Commentary for Kiddushin 138:16

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

those who ate terumah, they would come to promote them? - There it was different, because their presumptive status was weakened.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it was seen that other priests ate sacrifices and they did not, it would be known that their genealogy was suspect (Rashi) . Tosaf.: their status was weakened because they had failed to prove their pure descent.');">¹⁹</span> Then what is meant by 'Great is a presumptive right? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase implies that it leads to some extraordinary concession. But since there was no reason to fear that continuance in their right would lead to error, R. Jose should simply have stated that a presumptive right in the past gives a claim for the future.');">²⁰</span> - Because originally they ate Rabbinical terumah, and now they were to eat Biblical terumah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Outside Palestine terumah is required by Rabbinical law only.');">²¹</span> Alternatively, after all they would now too eat only Rabbinical terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Terumah on fruit and vegetables, which even in Palestine is only Rabbinical.');">²²</span> not Biblical; for when do we promote front terumah to family purity? [Only when it is terumah] by Biblical law, but we do not promote [when it is terumah] by Rabbinical law. If so, why [state], 'Great is a presumptive right? ' - Because formerly<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since outside Palestine there was none available.');">²³</span> there was no cause to forbid it on account of Biblical terumah,' but now,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'at the end'.');">²⁴</span> though it might have been forbidden on account of Biblical terumah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On their return to Palestine. If they were permitted to eat Rabbinical, they might come to eat Biblical terumah.');">²⁵</span> they [nevertheless] ate of Rabbinical, but not of Biblical [terumah]. But it is written: 'and the Tirshatha said unto them, that they should not eat of the most holy things': thus, only of the most holy things<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which implies sacrifices of the higher sanctity; v. p. 264, n. 11.');">²⁶</span> might they not eat, but everything else they might eat? - 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: There shall no stranger eat kodesh;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 10; E.V. 'of the holy things,' i.e., terumah, to which the whole passage refers.');">²⁷</span> 'nor what is called kodashim,' as it is written: And if a priest's daughter be married unto a stranger, she shall not eat of the heave-offerings of the kodashim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 12; E.V. holy things.');">²⁸</span> and a Master said [explaining this:] the priestly dues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'that which was separated', viz., the breast and shoulder.');">²⁹</span> of sacrifices

Explore commentary for Kiddushin 138:16. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.