Previous daf

1)

(a) According to the alternative explanation, Hatirshasa permitted the family of Barzilai to continue eating Terumah de'Rabbanan (as they had done in Bavel, but not Terumah d'Oraysa). Terumah d'Oraysa - is Terumas Eretz Yisrael, and Terumah de'Rabbanan - Terumas Chutz la'Aretz.

(b) By learning this way - we gain the Kashya that we asked above (Why can we not prove from Ezra that 'Ein Ma'alin mi'Terumah le'Yuchsin'?) - because that would only apply if they had eaten Terumah d'Oraysa, but not, Terumah de'Rabbanan.

(c) When Rebbi Yossi said 'Gedolah Chazakah' - he now meant that the Heter to eat Terumah de'Rabbanan remained intact due to the Chazakah, in spite of the fact that we really ought to have decreed Terumah de'Rabbanan on account of Terumah d'Oaraysa (for fear that they might go on to permit it).

(d) The problem with this explanation from the Pasuk "Asher Lo Yochlu mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim" however, is from the implication - 'mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim Hu de'Lo Achol, Ha bi'Terumah d'Oraysa, Achol'?

(a) Seeing as Hatirshasa was not coming to permit Terumah d'Oraysa (when he said "Asher Lo Yochlu mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim"), when he said ...

1. ... "mi'Kodesh" - he must have meant something that is called Kodesh, meaning Terumah.
2. ... "ha'Kodashim" - ... something that is called Kodshim ('Moram min ha'Kodashim' - the chest and the right calf of each Sh'lamim that was given to the Kohen, and which could be eaten even by their wives, children and slaves).

(b) The Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'us Kapayim, be'Bavel, va'Achilas Chalah be'Surya, ve'Chiluk Matanos bi'K'rachim'. The reason that ...

1. ... Nesi'as Kapayim (Duchening) is more of a Chazakah in Bavel than eating Terumah is - because whereas the former is d'Oraysa, the latter is only de'Rabbanan.
2. ... Nesi'as Kapayim considered a better Chazakah in Bavel than in other places in Chutz la'Aretz - because there was a Yeshivah and a fixed Beis-Din there who would made certain that only established Kohanim Duchened.

(c) Eating Chalah (or Terumah) ...

1. ... does not constitute a Chazakah in Bavel - because Terumah in Bavel is not min ha'Torah.
2. ... constitutes a Chazakah in Syria however - because, seeing as this Tana holds 'Kibush Yachid Sh'mei Kibush' (whatever a King of Yehudah captures and annexes, even if he does so in a private capacity [before he has captured the rest of Eretz Yisrael], becomes part of Eretz Yisrael). Syria therefore, which David ha'Melech captured in this manner, is considered part of Eretz Yisrael.

(d) Despite the fact that Zarim are permitted to eat Matanos, the fact that someone ate Matanos in a large city is considered proof that he is a Kohen - because, since large cities contain many public places, where the person eating is bound to be seen, a Yisrael would not have the Chutzpah to eat the Matanos there.

(a) We refute the proof from the above Beraisa that one can attest to a Kohen's lineage from the fact that he Duchens (Birchas Kohanim) - by establishing the proof that he is a Kohen to pertain to eating Terumah, but not to Yuchsin.

(b) Initially, we query this from 'Chazakah li'Kehunah ... va'Achilas Chalah be'Surya' which we think, must come to attest to Yuchsin - because why should we need the Kohen to eat Chalah (which is also known as Terumah) to permit him to eat Terumah?

(c) We conclude that the Chazakah of eating Chalah too, comes to permit the Kohen to eat Terumah. The reason that ...

1. ... we need Chalah (which is also called Terumah, as we just explained) to permit Terumah - is because in the opinion of this Tana, Chalah nowadays is de'Rabbanan, whereas Terumah is d'Oraysa.
2. ... we permit the 'Kohen' to eat Terumah d'Oraysa on the basis of the fact that he eats Chalah de'Rabbanan is - because, had we even suspected that he is not really a Kohen, we would have issued a decree forbidding him to eat Terumah de'Rabbanan on account of Terumah d'Oraysa.

(a) Another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim ve'Chiluk G'ranos (Terumah) ... '. Both of these attest to a Kohen's lineage in Eretz Yisrael. The two locations in which the Tana considers Nesi'as Kapayim a Chazakah, but not Chiluk G'ranos - are Syria and up to the point that the Sh'luchei Beis-Din are able to reach before Pesach (presumably on horseback), because he holds that a. Terumah there is only mi'de'Rabbanan, and b. 'Kibush Yachid Lo Sh'mei Kibush'.

(b) 'Makom she'Sh'luchei Rosh Chodesh Magi'in' constitutes a journey of fifteen days.

(c) This Beraisa holds 'Ma'alin mi'Chalah li'Terumah' (as well as Yuchsin). According to the Rabbanan of Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua, even those who hold that Terumah nowadays is de'Rabbanan, will agree that Chalah is d'Oraysa - because during the seven years of conquest (of Eretz Yisrael) and the seven years that they distributed it, they were Chayav Chalah but not Terumah.

(d) The Rabbanan learn from the ...

1. ... Pasuk "be'Vo'achem el ha'Aretz" (mentioned in connection with Chalah) - that the obligation to separate Chalah came into effect from the moment they entered Eretz Yisrael, .
2. ... Torah's connecting the Din of Ma'aser to that of Sh'mitah - that the obligation to separate Ma'asros did not come into effect until Sh'mitah did, after the fourteen years of conquest and distribution.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says 'u'Bavel ke'Surya'. Raban Shimon ben Gamliel - also includes Alexandria of Egypt (in the time of the first Beis Hamikdash), because Beis-Din was fixed there.

(b) The basis of the Machlokes between this latter Beraisa (which does not consider 'Chiluk G'ranos' a Chazakah in Syria, and the previous one, which considers eating Chalah a Chazakah is - whether 'Kibush Yachid Sh'mei Kibush (the first Beraisa), or not (the second Beraisa).

(c) Rav Huna Brei de'Rav Yehoshua disagrees with the Rabbanan with regard to the corollary between Chalah and Terumah. According to him - even those who hold that Terumah nowadays is d'Oraysa, will agree that Chalah is only mi'de'Rabbanan.

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Lashon "be'Vo'achem" (in the plural) - that the Chiyuv Chalah comes into effect only after the whole of Yisrael have captured Eretz Yisrael and are living in it.

(b) We might otherwise have learned from the fact that the Torah changes from the usual "Ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz" - that it should have come into effect as soon as even two or three spies entered it (*before* the Chiyuv Terumah became effective).

7)

(a) Yet another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim ve'Chiluk G'ranos ve'Eidus'. 'Eidus' is not a Chazakah, so we try to interpret the Beraisa (to resolves our She'eilah [whether 'Ma'alin mi'Nesi'as Kapayim le'Yuchsin' or not]) - 'Nesi'as Kapayim ki Eidus', just like testimony ascertains the Kohen's Yichus, so does Nesi'as Kapayim.

(b) We refute this proof however, by explaining the Beraisa to mean 'Eidus ha'Ba'ah Mi'Ko'ach Chazakah', and we illustrate this with a case of a man who came before Rebbi Ami - telling him that he knew a certain person to be a Kohen, because he was called-up first to the Torah. Rebbi Ami accepted his testimony and pronounced him a Kohen.

(c) Rebbi Ami knew that he was not an Adam Gadol who is sometimes called-up first even when there is a Kohen (though nowadays, this is not done) - because a Levi was called-up after him.

(d) This is based on the Gemara in Gitin, which says that when there is no Kohen, 'Nispardah ha'Chavilah', which simply means that, when there is no Kohen, one does not call-up a Levi at all - or it might mean that they may then call-up a Yisrael before the Levi (though if there is a Kohen present, as there was in this case, one would call-up the Levi after the Adam Gadol either way).

(a) In a similar incident, based on the testimony of a witness, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled that a certain man who was called-up for Sheini, was a Levi. He knew that this was not because he was an Adam Gadol - because a Kohen was called-up before him.

(b) When there is no Levi - one calls-up two Kohanim (or, as we do, the same Kohen twice).

(c) One then calls-up an Adam Gadol - for Sh'lishi.

(a) Resh Lakish asked that man who testified that someone must be a Kohen because he had seen him called-up to the Torah first - whether he had seen him receiving Terumah in the granary or not.

(b) Rebbi Elazar queried Resh Lakish - Did it mean, he asked him, that wherever there were no granaries, the Din of Kehunah would fall away.

(c) When, on another occasion, Rebbi Yochanan made the same comment as Rebbi Elazar - Resh Lakish gave Rebbi Elazar a dirty look, because he understood that Rebbi Elazar must have heard it from Rebbi Yochanan his Rebbe, but said it S'tam, as if it was his own concept.

(d) When Resh Lakish spoke of bar Nafcha - he was referring to Rebbi Yochanan, who was called by that name either because his father was a blacksmith or because he was extremely good-looking (and it is a 'Lashon Sagi Nahor', because 'bar Nafcha' has connotations of ugliness, either because a blacksmith is black and grimy, or from the Lashon 'Nafach' - swollen).

(a) Rebbi rules in a Beraisa, in a case where a man testified 'B'ni Hu ve'Kohen Hu' - that he is believed to feed him Terumah but not to permit him to marry (see Tosfos DH 'Harei').

(b) When Rebbi Chiya objected that if a man's father is believed to feed his son Terumah, then he should also be believed with regard to marriage - that he is believed to feed him Terumah because it lies within his power to feed him Terumah, but not with regard to marriage, because he does have the power to marry him off (according to Rashi, we suspect that he is a Mamzer or a Nasin. See however, Tosfos 24a. DH 'Aval Eino Ne'eman').

(c) We prove from this Beraisa - that it is Rebbi who believed a man to instate his son as a Kohen.

(d) If Rebbi believed a father to feed his son Terumah, Rebbi Chiya believed a man to instate his brother as a Levi. Rebbi Chiya does not agree with Rebbi. In his opinion, a father is not believed with regard to his son. The problem with this is - why should we believe a brother more than we believe a father (seeing as the one is as much a relative as the other).

(a) To answer the above Kashya - we establish Rebbi Chiya by 'Masi'ach Lefi Tumo' (meaning that in the case of a brother, he is not testifying, but just relating without any intention of giving evidence) as in the forthcoming case.

(b) Rav Yehudah Amar told about a certain man who recalled how - when he was a child, his father fetched him from school, and took him on his shoulders down to the river. There, he removed his shirt, Toveled him and fed him Terumah that night - because Terumah requires 'Ha'arev-Shemesh'.

(c) Rebbi Chiya concluded the story - that his friends kept away from him (because he was eating Terumah - and they were not Kohanim) and called him 'Yochanan Ochel Chalos'.

(d) Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's testimony - and instated that man as a Kohen.