The Weekly Shtikle Blog

An online forum for sharing thoughts and ideas relating to the Parshas HaShavua

View Profile

Friday, April 30

The Weekly Shtikle - Emor

The Weekly Shtikle is dedicated le'iluy nishmas my Opa, Tovia Yehudah ben Yoel, a'h.

    The very first Rashi in this week's parsha deals with the seemingly redundant phrase "Emor el hakohanim b'nei Aharon, ve'amarta aleihem." To explain the double-instance of "amirah," Rashi quotes from the gemara (Yevamos 114a) which interprets that this a commandment to the men to be watchful of the younger ones. This would seem to be merely an extension of the mitzvah of chinuch, the general requirement that a father has to educate his son in mitzvos. However, the Tur (YD 373) writes with regard to this commandment that a Kohein is required to keep his son away from tum'ah, and even to remove him from tum'ah. If a young Kohein is found in a graveyard, for instance, he must be removed immediately. This is slightly more stringent then the regular laws of chinuch. As far as the d'oraysa aspect of regular chinuch is concerned, a father is not allowed to feed his child forbidden foods but once he is actually in the act of eating it, he is not required to remove him from it. Why is this different?
    R' Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky, zt"l answers that the general requirement of chinuch is a matter of education which is specific to the father-son relationship. The father must teach the son the mitzvos. As such, it was not deemed necessary to actually remove one's child from a situation of issur. It is sufficient for the purpose of education to make sure that a father does not lead his son into such a situation. When it comes to the laws pertaining to the Kehunah, it is different. The requirement of a Kohein to keep his son away from tum'ah is not only part of his obligation to teach his son the mitzvos but it also relates to the sanctity of the Kehunah. A Kohein is required to preserve the sanctity of the Kehunah and that includes keeping his son away from tum'ah under all circumstances. Even a young child coming in contact with tum'ah is an active desecration of the sanctity of the Kehunah and therefore, he is to be removed at once. It would seem, according to this, that it is not only the father of the boy who is commanded in regards to his son but perhaps every Kohein (but not necessarily every Jew.) Note that Rashi does say "lehazhir hagedolim al haketanim," and not "al habanim."

Question: One of the women that a Kohen is forbidden to marry is an "isha gerusha me'ishah", a woman divorced from her husband. This includes even a woman who is divorced out of Kiddushin and never had Nissuin, seemingly because she is still considered "gerusha me'ishah". However, the Mishna in Sotah 4:1 learns that an arusa who has not yet had Nissuin does not drink the mei Sotah. This is learned from the pasuk "Asher tiste isha tachas ishah". Here it seems that ishah refers only to a husband after Nissuin ?

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Coutning the Omer in Different Bases (Revised)
AstorTorah: No Martians in the Mikdash by R' Ari Storch

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites,


Anonymous Isaac said...

I suspect that the distinction between Sotah and a Kohen is the word "tachat" in the former case. The adultery is not as much "from under" her husband if she's not living with him yet.

5/02/2010 10:29 PM  
Anonymous josh said...

actually, many Rabbis and Poskim say that our Kohanim today are not real Kohanim and the original Kohanim have become lost. see

9/14/2010 9:02 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home