Previous Daf

KESUVOS 26

Ask A Question

click for question
1)
(a) The Torah states that Terumah is given to the Kohen, and Ma'aser Rishon to the Levi, and this is indeed the opinion of Rebbi Akiva in a Beraisa. According to Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah - Ma'aser Rishon can be given to a Kohen, too (since Kohanim also belong to the tribe of Levi).
(b) When Rebbi Shimon ben Elazar says that Ma'aser Rishon is no less a Chazakah (to prove that the one who receives it is a Kasher Kohen) than Terumah - he is referring to his own times, after the Takanah of Ezra, who penalized the Leviyim, decreeing that Ma'aser should be given to the Kohanim only.
(c) Ezra penalized the Leviyim - because most of them did not return to Eretz Yisrael from Bavel.
(d) According to Rebbi Akiva - he penalized them by permitting the Kohanim to become equal partners with the Leviyim.

click for question
2)
(a) We conclude that the recipient's father must have been a Kohen, because otherwise, we would suspect that he was really a Levi, and that an Am ha'Aretz gave him Ma'aser in spite of Ezra's Takanah. Nevertheless, he needs a Chazakah - because we are speaking when a rumor began to spread that he was a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah.
(b) The Chazakah is a valid even according to those who permit a Zar to eat Ma'aser Rishon - because, even if he is permitted to eat it, he has no right to receive a portion in the granary.
(c) Rav Huna explains that when the Tana of the above Beraisa says that receiving a portion in Beis-Din is not a Chazakah - he means that if a Kohen (on whom a rumor is circulating that he is a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah) inherits together with his brothers in Beis-Din, he does have a Chazakah that he is Kasher.
(d) We might otherwise have thought - that just as his brothers inherit in order to eat, so too, does he.

click for question
3)
(a) Raban Shimon ben Gamliel quoting Rebbi Shimon ben ha'Sgan concludes our Mishnah with the words 'Ma'alin li'Kehunah al Pi Ed Echad'. The problem with this statement is - that he appears to be saying the same as Rebbi Elazar.
(b) We cannot explain that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel instates a Kohen with one witness even against protesters, whereas Rebbi Elazar does not - because everyone agrees that two witnesses are required to dispel an official protest.
(c) Neither can we explain that, according to Rebbi Elazar, even one protester requires proof that he is a Kasher Kohen, whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel requires two, due to a statement of Rebbi Yochanan - that only a protest issued by two people has any validity.

click for question
4)
(a) We conclude that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rebbi Elazar argue in a case when, although we know that his father is a Kohen, a rumor began to spread that he is a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah. Two witnesses are required to dispel a rumor (as we just explained).
(b) Following the testimony of the one witness and his subsequent reinstatement, two witnesses testified that he was indeed a ben Gerushah or a ben Chalutzah - and, after Beis-Din removed him from the Kehunah, a second witness came to testify that he was Kasher.
(c) Under normal circumstances - we combine two individual witnesses whose testimonies tally.
(d) We initially think that the basis of their Machlokes is - whether we will combine them here (to counter the two witnesses who have declared him Pasul, or not). The Tana Kama (Rebbi Elazar) will not accept the testimony of the second witness in this case - because having removed the Kohen twice from the Kehunah, to reinstate him again, would be making a mockery of Beis-Din. Whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that 'We removed him and we can return him'.

click for question
5)
We accept the two witnesses who declare the Kohen to be Kasher, despite the two witnesses who declare him Pasul - because we place two against two and put the Kohen on his Chazakah (which was suitably reinstated by the first witness because the rumor that preceded his testimony, is not comparable to a protest).

click for question
6)
(a) The problem that Rav Ashi has with the current interpretation of the Machlokes Tana'im is - that, if that is so, even if two witnesses were to arrive at the end to declare him Kasher, Rebbi Elazar should not reinstate him either.
(b) Rav Ashi connects the Machlokes with the Machlokes between Rebbi Nasan and the Tana Kama in a Beraisa. The Tana Kama requires witnesses to testify as a pair in Beis-Din - Rebbi Nasan permits one witness to testify today, and the second one, tomorrow.
(c) According to Rav Ashi - Rebbi Elazar requires the two witnesses to testify simultaneously in Beis-Din (like the Tana Kama), whereas Raban Shimon ben Gamliel permits them to testify independently (like Rebbi Nasan).

click for question
7)
(a) In another Machlokes in the same Beraisa, the Tana Kama requires the witnesses to see the act simultaneously - Rebbi Yehoshua ben Korchah accepts their testimony even if they 'see' it one after the other.
(b) It is possible for two witnesses to have seen the same act at two different times - if one witnessed the loan, and the other, the admission on the part of the borrower that the loan took place.

click for question
8)
(a) Our Mishnah permits a woman who was captured to return to her husband (even if he is a Kohen - see Tosfos DH 'al-Yedei') - if she is being held hostage for ransom (because her captors are afraid that if they abuse her, they will lose their money); and he prohibits it (even if he is a Yisrael) - when she is being held captive under a death-threat (which will be further explained at the end of the Sugya), because we suspect her of charming her captors, to save her life).
(b) Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak Amar Rav qualifies our Mishnah, permitting her in the Reisha only where Yisrael have jurisdiction over the Nochrim (including her captors); but in areas where the Nochrim are in power, she is forbidden even when she is being held for ransom.

click for question
9)
(a) Rava queries Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak from a Beraisa, which discusses a certain woman in Ashkelon, whose family kept away from her - because she had given herself as security against a large sum of money (which had not been paid on time).
(b) The same witnesses who testified that she was taken as collateral - testified that she had neither been secluded with her captors nor had she been intimate with them.
(c) Rebbi Yosi ha'Kohen and Rebbi Zecharyah ben ha'Katzav testified in the name of the Chachamim - that 'mi'Mah Nafshach', if they believed the witnesses (who seem to have been suspect in the family's eyes) that she had been taken as collateral, then they also have to believe them that she had not been violated; whereas if, on the other hand, they did not want to believe them regarding the latter issue, they were not permitted to believe them in the former (this is based on the principle of 'ha'Peh she'Asar ... ').
(d) According to the first Lashon - the significance of the fact that this episode took place in Ashkelon - is that Ashkelon was under the authority of Nochrim.

click for question
10)
(a) Rava Kashya is from the fact that the Beraisa uses the word 'Hurhenah' - (which means that she gave herself as security, and implies that if the debt is not paid by a certain date, she would belong to them), and 'Nechbeshah' - (which would have meant that she had been kidnapped and was being held against her will to cover the loan, but not that would ever become theirs).
(b) He tries to infer from the above episode - 'Hurhenah, In (witnesses are required to permit her), Nechbeshah, Lo' (they are not - implying that she would be permitted even without witnesses).
(c) Considering that Ashkelon was governed by Nochrim, this is a Kashya on Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak (who maintains that in such a case, even if she is being held for money, she is forbidden to her husband without witnesses).

click for question
11)
(a) We refute this proof however - by denying the distinction between Hurhenah and Nechbeshah.
(b) And the Tana only uses the word 'Hurhenah' - because that happens to be the case that occurred in Ashkelon.

Next Daf