Kiddushin 69b — the Talmud in English

The Gemara asks:

Granted,

with regard to what the tan­nnait said, “

the Temple is higher than all of Eretz Yisrael,”

we can properly learn this from the wording of this verse, for

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 in your gates, then you shall arise and go up

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

The phrase “in your gates” includes all of Eretz Yisrael, and the verse calls every journey from every direction and every place to the Temple “going up.”

But

with regard to what we said, that

Eretz Yisrael

—

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

And they answer: The source is what

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 offspring of the House of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where I had driven them.”

We learn from this that the verse calls the journey from all the lands to Eretz Yisrael “bringing up.” From here it follows that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all the lands.

But there is still a difficulty: The wording “went up,” used by the tan­nnait, is indeed appropriate. But

what is the reason that he specifically taught “

went up from Babylonia”?

Let him teach

[the tan­nnait should have taught] “

went up to Eretz Yisrael.”

For this wording also implies that Eretz Yisrael is higher than Babylonia.

And they answer: The tan­nnait deliberately used the wording “went up from Babylonia” to teach us that Ezra’s purpose in clarifying the lineage of the families in Babylonia was to cleanse it of all the families of disqualified lineage there and bring them up to Eretz Yisrael.

The reason was that he saw that those families had become intermingled with families of valid lineage. He also saw that all the sages of the generation were preparing to go up with him to Eretz Yisrael, and that no one would remain in Babylonia to examine lineage. He therefore arose and separated all those of disqualified lineage and took them up with him to Eretz Yisrael. He left in Babylonia only families of valid status.

Once all those of disqualified lineage were found in Eretz Yisrael, there was no longer concern that they might intermingle with others. The entire generation that went up from Babylonia had seen that Ezra separated them from the valid Jewish community [as will be explained below].

Nor was there concern for future generations, since in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, near the Temple, the judges of the Sanhedrin sat and examined the lineage of kohanim and Levites, so that only those of valid status would serve in the Temple service. Through this, they also knew the lineage of every person.

Therefore, the tan­nnait used the wording “went up from Babylonia,” because this

supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar

[the amora].

As Rabbi Elazar said: Ezra did not go up from Babylonia until he had made it like pure sifted flour, and

afterward he

went up!

Our Mishna supports him. This is why it teaches, “went up from Babylonia”: to say that Ezra clarified the status of all those of disqualified lineage in order to bring them up from there.

The Gemara further relates that Abaye and Rava disagreed about how the wording concerning going up from Babylonia should be taught:

It was stated: Abaye said: “

They went up,”

meaning that they went up

on their own, it is taught.

That is, they went up willingly.

But

if

Rava said: “

They were brought up,”

it is taught; Ezra brought them up from Babylonia against their will.

And they disagree

Abaye and Rava

with regard to Rabbi Elazar’s statement

that was cited above:

As Rabbi Elazar said: Ezra did not go up from Babylonia until he had made it like pure sifted flour, and then he went up.

Abaye—

does not accept Rabbi Elazar’s opinion.

For according to his view, they went up on their own, and not at Ezra’s command. If so, Rabbi Elazar’s statement cannot be correct, since it says that Ezra’s entire purpose was to cleanse Babylonia of those of disqualified lineage.

But

But

Rava—

accepts Rabbi Elazar’s opinion. Ezra brought them up from Babylonia against their will in order to cleanse it of families of disqualified lineage; they did not go up on their own.

Alternatively, if you wish, say: Everyone

accepts Rabbi Elazar’s opinion, that Ezra made efforts to cleanse Babylonia. Rather, Abaye and Rava disagreed about how Ezra did this.

And here, they disagree about this: One

[Abaye]

holds: He separated them

Ezra separated those of disqualified lineage from those of valid lineage. Once they had been separated, the people of Babylonia recognized that they were of disqualified status, and there was no longer concern that they might intermingle with those who remained in Babylonia.

Since those of disqualified lineage saw that they were recognized where they lived,

they went up on their own

[they went up themselves] so that they could intermingle with the people of Eretz Yisrael, who did not recognize them.

This is what Rabbi Elazar said: “He made it like pure sifted flour”—he caused only those of valid status to remain in Babylonia.

But

if

the other one,

[Rava],

holds: He brought them up against their will

[he brought them up] Ezra brought them up from Babylonia, and they did not go up on their own, because Ezra did not rely on their going up by themselves.

The Gemara asks:

Granted, according to the one who says “

they went up

willingly, on their own,”

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

the

lands

are considered like

«

dough”

in relation to Eretz Yisrael, while

Eretz Yisrael

is considered like

«

dough”

in relation to Babylonia. [“

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

so too, there is concern that people of disqualified status may have become intermingled with families of valid status. ]

For the families that remained in Babylonia, there is no uncertainty that people of disqualified status became intermingled with them, since Ezra separated those people. This is not so with the families of Eretz Yisrael, because those of disqualified status who went up from Babylonia were not recognized in Eretz Yisrael as disqualified. Therefore, the people of Eretz Yisrael did not refrain from marrying them.

Therefore, Eretz Yisrael is considered like “dough” in relation to Babylonia. That is, the families of Eretz Yisrael are considered of uncertain lineage in relation to the families of Babylonia, whose distinguished lineage is certain.

Conversely, all the other lands are considered like “dough” in relation to Eretz Yisrael, because the people of Eretz Yisrael are constantly occupied with examining lineage, since kohanim are common there.

But according to the one who says “

they were brought up

against their will,” why is Eretz Yisrael considered like dough in relation to Babylonia? Is there not no concern of intermingling with those of disqualified lineage even there, since

they were known

by the people of Eretz Yisrael to be of disqualified status? They went up against their will together with all the exiles, and since they were forcibly brought up, word spread that they were of disqualified status. The people of valid status therefore took care not to intermingle with them.

And they answer:

Granted,

even though they

knew that they were of disqualified status

for that generation,

but

for later generations, they did not know

in Eretz Yisrael about their disqualified status. Therefore, there is a greater concern of intermingling there than in Babylonia.

The Gemara raises another objection:

Granted, according to the one who says “

they went up

on their own,”

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

“

And I gathered them at the river that flows to Ahava

[a place in Babylonia where those going up gathered in preparation for their journey to Eretz Yisrael].

And we camped there for three days.

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

that Ezra initially thought that there were among them Levites fit for the service. But after he examined the people, to see who among them were those ascending to Eretz Yisrael, he found that they were unfit for the service, because their toes had been cut off.

For when Nebuchadnezzar said to them, when he brought them from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, “Sing for us from the song of Zion,” they stood and cut off the toes of their hands with their teeth. And this is what is written: “How shall we sing the song of the Lord upon foreign soil?” It is not written, “We shall not sing,” but rather, “How shall we sing?” because we do not have toes with which to pluck the strings of the lyres.

And specifically these Levites ascended to Eretz Yisrael because of their poverty. But the Levites fit for the service did not ascend, because they were dwelling in Babylonia in tranquility.

In any event, it follows from this that Ezra did not know in advance who the people coming were. And this is well according to Abaye, who holds that Ezra did not bring up the unfit against their will, and did not examine their lineage; it is satisfactory, for only now did he discover that there were no Levites among those ascending.

But according to the one who says

Rava,

“They brought them up”,

Ezra brought up the unfit against their will, after he stood and clarified their lineage, it is difficult: if so,

this

necessarily

they were exceedingly careful

with regard to them, for they were careful to examine who those ascending were, and they knew who ascended and who did not ascend; so how could Ezra say that only when he came to the place where those ascending had gathered did he discover that there were no Levites with him?

And we answer:

Granted that they were careful

even though they supervised

the unfit

so that they would ascend, however,

with regard to those fit they were not careful, but they ascended on their own. And therefore he did not know in advance whether there were among them Levites fit for the service or not.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Priests, Levites, and Israelites.”

And we raise a difficulty with it:

The Gemara asks:

From where do we know

from where did we learn

that they ascended

that all these people of established lineage ascended? And we answer: From this,

as it is written

concerning those who came 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

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“Those disqualified priests, converts, and emancipated slaves.”

And we raise a difficulty with it:

“Those disqualified priests”

disqualified priests,

from where do we know

that they ascended?

And we answer: From this,

as it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Presumption is powerful!

For anyone who has been established with regard to a certain law, we rely upon that with which we established him, and we do not remove him from his previous legal status.

For

it is

stated

there [61a]: “And of the sons of the priests: the sons of Habaiah, the sons of Hakkoz, the sons of Barzillai, who

took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite

each of these priests, the sons of Barzillai

from the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite

and was called by their name

so that they were all called “the sons of Barzillai.”

All

these

priests

sought their genealogical record,

they sought their genealogical record in order to prove their fitness,

but it was not found.

And they were declared disqualified

they were disqualified for this reason

from the priesthood!

And the Tirshata

Nehemiah son of Hacaliah

said to them,

he commanded them,

“that they should not eat of the most holy things, until a priest would arise with the Urim and the Tummim.”

That is, he prohibited them forever from eating consecrated offerings. For there was no Urim and Tummim in the Second Temple. And this is like a person who says to his fellow, “Until the Messiah comes,” intending to put him off completely.

And the reason for the matter is that, since the genealogical record of the sons of Barzillai was not found, Nehemiah did not allow them to eat of the consecrated offerings of the Temple, from the flesh of the sacrifices, for perhaps they were disqualified priests, and were prohibited from eating consecrated offerings.

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

And why were they permitted with regard to teruma? After all, whichever way one considers it, if he was concerned that they had become disqualified from the priesthood, disqualified priests are prohibited even with regard to teruma.

Rather, this is what he

said to them: “You are in your established status!”

“With what were you eating in the exile?” —

“With the consecrated offerings of the borderlands,”

that is, teruma, which is eaten everywhere.

“So here as well,

in Eretz Yisrael,

also

you shall eat

of the consecrated offerings of the borderlands. And although your lineage has not been clarified, I have no power to prohibit you from something in which you had been established.”

But with regard to the consecrated offerings of the Temple, which you had not been established as eating in the exile—for eating consecrated offerings is only in the Temple—you are not permitted to eat, since your lineage has not been clarified.

Learn from this that the power of a presumption is strong enough to rely upon, for Nehemiah could not disqualify them from eating teruma, despite the fact that their lineage was not found, since they had already been established as eating it.

And from here there is an answer to what we asked above: From where do we know that even disqualified priests ascended with the exiles? For it is written concerning the sons of Barzillai, “And they were disqualified from the priesthood,” meaning, they became disqualified from the priesthood; and they too were among the exiles.

The Gemara now discusses the words of Rabbi Yosei stated above:

We have indeed found a position that holds that one raises a person from teruma to genealogical status; that is, any priest known to eat teruma need not be examined with regard to his lineage as to whether he is fit, but he is presumed fit. And even his daughter is fit to marry a priest. And we do not fear that perhaps her father is a disqualified priest, and consequently she too is a disqualified daughter of a priest and prohibited to the priesthood.

And

if so,

according to the one who says “

one raises a person from teruma to genealogical status,”

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

these

priests

who eat teruma will come to raise them

they will also come to arrange for their daughters to marry priests,

and this is not according to the law, for they are priests of uncertain status!

And the Gemara brings two answers:

a.

The matter there is different,

the matter there, concerning the sons of Barzillai, is different,

for their presumption was impaired,

for their presumption was “bad.”

Since they were not allowed to eat consecrated offerings like the other priests, but only teruma, it was apparent concerning them that there was a concern that they were disqualified priests, and people would not come to establish them as fit even with regard to lineage.

But there is a difficulty with the answer: If so, that they certainly will not raise them from teruma to genealogical status,

but what

is this that Rabbi Yosei said, “

Presumption is powerful”?

For granted, if there were room for concern that they would raise them from teruma to genealogical status, and nevertheless he permitted them to eat teruma because it is impossible to remove them from their established status on account of this concern, then Rabbi Yosei properly said that “presumption is powerful”; that is, one establishes a person on the basis of his presumption even where there is concern of a mishap.

But now that we have said that there is no concern that they will raise them from teruma to genealogical status, and Rabbi Yosei came only to teach us that we rely upon their presumption for eating teruma, he should have said, “From where do we know the law of presumption,” and no more!? And from the fact that he added and said, “Presumption is powerful,” it follows that even now, when there is an aspect making it more appropriate to prohibit them than previously, nevertheless we do not remove them from their established status.

And we answer: Rabbi Yosei stated “Presumption is powerful” in order to teach us a novel point: by means of the presumption, we permit them more than that in which they had been established until now.

For

indeed,

initially

in Babylonia,

they ate

these priests only

teruma

of Babylonia, whose obligation is only

rabbinic;

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

ultimately

in Eretz Yisrael,

they ate

even

teruma

of Eretz Yisrael, which is

by Torah law, by virtue of their initial presumption.

And the Gemara brings another answer:

And if you wish, say: Actually

even

now,

after they came to Eretz Yisrael,

also

only

of

teruma

by rabbinic law they ate,

such as teruma of produce and vegetables, which is only rabbinic [for by Torah law only grain, wine, and oil are obligated in teruma], because in Babylonia they had been established as eating teruma by rabbinic law. But

of teruma

by Torah law they did not eat

in Eretz Yisrael, for they had not been established as doing so in Babylonia.

And when we say that one raises a person

from teruma

to genealogical status,

it is specifically with regard to a priest whom they saw eating teruma

by Torah law. But one who eats teruma

by rabbinic law, we do not raise him

to genealogical status.

Therefore there is no concern that they might raise them to genealogical status. For even according to the one who says, “One raises a person from teruma to genealogical status,” one does not raise him from teruma by rabbinic law.

But according to the last answer, that we established them only on the basis of their previous presumption, there is a difficulty:

If so, what is “

Presumption is powerful”? Why did he state “powerful”? After all, nothing has now been newly permitted to them beyond what was permitted previously.

And we answer: The novelty is that although now there is greater reason to prohibit them than previously, nevertheless we rely upon the presumption.

For

indeed,

initially,

when they were in Babylonia,

there was no basis for decreeing

upon them that they should not eat teruma by rabbinic law in Babylonia

because

they might come to eat

teruma by Torah law. For teruma of Eretz Yisrael was not available to them.

But

ultimately,

after they came to Eretz Yisrael,

although there is basis for decreeing

upon them not to eat even teruma by rabbinic law

because

they might come to eat in it

teruma by Torah law, nevertheless they did not decree this upon them.

Rather, only

of teruma

by rabbinic law they ate, because they had been established with regard to it in Babylonia; but

of teruma

by Torah law, with regard to which they had not been established,

they did not eat.

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

And is it not written

[Ezra 2:63], “

And the Tirshata said to them, that they should not eat of the most holy thing”?

Learn from this that specifically

of the most holy thing

the consecrated offerings of the Temple

they shall not eat.

But

everything

everything aside from these,

they may eat, including teruma by Torah law!? And we answer:

This is what he said

Nehemiah: “They shall not eat of the most holy thing”:

not anything

anything

that is called

“

holy,”

and not anything

anything

that is called

“

holy offerings.”

And this is the meaning of his words:

Not anything that is called “

holy” —

that is teruma,

as it is written

concerning it [Leviticus 22:10], “

And no non-priest shall eat anything holy.”

And the “holy” stated there speaks of teruma, and not of consecrated offerings. For it is stated there subsequently that an impure person may not eat “holy” until he immerses, “and the sun has set, and he is pure.” And necessarily, this verse speaks only with regard to eating teruma, for only with regard to teruma are immersion and sunset sufficient to permit its eating. But with regard to eating consecrated offerings [impure people who lack atonement through a sacrifice for their purification, such as a zav and a woman who has given birth], they do not eat consecrated offerings until the following day, after they bring their sacrifice; immersion and sunset are not sufficient for them.

And not anything that is called “

holy offerings” —

sacred offerings.”

that is the breast and the thigh from the sacrifice of shelamim, which are given to the priest, and we find that they are called “holy offerings” in Scripture.

And the proof is

that the verse says, “

And when a priest’s daughter belongs to a non-priest, she may not eat of the”

raised portion of the holy offerings

.” And “the raised portion of the holy offerings” is the breast and the thigh of the sacrifice of shelamim, because

and he said

concerning this,

the master

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

“Of that which is raised from the holy offerings” —

she may not eat!

That is, the breast and the thigh of shelamim, which are given to the priests as a gift by the owner of the sacrifice, the priest’s daughter who returns to her father’s house may not eat.

That is, a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite does not eat of them ever, even after she returns to her father’s house 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 house without offspring from the Israelite.

of the offerings.”

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

and

concerning this

the Master

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

“Of that which is raised up from the sacred offerings”— ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

she shall not eat!

That is, a priest’s daughter may not eat the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, which are given to priests as a gift by the owner of the sacrifice.

This means that a priest’s daughter who marries an Israelite may never eat these portions, even after she returns to her father’s household without children from the Israelite, after she is widowed by him.

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

And it follows that Nehemiah explicitly prohibited them even from teruma by Torah law. And when Rabbi Yosei said, “Presumption is powerful,” he said this with regard to the fact that he permitted them teruma by rabbinic law.