Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:7 ירושלמי כתובות ב׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: Two women who were kidnapped¹¹⁴This was known before the testimony. and each one of them says I am pure, are not trustworthy. But if they testify one for the other they can be trusted¹¹⁵In order to help kidnap victims, one admitted the testimony of a single witness. The Mishnah notes that this is true even if one would suspect that they do this in order to help one another..
Similarly, if of two men each one says that he is a Cohen, the cannot be trusted. But if they testify for one another, they can be trusted¹¹⁶This follows the opinion stated in the next Mishnah that the testimony of a single witness suffices to enable a person to receive heave and other gifts to the priesthood..

HALAKHAH: “Similarly, if of two men,” etc. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah is valid for countryside sanctified food¹¹⁷Heave and Ḥallah. In the Babli, 24a, that is a tannaïtic statement.. But for family matters and the sanctified food of the altar¹¹⁸In fact, Mishnah Qiddušin 4:4 requires a check on the families of bride and groom for several generations to ascertain that no ancestor is a bastard or desecrated. one needs two witnesses. But was it not stated¹¹⁹Tosephta 2:3. The Tosephta continues: But one demotes only on the testimony of two witnesses.: One raises to priesthood, levitic status, or Israel, by the testimony of one witness. One understands priesthood and levitic status. But the status of an Israel¹²⁰What privileges accrue only to an Israel?? Is that not regarding family status¹²¹This would imply that the family status of a Cohen as entitled to serve in the Temple also could be proven by a single witness.? To give him the tithe of the poor¹²²But family status depends on two witnesses. This means that, even if the Temple is rebuilt, it cannot be staffed until either seamless documentary proof is found for some priestly families that their direct ancestors served in the Temple and none of them in the intervening time married an unsuitable woman, or that the immortal Prophet Elijah comes to indicate which Cohanim pass muster..

¹²³Tosephta 3:1; most of it also in Peah 4:6; Babli Ketubot 25a, 26a.“In the Land of Israel there are two legal claims to priestly status, the priestly blessings¹²⁴If somebody is admitted to recite the priestly blessings in the synagogue, it must be that the rabbinic authority at that place found him qualified. and the distribution from the threshing floor¹²⁵Since a point can be made that heave and ḥallah in the Land of Israel are biblical obligations, the rabbinic authorities would not empower a man to receive heave unless they checked his credentials.. In Syria¹²⁶The land ruled over by David outside the biblical borders of the Land; cf. Peah 7:6, Note 119., priestly blessings but not distribution from the threshing floor¹²⁷Since heave cannot be a biblical obligation in Syria, nobody checks eligibility there.. Up to the place where the messengers for the New Moon arrive, up to Nimerin¹²⁸A distance of 14 days’ walk from Jerusalem, cf. Mishnah Roš Haššanah 1:3–4. {The place of Nimerin has not been determined, cf. Ševi‘it 6:1, Note 50; it could be biblical Bet Nimra(Jos. 13:27) in the territory of the tribe of Gad in Gilead.). Babylonia is like Syria. Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, also in Alexandria in the time when regular courts are sitting there¹²⁹As long as the Jews of Alexandria enjoyed a certain autonomy, before the revolt against Trajan.. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel stated: Just as heave establishes a legal claim to priesthood, so First Tithe establishes a legal claim to priesthood¹³⁰In the Tosephta: “for Levitic status.” The text of the Yerushalmi is also that of the Babli, 26a. It is appropriate for the Babli, which reserves the First Tithe to priests, against the biblical rules. It is not appropriate for the Yerushalmi which assigns tithes to the Levites, but to priests only in their quality of Levites (cf. Ma‘aśer Šeni 5:5, Notes 88–89.) One has to assume a copyist’s error; in the absence of parallel sources this cannot be confirmed.. If somebody gives his heave to the court to distribute he has no legal claim to priesthood;” I am saying that the heave came to him from his mother’s father, a Cohen.

Rebbi Ismael ben Rebbi Yose said, I never testified except once, when I raised a slave to priestly status¹³¹This disproves the Tosephta, that receiving heave is a sign of priestly status since all members of a Cohen’s household, including his slaves, are entitled to eat heave. In the Babli, 28b, the problem is connected with a dispute between R. Jehudah and R. Yose on whether a slave is entitled to receive heave from any person other than his master.
In the Babli, 28b, the story is transferred to his brother, R. Eleazar ben R. Yose, and is explained away.. Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father; one to the priesthood, the other to levitic status¹³²The problems raised here are explained at the end of the paragraph. In the Babli, 25b, the actors are Rebbi and the elder R. Ḥiyya.. A person came before Rebbi Hila¹³³In the Babli, 25b, the discussion is theoretical and put into the mouths of Rebbi and the elder R. Ḥiyya. Here, it is reported as an actual case. There is something wrong with the tradition of names here. If the case was before R. Hila, the opponent must be R. Ḥiyya bar Abba, his fellow-student before R. Joḥanan. If the opponent is the elder R. Ḥiyya, the case must be before Rebbi.; he said to him, this is my son¹³⁴From an extramarital relationship, otherwise he would not need confirmation as an heir by the court. and he is a Cohen. He answered him, he is your son but he is no Cohen¹³⁵He is accorded all rights of inheritance (and cannot marry his close relatives from his father’s side) but he cannot act as a priest.. Rebbi Ḥiyya the elder said to him, if you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a Cohen. If you do not believe him that he is his son, do not believe him that he is a Cohen. He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah¹³⁶Following R. Joshua in Chapter 1, the court is obligated to think the worst of an extramarital relationship unless proven wrong.. Rebbi Abin said, so he said to him: If you believe him that he is his son, believe him that he is a Cohen. If you do not believe him that he is a Cohen, do not believe him that he is his son. In that case, he would be unrelated and trustworthy in his testimony!¹³⁷Since we said that one witness is enough to establish a title to priesthood, if the man is not his father, he could testify that the child is a Cohen (which by R. Ḥiyya’s argument would make the man his father and disqualified from testifying.) He answered, he is his son but I say that he is the son of a divorcee or one who had performed ḥalîṣah. Did they not say, Rebbi Isaac Ḥaqula and Rebbi Simeon ben Rebbi, one raised a brother on the testimony of his brother, the other a son on the testimony of his father¹³⁸If the brother was a full brother, there is no problem. In the Babli, it was R. Ḥiyya who elevated a man to levitic status by the testimony of a (paternal half-)brother, since for Levites the status of the mother is irrelevant (as long as she is Jewish and not a bastard.)? Let us say that Rebbi¹³⁹It seems that a name is missing here under the influence of the Babli. elevated a brother on the testimony of his brother. You may even say, a son on the testimony of his father, to levitic status¹⁴⁰Cf. Note 128. In the Babli, the cases are switched..