Parallel
כתובות 24
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
I would not say so. And if he would let us hear these two [cases. I might have said] because [both cases deal with] money matters but [in the case of] 'a married woman', which is a matter of [sexual] prohibition. I would not say so. What need is there for [the case of] 'I was taken captive and I am pure'? — Because he wants to teach 'But if witnesses came after she got married, she shall not go out'. — That is quite right according to him who refers this to the second clause, but according to him who refers this to the first clause, what is there to say? Because he wants to teach [the case of] 'If two women were taken captive'. — And what need is there for [the case of] 'If two women were taken captive'? — You might have said [that] we may be afraid that they favour one another, so he lets us hear [that we do not say so]. What need is there for [the case of] 'AND LIKEWISE TWO MEN'? Because he wants to teach the difference of opinion between R. Judah and the Rabbis. Our Rabbis taught: [If one says:] I am a priest and my friend is a priest. he is believed to the extent of allowing him to eat terumah, but he is not believed to the extent of allowing him to marry a woman until there are three, [and] two testify to one and two testify to the other. R. Judah says: He is not believed even with regard to allowing him to eat terumah until there are three, [and] two testify to one and two testify to the other. Is this to say that R. Judah is afraid that they might favour one another, and the Rabbis are not afraid that they might favour one another? Surely [from the following Mishnah] we understand just the reverse! For we have learned: When ass-drivers come to a town and one of them says, 'Mine is new and my friend's is old mine is not prepared and my friends is prepared'; he is not believed; R. Judah says: He is believed! — Said R. Adda b. Ahaba, in the name of Rab: The statement must be reversed. Abaye said: Indeed, there is no need to reverse It; in [the case of] demai, they have made it lenient, for most of the 'amme ha-'arez separate the tithes. Raba said: Is the question [only] of R. Judah against R. Judah? Is there no question [also] Of the Rabbis against the Rabbis? No, [they answer]: there is no question of R. Judah against R. Judah. as we have [just] explained, [and] there is no question of the Rabbis against the Rabbis, for [the case is similar to that with regard to which] R. Hama b. 'Ukba said that [it speaks of] when he has his trade-tools in his hand;
—
so here also [we deal with] when he has his trade-tools in his hand. And with regard to what was that of R. Hama. b. 'Ukba said? With regard to what we have learned: If a potter left his pots and went down to drink [water from the river,] the inner ones are pure and the outer ones are impure. But it has been taught that these and those are impure? — Said R. Hama b. 'Ukba: [it speaks of a case] when he had his trade-tools in his hand, so that the hand of all touches them. But it has been taught: These and those are pure? — Said R. Hama b. 'Ukba: When his trade-tools are not in his hand. But [then] the case that we have learnt: 'The inner ones are pure and the outer ones are impure' — how is that possible? — When they are near the public road and [they are impure] because of border stones of the public road. And if you wish you may say: R. Judah and the Rabbis differ as to whether one raises [a person] from terumah to the status of a priest. The question was asked: What is [the law]? Does one raise [a person] from documents to the full status of a priest? — How shall we imagine this case? If we say that it is written in it: 'I, So-and-so, a priest. have signed as witness' — who testifies to him? — No, [but] it must be when it is written in it: I, So-and-so, a priest, have borrowed a maneh from so-and-so, and witnesses have signed [the document]. What [then] is [the law]? Do they testify [only] to the maneh [mentioned] in the document, or do they testify to the whole matter? — R. Huna and R. Hisda [give opposing answers]: One says: One raises, and one says: One does not raise. The question was asked. What is [the law]? Does one raise [a person] from the lifting up of the hands to the status of a priest? This is asked according to him who says [that] one raises [a person] from terumah to the status of a priest and this is asked according to him who says [that] one does not raise [a person from terumah to the status of a priest]. It is asked according to him who says [that] one raises: When is this said? [In the case of] terumah, which [if eaten by one who is not a priest] is a sin punishable with death; but [in the case of] 'lifting up the hands', which [if one who is not a priest performs the pronouncing of the priestly blessing] is [only transgressing the] prohibition of a positive command, [I would say] no. Or perhaps there is no difference, [and] it is asked according to him who says [that] one does not raise: When is this said? [In the case of] terumah, which is eaten in privacy; but [in the case of] 'lifting up the hands,' which [is done] in public [I might say that] if he were not a priest he would not have the impudence [to act as a priest]. Or perhaps there is no difference? — R. Hisda and R. Abina [give opposing answers to this question]: One says: One raises, and One Says: One does not raise. R. Nahman b. Isaac said to Raba: What is [the law]? Does one raise [a person] from 'lifting up the hands' to the full status of a priest? Said he to him: [With regard to this] there is a difference of opinion between R. Hisda and R. Abina. What is the [adopted] law? Said he to him: I know a Baraitha: For it has been taught: R. Jose said: Great is presumption. for it is said: And the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought their register. of those that were reckoned by genealogy, and they were not found,' therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and Thummim. He [thus] said to them: You remain in your presumptive state; what have you eaten in exile? The holy things of the country. So here also [you shall eat] the sacred things of the country. Now if we were to assume [that] one raises [a person] from 'lifting up the hands' to the state of a priest, since these spread out their hands, one might raise them?' — It is different here, for their presumption has been impaired For if you will not say so. [then] according to him who says [that] one raises [a person] from terumah, since they eat terumah. one might raise them to the status of priests! Hence, [you must say it is] because their presumption has been impaired.
—