Explanation: Granted, if Ein Mailin, we understand that Chazakah is great. Even though there is concern lest Beis Din err, and they will raise from Birkas Kohanim to Kodshei Kodoshim [they continued to give Birkas Kohanim, due to their Chazakah];

Implied question: Even without Chazakah, Mailin to Terumah based on one witness, and we are not concerned lest Beis Din err, lest they raise to lineage!

Answer: Now, the Makshan was thinking that lineage is stringent, and Beis Din will not err like they would about Kodshei Kodoshim.

Explanation (cont.): However, now that we say that the reason is because their Chazakah was weakened, and we are not concerned lest they raise, since they will not err, how is Chazakah great?

Question: Why does he say that it depends on eating? Obviously, all hold that Ein Mailin from eating Terumah to lineage, for we must be concerned lest he is a Kohen's slave!

Rather, they argue about whether or not Mailin to lineage from receiving a share of Terumah in the granary.

Observation: Tana'im do not argue explicitly about Mailin from Terumah to lineage. Rather, this argument depends on the argument of whether or not we give Terumah to a slave without his master;

According to the opinion that we give, Ein Mailin, lest he is a slave.

Summation of question: It should have said here "even according to the opinion that Ein Mailin, this is only for Terumah, which we give to a slave without his master, and there is concern lest he is a slave;

However, we can say that Mailin from Birkas Kohanim, for a slave may not do so!

Answer (Tosfos Yeshanim): The Gemara properly said that it is eaten covertly, for according to the opinion that Mailin, also from eating Terumah Mailin, in any case where there is no concern for lest he is a slave, e.g. he came out of school;

The reason is because it is an Aveirah with Misah [b'Yedei Shamayim], we are concerned lest they raise him to lineage. Therefore, we need two witnesses to feed him Terumah.

This is also the reason why we do not give to a slave without his master.

The one who says that Ein Mailin, even though it is an Aveirah with Misah, he is not concerned lest they raise him, since Terumah is eaten covertly, and the same applies to giving it;

However, Birkas Kohanim, which is publicized, he asks whether or not we are concerned lest they raise him, for if he were not a Kohen, he would not be so brazen.

Implied question: Why couldn't we say, like Tosfos [Yeshanim] wrote, [that we ask] even according to the opinion that Ein Mailin, because there is concern lest he is a slave?

Answer: It does not depend on this. Ein Mailin even when there is no concern lest he is a slave, e.g. he came out of school, or they testify about him that he is not a slave;

Just the contrary! We give Terumah to [a slave] without his master because Ein Mailin!

The primary reason for their argument (whether or not we give without his master) is due to Mailin or Ein Mailin. If not, it is difficult, about which logic do they argue, like [Tosfos] asked above (24b DH v'Iybo'is)!

The text: Rivam said that this is not in the text, for Rav Nachman said this alternate answer;

If it is in the text, he himself contradicts the proof he brought "if you would not say so, according to the opinion that Mailin from Terumah to lineage, they will come to raise! Rather, the reason is because their Chazakah was weakened."

[A Chacham in] the Gemara never does so, unless he says "what I said was wrong."

This text is in Kidushin (69b), and it was mistakenly incorporated in the text here.

Question: Also Terumah is called Kodshim - "u'Va ha'Shemesh v'Taher v'Achar Yochal Min ha'Kodoshim"!

That verse discusses Terumah, for [if a Mechusar Kipurim immersed and had] ha'Erev Shemesh (night came), he may eat Terumah (but he may eat Kodshim only after bringing his Korban).

Answer: Surely, regarding one who is Tamei, Terumah is called Kodoshim;

However, here we discuss a Zar eating. We do not find [that Terumah] is called Kodshim regarding a Zar eating.

Explanation: Only Birkas Kohanim [establishes Kehunah in Bavel], but not eating Chalah.

Implied question: Also in Surya [eating Chalah] is mid'Rabanan [yet it establishes Kehunah]!

Answer: They are not particular [about who eats Chalah] in Bavel the way they are in Surya;

This Tana holds that Kivush Yachid (land conquered by an individual, but not by all of Yisrael according to Torah law, e.g. Surya) is considered conquest [so it gets Kedushas Eretz Yisrael. However, nowadays Chalah is only mid'Rabanan];

Eating Chalah [establishes Kehunah] in Surya, and the same applies to Birkas Kohanim. This is clear from below.

Explanation: We must say that these Beraisos argue like the argument of Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua and Rabanan;

If not, either way you say, in one of them we can infer that Mailin from Birkas Kohanim to lineage! (The Gemara did not resolve this. To avoid this inference, Beraisa #1 must discuss Mailin from Birkas Kohanim, Chalah and Matanos to Terumah, i.e. Chalah is mid'Rabanan and Terumah is mid'Oraisa, and Beraisa #2 must discuss Mailin from Birkas Kohanim and Terumah to Chalah, i.e. Terumah is mid'Rabanan and Chalah is mid'Oraisa.)

Observation: They also argue about the following. Beraisa #1 holds that eating Chalah in Surya is a Chazakah for Terumah, and all the more so eating Terumah mid'Oraisa is a Chazakah for Chalah mid'Rabanan;

Beraisa #2 teaches that receiving at the granary, i.e. Terumah, in Surya, is not a Chazakah for Chalah.

Explanation: We know that he is a Kohen due to the one who read [the Torah] after him. The latter is Muchzak to be a Levi.

Implied question: Ri ha'Levi explained in Gitin (59b) that if there is no Kohen [at Keri'as ha'Torah], the bundle is untied. A great Yisrael reads before a Levi. (If so, perhaps the first was not a Kohen!)

Answer: The case is, the Levi who read after the first was smaller than the Yisrael who read after him. (If there was no Kohen, the Levi would not read before someone greater than himself.)

Explanation: [The Kohen read] once [before him. Had the Kohen read twice, this would show that there was no Levi present!]

Inference: Since it says "this is my son, and he is a Kohen", this implies that we do not know whether it is his son, and he comes to testify that he is his son, and he is a Kohen, i.e. he is not a divorcee's son;

If we knew that he is his son, it should have said "Beni Zeh Kohen (this son of mine is a Kohen)", without a "Vov."

Question: If so, all should agree that he is believed for Terumah and lineage, through a Migo. If he wanted, he could have said that he is not his son (and he would be believed like one witness! Regarding lineage, he would not be believed by himself, but he should join with another witness, like the next Tosfos says - Maharsha.)

Answer: Even though there is a Migo, he is not believed, for according to him, he is a relative [who cannot testify about him], like we say in Yevamos (47a) regarding one is not believed to disqualify his son "according to you, you are a Nochri, and a Nochri cannot testify."

Note: Alternatively, one could fix the text of Tosfos to be like Tosfos ha'Rosh (he told him "... you are a Nochri... you are not believed to disqualify your children") or like Rashash ("one is not believed to be Machshir his son", or "even though one is believed to disqualify his son.") The latter is like R. Yehudah in Kidushin 78b.

Implied question: Below, Rebbi said "I believe him to feed him Terumah, for it is in power to feed him Terumah";

Inference: Even though he is a relative according to his words, he is believed through a Migo!

Answer: There, surely we believe him, because he has a Migo even if we know that he is his son;

However, this Migo here, if we would know that he is his son, there is no Migo.

Explanation: Even though there is only him (testifying about his son), and he is a relative, Rebbi holds that Ein Mailin from Terumah to lineage;

He is not believed to marry a woman to him, i.e. to join with another [witness] to marry a woman to him, since he is a relative.

Support: Now we understood R. Chiya's words. "If you believe him alone to feed him Terumah", even though he is a relative, you should believe him with another to marry a woman to him.

Suggestion: [Rebbi] means that he is believed alone to marry a woman to him.

Rejection: Obviously he is not believed! Also, R. Chiya would not have said to believe him to marry, for we never find a Tana who says that one witness is Kosher for lineage.

Suggestion: [Rebbi said that] he is believed with another to feed him Terumah.

Rejection: If two witnesses were needed for Terumah, he would hold that Mailin from Terumah to lineage;

If so, how is he Machshir a relative, since he is not believed to marry a woman to him?!

Question: Since he holds that Ein Mailin from Terumah to lineage , how do we establish in Bava Kama (114b) Rebbi's teaching below to be l'Fi Tumo, and he is believed for Terumah mid'Rabanan, but he is not believed for Terumah mid'Oraisa?

According to Rebbi, since he holds that Ein Mailin from Terumah to lineage, if so he holds that Mailin from Terumah mid'Rabanan to Terumah mid'Oraisa;

It connotes like this above, that whenever he eats Terumah mid'Rabanan, he eats also Terumah mid'Oraisa.

Answer #1: Above, we needed to say that Mailin from Terumah mid'Rabanan to Chalah mid'Oraisa or vice-versa, lest it be difficult according to the opinion that Ein Mailin from Birkas Kohanim to lineage;

However, perhaps Rav Ashi in Bava Kama holds like the opinion that Mailin.

Answer #2: All agree, i.e. both the opinion that Mailin from Terumah to lineage, and the opinion that Ein Mailin, that Mailin from Terumah of grain, wine and oil of Eretz Yisrael, even if it is mid'Rabanan, to Chalah mid'Oraisa, since at the time of the Mikdash [such Terumah] is mid'Oraisa.

However, Terumah of [other] Peros, or Terumah of Chutz la'Aretz, all agree that Ein Mailin, even to Terumah of grain, wine and oil of Eretz Yisrael mid'Rabanan;

Only regarding Terumas Eretz Yisrael, or Chalah of Surya mid'Rabanan, we say that Mailin from mid'Rabanan to mid'Oraisa, but not in Bavel.

The case in Bava Kama discusses Terumas Peros or of Chutz la'Aretz.

Also the Mishnah below, of people believed to testify in adulthood what they saw when they were minors, and we establish it to discuss Terumah mid'Rabanan, discusses Terumas Peros or of Chutz la'Aretz.

Assertion: According to the opinion that Mailin from Terumah to lineage, even from Terumah of grain, wine and oil in Eretz Yisrael, even if it is mid'Rabanan, Mailin.

Proof: R. Yosi holds in Nidah (46b) that nowadays Terumah is mid'Rabanan. Only because he holds that we give Terumah to a slave without his master, he holds that Ein Mailin;

If he would hold that we do not give, he would agree that Mailin!

Implied question: Above, we said that initially they ate Terumah mid'Rabanan [in Bavel], and now they eat Terumah mid'Oraisa!

Answer: It is not because they ate Kodshei ha'Gevul (Terumah) in exile (Bavel) they eat Terumah mid'Oraisa;

Rather, it is because they gave Birkas Kohanim in Bavel. Mailin from Birkas Kohanim to Terumah to mid'Oraisa.

Implied question: He said to them "your Chazakah remains. In exile you were eating..."

Inference: He permitted them due to what they ate [in Bavel]!

Answer: Do not be concerned for that. (Rather, he permitted due to Birkas Kohanim.)

Implied question: According to the version that says that they may eat Terumah mid'Rabanan, but not Terumah mid'Oraisa, why wasn't he Maileh them from Birkas Kohanim to Terumah mid'Oraisa?

Answer: It is because their Chazakah was weakened.

Question (Rivam): A Mishnah (Kidushin 79b) says that if one went overseas with his wife, and when he returned he brought with him children, and his wife died, he must bring a proof about his children, but he is not believed to feed them Terumah;

This is clear from the Gemara there, for a Beraisa teaches "if he brought a proof for the big [children], he need not bring a proof for the small ones;

Reish Lakish said "this is only for Kodshei ha'Gevul, but not for lineage."

Summation of question: How can Rebbi say here that the father is believed to feed them Terumah?

Answer #1 (Rivam): Rebbi is a Tana. He argues [with the Beraisa].

Answer #2 (R. Tam): The Sugya in Kidushin is like R. Yehudah, who says that Ein Mailin to Kehunah through one witness;

There, Kodshei ha'Gevul refers to every matter of Kedushah, e.g. Birkas Kohanim and lineage.

Implied question: It says there "[for Kodshei ha'Gevul,] but not for lineage"! (This shows that lineage is not included in Kodshei ha'Gevul.)

Answer: That refers to lineage of [Isur Bi'ah with] relatives, to stone and burn due to him (his testimony), like we conclude there "R. Yochanan says, even for lineage";

Citation (80a): R. Yochanan teaches like he taught elsewhere, that we stone based on Chazakah (e.g. that this is his daughter or her son).

Answer #3: Here, his wife is with him, so he need not bring a proof, like it says there.

Question: How is he believed about Terumah through this Migo? It is not b'Yado to feed him after he himself dies;

If so, this is not a Migo, like we find in Bava Basra (127b) regarding a Bechor;

In Kidushin (78b) a Beraisa says "Yakir" - he will make known to others. From here, R. Yehudah said that one is believed to say "this son is my Bechor"...

Citation (78b) Question: For what is this relevant? If it is to give to him a double portion, if he wants to give to him a gift, is there any reason why he cannot?!

Citation (cont.) Answer: It is needed for property that he inherited when he is Goses [close to death]. If not for the verse, he would not be believed, since it is not b'Yado (he could not give it then).

Answer: That is different. Here, since he is believed to feed him in his lifetime, since it is b'Yado, it is logical that he is believed even after death.