Serious question about a Cohen getting married
David Makowsky
about to get married. It is a marriage that is not permmited to him
because he is a Cohen. This person happens to be very frum (Please,
no comments like "If he is so frum how can he do this?".) I also
happen to believe there are extenuating circumstances (I do not wish
to state what those circumstances are or why the marriage is not
permited to him out of fear that someone reading this might know him.).
I once heard that in such a case, even thought the marriage is not
permmited, once married, no attempt is made to break it up. Is this
correct? My wife and I wanted to make a Sheva Brachot for him, but
there is no way after we explain the situation that we can get a
minyan. We now want to just throw a simple party. Some people, who
used to be good friends of his, are calling the whole thing a Hillul
haShem and are refusing to even come to that. Are we allowed to throw
him a party? Are we allowed to have anything to do with him?
I am not afraid of the cold hard answers to these questions (or
anything else I should be aware of). However, please no answers like
"See how cold blooded the Orthodox are?" or (as one of his "friends"
replied) "This is a hillul haShem that will delay the coming of
Moshiach".
Jacques Goldberg
> I have some questions. A friend of our family, who is a Cohen, is
>about to get married.
The problem starts well before the party. The fact that you ask is a proof
that there is YRATH HASHEM here, not HILLUL HASHEM HAS WEHALILA. The way you
describe the situation says there is a real drama going on.
I would therefore personally suggest that you talk to a Rabbi and to one
only, rather than asking this net to give you opinions. Everybody can guess
which brand of Rabbi I would recommend.
Netters, real PAIN is expressed in this thread, may I suggest to refrain
from adding "humor" salt on the wound?
Hodesh Tov - Yaaqov
Manfredo Tichauer
> I have some questions. A friend of our family, who is a Cohen, is
> about to get married. It is a marriage that is not permmited to him
> because he is a Cohen. This person happens to be very frum (Please,
> no comments like "If he is so frum how can he do this?".) I also
> happen to believe there are extenuating circumstances (I do not wish
> to state what those circumstances are or why the marriage is not
> permited to him out of fear that someone reading this might know him.).
>
I suppose from your message that your friend is to marry a divorced
woman or a widow, both of them forbidden for a cohen (a cohen should
only marry a virgin, and only single women come officially under this
group nowadays in extintion ;-)). If a cohen persists in marrying her,
then he has to give up the his priestly duties and privileges.
From "TO BE A JEW" by Rabbi Hayim Halevy Donin, 1972, Basic Books,Inc.,
Publishers, New York , chapter Marriage, page 291:
"By Torah Law (Lev.21: 6-7), a cohen is forbidden to marry a woman in
any of the following categories: (1) a divorcee, (2) one who has been
released through chalitza, (3) a proselyte, (4) one who is known to be
promiscuous or to have been involved in forbidden sexual relations, or
(5) one who is herself an offspring, of a forbidden marriage entered
into by a cohen with a woman in any of the preceding categories. The
High Priest (Cohen Gadol) was also forbidden to take a widow as a wife
(Lev.21:14), although this is permitted to the ordinary cohen."
"Although the Torah forbids a cohen from entering into any of the above
marriages, and the halacha prohibits a rabbi from officiating at such
a marriage, should the cohen nevertheless contract and consummate the
relationship, the marriage as a marriage is valid. This differs from
the prohibited relations where no legal marriage takes hold and where
thr offspring is illegitimate."
"Such a marriage disqualifies the cohen from his duties and privileges
and affects the status of the children born. Male children (halal) are
also disqualified from the privileges and duties of a cohen, and fe-
male children (halala) are forbidden to marry a cohen."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manfredo Tichauer M. EMAIL : tich...@valpso.hanse.de
Opitzstrasse 14 VOICE : (++ 49 40) 27.42.27
2000 Hamburg 60 - GERMANY FAX : (++ 49 40) 270.53.09
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Berkovich
Subject: Re: Serious question about a Cohen getting married
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
In-Reply-To: <VgwcTB...@valpso.hanse.de>
References: <1992Oct27.1...@ennews.eas.asu.edu>
Organization: Computer Assisted Writing Centre, York University, Toronto, Canada
Cc:
Bcc:
As quoted in Rabbi Donen's book, there is no prohibition for a cohen
to marry a widow (since no cohanim today are considered a cohen
gadol).
He also states that a cohen shouldn't marry a promiscuous person; I'm
not sure if this is equivalent to saying (as you did) that a cohen can
only marry virgins. I am unaware of any halachot pertaining to the
*necessity* of one's spouse being a virgin.
Arthur S. Kamlet
>
>As quoted in Rabbi Donen's book, there is no prohibition for a cohen
>to marry a widow (since no cohanim today are considered a cohen
>gadol).
An interesting question is if a Cohen who marries a widow can later
become Cohen Gadol? The example we have is Alexander Yanni, who
first married his brother's widow, and later became Cohen Gadol.
>He also states that a cohen shouldn't marry a promiscuous person; I'm
>not sure if this is equivalent to saying (as you did) that a cohen can
>only marry virgins. I am unaware of any halachot pertaining to the
>*necessity* of one's spouse being a virgin.
There was a recent discussion of the statement in Neviim that a
Cohen must marry a virgin, but this is not the Halachah. The Halacha
permits, for example, a Cohen to marry a widow.
--
Art Kamlet a_s_k...@att.com AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Michael B Caplan
become Cohen Gadol has to do with the laws of Ibum. I don't know
about today, but in Temple times even a cohen was bound by Ibum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael B. Caplan mb...@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu
679 W.239 #3J
Riverdale, NY 10463 "I've seen all good people turn their heads
Hillel Applebaum
|> I have some questions. A friend of our family, who is a Cohen, is
|> about to get married. It is a marriage that is not permmited to him
|> because he is a Cohen. This person happens to be very frum (Please,
|> no comments like "If he is so frum how can he do this?".) I also
|> to state what those circumstances are or why the marriage is not
|> permited to him out of fear that someone reading this might know him.).
|>
|> I once heard that in such a case, even thought the marriage is not
|> permmited, once married, no attempt is made to break it up. Is this
|> correct? My wife and I wanted to make a Sheva Brachot for him, but
|> there is no way after we explain the situation that we can get a
|> minyan. We now want to just throw a simple party. Some people, who
|> used to be good friends of his, are calling the whole thing a Hillul
|> haShem and are refusing to even come to that. Are we allowed to throw
|> him a party? Are we allowed to have anything to do with him?
1. In Israel, a GET would have been forced (so I heared).
2. When the MIKDASH is built (SIO"D), he won't be able to work there.
3. If a friend of yours would win a price for doing something HALACHAKLY
wrong (i.e. ham eating) would you 'throw a simple party' for him ?
4. I say, if you love him, do noting. Feel sorry for him and his 'extenuating
circumstances'. Continue to be friends, but be carefull that he won't set
a bad example to your society.
5. In a book published here I read a story about a frum English Jewish girl
that came here because she wanted to be in a jewish place. She met a nice
frum boy in a KIBUTZ and fell in love. When they brought their papres to the
RABANOT, it was found that she was adopted and he was a Cohen, so they
couldn't get married. The sad story's end was not published.
may you all find the right one in your eyes and in
the eyes of the KABA"H.
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
/// Hillel P. Applebaum |>> ISRAEL - where all
/// Jerusalem, Israel | jews should live !
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
| |
_ |__ _ __ ____ ____ _ _ ____ _ |__ _ _ _
| | | \ | | | | | | | | | |_| |
| / | / \ | | |__| __`/ |__| | / |___|
|
/\ /\
/ \ /\ / \ /\ /\
/ \/ \ /\ /\/ \/ \ / \ /\
/ \/ \ / \/ \/ \
/ \ / \
--------------------------------------------------------
____ ____ _ ___ _ _ _ ____ ___ _ ____
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | ___|_ __`/ | | | | | _| |
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Warren Burstein
< I suppose from your message that your friend is to marry a divorced
< woman or a widow, both of them forbidden for a cohen (a cohen should
< only marry a virgin, and only single women come officially under this
< group nowadays in extintion ;-)).
< "By Torah Law (Lev.21: 6-7), a cohen is forbidden to marry a woman in
< any of the following categories: (1) a divorcee, (2) one who has been
< released through chalitza, (3) a proselyte, (4) one who is known to be
< promiscuous or to have been involved in forbidden sexual relations, or
< (5) one who is herself an offspring, of a forbidden marriage entered
< into by a cohen with a woman in any of the preceding categories. The
< High Priest (Cohen Gadol) was also forbidden to take a widow as a wife
< (Lev.21:14), although this is permitted to the ordinary cohen."
Just a small correction, the source cited does not prohibit widows to
ordinary cohanim, which is all we have today. The source also doesn't
define "promiscuous" or "forbidden sexual relations" and I'm not about
to do it either becuase I'd probably get the definition wrong, but it
is not the case that sexual activity before marriage in all cases
prohibits the woman from marrying a cohen.
I have heard of an additional stringency whereby cohanim all restrict
themselves to women who can marry a cohen gadol, but I don't think
that this is widespread. (I don't understand it, either - but then I
don't know the answer to the following question - can a plain cohen
who marries a widow be appointed cohen gadol as long as the marriage
lasts?)
--
/|/-\/-\ adif tzav pinui
|__/__/_/ metzav shmoneh
|warren@
/ nysernet.org
Arthur S. Kamlet
>I have heard of an additional stringency whereby cohanim all restrict
>themselves to women who can marry a cohen gadol, but I don't think
>that this is widespread. (I don't understand it, either - but then I
>don't know the answer to the following question - can a plain cohen
>who marries a widow be appointed cohen gadol as long as the marriage
>lasts?)
Alexendar Yanni did marry his brother's widow, and was later
appointed Kohen Gadol. Another poster suggests that was because of
Yibbum. However, why would we believe Yibbum overrides the
prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a widow? After all, he could
have required Chalitza. Would Yibbum apply to someone already appointed
as Kohen Gadol?
Mark Ira Kaufman
As a Cohen is prohibited from marrying a convert, doesn't this
conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
by birth and a proselyte?
--
"One can be a racist. Or one can be a human being. But one
may not be both."
- Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
Ronald Cohen
>
> As a Cohen is prohibited from marrying a convert, doesn't this
>conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
>by birth and a proselyte?
>--
I agree completely, and I think the treatment of converts
illustrates the failure of orthodoxy and could be a threat to the
survival of Judaism in the Diaspora. Note that the Conservative
movement is very clear that a Cohen can marry a convert, since a
convert should be regarded as a Jew that was present at Sinai.
Also, NO Cohen can now demonstrate descendence from Aaaron.
The Shulchan Aruch is not the Torah and reflects the times in
which it was written.
--
Ronald Cohen
Geophysical Laboratory, Carnegie Institution of Washington
5251 Broad Branch Rd., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20015
Irene Berkovich
>conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
>by birth and a proselyte?
>--
Hayim Hendeles
>
>Alexendar Yanni did marry his brother's widow, and was later
>appointed Kohen Gadol. Another poster suggests that was because of
>Yibbum. However, why would we believe Yibbum overrides the
>prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a widow? After all, he could
>have required Chalitza. Would Yibbum apply to someone already appointed
>as Kohen Gadol?
>--
>Art Kamlet
The Kohen Gadol must do chalitza, and may not perform Yivum. (Mishna,
Yevamot 20a)
Hayim Hendeles
Warren Burstein
>The reason one could marry the widow of his brother and still
>become Cohen Gadol has to do with the laws of Ibum. I don't know
>about today, but in Temple times even a cohen was bound by Ibum.
I don't dispute this, but I'd like to see a source. Would a person
who was already CG have done Yibum, too? Would a Cohen who married
someone other than his brother's widow not be able to be made CG?
Jacques Goldberg
B
> I suppose from your message that your friend is to marry a divorced
> woman or a widow, both of them forbidden for a cohen (a cohen should
> only marry a virgin, and only single women come officially under this
Here we go again. BETULAH is not a virgin, please.
I hope not to trigger 'it' again, but can't skip.
Yaaqov
Eliot Shimoff
>In article <1cpne4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
Mark Ira Kaufman:
>> As a Cohen is prohibited from marrying a convert, doesn't this
>>conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
>>by birth and a proselyte?
Ronald Cohen:
>I agree completely, and I think the treatment of converts
>illustrates the failure of orthodoxy and could be a threat to the
>survival of Judaism in the Diaspora.
Is this the first volley of a flame-war? A more civil discussion
might be initiated by simply noting that Cohen-convert marriages are
not prohibited by Conservative and Reform movements.
>Note that the Conservative
>movement is very clear that a Cohen can marry a convert, since a
>convert should be regarded as a Jew that was present at Sinai.
>Also, NO Cohen can now demonstrate descendence from Aaaron.
I was under the impression that the RA's rulings on Cohanim
in general was based on the fact that we cannot be sure that
today's Cohanim are true Cohanim. Are you sure about the
"Jew that was present at Sinai" issue?
>The Shulchan Aruch is not the Torah and reflects the times in
>which it was written.
Huh? Ahem. I don't know _anyone_ who disagrees with this
statement. I do know that the SA is not accepted as the _final_
authority by most contemporary Orthodox Rabbis; although many will
use it as a starting point for halakhic decisions, later poskim
often adopt alternative positions. And curiously enough, if you
check responsa by both Reform and Conservative rabbis, you will find
that they almost always use the SA as a starting point too. What
do you have against the Shulchan Aruch?
--
Eliot Shimoff | n n n
shi...@umbc3.umbc.edu | X + Y = Z . Easy to prove no solutions
Ashamnu, bagadnu, gazalnu ... | for n greater than 2. Darn. Can't fit
Better luck next year! | it into this little .sig file. Oh well.
Rick Turkel
gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
|>
|> Here we go again. BETULAH is not a virgin, please.
|> I hope not to trigger 'it' again, but can't skip.
|> Yaaqov
The most general meaning of BETULAH is, in fact, virgin. The word usually
mistranslated into English as virgin and sure to trigger 'it' is `ALMA.
--
Rick Turkel (___ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ ___
(rm...@cas.org) ) | | \ ) |/ \ | | | \_) |
(rm...@cas.bitnet) / | _| __)/ | __) | ___|_ | _( \ |
Ein navi be`iro. |
Rick Turkel
Ira Kaufman) writes:
|>
|> As a Cohen is prohibited from marrying a convert, doesn't this
|> conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
|> by birth and a proselyte?
Yes. This is the ONLY place where it is permissible, yea necessary, to make
such a distinction, according to the halakha.
|> --
|> "One can be a racist. Or one can be a human being. But one
|> may not be both."
|> - Rabbi Abraham Joshua heschel
|>
--
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
a marriage between a Kohen and a Giyoret is the doubtful status of all
Kohanic lineage and not because of considering the Giyoret as "a Jew
from Sinai."
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Stewart Clamen
Elliot Shimoff is correct in his statement that the RA ruling permitting
a marriage between a Kohen and a Giyoret is the doubtful status of all
Kohanic lineage and not because of considering the Giyoret as "a Jew
from Sinai."
This is interesting. What is the Conservative movement's position on
Cohanim and cemetaries?
--
Stewart M. Clamen Internet: cla...@cs.cmu.edu
School of Computer Science UUCP: uunet!"cla...@cs.cmu.edu"
Carnegie Mellon University Phone: +1 412 268 2145
5000 Forbes Avenue Fax: +1 412 268 5739
Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891, USA
Manfredo Tichauer
> tich...@valpso.hanse.de (Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
>
> > I suppose from your message that your friend is to marry a divorced
> > woman or a widow, both of them forbidden for a cohen (a cohen should
> > only marry a virgin, and only single women come officially under this
> Here we go again. BETULAH is not a virgin, please.
Although I don't know hebrew :-( in my Hebrew-German dictionary
published by Achiasaf, Tel-Aviv, "Langenscheid-Achiasaf Handwoer-
terbuch Hebraeisch-Deutsch", page 86, left column, it is written:
Jungfrau = HALUTEB
<------
Now, guess what means Jungfrau in english (you have 3 chances ;^)
Benjamin Hurwitz
> I have heard of an additional stringency whereby cohanim all restrict
> themselves to women who can marry a cohen gadol, but I don't think
> that this is widespread. (I don't understand it, either - but then I
> don't know the answer to the following question - can a plain cohen
> who marries a widow be appointed cohen gadol as long as the marriage
> lasts?)
This last part seems very odd.. correct me if i'm wrong but The Cohen Gadol
was required to marry a girl of 12-12 1/2 years old.. I haven't noticed any
cohenim today marrying girls that young.
Regards
Benjamin.
From Benjamin Hurwitz gilg...@csource.oz.au
CAR...@auvm.american.edu
In article <BwyAr4...@cs.cmu.edu>, cla...@CS.CMU.EDU (Stewart Clamen) says:
>
>In article <92304.125...@auvm.american.edu> CAR...@auvm.american.edu
>writes:
>
> Elliot Shimoff is correct in his statement that the RA ruling permitting
> a marriage between a Kohen and a Giyoret is the doubtful status of all
> Kohanic lineage and not because of considering the Giyoret as "a Jew
> from Sinai."
>
>This is interesting. What is the Conservative movement's position on
>Cohanim and cemetaries?
>
Kohen. As a Hillel rabbi it is not my lot to officiate at many funerals
but I was concerned lest the necessity present itself.
The only RA teshuvah on the issue was written many decades ago (I have it in
my office and don't recall offhand the date and author.) Essentially if a
rabbi is a Kohen he should seek to avoid officiating at funerals but if it
is unavoidable he may do so, but should in any event refrain from coming into
close contact with graves (i.e., stay on the road, not help shovel the dirt,
etc.)
The basic rule-of-thumb seems to be that you can't have it both ways. If you
want Kohanic privileges you must observe Kohanic restrictions; if you
drop the restrictions you drop the rights.
Some years ago I in fact officiated at the marriage of a Kohen and a g'rusha,
and instructed the Kohen in question (my father, BTW) that in the future he
must refrain from accepting the aliyah of Kohen (and of sh'lishi, since he's
not a Yisrael either) and that he must not act as Kohen at a pidyon ha-ben
(which he used to do with some frequency.)
Shavua tov l-chulam,
Rabbi Charles Arian
CAR...@american.edu
Ronald Cohen
>
>The basic rule-of-thumb seems to be that you can't have it both ways. If you
>want Kohanic privileges you must observe Kohanic restrictions; if you
>drop the restrictions you drop the rights.
>
>Some years ago I in fact officiated at the marriage of a Kohen and a g'rusha,
>and instructed the Kohen in question (my father, BTW) that in the future he
>must refrain from accepting the aliyah of Kohen (and of sh'lishi, since he's
>not a Yisrael either) and that he must not act as Kohen at a pidyon ha-ben
>(which he used to do with some frequency.)
>
This may be the "accepted" halacha, but I was just reading in Kidushin 78
today and there it seems clear that the Cohen does not lose his privledges.
The Rabbis there try to understand why the Cohen does not but his children
do. Also the question of marriage to a proselyte is only discussed briefly
with no resolution. I think one can read the text as at least one opinion
considering a proselyte to be considered "seed of Israel" after conversion.
I looked in Rambam Sefer Nashim and was no able to find a discussion
of this. Where are the Talmudic and Rambam sources that 1) clearly prohibit
a Cohen from marrying a convert, 2) state that the Cohen loses his status, 3)
require a get (which I find absolutely crazy).
Note that there are places requiring gets in the halacha that we do not
follow anymore, such as a lack of children from a marriage. Furthermore, my
understanding of the reason for the restrictions on the marriage of a Cohen
to a convert are related to the concern that the convert had forbidden
sexual relations before conversion. This concern could certainly
apply just as easily to Jewish young women today. Furthermore, are Christians
considered "heathens" anyway.
Isaac Balbin
>The basic rule-of-thumb seems to be that you can't have it both ways. If you
>want Kohanic privileges you must observe Kohanic restrictions; if you
>drop the restrictions you drop the rights.
and yet the same person also writes that because of `doubtful status' of
his Kehuna, he could marry a convert.
Very interesting.
You can't have it both ways ...
Warren Burstein
> As a Cohen is prohibited from marrying a convert, doesn't this
>conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
>by birth and a proselyte?
It isn't "making a distinction between a Jew by birth and a proselyte"
which is prohibited. A convert's full Jewish name is <whatever>
ben/bat Avraham Avinu. Since no one is ever named Avraham Avinu, it's
clear when a convert gets an aliya or is mentioned in a mesheberach
that he or she is one.
What is prohibited is to remind the convert of his or her former
status in order to insult the convert. And if anyone were to tell a
woman convert that she can't marry a Cohen is because she's somehow
inferior the speaker would violate the prohibition.
--
/|/-\/-\ Adif tzav pinui metzav shmoneh.
|__/__/_/
|warren@
/ nysernet.org Jerusalem
Hillel Applebaum
|> I hope not to trigger 'it' again, but can't skip.
OOPS, what is it then ?
hillel.e.markowitz
>want Kohanic privileges you must observe Kohanic restrictions; if you
>drop the restrictions you drop the rights.
>
>Some years ago I in fact officiated at the marriage of a Kohen and a g'rusha,
>and instructed the Kohen in question (my father, BTW) that in the future he
>must refrain from accepting the aliyah of Kohen (and of sh'lishi, since he's
>not a Yisrael either) and that he must not act as Kohen at a pidyon ha-ben
>(which he used to do with some frequency.)
>
>Shavua tov l-chulam,
>Rabbi Charles Arian
>CAR...@american.edu
A previous post on this thread asked about the aliya given to the
children of the marriage of a cohen and a gerusha (a chalal) and I
made a mistake (in e-mail). Since I misplaced the original address
I am correcting it in a post.
THe Encyclopedia Talmudis has an extensive article on the chalal
and the laws are (in certain circumstances) complex. However in general
the children may not eat from kodshim, say birchas cohanim, accept
pidyon haben, or be granted the honors of a kohen (first aliyah) or
even a Levi. THey are treated as a Yisroel in most cases (and are
called Zar for these laws).
Note that the father, while forbidden as long as he is married (as
Rabbi Arian posted), can resume his kehuna if the marriage ends.
However, in a document such as a get, the son would be described as
"ben ploni hacohen" since the father is a cohen (by birth).
Since a chalal is allowed to marry a yisroel (or levi) the child of
a chalal is completely kosher and follows the fathers status
(assuming the mother to be Jewish). That is the child of a male
chalal (male or female) is a chalal and may not (if female) marry a
cohen.. The child of a female chalal is not a chalal (assuming she did
not marry a cohen) and is considered the same as the father (Levi
or Yisroel).
There are circumstances where the chalal does have certain rules of
a cohen but the article is too complex to go into in a post (and
from memory). If a chalal brings a korbon for example, the korbon
is bedieved kosher, something that is not so for the case of a
regular zor (like a yisroel).
_______________________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz | Im ain ani li mi li |
| H_Mar...@att.com | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_________________________|____________________________________|
Warren Burstein
me: I have heard of an additional stringency whereby cohanim all restrict
me: themselves to women who can marry a cohen gadol, but I don't think
me: that this is widespread. (I don't understand it, either - but then I
me: don't know the answer to the following question - can a plain cohen
me: who marries a widow be appointed cohen gadol as long as the marriage
me: lasts?)
bh: This last part seems very odd.. correct me if i'm wrong but The
bh: Cohen Gadol was required to marry a girl of 12-12 1/2 years old..
bh: I haven't noticed any cohenim today marrying girls that young.
You're right, this makes it even stranger. Since what I saw on the
net (sorry, didn't save the article) said "marry a virgin" not "marry
a twelve year old virgin", I'm now skeptical that such a practice
really exists, and it may be that what I read about is either a Jewish
Urban Legend, or a case of "broken telephone".
Dr. T Berenbaum
>In article <1cpne4...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> bc...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mark Ira Kaufman) writes:
>>
>> As a Cohen is prohibited from marrying a convert, doesn't this
>>conflict with a prohibition on making a distinction between a Jew
>>by birth and a proselyte?
>>--
>
>I agree completely, and I think the treatment of converts
>illustrates the failure of orthodoxy and could be a threat to the
>survival of Judaism in the Diaspora.
I disagree with Mr. Cohen.
I think that the treatment of conversion by some people who do not follow the
Shulchan Aruch is in itself the biggest threat to the survival of Judaism.
You will end up with a mic mac.
A lot of people who are jewish and receive an education in
another religion and people who consider themselves jewish
and are not.
Not to talk about the threat of a major catastrophy,because if you look
back on our history, you will see that almost every time there was a big
wave of assimilation ,it was followed by a big wave of antisemitism.
(Spain, Germany, e.a.)
.
>The Shulchan Aruch is not the Torah and reflects the times in
>which it was written.
>--
>Ronald Cohen
1.The Shulchan Aruch is the continuation of the chain of what was
transmitted orally together with the Torah.
And even the "smartest" guy is dependent on the oral tradition, because if
not, how would you know to read a BETH "B", and a Gimmel "G"?
2.he Shulchan Aruch reflects the times in which it was written, but the
rules have no limit for a century or an other, because some things do not
change.
Man will always have two eyes, one nose , one mouth, etc..
tsvi.
(Tsvi Berenbaum)
Rod J. Ring
(Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
> gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>
> > Here we go again. BETULAH is not a virgin, please.
>
> Although I don't know hebrew :-( in my Hebrew-German dictionary
> published by Achiasaf, Tel-Aviv, "Langenscheid-Achiasaf Handwoer-
> terbuch Hebraeisch-Deutsch", page 86, left column, it is written:
>
> Jungfrau = HALUTEB
> <------
Manfredo is right. Of course, betula means virgin.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rod J. Ring If you can take it to water,
Institut fuer Informatik and force it to drink,
Freie Universitaet Berlin, FRG it isn't a horse.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Stephen Phillips
> +From : hil...@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (hillel.e.markowitz)
> +Subject : Re: Serious question about a Cohen getting married
>
> Note that the father, while forbidden as long as he is married (as
> Rabbi Arian posted), can resume his kehuna if the marriage ends.
A Rabbi from Ireland told me a true story of when he was in Ireland
there was a Cohen at his Shul who was very proud of his priestly
origins and liked to Duchan. He married a non-Jewish woman and was
then, to his chagrin, excluded from being able to Duchan. He then
came to see the Rabbi with the news that he had divorced his wife and
he was so pleased that he could take up his priestly duties once
again. He went on to say "Rabbi, I am getting married again, but this
time to a Jewish woman and there is no problem with her because she
recived a Kosher Get (divorce deed) through the Beis Din." !!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen (Yisroel) Phillips Tel: 44-895-442141
Burch Phillips & Co. Fax: 44-895-421231
63a Station Road
West Drayton
Middlesex
UB7 7LR
United Kingdom step...@compulink.co.uk
Jacques Goldberg
>In article <HimHTB...@valpso.hanse.de>, tich...@valpso.hanse.de
>(Manfredo Tichauer) writes:
>> gold...@techunix.technion.ac.il (Jacques Goldberg) writes:
>>
>> > Here we go again. BETULAH is not a virgin, please.
>>
>> Although I don't know hebrew :-( in my Hebrew-German dictionary
>> published by Achiasaf, Tel-Aviv, "Langenscheid-Achiasaf Handwoer-
>> terbuch Hebraeisch-Deutsch", page 86, left column, it is written:
>>
>> Jungfrau = HALUTEB
>> <------
>> Now, guess what means Jungfrau in english ...
>Manfredo is right. Of course, betula means virgin.
>Rod J. Ring
Of course, and of course I am wrong. Thank you all for correcting me.
Now may I ask you to check what BAHUR means? A virgin male?
What is the masculine for BETULAH, and when was it first used?
What is the feminine for BAHUR, and when was it first used?
And may I ask either of you, and more, to check the words used in the
KETUBAH?
Yaaqov Goldberg
Hydro Man
>wb: net (sorry, didn't save the article) said "marry a virgin" not "marry
>wb: a twelve year old virgin", I'm now skeptical that such a practice
>wb: really exists, and it may be that what I read about is either a Jewish
>wb: Urban Legend, or a case of "broken telephone".
This is not completely an Urban Legend.
Its merely that the reason you gave is faulty.
I know something about this because I have a friend who is at the same
time marriageable, a cohen, and a serious BT. I am sorry I don't have
more definitive sources at present. Anyway, for your own practice
CYL(O)R.
Who a cohen may marry among non-divorced, non-converted Jewish women is
determined by the same the criteria as it always was--namely who is
not a zonah--not that he may be a potential CG. (Well here, I know the
pasuk is in Leviticus--probably parshat Kodashim)
Now the problem is that
not all groups agree on what a zonah is. There is one (lenient)
interpretation that it is any woman who has had any of the relations
which would produce a mamzer. These are all the relations which have
penalties as or more severe than karet. In the case of producing
a mamzer, the Oral Law exempts the case of niddah. This may not be
so in the case of a zonah. . .
The more stringent opinion includes all d'Oraitha prohibited relations.
(perhaps also relations forbidden only d'Rabbanan e.g. lesbianism)
Thus this certainly includes under a zonah
1. a woman who has had relations with a Jewish man while niddah
2. a woman who has had relations with a nonJew
In most but *NOT ALL* cases today, if one takes the stringent opinion,
because of safek, it is recommended that a cohen not marry a woman that
has gone to college in the US because of (1) & (2) or a woman who has been
in TZaHa"L because of (1). Certainly if the woman is trustworthy this
does not apply. The safek (usually) applies to women coming from extreme
secular backgrounds.
Clearly even the stringent definition does not exclude all non-virgins.
E.g. a widow or a single woman who has had only relations with Jewish
men after going to the mikveh (of course the last is frowned upon . .)
are permitted. But it is recommended (execpt for the widow) for the
above reasons--namely safek about (1) and (2). There are also problems
with a woman who has had lived with the man she has been having relationS
with, even if tahara, because it is *like* they are married, but this is
getting far afield.
My guess in the case of the CG is that it is to insure the woman's virginity--
note that this is very important for otherwise the CG and hence
the YK ceremony is invalid--
he must marry someone who has just matured. And of course the Oral Law
takes the average--this is 12 to 12 1/2 years.
Shabbat Shalom
Paul Kornreich etzh...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
wh
Don Gertler
> However, why would we believe Yibbum overrides the
> prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a widow? After all, he could
> have required Chalitza.
`aseh docheh lo ta`aseh?
-Don Gertler
Warren Burstein
ak = a...@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
ak: However, why would we believe Yibbum overrides the
ak: prohibition of a Kohen Gadol marrying a widow? After all, he could
ak: have required Chalitza.
dg: `aseh docheh lo ta`aseh?
While an aseh does docheh one lo ta`aseh, it doesn't docheh two: not
marrying one's brother's wife, and a Cohen Gadol not marrying a widow.