Question: What is the source that this is true? Perhaps R. Chiya was Maileh a son through his father who spoke l'Fi Tumo, and Rebbi was Maileh a brother through his brother, even without speaking [l'Fi Tumo]!

Answer #1: Presumably, Rebbi's opinion taught in the Beraisa is the case that Rebbi ruled about.

Answer #2: We cannot say that Rebbi was Maileh a brother to Chezkas Levi even without speaking [l'Fi Tumo], for there, we cannot say that it is because he can feed him Ma'aser according to the opinion that Ma'aser Rishon is permitted to Zarim.

Explanation: It mentions this so we cannot say that [perhaps] he is a slave, like it says below (28a).

Explanation: According to R. Akiva, before the fine [Ma'aser Rishon] was only for Leviyim. After the fine, it is also for Kohanim;

However, according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, before the fine it was also for Kohanim, after the fine it was only for Kohanim.

This that we say that Ma'aser Rishon is a Chazakah for Kehunah is according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, and unlike R. Akiva.

Alternate text: Some delete from the text "Iyn" and explain that this that we say "after Ezra fined them" is even according to R. Akiva. After the fine all agree that it was only for Kohanim. This is like "Ela" (a retraction).

Rejection #1: This is wrong. In many places it is proven that Ma'aser Rishon is for Leviyim even after the fine, like the Mishnah in Gitin (30a) "one who lends money to a Kohen or Levi to separate (tithes and deduct their value from the loan)..."

Also there in the Gemara, it says 'if a Yisrael said to a Ben Levi "I have a Kor of Ma'aser of your father"...' In Chulin (131b), it asks "Ma'aser Rishon belongs to a Levi!"

We find like this in several places. They are like R. Akiva.

Rejection #2: According to the opinion that after the fine, it is given to Aniyim, how is it a Chazakah?

[Amora'im] argue in Yevamos (86b). One opinion says that the fine is to give it to Kohanim, and one says that it is given to Aniyim.

According to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, it is only to Kohanim, even if they are rich, [i.e. rich Kohanim receive it] just like before the fine. Ezra did not fine them, for they came [with him to Eretz Yisrael]!

According to the opinion says that the fine is to give it to Aniyim, it connotes there that we give specifically to Aniyim, and not to rich Kohanim, even when they are Tameiף

He does not hold that when they are Tamei, they are considered Aniyim.

Suggestion: "Aniyim" there refers to poor Leviyim, but not to poor Yisre'elim and Kohanim.

Rejection #1: If so, poor Leviyim profited through this that the Leviyim did not come. (Initially it was given to all Leviyim, and now only to poor Leviyim.)

Rejection #2: It connotes there that if Kohanim were considered Aniyim when they are Tamei, all agree that they would receive, even though regarding giving Ma'aser [mid'Oraisa] they are like Yisre'elim, for [R. Akiva] says that it is given to a Levi, and not a Kohen.

Conclusion: Rather, "Aniyim" refers both to poor Kohanim and Leviyim, and according to the opinion that Zarim may eat Ma'aser Rishon, even poor Yisre'elim receive;

However, according to the opinion that it is forbidden to Zarim it is unreasonable to give it to poor Yisre'elim in order to sell it;

Rabanan do not enact matters that lead to transgression. We must be concerned lest he come to eat it;

It says below "this is not only according to R. Meir, who says that it is forbidden to Zarim...

Explanation: According to R. Akiva, Ezra did not totally uproot the Leviyim [from Ma'aser] to equate them to Yisre'elim and Kohanim, so that rich Leviyim do not receive, only poor Leviyim receive, because they are poor;

However, Leviyim, both poor and rich, always receive, like is proven from all the sources I brought that they received due to being Leviyim.

Support: Also, in an episode on a boat, R. Gamliel gave Ma'aser Rishon to R. Yehoshua ben Chananyah (Ma'aser Sheni 5:9);

If he gave it to him because he was poor, why didn't he give to him also Ma'aser Oni? He gave the Ma'aser Oni to R. Akiva [on behalf of the poor]!

Rejection #1: Perhaps really, he gave it to him because he was poor. He didn't give to him also Ma'aser Oni, for he had 200 Zuz, so he could not take Ma'aser Oni, like a Mishnah (Pe'ah 8:8) says;

However, he may take Ma'aser Rishon even if he has 200 Zuz, for there is an opinion that even rich Kohanim are considered poor when they are Tamei.

Rejection #2: Also, he did not want to give all of his Matanos to one Oni.

Observation: We do not explicitly find in verses that he fined them.

Source #1: We find only in Ezra (Nechemyah 10:39) "v'Hayah ha'Kohen Ben Aharon Im ha'Leviyim ba'Ser ha'Leviyim";

We could say that the verse means that when the Leviyim go to get a share in the granaries, the Kohanim will come with them;

Question: However, according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, after the fine it is only for a Kohen. This verse does not connote like this!

We cannot say that "with the Leviyim" means to receive the Ma'aser Rishon from them (from the Leviyim's crops), for Ezra did not fine them (Leviyim) regarding their own crops, like is proven in Chulin 131b;

Answer: We can say that according to R. Elazar ben Azaryah, the Leviyim did not totally refrain from going to the granaries to get a share of Ma'aser, like it says right after this "perhaps he happened to give [to a Levi]!"

All the more so, in the days of Ezra, when the fine had not yet spread so much, Leviyim used to go to the granaries;

Therefore, it says that the Kohanim will go with the Leviyim.

Explanation: According to the opinion that the fine is to the poor, "v'Hayah ha'Kohen [... Im ha'Leviyim]" refers to a poor Kohen;

Because it is more common that Kohanim are poor [than Yisre'elim], because they do not have so many work affairs, rather [they engage in] Avodas Beis ha'Mikdash, and they do not own land, it mentioned a Kohen;

The same applies to poor Yisre'elim, according to the opinion that Ma'aser is permitted to Zarim.

Source #2 (Rabbeinu Yosef): It says in Mal'achi "Havi'u Es Kol ha'Ma'aser El Beis ha'Otzar." Beis ha'Otzar is the chamber that Ezra enacted to put in it Terumah of Kohanim, like it says in Ezra. (The above verse "v'Hayah ha'Kohen..." continues "Ya'alu Es ha'Ma'aser... l'Veis ha'Otzar");

Since it says to bring Ma'aser there, if so it belongs to Kohanim. We hold that Mal'achi is Ezra (Megilah 15a).

According to the opinion that it is given to Aniyim, it mentions Beis ha'Otzar because poor Kohanim are more common, like I explained.

Alternatively, "El Beis ha'Otzar" does not mean to give to Kohanim, rather, to distribute to Aniyim.

Question (R. Elchanan): At the end of Ezra, it connotes that Ma'aser was to Leviyim, for it says (Nechemyah 13:10) "v'Ed'ah Ki Menayos ha'Leviyim Lo Nitanah va'Yivrechu Ish l'Sadehu ha'Leviyim veha'Meshorerim..."!

Inference: The Leviyim and the singers [received Ma'aser and] divided it!

Answer: We must say that this was before Ezra fined them.

Objection: However, the verses prove unlike this! (Pnei Yehoshua answers according to those who deleted "Iyn" from the text. All agree that poor Leviyim were not fined, and it was common to give to them. A rich person who received was surely a Kohen. Alternatively, we can answer based on Rashi in Chulin (131b), that the fine was not to give to Leviyim without a Kohen present. Since they did not return to Eretz Yisrael, they were suspected of not giving Terumas Ma'aser. Receiving Ma'aser alone (without anyone else there) was a proof of Kehunah.)

Assertion (Ri): R. Yochanan's teaching was primarily about our Mishnah.

Support: This is why we do not answer here "this is when he has Chezkas Kashrus", like we answer in Kidushin (73b. I.e. R. Yochanan said about the case of our Mishnah that protest requires two!)

Question: Since he taught about our Mishnah, how do we ask from it there and in Gitin (9a) regarding a Get?

Perhaps R. Yochanan teaches that protest of one does not help, i.e. when one witness is Machshir, for [our Mishnah] taught "we raise to Kehunah through one witness'!

Answer: The Gemara knew that R. Yochanan discussed the conclusion, that initially there were rumors, and afterwards one witness came to be Machshir him and remove the rumors, and two came and said that he is the son of a Gerushah or Chalutzah;

In such a case, R. Yochanan said that we require two, even though the witness who was Machshir, and the rumors, it is as if [both of them] do not exist, for the witness is weaker than the rumors, if not that the Chazakah helps him to negate the rumors. Therefore, also when there are no rumors and no witness who is Machshir, two witnesses of protest are needed against a Chazakah.)

Source: Rumors disqualify, and one witness does not disqualify according to R. Yochanan. (This shows that one witness is weaker than rumors.)

Explanation: This excludes one. His protest is not considered protest.

Distinction: However, rumors disqualify also at the beginning regarding Terumah, before the witness who is Machshir came.

Implied question: Why didn't [the Tartzan] did not want to say that they argue about whether or not Mailin through one witness when rumors disqualify?

Answer #1: It was obvious to the Gemara that all agree that rumors do not disqualify, since there is one witness and a Chazakah.

Answer #2: Rumors would not be called a protest.

Question: According to the opinion that is concerned for disgrace of Beis Din, how did we raise him [to Chezkas Kashrus], since we demoted him due to rumors?

Suggestion: There is disgrace of Beis Din only when they demoted him twice.

Rejection: Bava Basra 32a proves unlike this.

Answer: There is disgrace of Beis Din only when they demoted him through testimony. If they demoted him due to rumors, there is no disgrace of Beis Din.

Implied question: We say in Gitin (81a) regarding a divorcee married to a Kohen (i.e. there are rumors that he wrote a Get to her. Perhaps this connotes he divorced her) that we are not Mevatel the rumors!

Answer #1: That is because there is another solution (we can separate them and investigate);

However, here if we do not raise him, he will always be Pasul. Therefore, we are Mevatel.

Answer #2: Alternatively, we are lenient about Terumah mid'Rabanan.

Explanation (Rashi): Even though there are Trei v'Trei (two contradictory pairs of witnesses), the two pairs cancel each other, and we leave him in his Chazakah.

Question (Ri): In Kidushin (66a), it says about Yanai ha'Melech "what is the case?"

Citation (66a): If two say that [his mother] was captured, and two say that she was not captured, why do you rely on these?

Explanation: [Why do you rely] on these who say that she was not captured? Rely on these [who say that she was captured]! Why does it say "the matter was investigated, and it was not found" (a problem. Why didn't we answer like Rashi, that the witnesses cancel each other, and we follow Chazakah?)

Answer #1: Rashi explained there that we do not say "the two pairs cancel each other, and we leave him in his Chazakah", for they did not come to testify about his mother [who had Chezkas Kashrus to Kehunah], rather, about Yanai [himself], and he had no Chezkas Kashrus.

Objection (Ri): The mother's Chazakah helps also for Yanai, like it connotes here.

Also, we said above (13a) that according to the opinion that is Machshir her, he is Machshir also her daughter.

And even the opinion that disqualifies her daughter, this is a stringency, due to Zenus!

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There we do not leave him (Yanai) in his Chazakah, for all women had Chezkas of captives.

Rejection: If so, how do we bring a proof from there (Yanai) to one witness who testified that a man's wife was Mezanah? There is different, for all women had Chezkas of captives, but his wife who [allegedly] was Mezanah has Chezkas Heter!

Answer #3 (Ri): Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Rabanan. Rabanan were stringent not to rely on the Chazakah;

Here, regarding Terumah mid'Rabanan, they were lenient.

Implied question: In Eruvin (35a), regarding Terumah that become Tamei, R. Meir says that if it is a Safek (whether or not the Eruv was valid), he is in Chamar Gamal (he is stringent not to rely on the Eruv, but is also concerned lest it was Kosher, and he may go in the direction opposite the Eruv only 2000 Amos from Eiruv is valid), nor can he go more than 2000 Amos to the north, lest it is invalid.)

Rabah and Rav Yosef establish this to discuss two pairs of [contradictory] witnesses.

Why don't we leave it in its Chazakah, that it did not become Tamei? Terumah nowadays is mid'Rabanan!

Answer #1: This is because R. Meir holds that Eruv Techumim is mid'Oraisa.

Answer #2: There is different, for there is a Re'usa (reason to say that it is invalid), for it is Tamei in front of you, and we do not say "it became Tamei now."

Implied question: Regarding a Mikveh (that was complete and now it is deficient, and something Tamei was immersed in it, we say "now it became deficient"!

Answer: Here that there are two pairs of witnesses, we do not say "now it became Tamei."

Implied question: When two say that he died, and two say that he did not die, we said above (22b, that if she married,) she does not leave. Why don't we leave her in her Chazakah of Eshes Ish?

Answer #1: The Chazakah that a woman investigates well before remarrying weakens Chezkas Eshes Ish.

Implied question: When two say that he died (and his wife remarried, and he returned), in Yevamos (87b) we say that she may return to him;

Since there is no stringency at the end (when he returns), she does not investigate well!

Answer: In any case, here, since they contradict each other, there is a stringency [if he returns after she remarried].

Implied question: When two say that she was divorced, and two say that she was not divorced, we say that [if she remarried], she does not leave, even though she does not check well;

Also, there is no Chazakah that she cannot be brazen [to her husband and falsely claim "you divorced me"], for not in front of him she is brazen, and all the more so when witnesses support her!

Answer #1: In any case she checks, for she fears lest her witnesses be Huzmu, or they will be disqualified due to being thieves.

Implied question: In Yevamos (93b) they asked Rav Sheshes about one witness about a Yevamah... he answered that a Mishnah teaches this;

Citation (93b): If they told her "your [only] child died, and afterwards your husband died", and she did Yibum, and afterwards they told her vice-versa (her husband died first, so Yibum was forbidden), she must leave, and the child is a Mamzer;

Citation (cont.) Question: What is the case? If there are Trei v'Trei, why do you rely on these who forbid Yibum? Rely on these who permit her [to do Yibum]!

Question: What was the question? We should leave her in her Chazakah, that she may not do Yibum, for her husband died first!

We say like this in Yevamos (31a) regarding a house that fell on him and his brother's daughter (one of his wives. We should follow the Chazakah that the Tzarah is exempt from Yibum and Chalitzah, for she is Tzaras Ervah!)

Also, since Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Rabanan, we should forbid her, like we say about Yanai!

There, she does not check, like we say there, for sometimes she loves the Yavam!

Answer #1: In any case (even if she does not check so well), her checking helps to weaken the Chezkas Isur to the Yavam.

Implied question: There, we also ask... why is the child a Mamzer? He is a Safek Mamzer!

She has Chezkas Isur to the Yavam (he is a Vadai Mamzer)!

Answer #1: He is not a Vadai Mamzer, for her checking helps [to weaken the Chazakah], like we explained.

Answer #2: Since Trei v'Trei is a Safek mid'Rabanan, we should not leave her on her Chazakah [and consider her son a Vadai Mamzer] and permit him to a Mamzeres.

Answer (#3 - R. Yitzchak bar Baruch): In all these cases we do not establish the matter in its Chazakah, for the two who remove it from Chezkas Heter testify first;

Note: This is Answer #4 to Question (b), Answer #3 to Questions (h) and (q), and Answer #2 to Questions (k), (m) and (o).

Once they testify, it leaves its Chazakah through their testimony. After this, we do not say "we leave it in its Chazakah."

Support: Therefore, we asked above (23a) "what is the difference between the Reisha and Seifa?", for the two who say that she became Mekudeshes testified first. (If two say that a woman became Mekudeshes and two deny it... if she married, she may stay. If two say that she was divorced and two deny it... if she married, she must leave.)

Implied question: [In the Seifa,] the two who say that she was divorced testified first (unlike the Reisha, in which the first ones testified to forbid)!

Answer: In any case, she had Chezkas Eshes Ish. (Rashash - in both the Reisha and Seifa, the first witnesses removed the Chazakah. Therefore, we asked why they are different.)

Also in the case in Yevamos (87b) and with Yanai, the two who remove her from her Chazakah came first.

Objection (Ri): Here in our Sugya, we leave him on his Chazakah, even though two already disqualified him and removed him from his Chazakah!

It is unreasonable to say that it helps that beforehand, one witness testified to be Machshir. .

Further, it seems that Rav Ashi wants to say that even if both [who are Machshir] came at the end, [all agree that] we raise him!

Assertion: She is permitted to her husband even if he is a Kohen. We are not concerned even for rape, for they (the creditors) fear to lose their money. This is unlike a captive.

Support #1: The Gemara says "this is only when Yisrael rule over the Nochrim. However, when the Nochrim rule over themselves (this is a euphemism; really, it means over Yisrael), even [if she was taken] due to money, she is forbidden to her husband.

You are forced to say that this refers to Kehunah, for we bring a proof from the episode in which her family distanced her;

This applies only to Kehunah. Regarding a Yisrael, it makes no sense to say that her family distanced her, for she is forbidden only to her husband!

Support #2: A Mishnah (Avodah Zarah 22a) says that we do not leave animals in inns of Nochrim, for they are suspected of bestiality;

We ask a contradiction from a Beraisa that says that we may buy animals for them for Korbanos, and answer that we distinguish between l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved.

Citation (22a): What is the source to distinguish between l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved? A Mishnah says that a woman may not be secluded with them, for they are suspected of Arayos.

Citation (cont.) Contradiction (Mishnah): If Nochrim took a woman captive for money, she is permitted to her husband;

Citation (cont.) Answer: This shows that we distinguish between l'Chatchilah and b'Di'eved.

Inference: We are not concerned at all lest she had Bi'ah;

If it teaches that she is permitted to her Yisrael husband, for we are not concerned lest she consented, but a Kohen's wife is forbidden, for we are concerned lest she was raped, this is no proof at all! (Bestiality disqualifies an animal whether or not it was forced.)

Explanation: She is forbidden to her husband even if he is a Yisrael, for we are concerned lest she consented in order to find grace in [the captor's] eyes, so he won't kill her;

If [the Mishnah forbids] to her husband a Kohen, lest she was raped, if so, it should have taught "she is forbidden to Kehunah"!

Rather, surely she is forbidden even to her husband a Yisrael.

Question: We should permit Tzenu'os (virtuous women). They would be Moser Nefesh [to avoid Bi'ah, even rape], like it connotes that above (3b) regarding "anyone married on Wednesday must have Bi'ah with the mayor first"!

Answer: We must say that here we are concerned for every woman, lest she is not Tzenu'ah. Even if she appears Tzenu'ah, perhaps she is not.