not the case that first tithe

belongs to a Levite?

And we answer: Rabbi Shimon holds like

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya,

who said that a priest also receives first tithe.

And where were the words of Rabbi Elazar

taught?

In a beraita: They give

teruma —

to a priest.

And

first tithe—

to a Levite. The words of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: First tithe also goes to a priest.

And we object: Even if Rabbi Shimon holds like Rabbi Elazar, there is still no proof from eating first tithe, for the one eating it is a priest, because

perhaps everything that

[perhaps all that]

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said

is only: “First tithe

also goes to a priest,”

but that first tithe

goes to a priest and not to a Levite—who said so?

And consequently there is no proof of priesthood from eating first tithe, for perhaps he is a Levite and not a priest?!

And we answer:

Yes!

In fact, he holds like Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, but Rabbi Shimon is speaking

after Ezra penalized them

the Levites, so that they would not receive first tithe , and then in fact first tithe was eaten only by a priest, whereas Rabbi Elazar is speaking before he penalized them, when it was eaten also by a priest. As explained in tractate Yevamot (86b), Ezra penalized them because they did not ascend with him from Babylonia. Indeed, Rabbi Akiva, who held that before Ezra penalized them first tithe was eaten only by Levites, held that after he penalized them first tithe was eaten also by priests, and not only by priests, as Rabbi Elazar says. But some explain that the Gemara now retracts what it had attributed Rabbi Shimon’s words to Rabbi Elazar, and now holds that both according to Rabbi Elazar and according to Rabbi Akiva, after Ezra penalized the Levites first tithe was eaten only by a priest. See the Tosafot, who rejected this explanation. — Tosafot. And the opinion of Maimonides (Chapter 1 of the Laws of Tithes, halakha 4, and the Kesef Mishne there) is that Ezra penalized only the Levites of that generation, that first tithe should not be given to them at all, but only to priests. But afterward they would give the tithe both to priests and to Levites.

And we object: Is there still not proof of priesthood from eating first tithe, since perhaps he is a Levite, and what he received as first tithe—

perhaps they happened to call him and gave it to him,

even though he is not a priest, since he is not forbidden to eat it?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said—

What are we dealing with here? For example, we know that the father of this person is a priest. And there emerged concerning him

[that is, about the son]

a public report—

that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman released through halitza. And

we saw that

they divided first tithe

to him personally

at the threshing floors.

And now it certainly cannot be said that he is a

Levite, for

he

is not a Levite,

for we know of his father that he is a priest.

What can be said,

perhaps

he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman released through halitza?!

It is not necessary

to say that this cannot be said—

according to the one who says that first tithe is forbidden to non-priests, for

according to his view, if he is not a fit priest,

they would not have given it to him

from first tithe.

Rather, even according to the one who says that first tithe is permitted to non-priests, this applies

to the fact that it is permitted to non-priests only

to provide it to them,

[that is, to feed it to them after it has been distributed].

but as a division

certainly

they would not give it to him,

and therefore, if it is established that they divided first tithe to him, he is certainly a fit priest.

And we return to explain the beraita, and we object: What is the meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s statement—

“And one who divides in court is not an indication,”

when

if

division

in court is not an indication, where is

division of teruma

an indication?

And we answer:

Rav Sheshet said: This is what he is saying:

Rabbi Shimon is referring to an heir

who divides teruma

that was

among his father’s property, with his brothers in court; it is not an indication. Perhaps he is a halal, and even a halal inherits his father . Rashi explained that here too the case is one in which a public report emerged concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman, and therefore dividing his father’s property is insufficient to silence the report. But without a report, from where would it occur to us to doubt that he is the son of a divorced woman? The Ritva wrote that it is also possible to explain this even without a report: for example, his father had sons here who were established as fit for the priesthood, and his father went overseas and returned with this son; and we say in Chapter “Ten Lineages” (Kiddushin 49b) that he must bring proof that the son is fit for the priesthood.

Perhaps he is disqualified, and even a disqualified kohein inherits from his father.

And we refute:

It is obvious!

From where would it occur to us that his division should be an indication of priesthood? Is it not certain that he divides it by virtue of inheritance?!

And we answer:

It might have been said:

Let us establish him as a priest because his brother did not say to him, “You take non-sacred produce and I will take teruma,” and

since these

brothers took from the teruma

for eating, this

brother

also

divided teruma

for eating,

for otherwise the brothers would not have treated the teruma lightly by giving it to him, and they would have given him non-sacred produce in its place.

He informs us

Rabbi Shimon that, indeed,

these

brothers divided the teruma

for eating,

but

this

brother divided the teruma in order

to sell

his portion to priests; and as for the fact that his brothers did not give him non-sacred produce in place of his portion, perhaps they did not have enough non-sacred produce for this. Ritva:

We learned in the Mishna above (23b):

Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate [a person] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness.

Etc.,

Rabbi Elazar said: When is this so? In a place where there are challengers; but in a place where there are no challengers, one elevates [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Ha-Segan: One elevates [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness.

And the Gemara objects: Is it not the case that

Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel,

who said that one elevates [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness,

is identical with Rabbi Eliezer,

who also said that in a place where there are no challengers, one elevates [him] to the priesthood on the basis of one witness?

And we discuss the matter:

And if you would say

that they disagree over whether it is sufficient to have

a challenge

by

one

person, so that we cannot elevate him to the priesthood except on the basis of two witnesses; or perhaps—only where there are two witnesses challenging his fitness do we require two witnesses to establish him as fit, but against the challenge of one witness, one witness is sufficient to establish him as fit.

And this matter

is the difference between them, for Rabbi Eliezer holds:

Even in a place where there is

a challenge

by

one,

one does not elevate [him] to the priesthood except on the basis of two witnesses.

And Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel holds:

Only when the

challenge

is on the basis of

two

witnesses is it necessary to have two other witnesses to establish him as fit; but against one challenge, one witness is sufficient to establish him as fit.

And we reject this: It is impossible to say so, for

he

indeed

Rabbi Yohanan said:

that it is the position of

everyone,

that is, both according to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel and according to Rabbi Eliezer,

a challenge

does not disqualify with

fewer than two . The Tosafot wrote that indeed the conclusion of the discussion is that a challenge made by one witness is not called a challenge, and he is not disqualified from eating teruma because of one witness. However, if a public report emerged that he is disqualified, even though there are not two witnesses to disqualify him, he is disqualified on the basis of the public report, and he is not elevated to the priesthood until one witness comes and establishes him as fit.

And if so, the question returns to its place: In what do Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer disagree?

And we answer:

Rather, what are we dealing with here?

The disagreement of Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Eliezer is in a case such as

where we know that the father of this person is a priest, and a public report emerged concerning him

[a rumor arose about the son, without testimony]

that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a woman released through halitza,

and is disqualified from the priesthood,

and we demoted him, from the priesthood because of that public report.

[we removed him from kohein status] because of that rumor.

And

afterward

one witness came and said: “I know concerning him that he is a priest,”