What reason is this to suggest that the Kohen Gadol may not become Tamei for
his father? If the Kohen Gadol's father is *not* his true father, then that
is a reason why he *should* be permitted to become Tamei for him! If he is
not the Kohen Gadol's true father, then that means that this Kohen Gadol is
not the son of a Kohen altogether, but rather it is likely that his father
is a Yisrael, since most people are Yisraelim! Accordingly, there is no
reason why he should not be permitted to be Metamei for his father, because
if there is a possibility that the man is not his father, then this is a
reason to *permit* him to become Tamei for that man, because he is not
really a Kohen! Why does the Gemara say that we might have thought that the
reason a Kohen Gadol may not be Metamei for his father is because of the
possibility that the man is not his father?
Moreover, even if this man is not his father but his real father *is* a
Kohen, then since the mother lived with that Kohen while she was married to
the first Kohen, the son will be a Mamzer, and a Kohen who is a Mamzer is a
Chalal and is certainly permitted to become Tamei for a Mes! This question,
though, may be answered by suggesting that we are afraid that his mother
lived with another man before she lived with the man we think is his father,
and the father did not realize that his wife was pregnant from another man
from before the marriage. In that case, the child will not be a Mamzer and
will be a valid Kohen who is prohibited to become Tamei for a Mes.
The first question, though, remains -- the Kohen Gadol should be permitted
to be Metamei for his father, because if the man is not his father then the
Kohen Gadol is not a Kohen at all but a Yisrael and he may become Tamei for
a Mes!
A similar question is asked by the Rishonim on the Toras Kohanim (beginning
of Parshas Emor) with regard to a Kohen Hedyot (not a Kohen Gadol). The
verse says that a Kohen Hedyot is permitted to be Metamei for his father and
mother. The Toras Kohanim says that if the verse would have said only that
he may be Metamei for his mother, we would have thought that he may *not* be
Metamei for his father, because his father is considered to be less related
to him, since perhaps he is not really his father. The same question applies
there: the possibility that this is not his father is not a reason to
disallow him from being Metamei for him; rather, it is a reason why he
should be *permitted* to be Metamei for him, because if this is not his
father, then the son is not a Kohen altogether!
(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 be Metamei for his father because he is not really his father, it is
discussing a specific case, where a Kohen was born six months after his
mother married one Kohen, and nine months after his mother became an Almanah
from an earlier marriage to a Kohen. She married a second Kohen after the
first Kohen died, and when she gave birth it was not clear whether the child
was conceived from the first Kohen or the second Kohen. Hence we have a case
where the son does not know for sure whom his father is, and nevertheless he
knows for sure that he is a Kohen (we have no reason to suspect his mother
of extra-marital relations).
The VILNA GA'ON on the Toras Kohanim makes a similar suggestion, saying that
the woman was living in a city in which all of the residents were Kohanim.
Therefore, even if she conceived this son from a previous relationship
(before the marriage to her present husband), the man is assumed to be a
Kohen, and therefore the child is certainly a Kohen.
The same answer applies in our Gemara. Our Gemara, too, can be referring to
such a case.
The problem with this approach is that besides from the fact that it limits
to a very specific case the type of father that the verse might be
excluding, the verse could just as well be discussing a Yisrael and not a
Kohen! That is, even if a Yisrael was the second husband to marry this
woman, and the child is a Safek Kohen and Safek Yisrael, then we would have
the same reason to suspect that the son should not be able to be Metamei for
his father, the Yisrael, because perhaps he is the son of the Kohen from the
previous marriage (and thus he is a Safek Kohen), or he was born to a man
who was a Kohen with whom the mother had relations before the marriage
(since all the residents of this city are Kohanim). Therefore, what is the
difference whether the child was born to a Yisrael or to a Kohen? If we have
a Safek that perhaps his father is not really his father but someone else is
his father, then he is a Safek Kohen and he should not be able to be Metamei
for his father!
It must be that there is no Safek, and we assume that the child was born to
the man to whom the wife was married at the time of the birth. If this is
true, though, then what reason is there to have any doubt that perhaps he
was born to another Kohen?
Apparently, the Rash and the Vilna Ga'on are learning that there is no real
reason to suspect that he was born to another father as far as the Halachah
of Yichus is concerned. Nevertheless, as far as the Halachah of being
Metamei to his close relatives is concerned, perhaps the father is
considered more distantly related than the mother since we do not know for
sure that this is the father. We know that the child is a Kohen, but we do
not know for sure that this is the father of this Kohen.
In the case of a child who is a Yisrael, though, we certainly will not be
Choshesh l'Chumra to say that perhaps his real father is a Kohen and he may
not be Metamei to Mesim since he might be a Kohen. Rather, the Rov tells us
that the child was born to his mother's present husband and we are not
Choshesh for the Mi'ut.
(b) The RASHBA (Teshuvah 1:27) was asked by another Rishon about this Toras
Kohanim. The questioner himself suggested an answer: the Toras Kohanim is
referring, again, to a specific case in which we should be Machmir and not
let him be Metamei for his father. The case is where we do not know whom the
Kohen's father is, and two witnesses come and tell us whom the father was,
saying that they saw the man whom the mother was married to at the time that
she gave birth. We do not recognize who that person is, but the witnesses
testify that they know for certain that he was a Kohen. Afterwards, a man
comes and acts, for at least thirty days, with this Kohen in the manner a
father acts with his son. Once they act towards each other like father and
son for thirty days, and the city assumes that he really is the long lost
father, then he is given all of the Halachos of a father. In such a case,
the Toras Kohanim is suggesting, perhaps a Kohen Hedyot may not be Metamei
for his father, because we know for sure that the son is a Kohen (based on
the testimony of the witnesses), but we do not know for sure that this man
is his father.
Similarly, in our Gemara, the Gemara is suggesting that perhaps a Kohen
Gadol should not be able to be Metamei for his father in such a case.
The OR HA'CHAIM HA'KADOSH (beginning of Parshas Emor) suggests a similar
answer.
The question on this approach is that if the Chazakah of the father is not
because he was married to the mother, but rather the reason we assume that
this person is the father is because he was acting with the child in the
manner of a father with his son, then why does the Toras Kohanim and our
Gemara suggest that the Kohanim should not be able to be Metamei for his
*father* in such a case, but he *may* be Metamei 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 for thirty days in the manner of a mother with her child),
then we should have the same question about the mother -- perhaps the Kohen
should not be able to become Tamei for his mother in such a case! It is not
a case that is unique to the father, but the Gemara presumably is discussing
only a case of a Safek about the father since it is impossible to know for
sure whom a person's father is (without relying on "Rov Be'ilos Achar
ha'Ba'al"). But according to this approach, that it is not the Rov that is
proving to us that the father is the father, but rather it is just a simple
Chazakah, then there can also be a case in which it is only a Chazakah that
is telling us that the *mother* is his mother! (The RASHBA asks this
question in different wording on the questioner's suggested answer.)
(c) The KEREN ORAH and the NETZIV suggest that even though we assume for
certain that a man's mother's husband is his father unless proven otherwise,
and therefore with regard to all Halachic matters he is considered the
father, nevertheless with regard to the Halachah of Tum'as Mes for a Kohen,
the father is perhaps considered less related to the son for the simple
reason that the son feels less close to him. It is *not* because perhaps
this man might not be his father. He *must* be his father, for that is why
the son is considered a Kohen and prohibited to be Metamei for Mesim, for we
assume that this is his father. Rather, the son does not feel as close to
the father, because the son does not know as clearly that this is his father
as he knows that his mother is his mother. Because of that, the son feels a
little less pain when the father dies, and that is why the Gemara and the
Toras Kohanim are suggesting that a Kohen or Kohen Gadol should not be
Metamei for his father even though he may be Metamei for his mother.
This is to say that the Halachah of becoming Tamei for a close relative is
not dependent 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
person that the Torah permits him to be Metamei. Since he feels a little
less close to a father, that might be reason to disallow him from being
Metamei for his father.
(d) Perhaps we may suggest another answer, based on what we said earlier
(47b), that the reason the Torah prohibits a Kohen from being Metamei to
Mesim is not just because Tum'ah defiles him and diminishes his Kedushah,
but rather because it is preventing the Kohen from performing the Avodah in
the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Kohen must always be available to perform the
Avodah, and when he becomes Tamei he is not able to do the Avodah (for the
seven days that he is Tamei l'Mes). Accordingly, the Halachah of Tum'as
Kohanim depends on the Halachah of being permitted to do the Avodah. A Kohen
who is permitted to do the Avodah is considered a Kohen as far as the
Halachah of Tum'as Kohanim is considered. Therefore, the Gemara is justified
in saying that as far as Tum'ah is concerned, we should be worried that this
person is not really the Kohen's father and the Kohen should not be allowed
to be Metamei for him. Even though if this is not the Kohen's father then he
is not the Kohen and has no Isur of Tum'ah altogether, nevertheless since as
far as the Avodah is concerned, we have no such worry and we say that he
certainly is a Kohen and therefore he is allowed to do the Avodah. Once he
is allowed to do the Avodah, then we must prevent him from becoming Tamei
and apply to him the Isurim of Tum'as Kohanim. Once we apply to him the
Isurim of Tum'as Kohanim, we permit him only to become Tamei for a true
blood relative, like the mother, and not for the father who might not be a
relative.
We are more Machmir with regard to the Heter to become Tamei than with
regard to the Heter to do the Avodah in the Beis ha'Mikdash, because of the
importance of serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash. Hence, we will not be Machmir
to prevent him from serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash, but we will be Machmir
to prevent him from becoming Tamei and not serving in the Beis ha'Mikdash.
This indeed appears to be the answer that the Rashba himself suggests in the
abovementioned Teshuvah.