כהן וגיורת
1) עזרא פרק ב
(סא) וּמִבְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּנֵי חֳבַיָּה בְּנֵי הַקּוֹץ בְּנֵי בַרְזִלַּי אֲשֶׁר לָקַח מִבְּנוֹת בַּרְזִלַּי הַגִּלְעָדִי אִשָּׁה וַיִּקָּרֵא עַל שְׁמָם:
(סב) אֵלֶּה בִּקְשׁוּ כְתָבָם הַמִּתְיַחְשִׂים וְלֹא נִמְצָאוּ וַיְגֹאֲלוּ מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה:
(סג) וַיֹּאמֶר הַתִּרְשָׁתָא לָהֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יֹאכְלוּ מִקֹּדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים עַד עֲמֹד כֹּהֵן לְאוּרִים וּלְתֻמִּים:
1) Ezra chapter 2:61-63
And of the children of the priests: the children of Hovayya, the children of Haqqotz; and the children of Barzillay, who took a wife of the daughters of Barzillay the Giladi, and was called after their name. These sought their register of genealogy, but they were not found; therefore, they were excluded from the priesthood. The governor said to them that they should not eat among the most holy things, until there stood up a priest with the Urim and Tummim.
2) תוספתא מסכת חגיגה (ליברמן) פרק ב הלכה ט
. . . ומושיבין אותו [הדיין] ללשכת הגזית ושם יושבין ובודקין יחסי כהונה יחסי לויה. כהן שנמצא בו פסול לובש שחורין ומתעטף שחורין יוצא והולך לו, ושלא נמצא בו פסול לובש לבנים ומתעטף לבנים נכנס ומשמש עם אחיו הכהנים, ויום טוב היו עושין שלא נמצא פסול בזרעו של אהרן . . .
2) Tosefta Hagiga (Lieberman) chapter 2, halakha 9
[They] seat him [the judge] in the hall of the hewn stones and there they sat and would check the genealogy of the kohanim and the levi-im. If a defect was found in a kohen, he would wear black and wrap himself in black and depart and would go on his way. If no defect was found, he would wear white and wrap himself in white and he would enter and work with his brothers the kohanim. They would make a festive day since no defect was found in the seed of Aharon.
Background: The Tosefta (Aramaic: תוספתא) is a secondary compilation of the Jewish oral law from the period of the Mishnah. In many ways, the Tosefta acts as a supplement to the Mishnah (tosefta means “supplement”). The Tosefta is a Halakhic work which corresponds in structure almost exactly to the Mishnah, with the same divisions for sedarim (“orders”) and masekhot (“tractates”).
According to rabbinic tradition, the Mishnah was redacted by Judah HaNasi in consultation with members of his yeshiva (“academy”), while the Tosefta was edited by Rabbis Hiya and Oshaiah on their own, thus the Tosefta is considered less authoritative. (Rashi in his commentary on Talmud Sanhedrin 33a).
At times the text of the Tosefta agrees nearly verbatim with the Mishnah. At others there are significant differences. The Tosefta attributes laws that are anonymous in the Mishnah to named Tannaim. It also augments the Mishnah with additional glosses and discussions. The Tosefta as we have it today functions like a commentary on unquoted Mishnaic material. It offers additional aggadic and midrashic material, and it sometimes contradicts the Mishnah in the ruling of halakha, or in declaring in whose name a law was given.
Saul Lieberman‘s Tosefta Kifshuta is widely considered the authoritative critical edition of the Tosefta.
3) שו”ת הריב”ש סימן צד
והראן, לרבי עמרם בן מרואם, י”א. שאלת: מעשה בא לפניך, כי יהודי קלל כהן אחד ואבותיו, קללות נמרצות בפני העם, ואמרו לך להענישו . . .
3) Responsum of Isaac ben Sheshet 94:
Veharan [Algeria] to Rebbe Amram the son of Maruam, may God bless him. You asked: a matter that came before you, that a Jew cursed a certain kohen and his ancestors, vicious curses in front of the people, and they told you to punish him . . .
. . . הנה, שלא היו אלו החכמים נזהרין מלקלל הכהנים, אף אם היו נודעים ביחוסם, כל שלא היו נוהגין כשורה, או שלא היו בני תורה. כ”ש כהנים שבדורנו, שאין להם כתב היחס, אלא מפני חזקתן נהגו היום לקרוא ראשון בתורת כהן, ואפי’ הוא ע”ה לפני חכם גדול שבישראל . . .
. . . Herein, those sages [of old] were not hesitant to curse the kohanim, even if their lineage was known, if they were not acting properly, or were not students of Torah. Even more so regarding kohanim in our generation, for they have no document of their lineage, instead because of presumption [presumptive continuance of an actual condition until evidence of a change is produced] it is customary to call a kohen first to the Torah, even if he is unlearned [he is called] prior to a great sage in Israel.
Isaac ben Sheshet Perfet (1326–1408) (Hebrew: יצחק בן ששת) was a Spanish Talmudic authority, also know by his acronym, Rivash (ריב”ש). He was born at Valencia and settled early in life at Barcelona, where he studied under Perez ha-Kohen, under Hasdai ben Judah, and especially under R. Nissim ben Reuben (RaN), for whom he professed throughout his life the greatest veneration. In 1391 occurred the great persecutions of the Jews of Spain and Isaac saved himself by flight. After sojourning a certain time, he settled in Algiers, where he was received with great honor.
4) שו”ת מהרי”ט חלק א סימן קמט
. . . ומעשה שהיה כך היה ר’ יעקב כהן שלום בחור בן כה”ר אברהם כהן שלם זה ט”ו שנים שמש עם אביו ואחיו בכהונה היינו עלו לספר לקרוא ראשון ונשאו את כפיהם וחתמ’ אגרותיהם בשם כהן בכל מקום שהיו עומדים שם מהיום הנז’ והנה הבחור ר’ יעקב כהן הנז’ קדש גרושה זקנה עשירה בצינעא אחרי שהוגד לאביו שהיא גרושה ואינו יכול לקדשה ולישא אותה ואחר שקדשה ונאמרו לו שאינו יכול לקיימה אמר שאינו כהן ורוצה להחזיקה ונשאלה שאלה שאלה מה יהא בדינו של הבחור ר’ יעקב כהן הלז האם יחוייב לגרשה וכופין אותו להוציא כמו שכופין למקדשי פסולות ומהן גרושה לכהן או יהיה כח בידו מדין תורה לומר אינו כהן . . .
4) Responsum of Our Teacher, Our Rabbi Joseph Trani 1:149
. . . There was an occurrence that R’ Ya-akov Kohen Shalom, a young man the son of the honorable R’ Avraham Kohen Shalom already for 15 years he acted with his father and with his brothers as a kohen; in other words they went up to the Torah to read first, they lifted their hands, and they signed letters by the title “kohen” in all places where they were from the day mentioned. Now, the young man Ya-akov Kohen bethrothed an old rich divorcee privately, after he told his father that she is a divorcee and that he can’t betrothe and marry her; after he betrothed her it was told to him that he can’t maintain her. He said that he is not a kohen and he wants to remain married. The question was asked regarding what to do with this young man, R’ Ya-akov Kohen; must he divorce her and do we force him to do so like we do to those who betrothe those who are disqualified, among them a divorceed to a kohen, or does he have the power according to the Torah to say that he isn’t a kohen?
. . . ולו חכמו השכילו זאת שהריב”ש שהביאו ראיה מדבריו שכתב בזמנינו אין לו כתב יחס אלא בחזקה דקורא ראשון הוא עצמו בסי’ שע”א כתב על אותו הכהן שרצ’ להחזיר את גרושתו שכופין אותו להוציא וכייפינן ליה בשוטין וקיימא לן דמעשין לפסולות והיינו בשוטין דבדברים לא יוסר עבד ואם אין בנו כח לייסר בשוטין צריך לנדותם ולהחרימם בכל גבול ישראל ולהבדל מהם בכל מיני הבדלה כמו שמפורש בתשובה להרמב”ם ז”ל שהביא בטור אבן העזר על הכהן שנשא גרושה אותו ואת האשה החרימו בנדוי ובשמתא עליהם ועל כל הנלוים אליהם הנכנסים אתם בגילם או באבלם והמשתתף עמהם בחיים ובמות וכן ראוי לעשות באיש ובאשה האלו
If only they had been wise to learn that the Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet brought proof for his words that he wrote that in our time he has no record of lineage instead he is presumed [to be a kohen] that he reads first. He himself wrote that regarding a kohen who wanted to remarry his divorcee that we force him to expel her and we force him by whipping . . . and if we don’t have the authority to whip then we excommunicate them from Israel and separate from them in all types of separation as is explicit in the responsum of the Rambam, may his memory be blessed . . . [who wrote] that regarding the kohen who married a divorcee, they excommunicated them and all those who associated with them in happiness or in sorrow and who participated with them in life and death. It is likewise fitting to do with this man and woman . . .
Background: Trani, Joseph Ben Moses (15681639), rabbi and halakhist. Trani, known as the “Maharit” (Morenu ha-Rav Joseph Trani), was born in Tzfat, where he founded and taught in a yeshivah and headed the Sephardi community. In 1599 he was sent by the Tzfat community to Constantinople, and in 1604 took up permanent residence there. Trani headed a large yeshivah in Constantinople which became a center of Torah for all Turkish Jewry and produced many of the great Turkish rabbis of the 17th century. Trani was eventually elected chief rabbi of Turkey.
5) שו”ת שאילת יעבץ חלק א סימן קנה
ראיתי להזכיר בענין מה שנוהגים הרבה כהנים להחזיר הפדיון שנכון הוא בעיני. וטוב וישר לנהוג כן תמיד, אע”פ שכתבו ז”ל שלא יהא הכהן רגיל בכך הני מילי בכהנים מיוחסים דידהו. אבל בכהני חזקה בעלמא כי האידנא. אע”ג דלחומרא אזלינן בהו לכל מילי ופרקינן בכורים על ידייהו ,משום דלא אפשר באחריני מיהא להקל לא, דהיינו להוציא ממון האב מספק, נראה שאין כחן יפה להפקיע ממון בחזקתן הגרוע’. וכמעט שאני אומר דמדינא צריכין להחזיר, ולפחות כל כהן יחוש לעצמו לפרוש מספק גזל שמא אינו כהן
5) Responsum of Jacob Emden 1:154.
It is worthwhile to mention in this matter that many Kohanim have the custom to return the redemption money and this is correct in my opinion. It is good and right to act in this manner always, even though [our sages] may their memory be blessed, wrote that a kohen should not do this habitually. However, those words are regarding kohanim of proper lineage. But we are dealing with those who are presumed to be kohanim. Although we act stringently towards them in all matters and the first born are redeemed by them since it’s not possible to be done by others, [nonetheless] in order to take money from the father, it appears that there is not enough certainty for them to accept funds due to their questionable presumed status. I almost say that from the law they must return (the money); at any rate at least each kohen should be sensitive to extricate himself from the possibility of stealing since he may not be a kohen.
Background: Jacob Emden יעב”ץ (יעקב בן צבי) 1697-1776, Altona, Holland. Emden was a Rabbi and notable talmudist, and prominent opponent of the Shabbetians. He was the son of the Hakham Tzvi. This responsum deals with the money that a kohen receives in the ceremony of פדיון הבן redemption of the first born.
6) שולחן ערוך אורח חיים סימן תנז:ב
. . . הגה: ואם יש כהן קטן שלא ראה קרי, או גדול שטבל לקריו, מותרים לאפות החלה בשבילו (טור). ויש אומרים שאין מאכילין חלה בזמן הזה לשום כהן (מהרי”ו).
6) Shulhan Arukh 457:2
. . . (Rama) And if there is a kohen who is a minor and hasn’t had an ejaculation, or an adult (kohen) who has immersed himself after ejaculating, it’s permissible to bake halla for him (Tur). And there are those who say that these days we don’t feed the halla to any kohen (MaHaRIV).
Background: When dough is kneaded for bread, a certain amount called חלה halla, must be set aside for kohanim. Halla must be eaten by priests in a state of ritual purity.
In our source, there is a debate whether or not the halla should still be given to kohanim or not. The word hallah is popularly employed for the special Shabbat loaves.
מגן אברהם אורח חיים סימן תנז
שאין מאכילין – שאין מחזיקים אותו ככהן ודאי דדילמא נתחללה א’ מאמותיו
Magen Avraham Shulhan Arukh Orekh Hayyim 457:9 “We don’t feed” That we don’t hold him to be a kohen for certain, for one of his maternal ancestors may have been profaned.
Abraham Abele Gombiner (c.1633-c.1683) (Hebrew: אברהם לוי אבלה הומבינר), known as the Magen Avraham, born in Gąbin (Gombin), Poland, was a rabbi, Talmudist and a leading religious authority in the Jewish community of Kalisch, Poland during the seventeenth century. His full name is Avraham Avli ben Chaim HaLevi from the town of Gombin. There are texts that list his family name as Kalisch after the city of his residence. After his parents were killed in the Chmielnicki massacres of 1648, he moved to live and study with his relative in Lithuania, Jacob Isaac, Gombiner.
He is known to scholars of Judaism for his Magen Avraham commentary on the Orah Hayim section of Rabbi Joseph Karo‘s Shulhan Arukh, which he began writing in 1665 and finished in 1671. His brother Yehudah traveled in 1673 to Amsterdam to print the work but died on the journey. It was not published until 1692 after Rabbi Gombiners death. His son wrote in the preface to the work that his father was frequently sick and suffered pain and discomfort.
Questions: In the sources we have seen several examples of the treatment of someone who is presumed to be a kohen. What happens regarding the first aliyah to the Torah? The money he receives for redeeming the first born? Does he eat the hallah? Are these cases any different than the one where the kohen married a divorcee?