Resources for Kesubos daf 25
1. The גמרא says that a תנא allowed someone to eat תרומה based on the עדות of their relative because it was בידו of that relative to give him תרומה anyway. It is clear that without the addition of בידו the relative would not be believed. The פּני יהושע asks why cant we believe an עד אחד even if he is a קרוב? After all, if your mother serves you supper and says its kosher, aren’t you allowed to believe her? He gives two answer: one answer is that it was simply a מעלה (חומרא ) they made for תרומה. The other answer is that it is not just איסורא but rather איסורא דאית ביה ממונא since it involves גזל השבט since you are taking the תרומה which is owned by the כהנים and possibly giving it to someone who isn’t a כהן. The קובץ הערות in סימן ס"ה אות ב has a fascinating different approach: he says that a קרוב really is פּסול even for איסורים. However, you have to be related to the בעל דין, and by איסור the בעל דין isnt you but rather כלל ישראל since the איסור is שייך to all of כלל ישראל equally. However, by testifying whether someone is a כהן or not, that is talking about the person themselves so a relative will be פּסול להעיד.
2. The גמרא brings a ברייתא where one תנא holds that חלה בזמן הזה in סוריא is דאורייתא because דוד conquered סוריא and כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש. In חידושי גר"ח על הש"ס, רב חיים זצ"ז asks that the רמב"ם in הלכות תרומה פּרק א הל׳ ה paskens thatקדושה ראשונה לא קידשה לעתיד לבא, and that the reason ארץ ישראל has any קדושה today is because of the קידוש that עזרא did in the time of בית שני. If that is true, and the ברייתא is discussing בזמן הזה (which it is), then what is the relevance of whether כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש or not? What happened in דוד ‘s time is בטל anyway! Either עזרא was מקדש סוריא and it is 100% קדוש בקדושת הארץ or he wasn’t מקדש סוריא and then it not considered קדוש at all! He answers that the ירושלמי learns from the פּסוק "והרבך מאבותיך" that whereas our forefathers needed כיבוש, the next generation will not need to reconquer Israel since they will be under foreign domination. Rather, they just need to do חזקה anywhere that was already נכבש and then the קדושה won’t leave even if they are kicked out since they were מקדש it with חזקה and not force. According to that, what דוד conquered becomes relevant again since עזרא could only be מקדש with חזקה something that had been נכבש already. It comes out that according to the רמב"ם one must say that עזרא was indeed מחזיק בסוריא. The קהילות יעקב in ערכין סימן י"͏ד asks that the ראב"ד holds that עזרא was not מחזיק בסוריא. If so, how would the ראב"ד understand how we give סוריא any קדושה whatsoever? We know it has some קדושה since there is a מחלוקת in גיטין דף ח whether a קנין גוי today in סוריא is מפקיע מידי מעשר or not and it is תלוי on whether כיבוש יחיד שמיה כיבוש or not. How would that מחלוקת make any sense if עזרא was never מקדש it? He answers that even if you hold the קדושה was נתבטלה after חורבן בית ראשון, that is only in regards to תרומות ומעשרות. However, it still retains the קדושה of ארץ ישראל in regards to the מצוה of living in Israel, the איסור ערלה, and the סנהדרין that must be in ארץ ישראל. Therefore, when חז"ל instituted מעשר there they were מחמיר to not give a נכרי the power to be מפקיע it from מעשר if כיבוש יחיד was שמיה קידוש.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander