KESUBOS - 026a – האשה שנתארמלה – פרק שני – כתובות, כו ע”א

When he was speaking innocently.^[1]

As Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: It once happened that a certain man was speaking innocently, and he said: I remember when I was a child, riding on my father's shoulder, that they took me out of the schoolhouse, removed my shirt and immersed me, so that I could eat terumah^[2] in the evening.

והטבילוני - because an ordinary child plays about in refuse heaps, and sheratzim (creatures that convey tumah) are found there.

לערב - for he needs the setting of the sun after immersion before eating terumah.

And Rabbi Chiya concludes it: And my companions kept away from me and would call me "Yochanan, eater of challos."^[3] And Rebbi raised him to kehunah on his word.

It was taught in a beraisa: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Just as terumah is proof of kehunah,^[4] so first tithe^[5] is proof of kehunah; and one who takes a share in beis din — it is not proof.

והחולק בב"ד - it was assumed at first that by order of the beis din fixed in the town they would give him a share of terumah at the threshing floors; and further on the Gemara asks: if in beis din it is not proof, where is it proof?

But first tithe belongs to a Levi!

It follows Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, as it was taught: Terumah goes to the Kohen, first tithe to the Levi — the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah says: First tithe goes also to the Kohen.^[6]

Granted that Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah said "also to the Kohen" — did he say to the Kohen and not to the Levi?

Yes — after Ezra penalized them.^[7]

בתר דקנסינהו עזרא - the Leviim, that it should not be given to them, as we say in Yevamos, in perek Yesh Mutaros (86b).

But perhaps they happened upon him and gave it to him!

Rav Chisda said: Here we are dealing with a case where we have a presumption about this man's father that he is a Kohen, and a rumor went out about him that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a chalutzah,^[8] and they gave him himself a share of tithe at the threshing floors.^[9]

As for a Levi — that he is not a Levi — what is there to say? [The only doubt is that] he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a chalutzah.

לוי דלאו לוי הוא - that is, about his being a Levi there is no room for doubt, since his father is a Kohen.

It is not necessary to say this according to the one who says first tithe is forbidden to non-Leviim, for they would not have given it to him.

Rather, even according to the one who says first tithe is permitted to non-Leviim,^[10] that applies to supplying them with it; but as a share of the distribution they would not give it to him.

למ"ד כו' - this is a dispute in Yevamos (ibid.).

"And one who takes a share in beis din — it is not proof."^[11]

If in beis din it is not proof, where is it proof?

Rav Sheshes said: This is what it means: one who takes a share of terumah among his father's property, together with his brothers, in beis din — it is not proof.

בנכסי אביו כו' אינה חזקה - to silence the rumor that went out about him regarding his mother, that she is a divorcee and he is a chalal.

That is obvious!

פשיטא - for even if he is a chalal he inherits his father.

You might have said: since those other shares are for eating, this one too is for eating;

it teaches us: those are for eating, this one is for selling.^[12]

Rabbi Yehudah says: One is not raised to kehunah on the word of a single witness, etc.^[13]

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the same as Rabbi Eliezer!

רבן שמעון היינו רבי אליעזר - for certainly in a place where there are challengers Rabban Shimon did not say that one witness is believed; and when he said "we raise," he was speaking of a place where there are no challengers.

And if you say that a challenge by one person is the difference between them — that Rabbi Eliezer holds a challenge by one counts, and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds a challenge needs two —

דר"א סבר ערער חד - it is a challenge, and one witness is not believed against it to declare him fit.

but Rabbi Yochanan said: All agree, there is no challenge with fewer than two!^[14]

Rather, here we are dealing with a case where we have a presumption about this man's father that he is a Kohen, and a rumor went out about him that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a chalutzah, and we demoted him;^[15] and one witness came and said: I know about him that he is a Kohen,

ונפק עליה קלא - a mere rumor, and not testimony.

ואחתיניה - from kehunah, until they investigate the matter; so that the witness now raises him to kehunah.

במסיח לפי תומו - And if you ask: how do we know that this is so? Perhaps Rabbi Chiya raised a son on his father's word when speaking innocently, and Rebbi raised a brother on his brother's word even without speaking innocently! The Ri says: presumably, in the case the beraisa teaches as Rebbi's view, Rebbi also acted. Further, it is impossible that Rebbi raised a brother on his brother's word to Leviyah even without speaking innocently, for there one cannot say that it is in his power to feed him tithe — according to the one who says first tithe is permitted to non-Leviim.

מבית הספר - he mentions this so that one should not say he is a slave, as it says at the end of our perek (Kesubos 28a, below).

אין בתר דקנסינהו עזרא - According to Rabbi Akiva, who holds that before the penalty it was only for the Levi, after the penalty it is also for the Kohanim; but according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who holds that before the penalty it was also for the Kohen, after the penalty it is for the Kohen only. And the teaching that first tithe is proof of kehunah follows Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah and not Rabbi Akiva. Some erase the word "yes" and explain that "after Ezra penalized them" holds even for Rabbi Akiva, since after the penalty all agree it is for the Kohen only, and it is like saying "rather." This is an error on their part, for in many places it is proven that first tithe goes to the Levi even after the penalty: as we learned in perek Kol HaGet (Gittin 30a): one who lends money to a Kohen or a Levi, to separate their gifts against it, etc.; and likewise there in the Gemara: a Yisrael who said to the son of a Levi, "I hold a kor of tithe of your father's"; and in perek HaZeroa (Chullin 131b) it asks: first tithe belongs to the Levi!; and so in many places — and that follows Rabbi Akiva. Further, according to the one who says the penalty was in favor of the poor, how is it proof of kehunah? For they disagree, according to Rabbi Akiva, at the end of perek Yesh Mutaros (Yevamos 86b): one says the penalty was in favor of the Kohanim and one says in favor of the poor; while according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah it is only for the Kohen, even the rich ones, as before the penalty, for Ezra did not penalize the Kohanim, since they had gone up. And according to the one who says the penalty was in favor of the poor, it is implied there: only for the poor and not for rich Kohanim, even in days of tumah, for he does not hold that in days of tumah they count as poor. And "the poor" there cannot mean only poor Leviim and not poor Yisraelim and Kohanim, for then the poor Leviim would have profited by not going up. Further, it is implied there that were the Kohanim poor in their days of tumah, all would agree that they take it, even though regarding the distribution of tithe they are like Yisraelim, since it says "to the Levi and not to the Kohen." Rather it is for the poor, whether poor Kohanim or poor Leviim; and according to the one who says first tithe is permitted to non-Leviim, even poor Yisraelim take. But according to the one who says it is forbidden to non-Leviim, it does not seem that it would be given to poor Yisraelim to sell, for the Rabbis did not enact something that leads to a stumbling, since there is concern that he may come to eat it [as it says just below: it is not necessary according to Rabbi Meir, who says it is forbidden to non-Leviim, etc.]. And according to Rabbi Akiva, Ezra did not remove the Leviim entirely, making them equal to Yisraelim and Kohanim, so that rich Leviim would not take and only poor Leviim would take as poor people; rather the Leviim, rich and poor, always took shares, as is proven in all those sources I have brought, that they took as Leviim. Further, when Rabban Gamliel on the ship gave first tithe to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (Maaser Sheni 5:9) — if he gave it to him as a poor man, why did he not also give him maaser ani,^[16] since he gave maaser ani to Rabbi Akiva? However, one can deflect this: really he gave it to him as a poor man, and he did not give him maaser ani because he had two hundred zuz, and such a person does not take maaser ani, as we learned in Pe'ah (8:8); but first tithe he may take even if he has two hundred zuz, for there is an opinion that even rich Kohanim count as poor in days of tumah. Further, he did not want to give all his gifts to one poor man.

בתר דקנסינהו עזרא - We do not find explicitly in a verse that he penalized them; we find only in Ezra (Nechemiah 10): And the Kohen, the son of Aharon, shall be with the Leviim when the Leviim take tithes. One can say it means: when the Leviim come to take their share at the threshing floors, the Kohanim shall come with them. However, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah, who holds that after the penalty it is only for the Kohen, this is not implied by that verse; for one cannot say that "with the Leviim" in the verse means receiving first tithe from them, from their own produce, since Ezra did not penalize them in their own, as is proven in perek HaZeroa (Chullin 131b). One can answer that according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah the Leviim did not refrain entirely from going to the threshing floors to share in the tithe, as it says just below: perhaps they happened upon him and gave it to him; all the more so in the days of Ezra, when the penalty had not yet spread, they would go to the threshing floors, and therefore it says that the Kohanim should go with the Leviim. And according to the one who says the penalty was in favor of the poor, "and the Kohen shall be" refers to a poor Kohen; it mentions a Kohen because poor Kohanim are more common, since they are not much occupied with work but with the service of the Beis HaMikdash, and they also have no lands — and the same applies to poor Yisraelim, according to the one who says first tithe is permitted to non-Leviim. And Rabbeinu Yosef explained it from what is written (Malachi 3): Bring all the tithe into the storehouse — the storehouse was a chamber that Ezra set up to hold the Kohanim's terumah, as is written in Ezra (Nechemiah 10); and since it says to bring the tithe there, it belongs to the Kohanim; and we hold (Megillah 15a) that Malachi is Ezra. And according to the one who says it is in favor of the poor, it mentions "into the storehouse" because poor Kohanim are more common, as I explained; or else "into the storehouse" is not to give it to the Kohanim but to distribute it to the poor. And Rabbeinu Elchanan asked: at the end of Ezra it is implied that the tithe belonged to the Leviim, as is written: And I learned that the portions of the Leviim had not been given (to them), and the Leviim and the singers fled, each to his field, etc. — implying that the Leviim and the singers took shares. One must say that this was before Ezra penalized them; but the verses do not prove it.

והאמר רבי יוחנן דברי הכל אין ערער כו' - It seems to the Ri that Rabbi Yochanan stated his words chiefly on our Mishnah, and that is why the Gemara does not answer here, that applies where there is a presumption of fitness, etc., as it answers in perek Asarah Yuchasin (Kiddushin 73b). And if you ask: since it refers to our Mishnah, how does the Gemara challenge from it there, and in the first perek of Gittin (9a) regarding a get? Perhaps what Rabbi Yochanan said, that a challenge by one is ineffective, is where there is one witness who declares him fit, as it teaches: we raise to kehunah on the word of one witness! One can answer that the Gemara knew that Rabbi Yochanan spoke on the conclusion: at first there was a rumor, then one witness came to declare him fit and remove the rumor, and then two came and said that he is the son of a divorcee or of a chalutzah; in such a case Rabbi Yochanan said that two are needed, even though the witness who declared him fit and the rumor are as if they did not exist, for the witness is weaker than the rumor, were it not for the presumption that supports him in nullifying the rumor; for the rumor disqualifies, while the witness does not disqualify, according to Rabbi Yochanan.

אין ערער פחות משנים - to exclude one, which is not a challenge; but a rumor also disqualifies at first, for terumah, before the witness who declares him fit comes.

ואתא עד אחד ואמר ידענא ביה דכהן הוא - it does not mean to say that they disagree about whether we raise on one witness when the rumor disqualifies, for it is obvious to the Gemara that the rumor does not disqualify according to all, since there is a witness and a presumption; further, a rumor is not called "challengers."

Notes

1. 1. This continues from the previous amud (Kesubos 25b), which asked: a brother is also a relative of his brother! The answer: he spoke lefi tumo — innocently, in passing, without meaning to testify — and such a remark is believed even from a relative.
2. 2. Terumah is the portion of produce given to a Kohen; only a Kohen may eat it, and only in a state of tahara. That they immersed him so that he could eat terumah shows he was treated as a Kohen.
3. 3. Challah is the portion of dough given to a Kohen, with the sanctity of terumah. The nickname shows he regularly ate it and was known as a Kohen.
4. 4. A chazakah for kehunah is evidence on whose basis a person is established as a Kohen and "raised to kehunah."
5. 5. First tithe (maaser rishon) is a tenth of the produce, which by Torah law is given to a Levi.
6. 6. Rabbi Akiva holds first tithe goes to a Levi only; Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah holds it may also go to a Kohen, since Kohanim too are of the tribe of Levi.
7. 7. Ezra penalized the Leviim for not going up with him from Bavel to Eretz Yisrael, and gave first tithe to the Kohanim (Yevamos 86b).
8. 8. A Kohen who marries a divorcee or a chalutzah has a son who is a chalal and is not a Kohen.
9. 9. The threshing floors were where the grain was threshed, and where the gifts for Kohanim and Leviim were distributed in public.
10. 10. There is a dispute whether a non-Levi (zar) may eat first tithe; Rabbi Meir forbids it, as brought in Yevamos.
11. 11. The clause says that one who takes a share of terumah in beis din has no proof of kehunah from it — though a distribution by order of the court would seem the strongest proof of all.
12. 12. A chalal inherits his father like any son, and terumah in the estate may be sold to Kohanim; so his receiving a share proves nothing.
13. 13. The Mishnah reads: Rabbi Yehudah says, one is not raised to kehunah on the word of one witness; Rabbi Eliezer says, that is where there are challengers, but where there are none we raise him; Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben HaSegan, we raise him on the word of one witness.
14. 14. A challenge (irer) is a claim that a person is unfit in his lineage; Rabbi Yochanan rules that a challenge requires two witnesses.
15. 15. They removed him from kehunah because of the rumor, pending investigation. The case continues on the next amud (Kesubos 26b).
16. 16. Maaser ani, the tithe for the poor, is separated in the third and sixth years of the shemittah cycle in place of maaser sheni; one who owns two hundred zuz may not take it.