Question (Rashba): Why don't we say that it is because we want to teach in the Seifa "if there are witnesses that she was captured, and she said 'I am Tehorah'", she is not believed?

Answer: We do not need it for this. We learn from the Seifa of our Mishnah. If a city was captured, all Kohanos in it are Pesulos. She is not believed to say 'I am Tehorah.'

Explanation: It need not teach that she is believed about her friend, for a Mishnah (below, 27a) explicitly says that even a slave or Shifchah is believed.

Explanation: It seems that R. Yehudah does not argue about two women, because Chachamim were lenient about a captive.

Question: Below (26a), we find oppositely! One who speaks l'Fi Tumo (unaware of the consequences) is believed [to establish someone to be a Kohen] for Terumah, even regarding himself, like it says about "Yochanan who eats Chalah." Rebbi established him to be a Kohen based on his words (l'Fi Tumo);

Regarding a captive, it was taught below (27b) that everyone is believed to testify for her, except for her husband. We establish this to discuss l'Fi Tumo.

Answer: According to the way we establish their argument to discuss Mailin from Terumah to lineage (if one is established to be a Kohen regarding Terumah, does this establish him to have proper lineage), this is fine;

The reason R. Yehudah is more stringent about Terumah than a captive is because Mailin from Terumah to lineage;

However, Rebbi is more lenient about Terumah regarding l'Fi Tumo. This is because he holds that Ein Mailin from Terumah to lineage, like it says below.

Question: However, according to the way we establish their argument to discuss Gomlin, this is difficult!

Answer: Only for Terumah mid'Rabanan we are Machshir through speaking l'Fi Tumo, like it connotes in Bava Kama (114b), but not for Terumah mid'Oraisa.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): This is due to concern for Mamzerus or being a Nasin (from the Giv'onim).

Question #1: There is no concern for this, like we say in Yevamos (45a) regarding a Nochri or slave who had Bi'ah with a Yisraelis. We tell [the child] "exile yourself [to a place where people do not know your lineage], or marry someone [with lineage] like yourself";

Inference: If he will go to a place where people do not recognize him, they will marry him to a Bas Yisrael, even though they do not know him. They are not concerned lest he is a Nasin or Mamzer!

Question #2: Also regarding the man who came in front of R. Yehudah [and said that he converted by himself. R. Yehudah] told him "you are believed to disqualify yourself, but you are not believed to disqualify your children";

Inference: He and his children had Chezkas Kashrus, even though people did not recognize them!

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): "To marry him to a woman" refers to marrying him to a woman who was checked through four mothers (female ancestors), like the Mishnah in Kidushin (76a);

Citation (76a - Mishnah): One who marries a woman must check four of her mothers. He is not believed if he marries a checked woman, to be Machshir his daughter to a Kohen without checking. Rather, [the Kohen] must check after him (her father).

Observation: Similarly, we could have said that he is not believed to be Machshir him for Avodah.

Explanation (cont.): That checking (in the Mishnah) is for Chalalus, for Yisrael do not recognize Chalalim among them. It is not due to Safek Mamzerus or Nesinus. We are not concerned for them, like I explained.

Support: It says there that she does not check men, for Kosher women are not forbidden to marry Pesulim;

If we were concerned for Mamzerus or Nesinus, surely women are forbidden to marry them! The Torah equates women to men for all punishments in the Torah!

Question: If we check due to Chalalus, we should check only the lineage of her father;

Even if her mother was a Chalalah, she (the daughter) is Kosher due to her father. All hold that Bnei Yisrael are a Mikveh Taharah for Chalalos (a Yisrael's child from a Chalalah is totally Kosher)!

Answer: Since Chachamim obligated checking the father's lineage due to Chalalus, along with this they obligated checking for every Pesul in her, also of Mamzerus or Nesinus.

Explanation #1: This entire Sugya that obligates checking in order to marry one's daughter to a Kohen is like R. Meir;

Rabanan argue with him there, and do not obligate checking. They say that all families have Chezkas Kashrus. One does not need even one witness in order to be Machshir his daughter to Kehunah.

Distinction: However, to be Machshir one's son or himself for Avodah, one must [check], for one does not [automatically] have Chezkas Kehunah.

Explanation #2: Alternatively, [the Sugya that obligates checking] is even like Rabanan, in any case that there was a protest against him, like it says there in Rabanan's opinion "what is the case? It is when there was no protest against him..."

Explanation #1 (Rashi in Kesuvos 56b): Some say that [Chodosh and Yashan are] due to the Omer. (One may not eat from the five grains until after offering the Omer, or the day of offering it, Nisan 16.)

Rejection #1: This is wrong. If so, what was the answer "Chachamim were lenient about Demai"? This answers for Demai, but how can we answer for Chodosh and Yashan?!

Rejection #2: We never find that Amei ha'Aretz were suspected about Chodosh.

Explanation #2 (Rashba): It refers to Shevi'is. He says "my produce is new. It grew in Shevi'is, and one may not keep it after Bi'ur" (in Shevi'is, once a species is not available to Chayos in the field, one must remove it from his domain). My friend's is old. It grew the year before.

We find that Shevi'is is called Chodosh, in a Mishnah (Shevi'is 7:7) "a new rose that was pickled in old oil, one takes the rose" (it is of Shevi'is, and the oil is from the sixth year).

When we answer that Chachamim were lenient about Demai, we were not concerned to answer for Shevi'is;

It is clear to the Gemara that R. Yehudah is lenient about Shevi'is, for in his region Shevi'is was severe to people, like it says in Gitin (54a).

Rebuttal #1 (R. Tam): Stam Amei ha'Aretz were not suspected about Shevi'is;

Citation (Bechoros 30a - Mishnah): One who is suspected about Ma'aser is not suspected about Shevi'is. One who is suspected about Shevi'is is not suspected about Ma'aser.

Inference: Stam, people are not suspected about Shevi'is.

The Ma'aser mentioned in the Mishnah is Ma'aser Sheni, for [Amei ha'Aretz] were suspected about Ma'aser Rishon.

Implied question: A Mishnah (Demai 3:4, brought in Gitin 61b) says that one who takes wheat to a Kusi or Am ha'Aretz grinder, he need not be concerned for Ma'aser or Shevi'is.

Inference: People are suspected about Shevi'is!

Answer #1: We can say that it mentioned Shevi'is due to a Kusi.

Answer #2: It discusses one who is Vadai suspected.

We can answer similarly for [the Beraisa] brought in Chulin (6a) "one who gives to his neighbor a dough to bake or a pot [of food] to cook, he need not be concerned for the Se'or (sourdough) and spices in it, not for Ma'aser or Shevi'is.

Rebuttal #2 (R. Tam): If we discuss the Isur of Chodosh or Shevi'is, he should have said "my friend's is not Chodosh", just like he said "[mine is] not Metukan."

Rebuttal #3 (R. Tam): Before the Mishnah of the donkey-drivers, the Mishnah in Demai (4:6) says "one who enters a city and does not know anyone there, and asked "who is trustworthy here? Who tithes here?", and someone said "I am not trustworthy, but Ploni is trustworthy"...

Citation (cont.): He went and bought from Ploni. He asked "who sells Yashan here?" [The seller] said "the one who sent you to me" (Reuven). Even though they are like Gomlin to each other, they are believed.

If Yashan refers to [food] without concern for the Isur of Chodosh or Shevi'is, how may he buy from Reuven? Reuven himself says that he is not trustworthy! (Perhaps Tosfos infers that since he did not say 'I am not trustworthy about Ma'aser' that he is not trustworthy about any Isur.)

Also, since he did not ask Reuven "who sells Yashan", this implies that what he already bought [from Ploni] is Chodosh or Shevi'is. He went to Ploni only because he is trustworthy!

Note: Perhaps he did not buy grain from Ploni! Or, perhaps it is close to Pesach, and he has barely enough Yashan grain with him to eat until the Omer permits Chodosh, and buys for afterwards (so he does not care if it is Chodosh). He had money left over, and now wants to buy more Yashan, so he need not subsist on minimal rations until the Omer! Regarding Shevi'is, perhaps he bought Peros Shevi'is from Ploni, with intent to eat them with Kedushas Shevi'is, and now he wants Peros Shishis without restrictions, e.g. he can squeeze apples for their juice, give some to animals, give to children without concern for what they leave over...

Answer: R. Tam holds that Rashi's Perush [here] is primary. He says [that it is Yashan] to praise its quality. This was taught for a Chidush in R. Yehudah;

Even though he belittles his and praises his friend's, and they look more like Gomlin, even so they are believed.

Question: If so, what is the contradiction in Rabanan? Perhaps here we are concerned for Gomlin, for it looks like they are Gomlin, like I explained!

Answer: If we were not concerned for Gomlin in general, due to this we would not be more concerned.

Implied question: In Shabbos (23a), Abaye said that we need not bless on a Safek about a mid'Rabanan law. Rava said that most Amei ha'Aretz tithe;

Similarly, below (56b) Abaye said that for a Vadai [Isur] mid'Rabanan, Chachamim strengthened their words, but not for a Safek mid'Rabanan. Rava said that [Chachamim] were lenient about Demai. (These connote that Abaye argues with Rava!)

Answer: Abaye agrees with Rava, like it says here;

Also, in Beitzah (35b), we infer from the Mishnah that most Amei ha'Aretz tithe!

Rather, Abaye holds that every Safek mid'Rabanan, even if there is no majority, does not require a Berachah. Also, Chachamim did not strengthen it.

Distinction: However, in Shabbos (13a), regarding "a Zav Parush (he is meticulous, e.g. about Taharah) may not eat with a Zav Am ha'Aretz, Abaye explains that we are concerned lest he feed him things that are not fixed (tithed);

He does not rely on the majority of Amei ha'Aretz, who tithe, [un]like Rava says there. [Abaye] holds that for this matter we are stringent, and we do not rely on the majority.

Observation: Also Rava, in Gitin (61a), regarding "a woman may lend a sifter", he does not want to rely on the majority of Amei ha'Aretz who tithe, regarding assisting transgressors. He holds that we should be stringent about this.

Explanation (R. Chananel): The one who says that he is a Kohen, he has Kelim used for Taharos, e.g. Kelim of dung, stone and earth, which are not Mekabel Tum'ah;

Anyone who sees these Kelim in his hand distances from him, lest they be Metamei him.

It seems that he is a Kohen. Therefore, Chachamim believed him.

Explanation: He comes to answer only the contradiction in R. Yehudah. Still, we must answer the contradiction in Rabanan when he is holding tools of the trade.

Question (R. Shmuel of Vardin): Initially, how did we want to say that R. Yehudah's reason [not to believe one witness about Terumah] is due to Gomlin? Even without Gomlin, you are forced to say that below (28b) he holds that Mailin from Terumah to lineage!

Answer (Ri): Initially, we thought that if not for the reason of Gomlin, we would not deprive a Kohen of Terumah in order to say Mailin, since according to letter of the law it is proper to give a share to him based on [testimony of] his friend;

Just the contrary! It is more reasonable that we say Ein Mailin!

Implied question: Regarding a slave, we say below that according to R. Yehudah, we do not give a share of Terumah to him, because Mailin!

Answer: There, there is not so much concern for the slave's loss if we do not give to him Terumah when his master is not there.

Question: What reason do they argue about? Both should say that Mailin, and require two witnesses for Terumah, or both should say that Ein Mailin, and require only one witness for Terumah!

Answer: They argue about the following. One holds that we are concerned lest people be Maileh from Terumah to lineage, therefore we required two witnesses. The other holds that we are not concerned.

Question: If they do not testify about the entire matter, if so witnesses sign even though they do not know whether or not he is a Kohen;

A Mishnah (Bava Basra 172a) that says that two people named Yosef ben Shimon living in one city, if also their grandfathers had the same name, they write "Kohen" in the document (to distinguish them, if only one of them is a Kohen).

How does this help? Since witnesses sign even though they do not know whether or not he is a Kohen, he (the one who is not a Kohen) can scheme and write another document in the name of his colleague the Kohen (it says that Yosef ben Shimon Kohen borrowed), and use it to collect from him!

Answer: Surely, when it is established that there are two 'Yosef ben Shimon's in one city, they testify about the entire matter. Then, they must know whether he is a Kohen's son. There, surely Mailin from documents to lineage;

Here, we ask about when it is not established.

Question: [According to this opinion,] why isn't this (documents) counted with other [proofs of proper lineage] in the Mishnah in Kidushin (76a) "we do not check from [one who served on] the Mizbe'ach or above (his ancestors), or from [one who sang amidst the Leviyim on] the Duchan or above..."?

Answer #1: This [proof] based on documents is obvious, since they testify about the entire matter. If so, it is full testimony. This is why it did not [need to] teach "witnesses".

Question: Why doesn't the Mishnah count Terumah and Birkas Kohanim, according to the opinion that Mailin [from them]?

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Terumah is included in "the Mizbe'ach", and Birkas Kohanim is included in "the Duchan."

Implied question: "The Duchan" refers to [Leviyim] who sang [in the Mikdash], like it connotes there in the Gemara!

Answer: The one who says Mailin establishes it also regarding the Duchan of Kohanim in the Gevulim (outside the Mikdash).

Question: Why don't we count a Sefer Torah, i.e. he read in it [first] b'Chezkas Kohen, like below?

Answer #1 (and Answer #2 to Questions (a), (c)): We can say that the Tana omitted all these matters.

Answer #2 (and Answer #3 to Questions (c), (e) - Sefer ha'Yashar): We do not discuss true Avodas Mizbe'ach, rather, flaying and dissecting. These matters are Kosher through a Zar, but they let people do it only if they had proper lineage and may marry into Kehunah;

However, matters of Kehunah such as Terumah, Birkas Kohanim and Sefer Torah, they need not be taught.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Everyone sees other Kohanim eating other Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and these do not (so their Chazakah is weakened).

Question: Still, it is difficult according to the opinion that Mailin! Why didn't they raise them [to be considered Kohanim] for Kodshei Mizbe'ach and lineage?

Answer (and Explanation #2 - R. Tam): Their Chazakah was weakened, for they traced their lineage to the sons of Barzilai, who was a Yisrael. Also, they did not find their documents.

When their Chazakah was weakened, all agree that Ein Mailin.

Question: He initially asked that they will come to raise them. He should have asked why they were disqualified at all from Kehunah!

Answer: He knew that their Chazakah was weakened. Therefore, they did not raise them;

However, he thought that even though their Chazakah was weakened, we must be concerned lest they raise them in the end, when [people] will not know that they did not find their documents.