Kiddushin 69b (סט:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises a question:

Granted,

what the tanna said—

the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael—

we can properly derive from this verse, for

this is what is written: “For a matter of judgment is too difficult for you, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, and between affliction and affliction,

this is what is written: “If a matter of judgment is hidden from you, between blood and blood, between judgment and judgment, and between affliction and affliction,

matters of dispute at your gates; and you shall arise and ascend

to the place that the Lord your God will choose.”

The expression “at your gates” includes all of Eretz Yisrael, and the verse calls every journey from every side and every place to the Temple an “ascent.”

But

with regard to what we said—that the location of

Eretz Yisrael

is

higher than all the lands, from where do we derive this?

And we answer: The source is

as it is written [Jeremiah 23:7]: “

is written [Jeremiah 23:7]: “

Therefore, behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when they shall no longer say: As the Lord lives, Who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt.

Rather: As the Lord lives, Who brought up and Who brought the seed of the House of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where I had driven them.”

Thus, the verse refers to traveling from all the lands to Eretz Yisrael with the expression “bringing up.” From this we derive that it is higher than all the lands.

But there is still a difficulty. The expression “ascended” used by the tanna is indeed appropriate. However,

what is the reason that he specifically taught: “

ascended from Babylonia”?

Let him teach

[the tanna should have taught]: “

ascended to Eretz Yisrael.”

After all, this expression also implies that Eretz Yisrael is higher than Babylonia.

And we answer: The tanna specifically used the expression “ascended from Babylonia” in order to teach us that Ezra’s purpose in clarifying the lineage of the families in Babylonia was to cleanse it of all its disqualified families and bring them up to Eretz Yisrael.

The reason was that he saw that those families had become intermixed with families of established lineage. He also saw that all the sages of the generation were preparing to ascend with him to Eretz Yisrael, and that no one would remain in Babylonia to deal with examining lineage. He therefore arose and separated all the disqualified families and brought them up with him to Eretz Yisrael. He left in Babylonia only the families that were fit.

Once all the disqualified families were found in Eretz Yisrael, he was no longer concerned that they might intermingle with others. After all, the entire generation that ascended from Babylonia saw that Ezra had separated them from the fit congregation of Israel [as will be explained below].

There was also no concern for subsequent generations, since in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, adjacent to the Temple, the judges of the Sanhedrin sat and examined the lineage of the kohanim and Levites, so that only fit men would serve in the Temple service; through this, they also knew the lineage of every person.

Therefore, the tanna used the expression “ascended from Babylonia,” for this

supports Rabbi Elazar

[the amora],

for Rabbi Elazar said: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he had made it like pure fine flour, and then he

afterward

ascended!

The reason is that Eretz Yisrael is “a land that the Lord your God seeks out,” because the Divine Presence rests there in the Temple, even though the people there are not of such elevated lineage. By contrast, in Babylonia the Divine Presence rests only among families of distinguished lineage. Therefore, Ezra made Babylonia like pure sifted flour, so that the Divine Presence would rest there as well. Iyun Yaakov.

Our Mishna supports him, for it specifically teaches “ascended from Babylonia,” indicating that Ezra clarified all the disqualified families in order to bring them up from there.

The Gemara relates that Abaye and Rava disagreed about how the expression concerning the ascent from Babylonia should be read:

It was stated: Abaye said: “

They ascended,”

meaning that they

ascended of their own accord, we learned.

That is, they ascended willingly.

And

whereas

Rava said: “

He brought them up,”

we learned: Ezra brought them up from Babylonia against their will.

They disagree

over

Abaye and Rava

with regard to Rabbi Elazar,

whose statement was cited above:

For Rabbi Elazar said: Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he had made it like pure fine flour, and he ascended.

Abaye

does not accept Rabbi Elazar’s statement.

For according to him, they ascended on their own, and not at Ezra’s command. If so, Rabbi Elazar’s statement—that Ezra’s entire purpose was to cleanse Babylonia of its disqualified families—cannot be maintained.

But

Rava

does accept Rabbi Elazar’s statement.

Ezra brought them up from Babylonia against their will in order to cleanse it of disqualified families; they did not ascend on their own.

Alternatively, everyone accepts Rabbi Elazar’s statement,

that Ezra made the effort to cleanse Babylonia. Rather, Abaye and Rava disagree about how Ezra accomplished this.

And here they disagree about this: One

[Abaye]

holds: He separated them—

Ezra separated the disqualified from the fit. Once they had been separated, the people of Babylonia recognized that they were disqualified, and he was no longer concerned that they might intermingle with those who remained in Babylonia.

Since the disqualified saw that they were recognized in their own place,

they ascended of their own accord

[they ascended by themselves], so that they could intermingle with the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael, who did not recognize them.

This is what Rabbi Elazar meant by saying: “He made it like pure fine flour”—he caused only the fit families to remain in Babylonia.

And

whereas

the other

[Rava]

holds: He brought them up against their will

[Ezra brought them up] from Babylonia. They did not ascend on their own, because Ezra did not rely on their ascending by themselves.

The Gemara raises a question:

Granted, according to the one who says “

they ascended

willingly, of their own accord,”

this is what Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: All

the

lands are considered like

a

mixture

with regard to Eretz Yisrael, and

Eretz Yisrael

is considered like

a

mixture

with regard to Babylonia. [“ A mixture” means a combination. That is, just as dough is a mixture composed of leaven, water, flour, salt, and bran, so too there is concern that disqualified members of the congregation have become intermingled with fit families.]

Dough” is a mixture. That is, it is like dough made of leaven, water, flour, salt, and bran;

For among the families that remained in Babylonia, there was no doubt that disqualified members of the congregation had become intermingled with them, since Ezra had separated them. This was not so with regard to the families of Eretz Yisrael, for the disqualified people who ascended from Babylonia were not recognized in Eretz Yisrael as disqualified. Therefore, the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael did not refrain from marrying them.

Consequently, Eretz Yisrael is considered like a “mixture” relative to Babylonia: the families of Eretz Yisrael are considered to have lineage of uncertain status relative to the families of Babylonia, whose lineage is certain.

Conversely, all the other lands are considered like a “mixture” relative to Eretz Yisrael, because the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael are constantly occupied with examining lineage, since kohanim are common there.

But according to the one who says “

he brought them up

against their will,” why is Eretz Yisrael considered like a mixture relative to Babylonia? Surely there too there should be no concern that disqualified families became intermingled, since

they knew them well

[the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael recognized] the disqualified, because they ascended against their will together with all the exiles. Since they were forcibly brought up, word spread that they were disqualified, and the fit people were careful not to intermarry with them.

And we answer:

Granted,

even

if they knew

that they were disqualified,

for that generation,

[in that generation],

with regard to later generations, they did not know

[later generations in Eretz Yisrael did not know] of their disqualification. Therefore, there is greater concern that they became intermingled there than in Babylonia.

The Gemara raises another difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says “

they ascended

of their own accord,”

this is what is written, as Ezra said [Ezra 8:1]:

“

And I gathered them to the river that flows toward Ahava

[a place in Babylonia where those ascending to Eretz Yisrael gathered before their departure].

And we encamped there for three days.

And I examined the people and the kohanim, but I found none of the sons of Levi there.”

Rashi and Tosafot raised the difficulty: We learned in the Mishna that Levites went up from Babylonia! They answered that the Levites who went up had their thumbs cut off and were unfit to sing with instruments, which was part of the service of the Levites. As it is stated in the psalm “By the rivers of Babylonia,” Nebuchadnezzar asked them, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion.” The Levites stood and bit off their thumbs with their teeth, saying to him, “How can we sing the song of the Lord on foreign soil?” They did not say to him, “We will not sing,” but “How can we sing?” because they had no thumbs with which to touch the strings of the harps. But the Levites of valid status did not go up, because they lived peacefully in Babylonia, whereas those who went up to Jerusalem were living in poverty, labor, and fear of the surrounding population. Ezra therefore complained that he had found no Levites of valid status. Maharsha wrote that even according to the opinion that the essential singing is vocal, these Levites were nevertheless unfit to sing, although a physical defect does not disqualify a Levite, because their voices had deteriorated due to old age. They had already been present at the destruction of the First Temple, and this was now the beginning of the Second Temple period; Levites are disqualified when their voice is unfit. The Tiferet Yisrael wrote that even according to the opinion that the essential singing is vocal, there was nevertheless an ancient enactment, from the days of Samuel and David, to sing with instruments, as written in Chronicles, and therefore they were not fit to sing. [Tosafot in Yevamot [86b], s.v. “and from the Levites,” likewise wrote this.] The Tiferet Yisrael further wrote that there is no difficulty here at all, because later in the verse, which tells that Ezra found none of the Levites, it says that Ezra sent to bring Levites, and in the end they went up with him. If so, however, the statement in Yevamot [86b] that Ezra penalized the Levites by not giving them the first tithe because they did not go up with him requires explanation, since in the end they did go up. It must be said that he penalized them because they did not take the initiative to go up on their own until he had to send for them. According to Rashi and Tosafot, however, it is difficult why he penalized the Levites with severed thumbs who went up with him. See Ramban, Ritva, and Tosafot of the Rosh.

Ezra initially assumed that there were among them Levites fit for the Temple service. But after he examined the people to determine who was among those going up to Eretz Yisrael, he found that they were unfit for the service, because their thumbs had been severed.

For when Nebuchadnezzar brought them from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said to them, “Sing us one of the songs of Zion.” They arose and severed their thumbs with their teeth. And this is the meaning of that which is written: “How shall we sing the song of the Lord on foreign soil?” It is not written, “We shall not sing,” but rather, “How shall we sing?”—because we have no thumbs with which to pluck the strings of the harps.

These particular Levites went up to Eretz Yisrael because of their poverty. But the Levites who were fit for the service did not go up, because they were living peacefully in Babylonia.

In any event, it follows from this that Ezra did not know in advance who was coming. This is understandable according to Abaye, who maintains that Ezra did not forcibly bring up those who were disqualified and did not examine their lineage. According to him, it is well: only now did Ezra discover that there were no Levites among those who went up.

But according to the one who says

Rava:

“They brought them up”—

Ezra forcibly brought them up, after he had investigated and clarified their lineage—this is difficult. If so,

here

necessarily

they were exceedingly careful

with them: they were careful to examine who the people going up were, and they knew who had gone up and who had not. How, then, could Ezra say that only when he came to the place where those going up had gathered did he discover that there were no Levites with him?

And we answer:

Granted that they were careful

even though they took care that

those disqualified

should go up, nevertheless

they were not careful with regard to those fit; rather, the latter went up on their own. Therefore, Ezra did not know in advance whether there were among them Levites fit for the service.

We learned in the Mishna:

We learned in the Mishna:

“Priests, Levites, and Israelites.”

And we raise a question concerning it:

From where do we know

from where did we learn

that they went up

that all these people of established lineage went up? And we answer: From that

which is written

concerning those who went up from Babylonia [Ezra 2:70]: “

And the priests and the Levites and some of the people, and the singers and the gatekeepers and the netinim

settled in their cities, and all Israel in their cities.” It follows that all these people of established lineage went up from Babylonia.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Those rendered ḥalalim, converts, and emancipated slaves.”

And we raise a question concerning it:

Those rendered ḥalalim

priests rendered ḥalalim,

from where do we know

that they went up?

And we answer: From that

which was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Presumptive status is powerful!

Whenever someone has been established as possessing a particular legal status, we rely on the status we have established for him, and we do not remove him from his previous legal status.

For

it is

stated

there [Ezra 2:61]: “

And of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who took

each of these priests, the sons of Barzillai,

a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite,

and was called by their name

and therefore they were all called “the sons of Barzillai.”

All

these

priests

requested their genealogical record

they requested their lineage record in order to prove their fitness,

but it was not found.

And they were disqualified

they were disqualified for that reason

from the priesthood!

And the Tirshata

Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah,

said to them,

he instructed them,

“That they should not eat of the most sacred sacrifices until a priest shall arise with the Urim and Thummim.”

That is, he prohibited them forever from eating sacred offerings. For there were no Urim and Thummim in the Second Temple. This is like a person who says to his fellow, “Until the Messiah comes,” intending thereby to put him off completely.

The reason for this is that since the genealogical record of the sons of Barzillai was not found, Nehemiah did not allow them to eat the sacred offerings of the Temple, from the flesh of sacrifices, because perhaps they were ḥalalim, and ḥalalim are prohibited from eating sacred offerings.

And from that which is written, “They should not eat of the most sacred sacrifices,” it follows that he specifically did not allow them to eat sacred offerings, but they were permitted to eat teruma.

And why were they permitted to eat teruma? In either case, this is difficult: If he was concerned that they had been disqualified from the priesthood, ḥalalim are prohibited even from eating teruma.

Rather, this is what

he said to them: “You retain your presumptive status!”

“What did you eat in the exile?”—

“The sacred food of the borderlands,”

namely, teruma, which may be eaten anywhere.

“So here too,”

in Eretz Yisrael,

also

you may eat

the sacred food of the borderlands. Even though your lineage has not been clarified, I have no power to prohibit you from something with regard to which you had an established presumption.

Although your lineage has not been clarified, I have no power to prohibit you from something that you had an established practice of eating.

But with regard to the sacred offerings of the Temple, which you did not have an established presumption of eating in the exile—for sacred offerings may be eaten only in the Temple—you may not eat them, since your lineage has not been clarified.

Infer from this that the power of presumptive status is sufficient to rely upon, for Nehemiah could not disqualify them from eating teruma, despite the fact that their lineage was not found, since they already had an established presumption of eating it.

And from here there is an answer to what we asked earlier: From where do we know that even ḥalalim went up with the exiles? For it is written concerning the sons of Barzillai, “And they were disqualified from the priesthood,” meaning that they were disqualified from the priesthood; and they too were among those who went into exile.

The Gemara now discusses Rabbi Yosei’s statement mentioned above:

We have indeed found a position that maintains that one may elevate a person from teruma to matters of lineage. That is, any priest known to eat teruma need not be investigated with regard to his lineage to determine whether he is fit; rather, he has a presumption of fitness. His daughter too is fit to marry a priest. We do not suspect that perhaps her father was a ḥalal and consequently she too is a ḥalala, prohibited from marrying into the priesthood.

And

if so,

according to the one who says

“one may elevate a person from teruma to matters of lineage,”

how did Nehemiah permit the sons of Barzillai to eat teruma? For

these

priests

who eat teruma will come to be elevated

they may also come to marry their daughters to priests, which would be unlawful, since they are possibly ḥalalim!

The Gemara offers two answers:

1.

The case there is different,

the matter of the sons of Barzillai is different,

as their presumptive status was weakened,

for their presumptive status is “bad.”

Since they are not permitted to eat sacred offerings like other priests, but only teruma, it is evident that there is a concern that they are ḥalalim, and people will not come to establish them as fit even with regard to lineage.

But this answer itself is difficult: If so, if certainly they would not be elevated from teruma to matters of lineage,

but what

is the meaning of Rabbi Yosei’s statement

“Presumptive status is powerful”?

For granted, if there were reason to be concerned that they might be elevated from teruma to matters of lineage, and nevertheless he permitted them to eat teruma because it was impossible to remove them from their presumptive status on account of this concern, then Rabbi Yosei’s statement that “presumptive status is powerful” would be appropriate. That is, one maintains a person’s presumptive status even where there is concern that this could lead to an undesirable result.

But now that we have said that there is no concern that they will be elevated from teruma to matters of lineage, and Rabbi Yosei came only to teach that we rely on their presumptive status with regard to eating teruma, he should have said, “From where do we know that presumptive status is effective,” and no more! The fact that he added and said, “Presumptive status is powerful,” indicates that even now, when there is greater reason to prohibit them than there was previously, nevertheless we do not remove them from their presumptive status.

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei used the expression “Presumptive status is powerful” to teach a novel point: through their presumptive status, we permit them more than that which they had previously been presumed to possess.

For

indeed,

initially

in Babylonia,

eat

these priests only

the teruma

of Babylonia, whose obligation is only

rabbinic;

for by Torah law, teruma applies only in Eretz Yisrael. Whereas

ultimately

in Eretz Yisrael,

eat

even

the teruma

of Eretz Yisrael, which is

by Torah law,

by virtue of their original presumptive status.

And the Gemara offers another answer:

Alternatively, if you wish, say: In fact,

even

now,

after they came to Eretz Yisrael,

also

only

the

teruma

of rabbinic origin may they eat,

such as the teruma of produce and vegetables, which is only rabbinic in origin [for by Torah law one is obligated in teruma only with regard to grain, wine, and oil], because in Babylonia they had an established presumption of eating teruma of rabbinic origin. But

the

teruma

of Torah origin they may not eat

in Eretz Yisrael, since they had no established presumption regarding it in Babylonia.

And when we elevate

a person

from teruma to matters of lineage,

it is specifically in the case of a priest whom one saw eating teruma

by Torah law.

But one who eats teruma

of rabbinic origin—we do not elevate him

to matters of lineage.

Therefore, there is no concern that they might be elevated to matters of lineage. For even according to the one who says, “One may elevate a person from teruma to matters of lineage,” one does not elevate a person from teruma of rabbinic origin.

But according to this final answer, according to which we merely maintained their previous presumptive status, one may raise the following difficulty:

If so, what is the meaning of

“Presumptive status is powerful”?

Why did he say “powerful”? Nothing new has now been permitted to them beyond what had been permitted previously.

And we answer: The novel point is that although there is now greater reason to prohibit them than previously, nevertheless we rely on their presumptive status.

For

indeed,

initially,

when they were in Babylonia,

there was no basis for decreeing

that they should not eat teruma of rabbinic origin in Babylonia

because

they might come to eat

Torah-authorized teruma. For teruma from Eretz Yisrael was not available to them.

For teruma from the Land of Israel was not available to them.

But

ultimately,

after they came to Eretz Yisrael,

although there is a basis for decreeing

that they should not eat even teruma of rabbinic origin

because

they might come to eat

Torah-authorized teruma, nevertheless they did not issue such a decree against them.

they nevertheless did not impose that safeguard upon them.

Rather, only

the

teruma

of rabbinic origin may they eat,

because they had an established presumption regarding it in Babylonia; but

the

teruma

of Torah origin,

regarding which they had no established presumption,

they may not eat.

And we raise a difficulty: How could you say that the sons of Barzillai did not eat Torah-authorized teruma?

But it is written

in Ezra 2:63: “

And the Tirshata said to them that they should not eat of the most sacred offering.”

Infer from this that specifically

the most sacred offering

the sacred offerings of the Temple,

they may not eat.

But

everything

every item other than these,

they may eat,

including Torah-authorized teruma! And we answer:

This is what

Nehemiah meant: “They should not eat of the most sacred offering”—

not anything

anything

called

“

sacred,”

and not anything

anything

called

“sacred offerings.”

sacred offerings.”

And this is the meaning of his statement:

“Not anything called

‘sacred’”—

that is teruma,

as it is written

concerning it [Leviticus 22:10]: “

And no non-priest shall eat anything sacred.”

The “sacred” mentioned there refers to teruma, and not to sacred offerings. For it is stated there afterward that a ritually impure person may not eat “sacred” until he immerses and the sun sets: “And when the sun has set, he shall be pure.” Necessarily, this verse speaks only with regard to eating teruma, because only with regard to teruma are immersion and sunset sufficient to permit its consumption. But with regard to eating sacred offerings, people who are impure and require atonement through a sacrifice for their purification, such as a zav or a woman after childbirth, may not eat sacred offerings until the following day, after they bring their sacrifice; immersion and sunset alone are not sufficient for them.

“And not anything called

‘sacred offerings’”—

that is the breast and thigh of the shelamim offering, which are given to the priest, and we find that they are called “sacred offerings” in the verse.

And the proof is

that the verse says: “

And if a priest’s daughter shall be married to a non-priest, she shall not eat of

the sacred gift

of the offerings.” “The sacred gift of the offerings” is the breast and thigh of the shelamim offering, because

“The sacred gift of the offerings” refers to the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering, because

and

concerning this

the Master

said [Yevamot 68b, 87a] that the meaning of this verse is:

“Of that which is raised up from the sacred offerings”—

she may not eat!

That is, a daughter of a priest may not eat the breast and thigh of a shelamim offering, which are given to priests as a gift from the owner of the sacrifice, when she returns to her father’s household.

That is, a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite may never eat from these portions, even after she returns to her father’s household without offspring from the Israelite [after he dies].

But with regard to teruma, she returns to eating it after she returns to her father’s household without offspring from the Israelite.

It follows that Nehemiah explicitly prohibited them even from Torah-authorized teruma. And Rabbi Yosei’s statement, “Presumptive status is powerful,” was said with regard to the fact that he permitted them to eat teruma of rabbinic origin.