1)

(a)According to the alternative explanation, Hatirshasa permitted the family of Barzilai to continue eating Terumah d'Rabanan (as they had done in Bavel, but not Terumah d'Oraisa). What is the definition of Terumah d'Oraisa and Terumah d'Rabanan?

(b)What do we gain by learning this way?

(c)What did Rebbi Yosi then mean when he said 'Gedolah Chazakah'?

(d)What problem do we have with this explanation from the Pasuk in Ezra "Asher Lo Yochlu mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim"? What does this Pasuk imply?

1)

(a)According to the alternative explanation, Hatirshasa permitted the family of Barzilai to continue eating Terumah d'Rabanan (as they had done in Bavel, but not Terumah d'Oraisa). Terumah d'Oraisa - is Terumas Eretz Yisrael, and Terumah d'Rabanan - 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 l'Yuchsin'?) - because that would only apply if they had eaten Terumah d'Oraisa, but not, Terumah d'Rabanan.

(c)When Rebbi Yosi said 'Gedolah Chazakah' - he now meant that the Heter to eat Terumah d'Rabanan remained intact due to the Chazakah, in spite of the fact that we really ought to have decreed Terumah d'Rabanan on account of Terumah d'Oraisa (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 - that it is from Kodesh ha'Kodashim that they did not eat, but from Terumah d'Oraisa, they did!

2)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we take "mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim" out of its literal interpretation. How do we interpret ...

1. ... "mi'Kodesh"?

2. ... "ha'Kodashim"?

(b)The Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'us Kapayim, b'Bavel, va'Achilas Chalah b'Surya, v'Chiluk Matanos bi'Kerachim'. Why is ...

1. ... Nesi'as Kapayim (Duchening) more of a Chazakah in Bavel than eating Terumah?

2. ... Nesi'as Kapayim considered a better Chazakah in Bavel than in other places in Chutz la'Aretz?

(c)Why does eating Chalah (or Terumah) ...

1. ... not constitute a Chazakah in Bavel?

2. ... constitute a Chazakah in Syria?

(d)Seeing as Zarim are permitted to eat Matanos, why is the fact that someone ate Matanos in a large city considered proof that he is a Kohen? What are Matanos?

2)

(a)To answer the Kashya, we take "mi'Kodesh ha'Kodashim" out of its literal interpretation. When Hatirshasa said ...

1. ... "mi'Kodesh" - he must have meant something that is called 'Kodesh' (i.e. Terumah), whereas ...

2. ... "ha'Kodashim" - referred to something that is called Kodshim (i.e. 'Moram min ha'Kodashim' - the chest and the right calf of each Shelamim 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, b'Bavel, va'Achilas Chalah b'Surya, v'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'Oraisa, the latter is only d'Rabanan.

2. ... Nesi'as Kapayim is considered a better Chazakah in Bavel than in other places in Chutz la'Aretz - because there was a Yeshiva and a fixed Beis-Din there, which would ascertain 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 this Tana holds 'Kibush Yachid Shmei 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). Consequently Syria, which David ha'Melech captured in this manner, is considered part of Eretz Yisrael, where Terumah is d'Oraisa.

(d)Despite the fact that Zarim are permitted to eat Matanos (the right foreleg, the cheeks and the Keivah [one of the stomachs] that are given to the Kohen from every Chulin animal that is Shechted), 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.

3)

(a)How do we refute the proof from the above Beraisa that one can attest to a Kohen's Yichus (lineage) from the fact that he Duchens (Birchas Kohanim)?

(b)Initially, we query this from 'Chazakah li'Kehunah ... va'Achilas Chalah b'Surya' which we think, must come to attest to Yuchsin. What makes us think that? Why can it not come to permit him to eat Terumah?

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

1. ... Chalah (which is also called Terumah, as we just explained) come to permit Terumah?

2. ... we permit the 'Kohen' to eat Terumah d'Oraisa on the basis of the fact that he eats Chalah d'Rabanan?

3)

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

(b)Initially, we query this from 'Chazakah li'Kehunah ... va'Achilas Chalah b'Surya' which we think, must come to attest to Yuchsin - because why should 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 d'Rabanan, whereas Terumah is d'Oraisa.

2. ... we permit the 'Kohen' to eat Terumah d'Oraisa on the basis of the fact that he eats Chalah d'Rabanan is - because, had we even suspected that he is not really a Kohen, we would have issued a decree forbidding him to eat Terumah d'Rabanan on account of Terumah d'Oraisa.

4)

(a)Another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim v'Chiluk Geranos (Terumah) ... '. Both of these attest to a Kohen's lineage in Eretz Yisrael. In which two locations does the Tana consider Nesi'as Kapayim a Chazakah, but not Chiluk Geranos?

(b)On what two grounds do we say that?

(c)What constitutes Makom she'Sheluchei Rosh Chodesh Magi'in'?

(d)This Beraisa holds Ma'alin mi'Chalah li'Terumah (as well as Yuchsin). According to the Rabanan of Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, even those who hold that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, will agree that Chalah is d'Oraisa. How do they prove this?

(e)What do the Rabanan learn from ...

1. ... the Pasuk in Shelach Lecha "b'Vo'achem el ha'Aretz" (mentioned in connection with Chalah)?

2. ... the Torah's connecting the Din of Ma'aser to that of Shemitah (in Ki Savo)?

4)

(a)Another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim v'Chiluk Geranos (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 Geranos - are Syria and up to the point that the Sheluchei Beis-Din are able to reach before Pesach ...

(b)... because he holds that a. Terumah there is only mid'Rabanan, and b. 'Kibush Yachid Lo Shmei Kibush'.

(c)'Makom she'Sheluchei Rosh Chodesh Magi'in' - constitutes a journey of fifteen days.

(d)This Beraisa holds 'Ma'alin mi'Chalah li'Terumah' (as well as Yuchsin). According to the Rabanan of Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua, even those who hold that Terumah nowadays is d'Rabanan, will agree that Chalah is d'Oraisa - 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.

(e)The Rabanan learn from the ...

1. ... Pasuk in Shelach Lecha "b'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 Shemitah (in Ki Savo) - that the obligation to separate Ma'asros did not come into effect until Shemitah did, after the fourteen years of conquest and distribution.

5)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says 'u'Bavel k'Surya'. What does Raban Shimon ben Gamliel say about Alexandria of Egypt?

(b)What is the basis of the Machlokes between this latter Beraisa (which does not consider 'Chiluk Geranos' a Chazakah in Syria, and the previous one, which considers eating Chalah a Chazakah?

(c)In which point does Rav Huna Brei d'Rav Yehoshua disagree with the Rabanan with regard to the corollary between Chalah and Terumah?

5)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says 'u'Bavel k'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 Geranos' a Chazakah in Syria, and the previous one, which rules that eating Chalah is - whether 'Kibush Yachid Shmei Kibush (the first Beraisa), or not (the second Beraisa).

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

6)

(a)What does the Tana of the Beraisa learn from "b'Vo'achem"?

(b)What might we have otherwise learned from the fact that the Torah changes from the more common "Ki Savo'u el ha'Aretz"?

6)

(a)The Tana of the Beraisa learns from the Lashon "b'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 more common "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).

25b----------------------------------------25b

7)

(a)Yet another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah, Nesi'as Kapayim v'Chiluk Geranos v'Edus'. 'Edus' is not a Chazakah, so how do we try to interpret the Beraisa in a way that resolves our She'eilah (whether 'Ma'alin mi'Nesi'as Kapayim l'Yuchsin or not)?

(b)We refute this proof however, by explaining the Beraisa to mean 'Edus ha'Ba'ah mi'Ko'ach Chazakah'. What does his mean?

7)

(a)Yet another Beraisa states 'Chazakah li'Kehunah Nesi'as Kapayim v'Chiluk Geranos v'Edus'. 'Edus' is not a Chazakah, so we try to interpret the Beraisa (to resolves our She'eilah [whether 'Ma'alin mi'Nesi'as Kapayim l'Yuchsin' or not]) - 'Nesi'as Kapayim ki Edus', 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 'Edus ha'Ba'ah Mi'Ko'ach Chazakah', which means - that we accept the testimony that has been presented, and feed the Kohen Terumah, as if we had seen the Chazakah covered by the testimony.

8)

(a)And we illustrate the current interpretation of the Beraisa with the case of a man who came before Rebbi Ami. What happened there? What did Rebbi Ami rule?

(b)How did Rebbi Ami know that he was not a great man [who is sometimes called-up first even when there is a Kohen [though nowadays, this is not done])?

(c)This ruling 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. What else might 'Nispardah ha'Chavilah' mean?

8)

(a)And we illustrate the current interpretation of the Beraisa with the 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.

(b)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.

(c)This ruling 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, either way, one would call-up the Levi after the Adam Gadol).

9)

(a)In a similar incident, based on the testimony of a witness, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled that a certain man who was sometimes called-up for Sheni, was a Levi. How did he know that he was not called up for Sheni because he was a great man?

(b)What does one do when there is no Levi?

(c)When does one then call-up a great man?

9)

(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 Sheni, 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 Shelishi.

10)

(a)What did Resh Lakish ask the man who testified that someone must be a Kohen because he had seen him called-up to the Torah first?

(b)On what grounds did Rebbi Elazar query Resh Lakish?

(c)What did Resh Lakish do when, on another occasion, Rebbi Yochanan asked the same question?

(d)Who was Resh Lakish referring to when he spoke of bar Nafcha?

10)

(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 - by asking him whether this meant that whenever 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 Stam, as if it was his own Kashya.

(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).

11)

(a)Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya both accepted the testimony of a relative; one to instate a son to the Kehunah on the testimony of his father. To which status did the other one instate? On the testimony of whom?

(b)What does Rebbi say in a Beraisa concerning a man who testifies 'Bni Hu v'Kohen Hu'?

(c)What did he answer Rebbi Chiya, when he objected that if a man's father is believed to feed his son Terumah, then he should also be believed with regard to marriage?

(d)On what grounds does a father not have the authority to marry off his son?

11)

(a)Rebbi and Rebbi Chiya both accepted the testimony of a relative; one to instate a son to the Kehunah on the testimony of his father. The other one - to the Leviyah, on the testimony of his brother.

(b)Rebbi rules in a Beraisa, concerning a man who testifies 'Bni Hu v'Kohen Hu' - that he is believed to feed him Terumah but not to permit him to marry (see Tosfos DH 'Harei').

(c)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 - Rebbi replied 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 not have the authority to marry him off.

(d)A father does not have the authority to marry off his son - because we suspect that he that he is a Mamzer or a Nasin (See also Tosfos 24a. DH 'Aval Eino Ne'eman').

12)

(a)What do we prove from this Beraisa?

(b)If Rebbi believed a father to feed his son Terumah, Rebbi Chiya believed the man who testified that his brother was a Levi. What problem do we have with Rebbi Chiya's ruling?

(c)How do we establish Rebbi Chiya, to answer the Kashya?

(d)What distinction does he draw between a father and a brother testifying?

12)

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

(b)If Rebbi believed a father to feed his son Terumah, Rebbi Chiya believed the man to instate his brother as a Levi. 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).

(c)To answer the above Kashya - we establish Rebbi Chiya by 'Masi'ach L'fi Tumo' (the brother did not actually testify, but was merely relating what happened, without any intention of giving evidence) as in the forthcoming case ...

(d)... and the same would apply even if it had been a father speaking about his son 'Masi'ach L'fi Tumo'.

13)

(a)What story did Rav Yehudah Amar tell about a certain man recalling what happened in his childhood years?

(b)How did Rebbi Chiya conclude the story?

(c)How did Rebbi react to this?

13)

(a)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 (since Terumah requires 'Ha'arev Shemesh').

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

(c)Rebbi accepted Rebbi Chiya's testimony - and instated that now fully-grown man as a Kohen.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF