## Ketubot Daf 26a

###### Ketubot 26a:1
[Ketubot 26a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:1)

בְּמֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ. כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מֵסִיחַ לְפִי תּוּמּוֹ, וְאָמַר: זְכוּרַנִי כְּשֶׁאֲנִי תִּינוֹק וּמוּרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵיפוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא, וְהוֹצִיאוּנִי מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר, וְהִפְשִׁיטוּנִי אֶת כּוּתׇּנְתִּי, וְהַטְבִּילוּנִי לֶאֱכוֹל בִּתְרוּמָה לָעֶרֶב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥiyya is speaking **of** a case where the brother **speaks offhandedly** in the context of a conversation about a different topic. It was understood from this that his brother is a Levite. This is **similar to that which Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** There was **an incident involving a person who was speaking offhandedly and said: I remember when I was a child and** still young enough to be **carried on my father’s shoulder, and they took me out of school, and removed my cloak, and immersed me** to purify me from any possible ritual impurity, so that I would be able **to partake of *teruma* that evening.**


###### Ketubot 26a:2
[Ketubot 26a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:2)

וְרַבִּי חִיָּיא מְסַיֵּים בַּהּ: וַחֲבֵירַי בְּדֵילִין מִמֶּנִּי, וְהָיוּ קוֹרִין אוֹתִי ״יוֹחָנָן אוֹכֵל חַלּוֹת״. וְהֶעֱלָהוּ רַבִּי לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rabbi Ḥiyya,** who related that incident, **concluded** the story and related that the man said: **And my friends distanced** themselves **from me, and would call me: Yoḥanan who partakes of *ḥallot*,** as it was prohibited for his friends, who were non-priests, to eat *ḥalla* and *teruma*. **And Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **elevated him to priesthood based on his** statement. Just as one’s offhanded statement is reliable, so too, is the offhanded statement of one’s brother.


###### Ketubot 26a:3
[Ketubot 26a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:3)

תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁתְּרוּמָה חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה — כָּךְ מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן חֲזָקָה לִכְהוּנָּה, וְהַחוֹלֵק בְּבֵית דִּין אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **It is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Just as *teruma*** establishes the **presumptive status for priesthood, so too** the **first tithe** establishes the **presumptive status for priesthood. And one who receives a share** of *teruma* **in court** does **not** establish the **presumptive status** of priesthood.


###### Ketubot 26a:4
[Ketubot 26a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:4)

מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן דְּלֵוִי הוּא! כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה. דְּתַנְיָא: תְּרוּמָה לְכֹהֵן, מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן לְלֵוִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר: מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אַף לְכֹהֵן. אֵימוֹר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה ״אַף לְכֹהֵן״, לְכֹהֵן וְלֹא לְלֵוִי מִי אָמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **First tithe is** given **to a Levite.** How does it establish the presumptive status of priesthood? The Gemara answers: This is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: ***Teruma* is** given **to a priest, first tithe is** given **to a Levite;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: First tithe** is given **to a priest as well.** The Gemara asks: **Say** that **Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: To a priest as well. Did he** actually **say to a priest and not to a Levite?** Since it is given to both a Levite and a priest, first tithe cannot establish the presumptive status of priesthood.


###### Ketubot 26a:5
[Ketubot 26a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:5)

אִין, בָּתַר דְּקַנְסִינְהוּ עֶזְרָא. וְדִלְמָא אִיקְּרוּ וְיָהֲבוּ לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן דְּמוּחְזָק לַן בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי דְּכֹהֵן הוּא, וּנְפַק עֲלֵיהּ קָלָא דְּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה וּבֶן חֲלוּצָה הוּא, וַחֲלַקוּ לֵיהּ לְדִידֵיהּ מַעֲשֵׂר בְּבֵית הַגֳּרָנוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes,** first tithe can establish the presumptive status of priesthood. **After Ezra penalized** the Levites for failure to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, he decreed that the people should not give them first tithe. Although by Torah law first tithe may be given to both Levites and priests, after that decree, it was given only to priests. The Gemara asks: How can the presumptive status of priesthood be established? **But perhaps** in this case he was actually a Levite, and **by happenstance they gave him** first tithe. **Rav Ḥisda said: With what are we dealing here?** It is a case **where the father of that** man established the **presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged** about the son **that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*.** As a *ḥalal*, who is disqualified from the priesthood, his legal status is that of an Israelite. **And** it was seen that the son **himself received a share of** first **tithe at the threshing floor.**


###### Ketubot 26a:6
[Ketubot 26a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:6)

לֵוִי, דְּלָאו לֵוִי הוּא, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר — בֶּן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה הוּא. לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן אָסוּר לְזָרִים, דְּלָא הֲווֹ יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ. אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מַעֲשֵׂר רִאשׁוֹן מוּתָּר לְזָרִים, הָנֵי מִילֵּי לְמִיסְפָּא לְהוּ, אֲבָל בְּתוֹרַת חֲלוּקָּה לָא יָהֲבִי לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Therefore, with regard to **Levite** status, it is clear **that he is not a Levite,** as his father is a priest. The Gemara asks: **What** then **is there to say?** Is it that **he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*? It is not necessary to say that** according **to the one who says** that **first tithe is forbidden to non-priests, they would not have given** first tithe to the son of the divorcée, as his legal status is that of a non-priest. **However, even according to the one who says that first tithe is permitted for non-priests,** and therefore the fact that he received first tithe proves nothing, **that** *halakha* **applies only** to the fact that it is permitted for one to whom first tithe produce was distributed **to provide** it to non-priests. **However, in the form of a share** of first tithe **at the threshing floor, one does not give** it **to** a non-priest. Therefore, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, the fact that one receives a share at the threshing floor proves that he is a priest of unflawed lineage.


###### Ketubot 26a:7
[Ketubot 26a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:7)

וְהַחוֹלֵק בְּבֵית דִּין אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה. אִי בְּבֵית דִּין לָא הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה, הֵיכָא הָוְיָא חֲזָקָה?! אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָכִי קָאָמַר: הַחוֹלֵק תְּרוּמָה בְּנִכְסֵי אָבִיו עִם אֶחָיו בְּבֵית דִּין — אֵינָהּ חֲזָקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is taught in the same *baraita*: **And one who receives a share** of *teruma* **in court** does **not** establish the **presumptive status** of priesthood. The Gemara asks: **If in court it** does **not** establish the **presumptive status, where does it** establish the **presumptive status?** Isn’t court the place where matters are optimally clarified? **Rav Sheshet said** that **this is what** the *tanna* **is saying: One who receives a share of *teruma* from his father’s property with his brothers in court** as his portion of the inheritance, in doing so does **not** establish **presumptive status** of priesthood. Even if he is a *ḥalal* and therefore a non-priest, it could be that he owns the *teruma* as part of his inheritance.


###### Ketubot 26a:8
[Ketubot 26a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:8)

פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מִדְּהָנָךְ לַאֲכִילָה, הַאי נָמֵי לַאֲכִילָה, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: הָנָךְ לַאֲכִילָה, הַאי לְזַבּוֹנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: It **is obvious** that receiving *teruma* in court does not establish the presumptive status. The Gemara answers: **Lest you say** that **from** the fact **that these** brothers receive the *teruma* **to partake** of it, it can be deduced that **that** brother **also** receives the *teruma* **to partake** of it, the *tanna* therefore **teaches us** that **these** brothers receive the *teruma* **to partake** of it and **that** brother receives it **to sell it.** The fact that he may not eat the *teruma* does not prevent him from selling it.


###### Ketubot 26a:9
[Ketubot 26a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:9)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אֵין מַעֲלִין לִכְהוּנָּה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד וְכוּ׳. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַיְינוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר! וְכִי תֵּימָא עַרְעָר חַד אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ, דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר עַרְעָר חַד, וְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: עַרְעָר תְּרֵי. הָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל, אֵין עַרְעָר פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁנַיִם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ We learned in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate** a man **to priesthood on the basis of one witness.** Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. The Gemara asks: The opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is** identical to the opinion of **Rabbi Eliezer,** as they agree that one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness when there are no challengers. **And if you would say that there is** a difference **between them** in a case where there is **a challenge** posed by **one** witness, **as Rabbi Eliezer holds: A challenge** posed by **one** witness is sufficient to undermine one’s presumptive status of priesthood and two witnesses are required to overcome that challenge, **and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds:** An effective **challenge** requires **two** witnesses, **didn’t Rabbi Yoḥanan say: Everyone agrees** that **there is no** effective **challenge** with **fewer than two** witnesses?


###### Ketubot 26a:10
[Ketubot 26a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/26a:10)

אֶלָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — דְּמוּחְזָק לַן בַּאֲבוּהּ דְּהַאי דְּכֹהֵן הוּא, וּנְפַק עֲלֵיהּ קָלָא דְּבֶן גְּרוּשָׁה אוֹ בֶּן חֲלוּצָה הוּא, וְאַחֲתִינֵּיהּ. וַאֲתָא עֵד אֶחָד וְאָמַר: יָדַעְנָא בֵּיהּ דְּכֹהֵן הוּא,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, with what** case **are we dealing here?** It is in a case **where the father of that** man established his **presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged about** the son **that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a *ḥalutza*, and** therefore **we downgraded him** from the presumptive status of priesthood. **And one** witness **came and said: I know that he is a priest** of unflawed lineage,