Kiddushin, Daf Samekh Tet, Part 6
Introduction
Yesterday s section discussed disqualified priests who could eat terumah but whose lineage was still not that of full priests. Today s section discusses the problem that would ensue from such an arrangement. It also discusses what type of terumah they were allowed to eat.
ולמאן דאמר מעלים מתרומה ליוחסין הני דאכול בתרומה אתו לאסוקינהו
שאני התם דריע חזקתייהו
But on the view that we promote from terumah to family purity, those who ate terumah, they would come to promote them?
That case is different, because their presumptive status was weakened.
The priests referred to in Ezra were allowed to eat terumah. But this could cause a problem if their eating terumah was evidence that they are proper priests and therefore can marry into priestly lineage and their children would be priests. So how could Ezra allow them to eat terumah?
The answer is that in this case, since their presumptive status was weakened and they could not eat sacrifices, everyone would know that the lineage of these priests is flawed. Thus they could eat terumah and their problematic lineage still be known.
[As an aside, this and many other passages, assumed that priests would marry daughters of other priests. The lineage referred to here would fit into that situation. However, according to halakhah, priests, Levites and Israelites can intermarry.]
ואלא מאי גדולה חזקה דמעיקרא אכול בתרומה דרבנן ולבסוף אכול בתרומה דאורייתא
Then what is meant by Presumptive status is great?
Because originally they ate rabbinic terumah, and now they were allowed to eat biblical terumah.
If the priests cannot ascend to the lineage of fully valid priests, then how does this source show us that presumptive status is great ? On the contrary, it would seem that presumptive status is not so great.
The answer is that in Babylonia they ate terumah whose status is derabanan. Now back in Israel, they are eating terumah whose status is biblical. This is to show you how strong presumptive status is.
ואיבעית אימא לעולם השתא נמי בדרבנן אכול בדאורייתא לא אכול וכי מסקינן מתרומה ליוחסין מדאורייתא מדרבנן לא מסקינן
Alternatively, now too they would eat only rabbinic terumah, not Biblical; and when do we promote from terumah to lineage? [Only when it is terumah] by Biblical law, but [when it is terumah] by rabbinic law we do not.
Alternatively, we could correct the rule about promoting from terumah to lineage. These priests were eating only rabbinic terumah, even in the land of Israel [this would be terumah from produce not biblically liable for terumah]. And we do not promote from this type of terumah to lineage.
אי הכי מאי גדולה חזקה דמעיקרא ליכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא לבסוף אף ע"ג דאיכא למיגזר משום תרומה דאורייתא בדרבנן אכול בדאורייתא לא אכול
If so, why [state], Presumptive status is great? Because before there was no reason to prohibit it on account of Biblical terumah, but now, where we might have prohibited it on account of Biblical terumah, they [nevertheless] ate of rabbinic but not biblical [terumah].
According to this second reading of what these priests did, the greatness of presumptive status is expressed in the fact that now back in Eretz Yisrael, where biblical terumah does exist, the rabbis still let them eat rabbinic terumah. They were not strict lest by eating rabbinic terumah they come to eat biblical terumah. In contrast, in Babylonia, there was no biblical terumah, so there would have been no reason to be strict.
והכתיב (עזרא ב, סג) ויאמר התרשתא להם אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים בקדש הקדשים הוא דלא יאכל הא כל מידי ניכול
But it is written: and the Tirshatha said to them, that they should not eat of the most holy things (Ezra 2:63): thus, only of the most holy things they may not eat, but everything else they may eat?
The verse says that these priests could not eat most holy things sacrifices. By implication, they could eat terumah, even biblical terumah.
הכי קאמר לא מידי דמיקרי קדש ולא מידי דמיקרי קדשים לא מידי דמיקרי קדש דכתיב (ויקרא כב, י) וכל זר לא יאכל קדש
ולא מידי דמיקרי קדשים דאמר קרא (ויקרא כב, יב) ובת כהן כי תהיה לאיש זר היא בתרומת הקדשים לא תאכל ואמר מר במורם מן הקדשים לא תאכל
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: No stranger shall eat kodesh (Leviticus 22:10); nor what is called kodashim, as the verse says: And if a priest’s daughter is married to a stranger, she shall not eat of the heave-offerings of the kodashim (Leviticus 22:12), and a Master said: from what is given to the priests [as parts of sacrifices] she may not eat.
The Talmud now offers a new explanation of the Tarshita s words. He did not prohibit only sacrifices. He prohibited anything that is called holy. And in Leviticus 22:10 terumah is called holy. Thus, these priests could not eat biblical terumah, but they could eat rabbinic terumah.