에스라 2:71의 Halakhah
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol I
Less readily resolved is the problem of authenticating the claims of present-day kohanim to be recognized as descendants of the priestly family. Ezra demanded written pedigrees: "These sought their register, that is, the genealogy, but it was not found; therefore they were deemed polluted and put from the priesthood" (Ezra 2:62). Applying himself to this issue—one already raised by the author of Kaftor va-Feraḥ—Kalisher argues that documentary evidence was necessary only in the time of Ezra since many scions of the priestly family had intermarried with gentiles during the course of the Babylonian exile. Once the claims of these aspirants to the priesthood were examined and verified, they and their descendants remained beḥezkat kashrut and required no further credentials. In support of this view Kalisher cites the Mishnah, Eduyot 8:7, "Elijah will come neither to defile nor to purify, neither to draw nigh nor to put aside," which he understands as referring not merely to questions of legitimacy of birth but to claims of priestly descent as well.20Both Kalisher and R. Zevi Hirsch Chajes, Kuntres Aḥaron, Avodat ha-Kodesh, chap. 1, cite R. Yechezkel Landau, Noda bi-Yehudah, I, Oraḥ Ḥayyim, no. 35, to the effect that even in our day we may rely upon the genealogical claims of at least some kohanim. The case in question is tangential to our topic but relevant nonetheless. An individual who had committed adultery with the same woman on numerous occasions inquired of R. Landau what form of penance was required in expiation of his sins and added that on many of these occasions the woman was a niddah. R. Landau tentatively advances the opinion that if the woman in question was a niddah on the occasion of their first adulterous act, he requires expiation for the issur niddah as well.
The general rule “one prohibition cannot become effective upon another” does not apply in this instance because, although the woman in question is already forbidden to the adulterer as a married woman, the prohibition of niddah is an issur mosif—a more encompassing prohibition, prohibiting the menstruant to her husband as well. The additional prohibition of niddah consequently becomes effective and applies to acts of cohabitation both with her husband and others. However, in the case of an adulteress who was not a niddah on the occasion of her first infraction, the very act of adultery renders her forbidden to her husband. Since she is already forbidden to all other men on account of her marital status, any subsequent state of niddah cannot add to the severity of her prohibition (ein issur ḥal al issur). Reconsidering, R. Landau argues that subsequent niddah (after the adulterous act) is indeed an issur mosif since, in becoming effective, it carries with it a prohibition against entering the Temple. If not for the issur niddah it would be permissible for the adulteress to enter the Temple courtyard for the purpose of offering the paschal sacrifice. She would be permitted to do so despite the fact that at present we are all teme’ei metim because the korban pesaḥ may be offered in a state of tum’ah if a majority of the community has become defiled through contact with the dead. However, the principle of tum’ah hutrah be-ẓibur does not apply to the tum’ah of niddah or zivah. From this entire discussion, Kalisher and Chajes conclude that Noda bi-Yehudah considered the offering of the korban pesaḥ a distinct possibility. However, a careful examination of the responsum in question shows the opposite to be the case. Noda bi-Yehuda cites Kaftor va-Feraḥ as objecting to the reinstitution of the paschal sacrifice because we lack priests of verified genealogy. To this he adds that “somewhere in the world there does exist a genealogically pure priest.” It would seem that the Noda bi-Yehudah accepts the fact that we cannot determine which of the priests are of pure descent. But since the sacrifice of the pesaḥ is theoretically possible, and our inability to discover the identity of the true kohanim is merely a technical failure, the prohibition of niddah does indeed become superimposed upon the prohibition of adultery.
The general rule “one prohibition cannot become effective upon another” does not apply in this instance because, although the woman in question is already forbidden to the adulterer as a married woman, the prohibition of niddah is an issur mosif—a more encompassing prohibition, prohibiting the menstruant to her husband as well. The additional prohibition of niddah consequently becomes effective and applies to acts of cohabitation both with her husband and others. However, in the case of an adulteress who was not a niddah on the occasion of her first infraction, the very act of adultery renders her forbidden to her husband. Since she is already forbidden to all other men on account of her marital status, any subsequent state of niddah cannot add to the severity of her prohibition (ein issur ḥal al issur). Reconsidering, R. Landau argues that subsequent niddah (after the adulterous act) is indeed an issur mosif since, in becoming effective, it carries with it a prohibition against entering the Temple. If not for the issur niddah it would be permissible for the adulteress to enter the Temple courtyard for the purpose of offering the paschal sacrifice. She would be permitted to do so despite the fact that at present we are all teme’ei metim because the korban pesaḥ may be offered in a state of tum’ah if a majority of the community has become defiled through contact with the dead. However, the principle of tum’ah hutrah be-ẓibur does not apply to the tum’ah of niddah or zivah. From this entire discussion, Kalisher and Chajes conclude that Noda bi-Yehudah considered the offering of the korban pesaḥ a distinct possibility. However, a careful examination of the responsum in question shows the opposite to be the case. Noda bi-Yehuda cites Kaftor va-Feraḥ as objecting to the reinstitution of the paschal sacrifice because we lack priests of verified genealogy. To this he adds that “somewhere in the world there does exist a genealogically pure priest.” It would seem that the Noda bi-Yehudah accepts the fact that we cannot determine which of the priests are of pure descent. But since the sacrifice of the pesaḥ is theoretically possible, and our inability to discover the identity of the true kohanim is merely a technical failure, the prohibition of niddah does indeed become superimposed upon the prohibition of adultery.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy