When he was talking in his simplicity.1 As that [story which] Rab Judah related in the name of Samuel: It happened that a man was talking in his simplicity and said: 'I remember when I was a child and rode on my father's shoulder, they brought me out from school and stripped me of my shirt and immersed me2 so that I could eat terumah in the evening.'3 And R. Hiyya added:4 'And my friends held aloof from me and called me "Johanan the halloth-eater".'5 And Rabbi raised him to the priesthood on his testimony.
It has been taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar, says: Just as terumah is a presumption for the priesthood, so is the first tithe a presumption for the priesthood,6 but he who takes a share [at the threshing floors] through the court — [this] is not a presumption.7 The first tithe belongs to the Levite?8 — [This is] according to R. Eleazar, the son of Azariah, for it has been taught: Terumah belongs to the priest, the first tithe to the Levite-this is the view of R. Akiba, R. Eleazar, the son of Azariah, says: The first tithe belongs also to the priest. [But] R. Eleazar, the son of Azariah, says: 'also to the priest'; does he say: to the priest and not to the Levite? — Yes. after Ezra had punished them.9 But perhaps it happened that they gave it to him?10 — Said R. Hisda: Here we treat of a case where we know that the father of that [per. son] is a priest and a rumour11 came Out concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman12 or a haluzah13 and [yet] they gave him tithe at the threshing floor. [He could not be regarded as] a Levite, because he was not a Levite.14 What then could you say? That he was the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah? [But as to this] there is no question that according to him who says [that] the first tithe is forbidden to strangers.15 they would not have given [it] to him. For even according to him who says: The first tithe is permitted to strangers.16 it is only to sustain them17 but as a distribution [due to him as of right] they do not give it to him.18
'But he who takes a share [at the threshing floors] through the court [this] is not a presumption.' If it is not a presumption through the court, when is it a presumption? — Said R. Shesheth: he means thus: If one shares the terumah in the property of his father19 through the court, it is not a presumption. — This is obvious!20 — You might have said [that] just as those21 [get their share of terumah] for eating. this one also [gets his share of terumah] for eating, so he lets us hear [that] those [get the terumah] for eating and this one for selling.22
R. Judah says: ONE DOES NOT RAISE [A PERSON] TO THE PRIESTHOOD ON THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS, etc. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says the same as R. Eliezer?23 And if you will say [that] they differ with regard to an objection raised by one person. [in] that R. Eliezer holds that an objection [may be admitted if cooling from;] one [person] and R. Simeon b. Gamaliel holds that an objection [must come from at least] two [persons] did not R. Johanan say' All agree that an objection [must come from] at least two persons? — But we treat here of a case where the father of this [person] is a priest and a rumour24 came out concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah and they put him down,25 and one witness came and said, 'I know that he is a priest.'26
and they raised him [again] and [then] came two [other witnesses] and said [that] he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah. and they put him, down [again]. and [then] came one witness and said, 'I know that he is a priest'. [Now] all agree1 that they2 are joined into one testimony, and they differ as to whether we are afraid of bringing contempt on the court.3 The first Tanna4 holds: Since we put hill, down we do not raise him, [again]. because we are afraid of bringing contempt on the court.5 Whereas R. Simeon b. Gamaliel, holds: we have put him down and we can raise him, [again].6 and we are not afraid of bringing contempt on the court. R. Ashi asked against this: If so, even [when there are] two and two7 also?8 But, said R. Ashi, they differ as to whether they9 are joined into one testimony. And they have the same difference of opinion as these Tannaim,10 for it has been taught: Their testimonies are not joined together unless they have both seen11 at the same time;12 R. Joshua b. Korha. says: Even when [they have seell] one after another. Their testimonies are not established13 in court until they both give evidence at the same time; R. Nathan says: We hear the evidence of one to-day. and when the other one comes to-morrow we hear his evidence.14
MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WAS IMPRISONED BY HEATHENS, IF FOR THE SAKE OF MONEY, SHE IS PERMITTED TO HER HUSBAND, AND IF FOR THE PURPOSE OF [TAKING HER] LIFE,15 SHE IS FORBIDDEN TO HER HUSBAND.
GEMARA. R. Samuel b. Isaac said [that] Rab said: They have taught [this] only when the hand of Israel is strong over the heathens.16 but when the hand of the heathens is strong over themselves,17 even if for the sake of money, she is forbidden to her husband. Raba raised an objection: R. Jose the priest and R. Zechariah b. ha-Kazzab18 testified regarding an Israelitish woman, who was pledged19 in Ashkelon and her family20 put her away.21 and her witnesses22 testified [concerning her] that she did not hide herself [with a man] and that she was not defiled [by a man]. [that] the Sages said to them: If you believe [the witnesses] that she was pledged believe [them also] that she did not hide herself and that she was not defiled, and if you do not believe [them] that she did not hide herself and that she was not defiled, do not believe [them] that she was pledged.23 Now Ashkelon [was a town in which] the hand of the heathens was strong over themselves and he teaches
- To Next Folio -