Ketubot

When he was talking in his simplicity.  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 me  so that I could eat terumah in the evening.'  And R. Hiyya added:  'And my friends held aloof from me and called me "Johanan the halloth-eater".'  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,  but he who takes a share [at the threshing floors] through the court — [this] is not a presumption.  The first tithe belongs to the Levite? — [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.  But perhaps it happened that they gave it to him?  — Said R. Hisda: Here we treat of a case where we know that the father of that [per. son] is a priest and a rumour  came Out concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman  or a haluzah  and [yet] they gave him tithe at the threshing floor. [He could not be regarded as] a Levite, because he was not a Levite.  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.  they would not have given [it] to him. For even according to him who says: The first tithe is permitted to strangers.  it is only to sustain them  but as a distribution [due to him as of right] they do not give it to him. '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 father  through the court, it is not a presumption. — This is obvious!  — You might have said [that] just as those  [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. 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?  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 rumour  came out concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a haluzah and they put him down,  and one witness came and said, 'I know that he is a priest.'