Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 25a

If so,¹  what [do the words of R. Jose mean] 'Great is the presumption'?²  — Till now³  they ate [only] Rabbinical terumah.⁴  [and] now they ate Biblical terumah.⁵  And if you wish, you may say: now also they ate Rabbinical terumah⁶  [and] did not eat Biblical terumah,⁷  and when does one raise [a person] from terumah to the status of a priest. In the case of Biblical terumah, but in the case of Rabbinical terumah one does not raise. If so,⁸  what [is the meaning of the words] 'Great is the presumption'?⁹  — Although one might have forbidden [Rabbinical terumah] because of Biblical terumah,¹⁰  this has not been forbidden. But did they not eat Biblical terumah? Surely it is written: 'that they should not eat of the most holy things', [implying] 'the most holy things' they did not eat, but Biblical terumah they did eat! — [No]. He means thus: Neither [may they eat] anything that is called 'holy thing's¹¹  as it is written: 'And no stranger shall eat of the holy thing', nor anything which is called 'holy thing'. for it is written: 'And if a priest's daughter be married into a stranger. she shall not eat of the peace-offering of the holy things'¹²  — and a Master said: [that this means] that which has been set aside from the holy things she shall not eat.¹³

Come and hear: A presumption for the priesthood is constituted by the 'lifting up of the hands' in Babylonia, and the eating of the hallah¹⁴  in Syria, and taking a share in [the priestly] gifts¹⁵  in large cities.¹⁶  In any case he mentions [here] the 'lifting up of the hands'; is it not with regard to the full status of the priest?¹⁷  — No, with regard to terumah.¹⁸  But he teaches [the ruling regarding terumah] as analogous to the eating of hallah,' just as the eating of hallah [entitles a person] to the full status of a priest, so does the lifting up of the hands [entitle a person] to the full status of a priest? — No. the eating of the hallah itself merely [serves as evidence] regarding terumah, [for] he holds that hallah in our days¹⁹  is Rabbinical and terumah is Biblical and one raises [a person] from Rabbinical hallah to Biblical terumah.²⁰  and [it is] as R. Huna. the son of R. Joshua. reversed [the words of] the Rabbis.²¹

Come and hear: A presumption for the priesthood is [constituted by] the 'lifting up of the hands' and taking a share [at the distribution of the [priestly gifts] at the threshing floors²²  in the Land of Israel;²³  in Syria and in all places to which the messengers of the new moon come²⁴  the 'lifting up of the hands' is evidence, but not taking a share at the threshing floors.²⁵  Babylonia is like Syria. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, says: Also Alexandria in Egypt formerly. because there was there a permanent court of law.²⁶  In any case he teaches [here] the 'lifting up of the hands'; is it not with regard to the full status of the priest? — No, with regard to hallah. But he teaches [the rule regarding the lifting up of the hands] as analogous to taking a share at the threshing floors: just as taking a share at the threshing floors [serves as evidence] in respect of the status of a priest, so does the 'lifting up of the hands' [serve] in respect of the status of a priest! — No, taking a share at the threshing floors itself [serves as evidence only as] to hallah, for he holds that terumah in our days is Rabbinical and hallah is Biblical and one raises [a person] from Rabbinical terumah to Biblical hallah, even as the Rabbis. whom R. Huna the son of R. Joshua found [in discourse]. For R. Huna, the son of R. Joshua, found the Rabbis in the School of Rab sitting²⁷  and saying: Even according to him who says that terumah in these days is Rabbinical. hallah is Biblical, for during the seven [years] that they²⁸  conquered [the Land] and during the seven [years] that they distributed [it]²⁹  there was a duty upon them [to separate] hallah, but there was no duty upon them [to separate] terumah. And I said to them: On the contrary, even according to him who says [that] terumah in these days is Biblical, hallah is Rabbinical, for it has been taught: [It is written:] 'In your coming'.³⁰  If 'in your coming'³¹  you might think as soon as two or three spies had entered it? [Therefore] it is said in your coming'.³²  I have spoken of the coming of all and not of the coming of a portion of you. Now when Ezra brought them up³³

1. Lit., 'and but'.
2. How far does the presumption improve their position? Why does R. Jose lay such emphasis on it?
3. Lit.,'at first'. In Babylonia.
4. Terumah outside Palestine is only Rabbinically ordained; v. Kid. 36b.
5. Terumah in Palestine is commanded by the law of the Bible, and the eating of such terumah by them was due to the importance attached to 'presumption'.
6. I.e.. terumah on vegetables and fruits.
7. On corn, wine and oil.
8. Lit.. 'and but'.
9. V. supra p. 135' n. 4.
10. Since on their entering the land there would be plenty of Biblical terumah available side by side with the Rabbinical terumah, through being permitted to eat the latter, they might be led to eat also of the former.]
11. Lev. XXII, 10. The reference is to terumah. v. Yeb. 74b.
12. Lev. XXII, 12. The reference is to those portions of sacrifices, the breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. (v. Lev. VII, 34). that could be partaken of by the wives of priests and their slaves; v. next note.
13. Cf. preceding note. And in Ezra II, 63. both words are used, corresponding to the two words just quoted from Lev. XXII, 10 and 12; v. Kid. 69b and Yeb. 68b and 87a.
14. The priest's share of the dough; v. Num. XV, 20.
15. V. Deut. XVIII, 3.
16. [Though these Portions are permissible to non-priests, it is assumed that no one but a priest would venture to accept these publicly.]
17. I.e., in family matters; (v. supra p. 133, n. 4) which solves R. Nahman b. Isaac's question.
18. [He who is seen to avail himself of any of these privileges as defined may be given terumah, but it cannot be used as evidence regarding marriage.]
19. Lit., 'in this time', i.e., after the destruction of the Second Temple.
20. When one is seen being given hallah, we assume he is a priest, and he may be given terumah.
21. V. infra.
22. I.e., sharing in the terumah.
23. [Where terumah was Biblical and would not be given to a person of doubtful descent, and similarly in regard to the 'lifting of hands', the presence of the Sanhedrin, who would investigate claims to priesthood. would be sufficient bar to a non-priest.]
24. [V. R.H. 18a; informing the people the day on which the Sanhedrin bad proclaimed the new moon of Nisan so that they might observe the festival of Passover on the proper day. These places bad to be within fifteen days' walking distance from Jerusalem.]
25. Being outside Palestine proper terumah there is only of Rabbinic origin.
26. Who would investigate claims to priest hood, cf. supra p. 137, n. 12.
27. Rashi renders [H] 'house of learning'. school', 'college'.
28. The Israelites.
29. Under Joshua. V. B.M. 89a.
30. [H] so literally Num. XV, 18. E.V. 'When you come'.
31. The emphasis would seem to be on 'come'.
32. The emphasis is thus laid on 'your'. 'Your' means '(the coming of) all of you'.
33. To the Land of Israel.

not all of them went up.¹

Come and hear: A presumption for the priesthood [is constituted by] the 'lifting up of the hands' and taking a share at the threshing floors and testimony.²  Now is testimony a presumption?³  Hence he means thus: The 'lifting up of the hands is like a testimony'; as a testimony [raises one] to the status of a priest, so the 'lifting up of the hands' [raises one] to the status of a priest!⁴  — No. [what it means is] a testimony that comes on the strength of a presumption⁵  is like a presumption. as when a man came once before R. Ammi [and] said to him: I am convinced that he⁶  is a priest. So he said to him: What have you seen? And he answered him: He read first in the Synagogue.⁷  — As⁸  priest or as prominent man?⁹  — After him a Levite read.¹⁰  And R. Ammi raised him to the priesthood on the strength of his testimony.¹¹

Someone came before R. Joshua b. Levi, [and] said to him: am convinced that he¹²  is a Levite. He said to him: What have you seen? He answered him: He read second in the Synagogue. As Levite or as a prominent man? — A priest read before him.¹³  And R. Joshua b. Levi raised him to the status of Levite¹⁴  on the strength of his testimony.

Someone came once before Resh Lakish [and] said to him: I am convinced that he¹⁵  is a priest. He 'said to him: What have you seen? [He answered him:] He read first in the Synagogue. He¹⁶  asked him: Have you seen him take a share at the threshing floors?¹⁷  — Said R. Eleazar to him. And does the priesthood cease if there Is no threshing floor there?¹⁸  — Once they sat before R. Johanan [and] there came such a case before them. Resh Lakish asked him:¹⁹  Have you seen him take a share at the threshing floor? So R. Johanan said to him: And does the priesthood cease if there is no threshing floor there? — He²⁰  turned round, looked at R. Eleazar with displeasure²¹  and said: You have heard something from the smith's son²²  and you did not say it to us in his name.²³

Rabbi and R. Hiyya, one raised a son to the priesthood on the testimony of his father, and one raised a brother to the state of Levite on the testimony of his brother. It can be proved that it was Rabbi who raised the son to the priesthood on the testimony of his father, for it has been taught: If one comes and says: 'This Is my son and he is a priest,' he is believed with regard to allowing him to eat terumah, but he is not believed with regard to allowing him to marry a woman.²⁴  This is the opinion²⁵  of Rabbi. Said R. Hiyya to him: If you believe him so as to allow him to eat terumah, believe him [also] so as to allow him to marry a woman, and if you do not believe him so as to allow him to marry a woman, do not believe him also as to allow him to eat terumah. He answered him: I believed him so as to allow him to eat terumah because it is In his hands to let him eat terumah,²⁶  but I do not believe him so as to allow him to marry a woman because it is not in his hands to let him marry a woman.²⁷  It' is proved.²⁸  And since it was Rabbi who raised the son to the priesthood on the testimony of his father, [it follows that] it was R. Hiyya who raised the brother to the status of Levite on the testimony of his brother, But [according to] R. Hiyya, why is the son different that [he is] not [raised]?²⁹  Because he is related to his father. A brother. too, is related to his brother?³⁰  —

1. And therefore hallah in these days is Rabbinical.
2. Witnesses testify that he is a priest.
3. Surely you cannot call a Testimony a presumption!
4. Which answers the question of R. Nahman b. Isaac.
5. The testimony is to a fact that postulates a presumption.
6. A certain person. Lit., 'this (man)'.
7. When called up to the Law. V. Git. 59b.
8. Lit., 'in the presumption of'.
9. V. Git. 59b.
10. This would show that he was a priest; v. Git. 59b.
11. Lit., 'by his mouth'.
12. A certain person. Lit., 'this (man)'.
13. [So he must have been a Levite, v. Git. 59b.]
14. To give him the first tithe.
15. A certain person. Lit., 'this (man)'.
16. Resh Lakish.
17. The first answer apparently did not satisfy Resh Lakish.
18. R. Eleazar apparently regarded the first answer as sufficient.
19. The witness.
20. Resh Lakish.
21. Rashi: with an evil eye.
22. R. Johanan. V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 647. n. 8.
23. He understood that R. Eleazar had heard the phrase he had cited from R. Johanan. and therefore reproved him for this lack of scholarly courtesy in not mentioning his source.
24. Of unblemished descent.
25. Lit., 'the words'.
26. He can give him of his terumah.
27. Marriage is not in the hand of the father.
28. That it was Rabbi who promoted the son to priesthood on the testimony of his father.
29. On the testimony of his father.
30. Why should he be raised on the evidence of his brother?