R. Yehudah dice: Uno non è elevato al sacerdozio dalla testimonianza di un testimone. [Anche se non ci sono testimoni "reciproci", e, ovviamente, se esiste una possibilità di reciprocità, vale a dire, testimonia per me, e io renderò testimonianza per te.] R. Elazar disse: Quando è così? Dove ci sono "obiettori" [che lo dichiarano inadatto al sacerdozio; e non vi è alcuna "obiezione" con meno di due], ma dove non ci sono obiettori, si è elevati al sacerdozio dalla testimonianza di un testimone [dove non ci sono testimoni reciproci. E questa è la differenza tra R. Elazar e la prima tanna (R. Yehudah)]. R. Shimon b. Gamliel dice nel nome di R. Shimon, figlio del sagan (il sommo sacerdote aiutante): Uno è elevato al sacerdozio dalla testimonianza di un testimone. [La gemara chiede: "Non sono R. Shimon b. Gamliel e R. Elazar che dicono la stessa cosa!" E conclude che differiscono sulla questione di "combinare la testimonianza"— come quando sappiamo che il padre di quest'uomo era ritenuto un (adatto) Cohein, e fu pubblicato un rapporto che era il figlio di un divorzio o di una chalutzah, e che fu "tolto" (dal sacerdozio), e poi venne un testimone e disse: lo conosco come un (adatto) Cohein —al quale fu rialzato; e poi vennero due testimoni e dissero: È il figlio di una divorziata o di una chalutzah—a cui fu di nuovo abbattuto; e un testimone venne e disse: Lo conosco come un (adatto) Cohein—R. Shimon b. Gamliel afferma di essere elevato al sacerdozio dalla testimonianza di quest'ultimo testimone, poiché lo "combiniamo" con il primo testimone che ha annullato il rapporto dicendo: Conosco che è un Cohein. E anche se non hanno testimoniato allo stesso tempo, la loro testimonianza è combinata, e diciamo: imposta questi due che dicono che è un Cohein accanto ai due che dicono che è il figlio di un divorzio, e "imposta l'uomo nel suo stato (originale) "(come sacerdote adatto). E secondo R. Elazar, non viene rialzato fino a quando due testimoni testimoniano allo stesso tempo di essere un sacerdote (idoneo). L'halachah è conforme a R. Shimon b. Gamliel, che i testimoni sono uniti anche se non hanno testimoniato insieme.]
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.
