QUESTION: The Gemara explains that Rebbi Akiva requires two verses to teach that neither a Nazir nor a Kohen Gadol may become Tamei for his father or his mother. Had the verse stated only that a Nazir or Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei for his father, one might have thought that he may become Tamei for his mother, and that the reason he may not become Tamei for his father is that his relationship to his father is not as strong (since it is based only on a Chazakah and is not a certainty as is his relationship to his mother, for whom there are witnesses that she gave birth to this child). Since the patrilineal relationship is not certain while the matrilineal one is, perhaps he may not become Tamei for his father but he may become Tamei for his mother. Therefore, the verse must teach that he may not become Tamei even for his mother.

Why is the unprovability of the Kohen's patrilineal lineage grounds to suggest that the Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei for his father? If the Kohen Gadol cannot become Tamei for his father because of the doubt that perhaps his father is not his true father, for that very reason he should be permitted to become Tamei for his father! If the deceased man is not the Kohen Gadol's true father, that means that the Kohen Gadol is not the son of a Kohen but is most likely the son of a Yisrael (since most men are Yisraelim). Accordingly, there is no reason to prohibit him from becoming Tamei for his father. Why does the Gemara say that one might have thought that the reason why a Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei for his father is the possibility that the man is not his real father?

Moreover, even if the deceased man is not the Kohen Gadol's father but his real father is a Kohen, since the mother lived with that Kohen (the real father) while she was married to the first Kohen (the presumed father), the son is a Mamzer. A Kohen who is a Mamzer is disqualified from Kehunah (he is a "Chalal") and is permitted to become Tamei for any Mes! This question may be answered by suggesting that the doubt is that the mother lived with another man before she married the presumed father, who did not realize that his wife was pregnant from another man before he married her. In that case, the child is not a Mamzer and is a valid Kohen who is prohibited to become Tamei for a Mes.

The first question, however, remains. The Kohen Gadol should be permitted to become Tamei for his father, because if the man is not his father the Kohen Gadol is not a Kohen but a Yisrael.

The Rishonim ask a similar question on the Toras Kohanim (beginning of Parshas Emor). The verse states that a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to become Tamei for his father and mother. The Toras Kohanim says that had the verse said only that he may become Tamei for his mother, one would have thought that he may not become Tamei for his father because his father is considered to be less related to him (because of the doubt about his fatherhood). Again, the possibility that the man is not his father is not a reason to disallow him from becoming Tamei for him. On the contrary, it is a reason to permit him to become Tamei for him, because if this man is not his father, he is not a Kohen altogether.

ANSWERS: The Rishonim suggest a number of answers to this question (see ARZEI HA'LEVANON, footnote 71). Below is a summary of some of those answers.

(a) The RASH in his commentary to the Toras Kohanim (beginning of Parshas Emor) explains that when the Toras Kohanim says that he might be permitted to become Tamei for his father because he is not really his father, it is discussing a specific case in which a Kohen was born nine months after his mother was widowed from her first marriage to a Kohen, and six months after his mother remarried a second Kohen. When she gave birth, it was unknown whether the child was conceived from the first Kohen or the second Kohen. In that case, the son does not know for certain the identity of his father, and nevertheless he knows for certain that he is a Kohen. (There is no reason to suspect his mother of extra-marital relations.)

The VILNA GA'ON on the Toras Kohanim makes a similar suggestion. The woman was living in a city in which all of the residents were Kohanim. Therefore, even if she conceived the child from a previous relationship (before the marriage to her present husband), the father is assumed to be a Kohen, and therefore the child is certainly a Kohen.

The same answer applies to the Gemara here, which may also refer to such a case.

This approach, however, is problematic. Besides the fact that it limits the cases which the verse might be excluding to a very specific situation, the verse's teaching is not exclusive to Kohanim. That is, the teaching of the verse applies equally to a Yisrael as it applies to a Kohen. Even if the woman's second husband was a Yisrael and the child is a Safek Kohen and Safek Yisrael, the son still should not be able to become Tamei for his presumed father (the Yisrael) for the same reason: perhaps he is the son of the Kohen from the previous marriage (and thus he is a Safek Kohen who may not become Tamei to the Yisrael), or perhaps his mother had relations with a Kohen and conceived before her marriage to the Yisrael (since all the residents of this city are Kohanim). What is the difference whether the child was born to a Yisrael or to a Kohen? If there is a possibility that his presumed father is not his real father but another man is his real father, he is a Safek Kohen and he should not be able to become Tamei for his father.

It must be that there is no Safek, and the child is assumed to have been born to the man to whom the wife was married at the time of the birth. Why, then, is there any reason to doubt that perhaps the child's father is a different Kohen?

Apparently, the Rash and Vilna Ga'on understand that there is no genuine concern that the child was born to another father as far as the laws of lineage (Yichus) are concerned. Nevertheless, with regard to the allowance to become Tamei for his close relatives, perhaps the father is considered more distantly related than the mother due to the fact that his fatherhood is not known for certain. According to the laws of lineage, the child is certainly assumed to be a Kohen, but there is a doubt whether this man is the father of the Kohen.

In contrast, in the case of a child whose presumed father is a Yisrael, the Rabanan certainly were not concerned that perhaps his real father is a Kohen and he may not become Tamei since he might be a Kohen. Rather, the principle of Rov states that the child was born to his mother's present husband and there is no concern for the Mi'ut (minority).

(b) The RASHBA (Teshuvos 1:27) addresses the question on the Toras Kohanim, which was sent to him by another Rishon who also suggested an answer: The Toras Kohanim refers to a specific case in which the Rabanan were stringent and do not allow the son to become Tamei for his father. It refers to a case in which the identity of the Kohen's father is unknown, and two witnesses come and identify the father. The witnesses testify that they saw the man to whom the mother was married at the time she gave birth. Although no one knows who that man was, the witnesses testify that they know for certain that he was a Kohen. Afterwards, a man comes and acts with this Kohen in the manner in which a father acts with his son (for at least thirty days). Once they act towards each other like father and son for thirty days, and the residents of the city assume that he truly is the Kohen's lost father, he is given the Halachic status of the Kohen's father. In such a case, the Toras Kohanim suggests that perhaps a Kohen Hedyot may not become Tamei for his father because the Kohen is known to be a Kohen for certain (based on the testimony of the witnesses), but it is not known for certain that this man is his father.

Similarly, the Gemara here suggests that perhaps a Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei for his father in such a case. (The OR HA'CHAIM, beginning of Parshas Emor, suggests a similar answer.)

The difficulty with this approach is that if the man's status as the Kohen's father is based not on the fact that he was married to the mother but on the fact that he acted like a father to the son for an extended period of time, why does the Gemara and Toras Kohanim suggest that the Kohen may not become Tamei for his father in such a case, but he may become Tamei for his mother? If the Kohen's matrilineal descent is not known except through a Chazakah (for example, no one was present when the child was born, and then a woman acted with the child in the manner a mother acts with her child), the same doubt applies to the mother, and the Kohen should not be permitted to become Tamei for his mother in such a case. Why does the Gemara discuss only a case of doubt about the identity of the Kohen's father? According to this approach (which states that it is not the Rov which proves that the father is the father but rather a simple Chazakah), the same law applies to a case in which it is only a Chazakah which proves that the mother is his mother! (The RASHBA asks this question on the suggested answer.)

(c) The KEREN ORAH and NETZIV suggest that although it may be assumed beyond a doubt that the husband of a man's mother is his father unless proven otherwise (and therefore he is considered the father for all Halachic matters), with regard to a Kohen's prohibition of Tum'as Mes the father perhaps is considered less related to the son for the simple reason that the son feels less close to him. It is not because perhaps the man might not be his father. He must be his father, for that is why the son is considered a Kohen and prohibited to become Tamei with Tum'as Mes. Rather, the son does not feel as close to the father as he feels to his mother, because he does not know as clearly that the man is his father as he knows that his mother is his mother. Consequently, the son feels a little less pain when the father dies. This is why the Gemara and Toras Kohanim suggest that a Kohen or Kohen Gadol should not become Tamei for his father even though he may become Tamei for his mother.

According to this approach, a Kohen's allowance to become Tamei for a close relative does not depend on blood relationship, but rather on the way the Kohen feels towards the relative. It is only because the Kohen feels so close to the deceased relative that the Torah permits him to become Tamei. His feeling less close to his father might be grounds to disallow him from become Tamei for his father.

(d) Perhaps another answer may be suggested as follows. The Gemara earlier (47b) discusses which Kohen Gadol must become Tamei for a Mes Mitzvah when two types of Kohen Gadol are walking together. It was suggested earlier (see Insights to 47b) that the Torah prohibits a Kohen from become Tamei with Tum'as Mes not merely because Tum'ah diminishes his Kedushah, but because Tum'ah prevents the Kohen from performing the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Kohen must be available to perform the Avodah at all times, and when he becomes Tamei he is not able to perform the Avodah (for the seven days of his Tum'ah). Accordingly, a Kohen's prohibition of Tum'ah depends on whether he is permitted to perform the Avodah. A Kohen who is permitted to perform the Avodah is considered a Kohen with regard to the Halachah of Tum'as Kohanim. This is the justification for the Gemara's statement that with regard to Tum'ah, there is a concern that this man is not the Kohen's true father and the Kohen should not be allowed to become Tamei for him. Although it is true that if he is not the Kohen's father, the Kohen is actually not a Kohen and has no Isur of Tum'ah altogether, nevertheless since he is considered a Kohen as far as the Avodah is concerned, he is also considered a Kohen with regard to the Isur of Tum'ah. Since he is permitted to perform the Avodah, the Isur of Tum'ah applies to him and he must avoid becoming Tamei except for a true blood relative (like his mother).

The law is more stringent with regard to the allowance to become Tamei than with regard to the allowance to perform the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash because of the importance of the Avodah. Hence, he is not prevented from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash, but he is prevented from becoming Tamei (and unfit to perform Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash) for his doubtful father.

This approach appears to be the answer that the Rashba himself suggests in the abovementioned Teshuvah.