Source: http://halakhah.com/kethuboth/kethuboth_25.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 08:21:48+00:00

Document:
How far does the presumption improve their position? Why does R. Jose lay such emphasis on it?
Terumah outside Palestine is only Rabbinically ordained; v. Kid. 36b.
Terumah in Palestine is commanded by the law of the Bible, and the eating of such terumah by them was due to the importance attached to 'presumption'.
I.e.. terumah on vegetables and fruits.
On corn, wine and oil.
V. supra p. 135' n. 4.
Lev. XXII, 10. The reference is to terumah. v. Yeb. 74b.
Lev. XXII, 12. The reference is to those portions of sacrifices, the breast and shoulder of peace-offerings. (v. Lev. VII, 34). that could be partaken of by the wives of priests and their slaves; v. next note.
Cf. preceding note. And in Ezra II, 63. both words are used, corresponding to the two words just quoted from Lev. XXII, 10 and 12; v. Kid. 69b and Yeb. 68b and 87a.
The priest's share of the dough; v. Num. XV, 20.
I.e., in family matters; (v. supra p. 133, n. 4) which solves R. Nahman b. Isaac's question.
Lit., 'in this time', i.e., after the destruction of the Second Temple.
When one is seen being given hallah, we assume he is a priest, and he may be given terumah.
I.e., sharing in the terumah.
Being outside Palestine proper terumah there is only of Rabbinic origin.
Who would investigate claims to priest hood, cf. supra p. 137, n. 12.
Rashi renders [H] 'house of learning'. school', 'college'.
Under Joshua. V. B.M. 89a.
[H] so literally Num. XV, 18. E.V. 'When you come'.
The emphasis would seem to be on 'come'.
The emphasis is thus laid on 'your'. 'Your' means '(the coming of) all of you'.
To the Land of Israel.
Someone came before R. Joshua b. Levi, [and] said to him: am convinced that he12 is a Levite. He said to him: What have you seen? He answered him: He read second in the Synagogue. As Levite or as a prominent man? — A priest read before him.13 And R. Joshua b. Levi raised him to the status of Levite14 on the strength of his testimony.
And therefore hallah in these days is Rabbinical.
Witnesses testify that he is a priest.
Surely you cannot call a Testimony a presumption!
Which answers the question of R. Nahman b. Isaac.
The testimony is to a fact that postulates a presumption.
A certain person. Lit., 'this (man)'.
When called up to the Law. V. Git. 59b.
Lit., 'in the presumption of'.
This would show that he was a priest; v. Git. 59b.
To give him the first tithe.
The first answer apparently did not satisfy Resh Lakish.
R. Eleazar apparently regarded the first answer as sufficient.
Rashi: with an evil eye.
R. Johanan. V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 647. n. 8.
He understood that R. Eleazar had heard the phrase he had cited from R. Johanan. and therefore reproved him for this lack of scholarly courtesy in not mentioning his source.
He can give him of his terumah.
Marriage is not in the hand of the father.
That it was Rabbi who promoted the son to priesthood on the testimony of his father.
On the testimony of his father.
Why should he be raised on the evidence of his brother?

References: v. 

V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 v. 
 V.