R. Yehudah dit: On n'est pas élevé au sacerdoce par le témoignage d'un seul témoin. [Même s'il n'y a pas de témoins «réciproques», et, il va sans dire, s'il y a une possibilité de réciprocité, c'est-à-dire, témoignez pour moi, et je témoignerai pour vous.] R. Elazar a dit: Quand est-ce que c'est ainsi? Là où il y a des «objecteurs» [qui le déclarent inapte au sacerdoce; et il n'y a pas d '"objection" avec moins de deux], mais là où il n'y a pas d'objecteurs, on est élevé au sacerdoce par le témoignage d'un seul témoin [là où il n'y a pas de témoins réciproques. Et c'est la différence entre R. Elazar et le premier tanna (R. Yehudah)]. R. Shimon n. Gamliel dit au nom de R. Shimon le fils du sagan (l'adjudant grand-prêtre): On est élevé au sacerdoce par le témoignage d'un témoin. [La gemara demande: "R. Shimon b. Gamliel et R. Elazar ne disent-ils pas la même chose!" Et il conclut qu'ils diffèrent sur la question de la "combinaison de témoignages"— comme quand nous savons que le père de cet homme était considéré comme un (fit) Cohein, et qu'un rapport a été publié qu'il était le fils d'une divorcée ou d'une chalutzah, et il a été "démis" (de la prêtrise), et puis un témoin est venu et a dit: Je sais qu'il est un (en forme) Cohein —auquel il a été re-élevé; puis deux témoins sont venus et ont dit: Il est le fils d'une divorcée ou d'une chalutzah—auquel il a été de nouveau abattu; et un témoin est venu et a dit: Je sais qu'il est un (fit) Cohein—R. Shimon n. Gamliel dit qu'il est re-élevé au sacerdoce par le témoignage de ce dernier témoin, car nous le «combinons» avec le premier témoin qui a annulé le rapport en disant: Je sais qu'il est un Cohein. Et même s'ils n'ont pas témoigné en même temps, leur témoignage est combiné, et nous disons: Mettez ces deux qui disent qu'il est un Cohein à côté des deux qui disent qu'il est le fils d'une divorcée, et "mettez l'homme dans son statut (d'origine) »(en tant que prêtre apte). Et selon R. Elazar, il n'est pas re-élevé jusqu'à ce que deux témoins témoignent en même temps qu'il est un prêtre (apte). La halakha est conforme à R. Shimon b. Gamliel, que les témoins sont combinés même s'ils n'ont pas témoigné ensemble.]
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.
