(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


THOUGHTS ON THE DAILY DAF

brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld


Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nazir, 49

1) LOGIC BEHIND PROHIBITING A KOHEN GADOL TO BECOME "TAMEI" FOR HIS FATHER

QUESTION: The Gemara says that according to Rebbi Akiva we need two verses to teach that neither a Nazir nor a Kohen Gadol may become Tamei for his father or his mother. Had the verse said only that a Nazir and Kohen Gadol cannot become Tamei for their *father*, we might have thought that he *may* be Metamei for his mother, and that the reason he may not be Metamei for his father is because his relationship with the father is not as close, since it is based only on a Chazakah and it is not a certainty like his relationship to his mother is (since people saw this woman give birth to this child). Since the patrilineal relation is not certain, perhaps he cannot be Metamei for his father but he may be Metamei for his mother. Therefore, the verse teaches us that he may not even be Metamei for his mother.

What reason is this to suggest that the Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei for his father? If the Kohen Gadol's father is *not* his true father, then that is a reason why he *should* be permitted to become Tamei for him! If he is not the Kohen Gadol's true father, then that means that this Kohen Gadol is not the son of a Kohen altogether, but rather it is likely that his father is a Yisrael, since most people are Yisraelim! Accordingly, there is no reason why he should not be permitted to be Metamei for his father, because if there is a possibility that the man is not his father, then this is a reason to *permit* him to become Tamei for that man, because he is not really a Kohen! Why does the Gemara say that we might have thought that the reason a Kohen Gadol may not be Metamei for his father is because of the possibility that the man is not his father?

Moreover, even if this man is not his father but his real father *is* a Kohen, then since the mother lived with that Kohen while she was married to the first Kohen, the son will be a Mamzer, and a Kohen who is a Mamzer is a Chalal and is certainly permitted to become Tamei for a Mes! This question, though, may be answered by suggesting that we are afraid that his mother lived with another man before she lived with the man we think is his father, and the father did not realize that his wife was pregnant from another man from before the marriage. In that case, the child will not be a Mamzer and will be a valid Kohen who is prohibited to become Tamei for a Mes.

The first question, though, remains -- the Kohen Gadol should be permitted to be Metamei for his father, because if the man is not his father then the Kohen Gadol is not a Kohen at all but a Yisrael and he may become Tamei for a Mes!

A similar question is asked by the Rishonim on the Toras Kohanim (beginning of Parshas Emor) with regard to a Kohen Hedyot (not a Kohen Gadol). The verse says that a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to be Metamei for his father and mother. The Toras Kohanim says that if the verse would have said only that he may be Metamei for his mother, we would have thought that he may *not* be Metamei for his father, because his father is considered to be less related to him, since perhaps he is not really his father. The same question applies there: the possibility that this is not his father is not a reason to disallow him from being Metamei for him; rather, it is a reason why he should be *permitted* to be Metamei for him, because if this is not his father, then the son is not a Kohen altogether!

ANSWERS: The Rishonim suggest a number of answers to this question (see ARZEI HA'LEVANON, footnote 71). We will summarize some of them here.

(a) The RASH in his commentary to the Toras Kohanim (beginning of Parshas Emor) explains that when the Toras Kohanim says that he might be permitted to be Metamei for his father because he is not really his father, it is discussing a specific case, where a Kohen was born six months after his mother married one Kohen, and nine months after his mother became an Almanah from an earlier marriage to a Kohen. She married a second Kohen after the first Kohen died, and when she gave birth it was not clear whether the child was conceived from the first Kohen or the second Kohen. Hence we have a case where the son does not know for sure whom his father is, and nevertheless he knows for sure that he is a Kohen (we have no reason to suspect his mother of extra-marital relations).

The VILNA GA'ON on the Toras Kohanim makes a similar suggestion, saying that the woman was living in a city in which all of the residents were Kohanim. Therefore, even if she conceived this son from a previous relationship (before the marriage to her present husband), the man is assumed to be a Kohen, and therefore the child is certainly a Kohen.

The same answer applies in our Gemara. Our Gemara, too, can be referring to such a case.

The problem with this approach is that besides from the fact that it limits to a very specific case the type of father that the verse might be excluding, the verse could just as well be discussing a Yisrael and not a Kohen! That is, even if a Yisrael was the second husband to marry this woman, and the child is a Safek Kohen and Safek Yisrael, then we would have the same reason to suspect that the son should not be able to be Metamei for his father, the Yisrael, because perhaps he is the son of the Kohen from the previous marriage (and thus he is a Safek Kohen), or he was born to a man who was a Kohen with whom the mother had relations before the marriage (since all the residents of this city are Kohanim). Therefore, what is the difference whether the child was born to a Yisrael or to a Kohen? If we have a Safek that perhaps his father is not really his father but someone else is his father, then he is a Safek Kohen and he should not be able to be Metamei for his father!

It must be that there is no Safek, and we assume that the child was born to the man to whom the wife was married at the time of the birth. If this is true, though, then what reason is there to have any doubt that perhaps he was born to another Kohen?

Apparently, the Rash and the Vilna Ga'on are learning that there is no real reason to suspect that he was born to another father as far as the Halachah of Yichus is concerned. Nevertheless, as far as the Halachah of being Metamei to his close relatives is concerned, perhaps the father is considered more distantly related than the mother since we do not know for sure that this is the father. We know that the child is a Kohen, but we do not know for sure that this is the father of this Kohen.

In the case of a child who is a Yisrael, though, we certainly will not be Choshesh l'Chumra to say that perhaps his real father is a Kohen and he may not be Metamei to Mesim since he might be a Kohen. Rather, the Rov tells us that the child was born to his mother's present husband and we are not Choshesh for the Mi'ut.

(b) The RASHBA (Teshuvah 1:27) was asked by another Rishon about this Toras Kohanim. The questioner himself suggested an answer: the Toras Kohanim is referring, again, to a specific case in which we should be Machmir and not let him be Metamei for his father. The case is where we do not know whom the Kohen's father is, and two witnesses come and tell us whom the father was, saying that they saw the man whom the mother was married to at the time that she gave birth. We do not recognize who that person is, but the witnesses testify that they know for certain that he was a Kohen. Afterwards, a man comes and acts, for at least thirty days, with this Kohen in the manner a father acts with his son. Once they act towards each other like father and son for thirty days, and the city assumes that he really is the long lost father, then he is given all of the Halachos of a father. In such a case, the Toras Kohanim is suggesting, perhaps a Kohen Hedyot may not be Metamei for his father, because we know for sure that the son is a Kohen (based on the testimony of the witnesses), but we do not know for sure that this man is his father.

Similarly, in our Gemara, the Gemara is suggesting that perhaps a Kohen Gadol should not be able to be Metamei for his father in such a case.

The OR HA'CHAIM HA'KADOSH (beginning of Parshas Emor) suggests a similar answer.

The question on this approach is that if the Chazakah of the father is not because he was married to the mother, but rather the reason we assume that this person is the father is because he was acting with the child in the manner of a father with his son, then why does the Toras Kohanim and our Gemara suggest that the Kohanim should not be able to be Metamei for his *father* in such a case, but he *may* be Metamei for his mother? If the Kohen's matrilineal descent is not known except through a Chazakah (for example, no one was present when the child was born, and then a woman acted with the child for thirty days in the manner of a mother with her child), then we should have the same question about the mother -- perhaps the Kohen should not be able to become Tamei for his mother in such a case! It is not a case that is unique to the father, but the Gemara presumably is discussing only a case of a Safek about the father since it is impossible to know for sure whom a person's father is (without relying on "Rov Be'ilos Achar ha'Ba'al"). But according to this approach, that it is not the Rov that is proving to us that the father is the father, but rather it is just a simple Chazakah, then there can also be a case in which it is only a Chazakah that is telling us that the *mother* is his mother! (The RASHBA asks this question in different wording on the questioner's suggested answer.)

(c) The KEREN ORAH and the NETZIV suggest that even though we assume for certain that a man's mother's husband is his father unless proven otherwise, and therefore with regard to all Halachic matters he is considered the father, nevertheless with regard to the Halachah of Tum'as Mes for a Kohen, the father is perhaps considered less related to the son for the simple reason that the son feels less close to him. It is *not* because perhaps this man might not be his father. He *must* be his father, for that is why the son is considered a Kohen and prohibited to be Metamei for Mesim, for we assume that this is his father. Rather, the son does not feel as close to the father, because the son does not know as clearly that this is his father as he knows that his mother is his mother. Because of that, the son feels a little less pain when the father dies, and that is why the Gemara and the Toras Kohanim are suggesting that a Kohen or Kohen Gadol should not be Metamei for his father even though he may be Metamei for his mother.

This is to say that the Halachah of becoming Tamei for a close relative is not dependent on blood relationship, but rather on the way the Kohen feels towards the relative. It is only because the Kohen feels so close to the person that the Torah permits him to be Metamei. Since he feels a little less close to a father, that might be reason to disallow him from being Metamei for his father.

(d) Perhaps we may suggest another answer, based on what we said earlier (47b), that the reason the Torah prohibits a Kohen from being Metamei to Mesim is not just because Tum'ah defiles him and diminishes his Kedushah, but rather because it is preventing the Kohen from performing the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Kohen must always be available to perform the Avodah, and when he becomes Tamei he is not able to do the Avodah (for the seven days that he is Tamei l'Mes). Accordingly, the Halachah of Tum'as Kohanim depends on the Halachah of being permitted to do the Avodah. A Kohen who is permitted to do the Avodah is considered a Kohen as far as the Halachah of Tum'as Kohanim is considered. Therefore, the Gemara is justified in saying that as far as Tum'ah is concerned, we should be worried that this person is not really the Kohen's father and the Kohen should not be allowed to be Metamei for him. Even though if this is not the Kohen's father then he is not the Kohen and has no Isur of Tum'ah altogether, nevertheless since as far as the Avodah is concerned, we have no such worry and we say that he certainly is a Kohen and therefore he is allowed to do the Avodah. Once he is allowed to do the Avodah, then we must prevent him from becoming Tamei and apply to him the Isurim of Tum'as Kohanim. Once we apply to him the Isurim of Tum'as Kohanim, we permit him only to become Tamei for a true blood relative, like the mother, and not for the father who might not be a relative.

We are more Machmir with regard to the Heter to become Tamei than with regard to the Heter to do the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, because of the importance of serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Hence, we will not be Machmir to prevent him from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash, but we will be Machmir to prevent him from becoming Tamei and not serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash.

This indeed appears to be the answer that the Rashba himself suggests in the abovementioned Teshuvah.


49b

Next daf

Index


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,
daf@shemayisrael.co.il