Kiddushin

[If there arise...] matters of controversy in thy gates: then thou shalt arise and go up.1 But how do we know that Eretz Yisrael is higher than all [other] countries? — Because it is written: Therefore behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that they shall no more say: As the Lord liveth, which brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt; but, as the Lord liveth, which brought up and which led the seed of the house of Israel out of the north country, and from all the countries whither I had driven them.2 Then why particularly state, WENT UP FROM BABYLON: let him teach, went up to Eretz Yisrael? — This supports R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: Ezra did not go up from Babylon until he made it like pure sifted flour: then he went up.3 Abaye said: We learnt: THEY WENT UP voluntarily; Raba said: We learnt: He [Ezra] brought them up [against their will]. And they differ over R. Eleazar [‘s dictum,] viz.: Ezra did not go up from Babylon until he made it like pure sifted flour: then he went up. Abaye rejects it, Raba accepts it.4 Alternatively, all accept R. Eleazar's dictum, but they differ in this: One Master [Abaye] holds that he [merely] separated them, whereupon they voluntarily ascended [to Palestine]:5 the other Master holds that [even so] he led them up against their will. Now, on the view that they went up [voluntarily], it is well: thus Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: All countries are as dough in comparison with Palestine,6 and Palestine is as dough relative to Babylon.7 But on the view that he [forcibly] led them up, they were indeed known?8 — Granted that they were known to that gener — ation, they were not known to another generation. On the view that they went up, it is well: hence it is written: And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there we encamped three days; and I viewed [i. e., scrutinized] the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.9 But on the view that he brought them up — surely he was most careful with them!10 — Granted that he had been careful with the unfit,11 yet he had not been careful with the fit. PRIESTS, LEVITES, AND ISRAELITES. How do we know that they had come up? — Because it is written, so the priests, and the Levites, and some of the people, and the singers, and the porters, and the Nethinim, dwelt in their cities, and all Israel in their cities. 12 HALALIM, PROSELYTES AND FREEDMEN. How do we know halalim? For it was taught: R. Jose said: A presumptive right [hazakah] is powerful, as it is said: And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Hakkoz, the children of Barzillai, which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name. These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they deemed polluted and put from the priesthood. And the Tirshatha13 said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things, till there stood up a priest with Urim and with Thummim.14 Now he15 said to them, Behold, ye remain in your presumptive rights: whereof did ye eat in Exile? of the sacred food [eaten] in the country.16 So now too [ye may partake] of the sacred food [consumed] in the country.17 But on the view that we promote from terumah to family purity,18 those who ate terumah, they would come to promote them? — There it was different, because their presumptive status was weakened.19 Then what is meant by ‘Great is a presumptive right?’20 — Because originally they ate Rabbinical terumah, and now they were to eat Biblical terumah.21 Alternatively, after all they would now too eat only Rabbinical terumah,22 not Biblical; for when do we promote front terumah to family purity? [Only when it is terumah] by Biblical law, but we do not promote [when it is terumah] by Rabbinical law. If so, why [state], ‘Great is a presumptive right?’ — Because formerly23 there was no cause to forbid it on account of Biblical terumah,’ but now,24 though it might have been forbidden on account of Biblical terumah,25 they [nevertheless] ate of Rabbinical, but not of Biblical [terumah]. But it is written: ‘and the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things’: thus, only of the most holy things26 might they not eat, but everything else they might eat? — This is what he said: [They were to eat] neither what is called kodesh [holy], nor what is called kodashim [holies]. ‘Neither what is called kodesh’, as it is written: There shall no stranger eat kodesh;27 ‘nor what is called kodashim,’ as it is written: And if a priest's daughter be married unto a stranger, she shall not eat of the heave-offerings of the kodashim,28 and a Master said [explaining this:] the priestly dues29 of sacrifices of leaders, they might mingle with the rest of the nation. Therefore the Tanna states: WENT UP FROM BABYLON, intimating that in that itself he had a purpose, apart from the rebuilding of Palestine, viz., to purge the Jews in Babylon. Jews and Jewesses were taken captive by the enemy, and the general weakening of Jewish observance during the Hellenizing period and later when the Sadducees ruled the country. The Jews in Babylon, however, were free from all this. is to terumah. not partake of sacrifices. another priest to marry his daughter. suspect (Rashi). Tosaf.: their status was weakened because they had failed to prove their pure descent. continuance in their right would lead to error, R. Jose should simply have stated that a presumptive right in the past gives a claim for the future.