QUESTION: Shmuel asserts that there is a Gezeirah d'Rabanan prohibiting a
Kohen who does not know the identity of his father from serving in the Beis
ha'Mikdash, even though he knows that the man who fathered him was a Kohen.
He is a valid Kohen and has the laws of a Kohen, but he may not perform the
Avodah.
The Gemara explains that the Gezeirah d'Rabanan applies only in a case where
the Kohen's mother was involved in Z'nus. The Gezeirah does not apply when
the Kohen's doubt about his father's identity arose for reasons unrelated to
Z'nus. For example, if his mother was married to one Kohen, and then she
married a different Kohen without waiting three months, and she had a son
seven months later, that son is a "Safek Ben Tish'ah l'Rishon, Safek Ben
Shiv'ah l'Sheni" -- there is a doubt whether his father was the first Kohen
or the second Kohen. In such a case, he is permitted to perform the Avodah.
The Gemara attempts to disprove Shmuel's assertion that the Rabanan
prohibited a Kohen from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash when he is in doubt
about the identity of his father, even when that doubt arose as a result of
his mother's involvement in Z'nus. The Gemara cites our Mishnah (100a) that
states that a Kohen who is a "Safek Ben Tish'ah l'Rishon, Safek Ben Shiv'ah
l'Sheni" may not be Metamei for either of the two possible fathers upon
their deaths. The Gemara questions how could it be that he is prohibited to
be Metamei for the first possible father? If the case is where the woman
married a second husband after her first husband died (and, as an Almanah,
she is permitted to marry another Kohen), then obviously the Mishnah cannot
be saying that the son may not be Metamei for him, because that Kohen died
before the son was born! If the case is where the woman married a second
husband after her first husband *divorced* her, then the child born from
that union is a Chalal, because a Gerushah is not permitted to marry the
second Kohen. If so, the child should be permitted to be Metamei for the
first father in any case: If the child is the son of the first father (and
thus he is not a Chalal), then he may be Metamei for him because the man is
his father; if he is the son of the second husband, then he may also be
Metamei for the first one because he is a Chalal, and a Chalal is permitted
to be Metamei l'Meisim!
Therefore, says the Gemara, it must be that his mother had Z'nus. The first
Kohen was not married to her at all and thus he did not have to divorce her.
He is still living after she marries the second Kohen, and the child who is
born does not know who his true father is. Thus we see that even though the
child does not know who his father is because of the Z'nus, the Mishnah
concludes that he may still serve in the Beis ha'Mikdash!
RASHI (DH Ela Lav b'Znus) says that when the Gemara says that she had Z'nus,
it means that she had Z'nus with *both* the first Kohen and the second
Kohen.
Why does Rashi say that *both* men lived with the woman as Z'nus? It
suffices to say that she had Z'nus with the first Kohen, and that she
married the second Kohen! It is only necessary to say that she had Z'nus
with the first Kohen and was not married to him, in order that the woman not
be a Gerushah and her child, if he is from the second Kohen, not be a
Chalal! (MAHARSHA)
In fact, the Mishnah states clearly that after she lived with the first
Kohen, "she married [another Kohen] and gave birth." According to Rashi's
explanation, the term "she married" in the Mishnah is Lav Davka and it
really means that she was Mezanah. Why does Rashi take the Mishnah out of
its simple meaning without any indication in the Gemara to do so?
ANSWERS:
(a) The MAHARSHA explains that Rashi's words are Lav Davka. The main point
is that her relationship with the first Kohen was one of Z'nus.
This answer is difficult to accept, as the YASHRESH YAKOV points out, for
why would Rashi write that she had Z'nus with both men if it is not
necessary to explain the Gemara that way?
(b) The BEIS SHMUEL (EH 3:16) suggests that Rashi understood that when the
Gemara says that the Gezeirah d'Rabanan, according to Shmuel, applies only
in a case where the Kohen is in doubt about his father's identity because
his mother had Z'nus, this means when she had Z'nus with *both* Kohanim
(that is, with all of the possible men who might be his father). If she had
Z'nus with only one Kohen, the Gezeirah does not invalidate the child from
doing the Avodah, since one of the possible fathers was indeed married to
her.
However, the Beis Shmuel himself questions this approach. If it is true that
the Gezeirah to invalidate the Kohen from Avodah applies only when all
possible fathers had Z'nus with his mother, then why did the Gemara not give
a simple answer for the question it asks on Shmuel, by saying that the
second Kohen was married to her and did not have Z'nus with her? In that
case, one of the possible fathers was married to her, and thus the Gezeirah
should not apply! It must be that even if only one of the possible fathers
had Z'nus with her, the Gezeirah still applies.
(c) The CHELKAS MECHOKEK (EH 3:12) explains that Rashi is answering a
different question. If the first Kohen had Z'nus with her and the second
Kohen married her, then we should apply the rule of "Rov Be'ilos Achar
ha'Ba'al" (see 69b). That rule would tell us that the child was most likely
fathered by her husband, and not by the man with whom she had Z'nus.
This rule is normally applied in a case where a woman was married and had
Z'nus while married. Afterwards, she was found to be pregnant. The rule of
"Rov Be'ilos Achar ha'Ba'al" states that the child is assumed to be her
husband's child and was not conceived through the act of Z'nus.
However, the Acharonim (Beis Shmuel and others) ask that we do not apply
this rule unless she had Z'nus while she was married. In this case, though,
she had Z'nus with the first Kohen before she was married to the second
Kohen, so there should be no reason to assume that the child came from the
second Kohen, to whom she was married, than from the first Kohen, with whom
she had Z'nus! (Moreover, the only way that the child could have been
fathered by her husband (the second Kohen) is if it was conceived on the
very first day of the marriage, since it was born after seven months of
pregnancy. This is an unlikely possibility which certainly negates the
application of the rule "Rov Be'ilos Achar ha'Ba'al.")
(d) The YASHRESH YAKOV and ARUCH LA'NER answer that Rashi is answering a
different question. When a woman has Z'nus, she is careful to be
"Mis'hapeches" (to turn herself over) to prevent becoming pregnant from the
Z'nus (35a; see also Rashi 69b, DH Aval b'Znus). Since she married the
second Kohen, we should assume that it is definitely his child, because she
was probably "Mis'hapeches" after the Z'nus so that she would not have
children from that relationship, and why, then, is there any doubt? It must
be she had Z'nus with both men. The fact that she became pregnant shows that
she was not "Mis'hapeches," and therefore the child can be attributed
equally to either of the Kohanim.
(Rashi may have learned this point from the fact that the Gemara does not
answer what the Beis Shmuel suggested it should answer: that perhaps
Shmuel's Gezeirah only applies if both potential father's had Z'nus, and the
Mishnah's case is when only the first potential father had Z'nus with the
mother. Since the Gemara does not offer this answer, it appears that in the
case where only one of the father's had Z'nus and not the other, the child
is indeed attributed to the second father and is not in doubt as to his
lineage. The Mishnah, therefore, cannot be discussing this case.)