Kiddushin: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Proving Someone Is a Cohen
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
===Proving Someone Is a Cohen=== | ===Proving Someone Is a Cohen=== | ||
====Self-Declaration==== | |||
#If someone claims he’s a cohen he’s not trusted unless he says it as part of a story that indicates that he’s telling the truth.<ref>Ketubot 23b, Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:1</ref> Nowadays, some say in the diaspora that we trust someone who claims he’s a cohen to get the first aliyah even without any proof.<ref>Ramach on Rambam Isurei Biyah 20:1, Rama E.H. 3:1</ref> | #If someone claims he’s a cohen he’s not trusted unless he says it as part of a story that indicates that he’s telling the truth.<ref>Ketubot 23b, Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:1</ref> Nowadays, some say in the diaspora that we trust someone who claims he’s a cohen to get the first aliyah even without any proof.<ref>Ramach on Rambam Isurei Biyah 20:1, Rama E.H. 3:1</ref> | ||
# A community should not allow someone to get the first aliyah just because they say that they are a cohen. They need a witness to establish that they are a cohen or have a chazaka, such that it is known that they get the first aliya or do birkat cohanim.<ref>Birkei Yosef 3:1 cited by Otzar Haposkim 3:1:1</ref> | # A community should not allow someone to get the first aliyah just because they say that they are a cohen. They need a witness to establish that they are a cohen or have a chazaka, such that it is known that they get the first aliya or do birkat cohanim.<ref>Birkei Yosef 3:1 cited by Otzar Haposkim 3:1:1</ref> | ||
====One Witness or Chazaka==== | |||
#If someone has one witness he’s trusted to be considered a cohen of chazaka, can get the first aliyah, do birkat cohanim, and eat trumah derabbanan.<ref>Ketubot 25b, Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:2</ref> A father is trusted to say that his son is a cohen.<ref>Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:2. Bet Shmuel 3:7 notes that this is the opinion of Rambam and Tosfot that he is trusted even if it is known that he is the father. Ramban, however, argues and only trusts the father in the case where it is not known that he is the father, since he could have said that he isn’t the father and is just an unrelated single witness.</ref> | |||
====Two Witnesses==== | |||
#If someone has two witnesses that he’s a cohen and his ancestors are cohanim back to the times when cohanim worked on the mizbe’ach, he is a cohen meyuchas and can eat trumah deoritta.<ref>Rambam Isurei Biyah 20:2, Bet Yosef 3:2</ref> | #If someone has two witnesses that he’s a cohen and his ancestors are cohanim back to the times when cohanim worked on the mizbe’ach, he is a cohen meyuchas and can eat trumah deoritta.<ref>Rambam Isurei Biyah 20:2, Bet Yosef 3:2</ref> | ||
====Halachic Documents==== | |||
#If someone’s name was written in a halachic document as “So-and-son the cohen” and it was signed by witnesses that is a proof that he is established as a cohen like the cohanim of chazaka nowadays.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:2. Chelkat Mechokek 3:5 and Bet Shmuel 3:8 note that according to the Rashba and Raah if the person wrote “I so-and-so the cohen” and it was signed by witnesses, the document is a proof from the Torah. It is only a rabbinic proof if the witnesses wrote the document. For Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, however, there is no distinction and in either case it is only a rabbinic proof.</ref> | #If someone’s name was written in a halachic document as “So-and-son the cohen” and it was signed by witnesses that is a proof that he is established as a cohen like the cohanim of chazaka nowadays.<Ref>Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:2. Chelkat Mechokek 3:5 and Bet Shmuel 3:8 note that according to the Rashba and Raah if the person wrote “I so-and-so the cohen” and it was signed by witnesses, the document is a proof from the Torah. It is only a rabbinic proof if the witnesses wrote the document. For Rambam and Shulchan Aruch, however, there is no distinction and in either case it is only a rabbinic proof.</ref> | ||
#If someone signed a document as a cohen and there was no witnesses on it, it is questionable if it is a proof that he is a cohen.<ref> Rama 3:2 codifies Ran who writes that if a person signed that he was a cohen it is a proof even though there are no other witnesses on it because it is as though he was simply telling a story (''masiach lifi tumo''). Chelkat Mechokek 3:6 and Bet Shmuel 3:9 limit that to Eretz Yisrael where a person is not trusted to say that he is a cohen because they have trumah derabbanan there. But in the diaspora it could be that he signed that he was a cohen because they gave him the first aliya based on his own testimony.</ref> | #If someone signed a document as a cohen and there was no witnesses on it, it is questionable if it is a proof that he is a cohen.<ref> Rama 3:2 codifies Ran who writes that if a person signed that he was a cohen it is a proof even though there are no other witnesses on it because it is as though he was simply telling a story (''masiach lifi tumo''). Chelkat Mechokek 3:6 and Bet Shmuel 3:9 limit that to Eretz Yisrael where a person is not trusted to say that he is a cohen because they have trumah derabbanan there. But in the diaspora it could be that he signed that he was a cohen because they gave him the first aliya based on his own testimony.</ref> | ||
====Chazaka Based on Father==== | |||
# If one witness testifies that the father of an individual is a cohen that isn't proof that he is a cohen because perhaps the father married someone who is forbidden to him. If there is a chazaka that the father is a cohen or there are two witnesses that the father is a cohen then the son is established as a cohen and halacha isn’t concerned that the father married someone forbidden to him.<Ref>Rambam Isurei Biyah 20, Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:6. Chelkat Mechokek 3:7 suggests that Rashbash argues with this Rambam.</ref> | # If one witness testifies that the father of an individual is a cohen that isn't proof that he is a cohen because perhaps the father married someone who is forbidden to him. If there is a chazaka that the father is a cohen or there are two witnesses that the father is a cohen then the son is established as a cohen and halacha isn’t concerned that the father married someone forbidden to him.<Ref>Rambam Isurei Biyah 20, Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:6. Chelkat Mechokek 3:7 suggests that Rashbash argues with this Rambam.</ref> | ||
#If there was a chazaka that a man’s father was a cohen but there is a rumor that his mother is someone a cohen may not marry the son is not established as a cohen, unless a single witness testifies that the son is in fact a cohen.<ref>Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:7</ref> | #If there was a chazaka that a man’s father was a cohen but there is a rumor that his mother is someone a cohen may not marry the son is not established as a cohen, unless a single witness testifies that the son is in fact a cohen.<ref>Shulchan Aruch E.H. 3:7</ref> | ||
====Child from Cohen Outside Marriage==== | |||
# If a woman had relations with a cohen outside of marriage and then married another cohen within 3 months, the child is not given the privileges of cohen<ref>Otzar Haposkim 3:9:54 writes that it is obvious that the child is only not a cohen as a chumra not a kula.</ref> since the identity of the father is not known even though certainly it is a cohen.<ref>Rama 3:9 based on Shmuel in Yevamot 100a. Chelkat Mechokek 3:12 asks why the child isn’t assumed to be from the marriage because of the principle the a woman is more likely to have relations with her husband than outside marriage (‘’rov beiylot achar habaal’’). Bet Shmuel 3:16 answers that the principle is only relevant when she is married to assume that the child is from her husband and not adultery. But when she had relations before marriage there is no such principle.</ref> In the opposite case where she had relations within 3 months of her cohen husband’s death some say that the child is not a cohen.<ref>Chelkat Mechokek 3:12. Bet Shmuel 3:16 writes that the Chelkat Mechokek’s application is not clear. Otzar Haposkim 3:9:53 quotes Atzei Arazim who argues with Chelkat Mechokek since there is a principle in this case that the child is more likely from marriage than outside marriage. Therefore, according to this approach, the child is a cohen.</ref> | # If a woman had relations with a cohen outside of marriage and then married another cohen within 3 months, the child is not given the privileges of cohen<ref>Otzar Haposkim 3:9:54 writes that it is obvious that the child is only not a cohen as a chumra not a kula.</ref> since the identity of the father is not known even though certainly it is a cohen.<ref>Rama 3:9 based on Shmuel in Yevamot 100a. Chelkat Mechokek 3:12 asks why the child isn’t assumed to be from the marriage because of the principle the a woman is more likely to have relations with her husband than outside marriage (‘’rov beiylot achar habaal’’). Bet Shmuel 3:16 answers that the principle is only relevant when she is married to assume that the child is from her husband and not adultery. But when she had relations before marriage there is no such principle.</ref> In the opposite case where she had relations within 3 months of her cohen husband’s death some say that the child is not a cohen.<ref>Chelkat Mechokek 3:12. Bet Shmuel 3:16 writes that the Chelkat Mechokek’s application is not clear. Otzar Haposkim 3:9:53 quotes Atzei Arazim who argues with Chelkat Mechokek since there is a principle in this case that the child is more likely from marriage than outside marriage. Therefore, according to this approach, the child is a cohen.</ref> | ||
# If a non-married woman had relations with a cohen outside of marriage and he admits that it is his son, the child is a cohen.<Ref>Rama 3:9. Chelkat Mechokek 3:13 adds that the father admits that he was with her and the mother doesn’t say that she was with other people. Pitchei Teshuva 3:11 quotes Bet Shmuel 4:40 that we should be concerned that she had relations with non-cohanim and establishes this Rama to be where there was no cohanim in the vicinity. However, Knesset Yechezkel answers justifies Rama even when there are yisraelim around. Otzar Haposkim 3:56 | # If a non-married woman had relations with a cohen outside of marriage and he admits that it is his son, the child is a cohen.<Ref>Rama 3:9. Chelkat Mechokek 3:13 adds that the father admits that he was with her and the mother doesn’t say that she was with other people. Pitchei Teshuva 3:11 quotes Bet Shmuel 4:40 that we should be concerned that she had relations with non-cohanim and establishes this Rama to be where there was no cohanim in the vicinity. However, Knesset Yechezkel answers justifies Rama even when there are yisraelim around. Otzar Haposkim 3:56 quotes Peni Moshe who answers that this case wasn’t discussing a woman who admitted that she had relations with a mamzer, but a woman who one time had relations with a cohen outside marriage. There isn’t a concern that she also had relations with someone else.</ref> If the father wouldn’t be there and just the mother would say that the child is a cohen she wouldn’t be trusted, though the child can be assumed not to be a mamzer.<Ref>Chelkat Mechokek 3:13. See Otzar Haposkim 3:50 about a dispute in the rishonim if the mother is trusted to say her child is a cohen if she is certain.</ref> | ||
==Mechutanim With Same Names== | ==Mechutanim With Same Names== | ||
