1The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the meaning of: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status? This is a standard case of presumptive status, as the practice of the priests remained as it was. There is nothing novel in the application of the principle of presumptive status in this case. The Gemara answers: Initially, in the Babylonian exile, they would partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by rabbinic law. Now, upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, they partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by Torah law: Grain, wine, and oil, based on their presumptive status.
2And if you wish, say instead: Now too, upon their return to Eretz Yisrael, they partake of teruma taken from produce obligated by rabbinic law. However, of teruma taken from produce obligated by Torah law they may not partake. And when we elevate from teruma to lineage, this is only with regard to one who partakes of teruma by Torah law. However, in the case of one who partakes of teruma by rabbinic law, we do not elevate him to priestly lineage. The Gemara asks: And what, then, is the meaning of: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status? The Gemara answers: It means that although there is reason to issue a decree in Eretz Yisrael prohibiting consumption of teruma by rabbinic law, due to teruma that is forbidden by Torah law, we do not issue that decree because: Great is the legal authority of presumptive status.
3The Gemara asks: And did they in fact not partake of teruma by Torah law? But isn’t it written: “That they should not partake of the most sacred items [ kodesh hakodashim ]” (Ezra 2:63), from which it may be inferred: It is of the most sacred items, i.e., offerings, that they did not partake; of teruma by Torah law, they did partake.
4The Gemara answers that this is what the verse is saying: Neither did they partake of items called kodesh , as it is written: “And no common man may eat of kodesh ” (Leviticus 22:10), referring to teruma , nor did they partake of items called kodashim , as it is written: “And if a priest’s daughter be married to a common man, she shall not eat of terumat hakodashim ” (Leviticus 22:12). The Master said that this means: Of that which is set aside from the offerings [ kodashim ] to the priests, i.e., the loaves of the thanks-offering and the breast and the shoulder, they may not partake. According to neither explanation can any proof be cited from the baraita as to whether or not one elevates from teruma or from the Priestly Benediction to lineage.
5The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita : Presumptive status for priesthood is established by the lifting of hands in Babylonia; by partaking of ḥalla in Syria; and by distributing priestly gifts, i.e., the foreleg, the jaw, and the maw, in the cities. In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, it establishes presumptive status for teruma .
6The Gemara asks: But isn’t lifting of hands taught parallel to partaking of ḥalla ? Just as with regard to partaking of ḥalla the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too with regard to the lifting of hands the tanna teaches that it establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, partaking of ḥalla itself establishes presumptive status only for teruma and not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate ḥalla from dough is by rabbinic law and the obligation to separate teruma is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from ḥalla , which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to teruma , which is by Torah law. And this explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, cited below, who reversed the opinion of the Rabbis and posited that ḥalla today is an obligation by rabbinic law.
7The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita : Presumptive status for priesthood is established in Eretz Yisrael by the lifting of hands and distribution of teruma at the threshing floors. And in Syria and everyplace outside Eretz Yisrael that emissaries informing residents of the Diaspora of sanctification of the New Moon arrive, the lifting of hands constitutes proof of presumptive status for priesthood, as the court would investigate the lineage of everyone who recited the Priestly Benediction. But distribution of teruma at the threshing floors does not constitute proof of that status. Since there is no obligation of teruma by Torah law, the courts were not as resolute in examining the lineage of those to whom teruma was distributed.
8And the status in Babylonia is like that in Syria, as there, too, there are permanent courts that examine the lineage of those reciting the Priestly Benediction. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even Alexandria of Egypt initially had the same status as Syria, due to the fact that there was a permanent court there ensuring that the lifting of hands was performed only by a priest.
9In any event, the tanna teaches that the lifting of hands establishes the presumptive status of priesthood. The Gemara asks: What, does it not establish presumptive status for lineage? The Gemara answers: No, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for ḥalla . The Gemara asks: But isn’t the halakha of lifting of hands taught parallel to the halakha of distribution of teruma at the threshing floors? Just as distribution of teruma at the threshing floors in Eretz Yisrael establishes presumptive status for lineage, so too, the lifting of hands establishes presumptive status for lineage. The Gemara answers: No, distribution of teruma at the threshing floors establishes presumptive status only for ḥalla but not for lineage. This tanna holds that today the obligation to separate teruma is by rabbinic law, and ḥalla is by Torah law. The tanna teaches that we elevate from teruma , which is an obligation by rabbinic law, to ḥalla , which is by Torah law.
10And the dispute with regard to the legal status of teruma and ḥalla today is as in the incident where Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, found that this is the opinion of the Rabbis, as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I found the Sages in the study hall of Rav, who were sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by rabbinic law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law, as during the seven years that the Israelites conquered the land of Canaan led by Joshua and during the seven years that they divided the land, they were obligated in ḥalla but were not obligated in teruma . Today, too, although there is no obligation to take teruma in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by Torah law.
11And I said to them: On the contrary, even according to the one who said that teruma today is an obligation by Torah law, the obligation to separate ḥalla is by rabbinic law, as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse concerning ḥalla : “When you come into the land …from the first of your dough you should separate teruma ” (Numbers 15:18–19). If the obligation is when you come, one might have thought that it took effect from the moment that two or three spies entered the land, therefore the verse states: “When you come,” from which it is derived that God is saying: I said that the obligation takes effect with the coming of all of you and not with the coming of some of you. Separating ḥalla is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people comes to Eretz Yisrael, and when Ezra took them up to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period,