1. [The status of] all of the priests of the present era¹When the priests do not serve in the Temple and there is no Sanhedrin to verify their lineage. is accepted on the basis of a prevailing assumption.²I.e., they are regarded as priests by people at large even though there is no definite proof of their lineage. They may only eat sacred food that is eaten [within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael],³I.e., in contrast to sacrificial meat which may be eaten only in the Temple courtyard or within the city of Jerusalem depending on the type of sacrifice involved. provided it is terumah mandated by virtue of Rabbinic decree [alone].⁴As explained in Halachah 3, in the present age, the mitzvah of terumah has the status of a Rabbinic commandment. As reflected by the commentaries to Hilchot Terumah 2:1, according to the Rambam, Scriptural Law requires us to separate terumah from all types of produce usually eaten by humans. The mitzvah does not apply only to the grain, grapes, and olives singled out by Deuteronomy 18:4. [Even] terumah mandated by Scriptural Law and challah mandated by Scriptural Law, by contrast, may be eaten only by a priest whose lineage is established.

2. What is meant by a priest whose lineage is established? Anyone concerning whom two witnesses⁵Note the Maggid Mishneh who elaborates, explaining that although generally, the testimony of one witness is sufficient with regard to issues involving Scriptural prohibitions, an exception is made with regard to terumah. testify that he is a priest, the son of so-and-so the priest, and the descendant of so-and-so the priest, extending back until we reach a person whose lineage need not be checked, i.e., a priest who served at the altar. [Such a person's lineage need not be verified, because] were the High Court not to have made investigations about him, they would not have allowed him to perform service [in the Temple].⁶See the conclusion of the tractate of Middot and Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 6:11, which describes the manner in which the lineage of the priests was checked.

Accordingly, we do not investigate the lineage of anyone who served at the altar or who served on the Sanhedrin. For only priests, Levites, and Israelites of acceptable lineage are appointed to the Sanhedrin.⁷See Hilchot Sanhedrin 2:1.

3. In the present era, even in Eretz Yisrael,⁸As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Bikkurim 5:5,7, in the Biblical era, there was a distinction between the mitzvah of challah as observed in Eretz Yisrael and as observed in the Diaspora. For according to Scriptural Law, the mitzvah applies only in Eretz Yisrael. challah does not have the status of a Scriptural commandment. [This is derived from Numbers 15:18:] "When you come into the land...."⁹The continuation of the verse describes the mitzvah to separate challah. [Implied is when] all of you enter and not when only a portion enter.¹⁰As the Rambam explains in Hilchot Terumah 1:26 and Hilchot Beit HaBechirah 6:16, after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael by Assyrians and the Babylonians the sanctity of the land was nullified and there was no obligation to keep the agricultural laws of Eretz Yisrael. When Ezra led the people back to Eretz Yisrael after the 70 years of the Babylonian exile, the majority of the people did not accompany him. (Moreover, he did not conquer the land.) Hence, his sanctification of Eretz Yisrael was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Scriptural Law. Nevertheless, he and his court ruled that those mitzvot should be observed as a Rabbinic ordinance.

This reflects the Rambam's view. Although other Rishonim (Ra'avad, Rav Moshe HaCohen) differ and maintain that Ezra's settlement of the land was sufficient to sanctify it according to Scriptural Law, the Rambam's approach is accepted by most authorities. When Ezra ascended [to Eretz Yisrael], the entire people did not ascend.

Similarly, in the present era, terumah is a Rabbinic commandment.¹¹The Rambam maintains that the laws regarding terumah and the tithes are derived from those applying to challah (Kessef Mishneh to Hilchot Terumah 1:26). Therefore it is eaten by the priests of our era [whose lineage is established merely] by presumption.

4. When two witnesses testify that they saw a person partaking of terumah mandated by Scriptural Law, his lineage is established. We do not elevate a person [to the level that his priestly] lineage is [considered as] established based on the fact that he delivers the Priestly Blessing [to the people], reads the Torah first,¹²In the Talmudic era - as is still the practice in certain communities - when a person was given an aliyah, he would read the Torah himself, rather than have it read for him by others. or is given terumah in the granaries,¹³Although all of these practices are signs of the priesthood, we do not consider them as conclusive evidence of a priest's lineage. or because of the testimony of one witness.

5. When a priest whose lineage was established says: "This son of mine is a priest," we do not consider [the son as a priest whose] lineage is established¹⁴The Maggid Mishneh explains that the Rambam's words could be interpreted to mean that the child is considered a priest with regard to marriage. Nevertheless, he does not possess the advantage of being considered of established lineage unless testimony is given. on the basis of his statement unless he brings witnesses who testify that the child is his son.¹⁵The father's statement is, however, sufficient to have considered as a priest with regards to matters applicable in the present age, as stated in Halachah 10.

6. [The following laws apply when] a priest whose lineage has been established departs to another country together with his wife whom we know to be of acceptable lineage. If he comes together with her and children who relate to them as parents and says: "This is the woman who departed together with me and these are her children," he does not have to bring witnesses to testify about the woman or the children.

[If he says:] "She died and these are her children," he must bring witnesses who testify that these are his children.¹⁶More precisely, that they are the sons borne him by his deceased wife. He need not bring witnesses that his wife was of acceptable lineage, for her status as being acceptable was already established when she departed from us.

7. When a priest whose lineage was established goes out to another country and comes together with his wife and his sons, saying: "I married this woman and these are her sons," he must bring proof that the woman is acceptable. He does not have to bring witnesses that these are her sons, provided the children relate to her as a mother.

If he comes together with two wives and brings proof regarding one, he is required to bring proof about the sons, even though the children are young and relate to her as a mother. For perhaps they are the sons of the other women, but relate to the woman whose lineage is established as a mother.

8. If he comes together with sons and says: "I married a woman and she died. These are her sons," he must bring witnesses that the woman was acceptable and that these are her sons." These laws also apply with regard to an Israelite of established lineage and a Levite of established lineage. Afterwards, we can testify with regard to this son so that he will be fit for the Sanhedrin.¹⁷And his daughters fit to marry priests.

9. We do not elevate a person's lineage [based on mention in] a document to the priesthood. What is implied? If it is stated in a document: "So-and-so, the priest, borrowed from so-and-so this-and-this amount," and witnesses sign below, we do not operate under the assumption that this priest is of acceptable lineage. For perhaps, they signed only with regard to the loan.¹⁸And did not pay attention to the fact the person was described as a priest.

With regard to what does the above apply? With regard to considering the person as a priest of acceptable lineage. [Different principles apply] with regard to the presumption that he is a priest like the other priests of the present age and license to partake of terumah and challah mandated by Rabbinic decree and to be given other sacred articles [granted priests within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael].¹⁹E.g., the sheep exchanged in place of a donkey, the first shearing of a sheep, and the like. [These privileges are granted on the basis of] mention in a legal document, the testimony of one witness, or the fact that a person recites the priestly blessing or reads the Torah first.

10. Similarly, whenever a priest says: "My son is a priest," his word is accepted with regard to feeding him terumah²⁰This refers even to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. Ketubot 25b explains that this ruling is based on the principle of miggo. If the priest desired to transgress, he could feed his son terumah without having him declared a priest. See also Halachah 3. and having him accepted as a priest.²¹To be given an aliyah first and to bless the people. He need not bring proof regarding his sons or his wife.

11. When two people come to a particular city, one says: "I and my colleague are priests," and the other says, "I and my colleague are priests," their word is accepted and they are both considered as priests²²For the testimony of one witness is effective. even though it appears that they are in collusion.²³And there is room to suspect that each is lying on the others behalf.

Similarly, if one witness says: "I saw this person recite the Priestly Blessing," "...eat terumah, "...received terumah in the granary," or "...read first from the Torah and a Levi read after him,"²⁴If a Levi did not read after him, the fact that he read first is not significant. For perhaps there were no priests present and an Israelite was called instead or he was given the honor because of his stature as a Torah scholar. he is considered a priest on the basis of this statement. Similarly, if one testified that a person read second from the Torah after a priest, he is considered as a Levite.

12. If one delivers testimony in court saying that he saw a person and his brothers divide terumah left to them by their father the priest, we do not consider him a priest because of this testimony. Perhaps he is a challal and took his portion of the inheritance of terumah in order to sell it.

13. In the present era, when a person comes and says: "I am a priest," his word is not accepted and we do not consider him a priest on the basis of his own statements. He should not read from the Torah first, recite the Priestly Blessing,²⁵The Maggid Mishneh explains that the above are forbidden him, because - as stated in Halachah 9 - when an observer sees a person performing such acts, he may consider that person a priest.

Rav Moshe Cohen and the Rama (Even HaEzer 3:1) maintain that, in the present era, it is customary to accept a person's word if he claims to be a priest. For the only serious problem with regard to observance is partaking of terumah and we do not separate terumah in the present age. Note the Chelkat Mechokek 3:1 who raises questions regarding the license for this person to recite the Priestly Blessing. See also the Maggid Mishneh who mentions that this custom was also practiced in his era. He strongly protests against it, calling it "an erroneous custom." or partake of sacred food that is eaten [within] the boundaries [of Eretz Yisrael] unless there is one witness who corroborates his statements.

He does, however, cause himself to be forbidden [to marry] a divorcee, a zonah, and a challalah; nor may he become impure because of contact with a corpse.²⁶Since he considers himself a priest, it is as if he has taken a vow not to perform these activities. If he marries such a woman or becomes impure, he receives lashes.²⁷The commentaries have questioned this statement, for it has not been formally established that the person is a priest. Nevertheless, since he considers himself a priest, as far as he is concerned, the warning given him will be have been of substance and the punishment deserved. Hence he is given the lashes. The woman is not given lashes, for as far as she is concerned, the matter is not definitely established (Maggid Mishneh). A woman [who may not marry into the priesthood] who engages in relations with him is deemed a challalah of questionable status.²⁸Hence if another priest engages in relations with her, he is not given lashes. Her offspring are also challalim of questionable status and her daughter may not marry into the priesthood (Maggid Mishneh; Chelkat Mechokek 3:3).

14. If the person makes these statements in the course of conversation, his word is accepted.²⁹He is allowed to partake of terumah mandated by Rabbinic decree, for his statements are given the weight of the testimony of one witness.

What is implied? An incident once took place with regard to a person who was speaking in the midst of conversation, saying: "I remember that when I was an infant and was being carried on my shoulders by father, they took me out of school,³⁰This is proof that he was not a servant, for servants are not taught the Torah (Tosafot, Ketubot 26a). removed my outer garment, and had me immerse in the mikveh to partake of terumah in the evening. My colleagues separated themselves from me and called me: 'Yochanan, who eats challot.' Our holy teacher³¹Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi. had him considered a priest on the basis of these statements.

15. An adult's word is accepted if he says: "I remember when I was a child³²Generally, for testimony to be valid, the person observing the matter must be acceptable as a witness. In this instance, however, formal testimony is not required. Hence leniency is shown. (See Hilchot Edut 14:3). and I saw so-and-so immerse himself in a mikveh and partake of terumah in the evening." He is considered a priest on the basis of this statement.

In the present era, when a person comes and says: "I am a priest," and a witness testifies on his behalf, saying: "I know that his father is a priest," we do not consider him as a priest on the basis of this testimony. [We fear that] perhaps he is a challal.³³This applies even if there are no rumors that the person's mother is not acceptable (Maggid Mishneh). The Chelkat Mechokek 3:9 quotes other authorities who are more lenient. Instead, [the witness] must testify that the person himself is a priest. If, however, the father's identity as a priest is an established fact or two witnesses come and testify that the person's father is a priest, because of his father, we assume [that he is a priest].

16. When the identity of a person's father as a priest has been established, but there is a rumor³⁴We are not speaking about mere hearsay, but a rumor that is substantiated by the court. that he is the son of a divorcee or the son of a woman who performed chalitzah, we entertain suspicions and do not treat him as a priest. If one witness comes and testifies that he is acceptable, we treat him as a priest because of his statements.³⁵For the testimony of one witness is powerful enough to negate the rumor. If two witnesses come afterwards and testify that he is a challal, we remove him from the priesthood.³⁶Because the testimony of one witness is of no consequence in the face of the testimony of two witnesses.

If another witness comes and testifies that he is acceptable, we treat him as a priest, because the last witness is joined together with the first.³⁷The fact that the two witnesses do not testify at the same time is not significant (Hilchot Edut 4:4). Thus there are two witnesses testifying that he is acceptable and two testifying that he is unacceptable. Both pairs of witness and the rumor are voided, for two witnesses have the same legal power as 100.³⁸I.e., the intent is that once two witnesses give testimony in court, their statement is given the weight of established fact and needs no further corroboration. Since the statements of the two pairs of witnesses contradict each other, they are both nullified. Nevertheless, the statements of the witnesses who testify that he is acceptable also have the power to nullify the rumor. And the person remains a priest based on the status of his father.³⁹The Maggid Mishneh mentions that there is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis if he is considered acceptable only with regard to terumah mandated by Rabbinic Law or also with regard to terumah mandated by Scriptural Law. The Beit Shmuel 3:14 states that the Rambam is also referring to terumah mandated by Rabbinic Law.

17. [The following law applies] when a woman [remarried] without waiting three months after [the death of] her [first] husband⁴⁰A woman is required to wait for such an interim so that the lineage of her children will be established definitively. and gave birth. If it is not known whether the child was conceived by the first - and born after nine months - or conceived by the second - and born after seven - and one of them was a priest and the other, an Israelite, the child is a priest of questionable status.

Similarly, if a son of a priest became intermingled with a child of an Israelite⁴¹I.e., as infants, the identity of the children became confused and the doubt was never clarified. and they grow to maturity, they are both considered priests of questionable status. They must observe the stringencies incumbent on Israelites and the stringencies incumbent on priests: They may only marry women fit to marry into the priesthood. They may not become impure through contact with the dead, nor may they partake of terumah. If they marry a divorcee, they are forced to divorce and they do not receive lashes.⁴²They are not given lashes, because it is not certain that they violated a Scriptural commandment. They should, however, be given "stripes for rebellious conduct," because of their disregard of the restrictions the Rabbis placed upon them [Perisha (Even HaEzer 3)].

18. [The following rules apply] if the sons of two priests become intermingled or the wife of a priest married a second priest without waiting three months after the death of her first husband and it is not known whether the child was conceived by the first - and born after nine months - or conceived by the second - and born after seven. The stringencies that would apply as if he was the son of both men must be observed: He must observe the rites of aninut⁴³This term refers to the state of acute morning that applies immediately after the death of one's close relative. See Hilchot Evel 4:6. It is particularly relevant to priests, for one is forbidden to serve in the Temple or partake of sacrificial foods in a state of aninut (Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 2:6-10 ). because of [both⁴⁴Yevamot 100b notes a difficulty in the use of the plural in both this and the following clause. Since the ordinary way the mother of this priest could have married a second priest is when her first husband died, how is it possible to speak about the son mourning for that first husband or that first husband mourning for him?

The Talmud answers that this is speaking about a situation where the mother thought she was consecrated to the first husband, but in fact was not. This is not considered a licentious relationship warranting the stringencies mentioned in the following halachah. A formal divorce, however, is not required and hence the woman may marry another priest.

The Maggid Mishneh explains that according to the Rambam, one can also interpret the passage as referring to a woman whose father died in her childhood and who was married by Rabbinic decree. Until she attains majority, she may dissolve that marriage through the rite of mi'un. In such an instance, a formal divorce is not required. If she conceives a child, dissolves her marriage, and then marries another priest, the situation mentioned in this halachah may apply. of] them⁴⁵For perhaps that person is his father. Rashi (Yevamot, loc. cit.) interprets this statement as referring to the restrictions placed upon priests for aninut. Since it is possible that the person who died is his father, he should not risk the violation of a Scriptural commandment. With regard to the customs concerning aninut mentioned in Hilchot Evel (one of them being that one does not perform any of the Torah's mitzvot), by contrast, Kinat Eliyahu raises a question: Should one refrain from performing a mitzvah because perhaps the person who died was his father? and they [both] observe the rights of aninut because of him.⁴⁶For perhaps he is their son. He may not become impure because of them, nor may they become impure because of him.⁴⁷There is a Scriptural prohibition against a priest becoming impure. That prohibition does not apply when one is certain that the person who died is one's relative. In this instance, however, neither the father or son is certain. He may serve in the priestly watch⁴⁸The priests were divided into 24 watches. Each one would serve in the Temple for a week in a cycle of rotation (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:3). This priest has the right to serve during the week allotted to both of the individuals suspected of being his father. of both of them, but does not receive a portion.⁴⁹In this instance, we are speaking of expropriating property (a share in the sacrifices) from the other priests. Hence we follow the principle: When a person seeks to expropriate property, the burden of proof is upon him. If they are both from the same priestly watch and the same beit av,⁵⁰Each priestly watch was divided into seven batei av, family groupings, who would serve in the Temple one day of the seven (Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash 4:11). he receives one portion.⁵¹For he is certainly entitled to one portion.

19. When does the above apply? When the relationships with both [priests] involve marriage. If, however, one is a licentious relationship, our Sages decreed that [the son's] priestly privileges are suppressed entirely, because he does not have definitive knowledge of the identity of his father. [This is supported by Numbers 25:13]:⁵²Yevamot, loc. cit., explains that this interpretation is not of Scriptural origin. Instead, the law is a Rabbinic decree. Our Sages, however, found a Biblical verse that supported their ruling. "He and his descendants who follow him will possess [the covenant of priesthood]." [Implied is that] his descendants will be able to trace their identity to him.

20. What is implied? There were ten priests. One of them departed and engaged in relations [with a woman without revealing his identity]. The son is definitely a priest.⁵³Because all the individuals suspected of being his father were priests. Nevertheless, since he does not know his father's identity and cannot trace his lineage to him, his priestly privileges are suppressed entirely. He may not serve [in the Temple], partake [of sacrificial foods], or receive an allotment [from the sacrifices]. If, however, he becomes impure because of contact with a corpse or he marries a divorcee, he receives lashes, for there is no question of leniency.⁵⁴For he is definitely a priest and must observe the prohibitions incumbent upon them.