R. Yehudah says: One is not elevated to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. [Even if there are no "reciprocal" witnesses, and, it goes without saying, if there is a possibility of reciprocity, i.e., Testify for me, and I will testify for you.] R. Elazar said: When is this so? Where there are "objectors" [who declare him to be unfit for the priesthood; and there is no "objection" with fewer than two], but where there are no objectors, one is elevated to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness [where there are no reciprocal witnesses. And this is the difference between R. Elazar and the first tanna (R. Yehudah)]. R. Shimon b. Gamliel says in the name of R. Shimon the son of the sagan (the adjutant high-priest): One is elevated to the priesthood by the testimony of one witness. [The gemara asks: "Aren't R. Shimon b. Gamliel and R. Elazar saying the same thing!" And it concludes that they differ on the question of "combining testimony" — as when we know that this man's father was held to be a (fit) Cohein, and a report went out that he was the son of a divorcée or of a chalutzah, and he was "taken down" (from the priesthood), and then a witness came and said: I know him to be a (fit) Cohein — at which he was re-elevated; and then two witnesses came and said: He is the son of a divorcée or of a chalutzah — at which he was again taken down; and one witness came and said: I know him to be a (fit) Cohein — R. Shimon b. Gamliel says that he is re-elevated to the priesthood by the testimony of this last witness, for we "combine" him with the first witness who nullified the report by saying: I know him to be a Cohein. And even though they did not testify at the same time, their testimony is combined, and we say: Set these two who say that he is a Cohein beside the two who say that he is the son of a divorcée, and "set the man into his (original) status" (as a fit priest). And according to R. Elazar, he is not re-elevated until two witnesses testify at the same time that he is a (fit) priest. The halachah is in accordance with R. Shimon b. Gamliel, that the witnesses are combined even though they did not testify together.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
ר' יהודה אומר אין מעלין לכהונה ע"פ עד אחד – even where there are not [witnesses] repaying each other (with mutual recommendations), and all the more so here, where one can be suspicious of repaying each other: “you testify about me and I [will testify] about you.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Introduction
In this mishnah three tannaim debate whether the testimony of a single witness is sufficient to confirm that an unknown person is a priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
עוררין – that they call upon him a name of disqualification, but there is no contesting the legitimacy of a person with less than two [people].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Rabbi Judah says: one does not raise [a person] to the priesthood through the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Judah disagrees with yesterday’s mishnah in which we learned that one person is believed to testify that another person is a priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
מעלין – where there aren’t [witnesses] repaying each other (with mutual recommendations), which is exactly what is between Rabbi Eliezer and the first Tanna/teacher of Rabbi Yehuda.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Rabbi Elazar says: When is this true? When there are people who object; but when there are no people who object, one raises [a person] to the priesthood through the testimony of one witness. Rabbi Elazar limits Rabbi Judah’s statement to a case in which other people protest that so-and-so is not a kohen. In that type of situation two witnesses are necessary to raise someone to the priesthood. However, in the absence of others’ protesting, one witness is believed to say that someone else is a kohen.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Ketubot
רשב"ג אומר מעלין לכהונה – In the Gemara (Tractate Ketubot 26a-26b) an objection is raised: Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel is identical with Rabbi Eliezer and brings up that they disagree on whether they combine for testimony, such as the example that we treat here a case where the father of this [person] is a Kohen, and a rumor came out concerning him that he is the son of a divorced woman or a the son of a halutzah (where she removed the shoe of her dead husband’s brother who refused to leviratical marriage, and they put him down (from the status of priesthood) and one witness came and testified, “I know that he is a Kohen,” 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 halutzah,” and they put him down [again] and [then] one witness came and said: “I know that he is a Kohen,” Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says that they raise him to the priesthood on [the testimony] of this last witness because they combine him with the first witness whose “voice” was voided, and who stated: “I know that he is a Kohen,” and even though they did not make their testimonies at the same time, their testimony combines and we state, we establish these two [witnesses] who stated that he is a Kohen with those two [witnesses] who stated that he is a the son of a divorced woman or the son of a halutzah, and we establish a person with his legal presumption, but for Rabbi Eliezer, we don’t raise him up until two witnesses will testify at the same time that he is a Kohen, but the Halakah is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel that the witnesses combine, even though they did not testify as one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Ketubot
Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon the son of the assistant chief of priests: one raises [a person] to the priesthood through the testimony of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel agree with the opinion in the previous mishnah according to which a person is always believed to say that a person is a priest. We should note that determining whether a person was a priest must have been an issue of importance and difficulty after the destruction of the Temple. When the Temple stood, everyone pretty much knew who the priests were, because they were descendents of those who served regularly in the Temple. Furthermore, when the Temple was destroyed, the records kept in the Temple were probably lost. Hence testimony about a person’s being a priest became scarcer and hence more essential.
