Cohen Marrying Daughter of a Mixed Marriage

The daughter of a mixed marriage in which the mother is Jewish and the father Christian wants to be married to a Cohen. The Orthodox rabbi refuses to officiate at the marriage. What is the law and what should be our attitude in this matter? (From Rabbi J. Soetendorp, Amsterdam, Netherlands)

The Shulchan Aruch seems definite on this question, stating (Even Hoezer 7 : 17) that if a non-Jew has relationship with a Jewish woman and a daughter is born from this relationship, the daughter is deemed unfit (p’gumah) for one of the priesthood. Despite this seemingly clear statement, the law has never been definitely settled, as can be noted from the careful choice of the vague adjective “p’gumah” (spoiled or unfit), rather than “asurah” (forbidden). Of course it is clear that a child of a Jewish mother follows the status of the mother and there is, therefore, no objection to her marrying an ordinary Israelite. Also, if the Christian father had been converted to Judaism before the sexual relationship, then the daughter would not be unsuitable even for the priesthood. Evidently the situation that you refer to must be of an irregular sexual relation or of a marriage in which the Christian husband was not converted to Judaism. Otherwise there would be no question at all.

This law as to the girl’s unsuitability as a priest’s wife is not at all definite. As we have noted, all the classic commentators call attention to the vague word p’gumah, and say that this indicates that she is not really asurah, forbidden; therefore, if she is married to a priest, the marriage is quite valid and he is not even asked to divorce her. See Be’er Hetev to the passage, who sums up the classic commentators to the Shulchan Aruch in the way just indicated. Therefore, before deciding our own attitude to the question, it is worthwhile to trace the law to its origin and see whence the uncertainty comes.

The law is based, of course, on Leviticus 21 : 7, in which it says that a priest should not marry a harlot or a chalala, i.e., a woman spoiled for the priesthood. The further definition of the word used here (chalala) is then taken up in the Mishnah (Kiddushin IV : 6-7). Rabbi Judah says that the daughter of a “ger” is to be deemed equal in status to the daughter of a “chalal, ” a profaned priest, and is forbidden to the priesthood. But in the next Mishnah, two rabbis disagree with Judah and come to the general attitude that if a woman’s mother is Jewish, she may marry into the priesthood. The Talmud discusses these opposing Mishnaic opinions, both in the tractate Kiddushin to the Mishnah, but more especially in Yevamoth 45a, where the discussion shows the basis of the dilemma, namely, that some authorities say a child of a mixed marriage is kosher and others say the child is not. The opposing opinions are compromised by saying that the child of a Jewish mother is Jewish and kosher, but unsuitable (p’gumah) for one of the priesthood.

The classic commentators, therefore, take varied attitudes on the status of a child of an unconverted Gentile in relation to marrying a priest. The best summation of the Rishonim is made by Chaim Joseph David Azulai, in his “Birche Josef” (Even Hoezer IV : 13; the Vienna edition erroneously marks it 19). He says that Alfasi is uncertain as to whether she is even p ‘gumah, unfitted as a priest’s wife, and Maimonides is certain that she is fitted for such a status; at which point he adds that Joseph Caro so understands those two authorities in his “Bes Joseph,” at the beginning of paragraph 4 of Tur Even Hoezer. Then Azulai quotes Solomon Luria, the great sixteenth-century Polish authority, that she is not forbidden except “I’chatchillo” i.e., if we have to take the initiative and marry her to a priest, but that if she is already married the marriage is valid. (This quotation is from the Responsa of Solomon Luria, 17.)

So all the later authorities come to about the same conclusion. The marriage is valid if we find the couple already married; the marriage stands. But we avoid taking the initiative, I’chatchillo, to marry them. See, for example, “Chalkas M’chokek” (Moses of Vilna to Even Hoezer 7 :17) and “Bes Shmuel” (Samuel Ben Uri Phoebus to the same passage). Incidentally, in the responsum of Luria quoted, he also says that the Tur considers her kosher to the priesthood, and that he, on the basis of all these doubts, has decided that she is not to be deemed p’gumah except insofar as we would prefer not to marry her, I’chatchillo.

A number of the later authorities discuss the matter. Perhaps the most interesting is Abraham of Sarchow in his large responsa collection, “Avneh Nezer” (Even Hoezer I :15), although the question that he asks is somewhat different. In the case before him, this mixed couple had a son, and later the son had a daughter, and it was this granddaughter of the mixed marriage about whom it is questioned whether or not she may marry a Cohen. He ends up his rather full discussion by saying we should not be strict in this matter (“En I’hachamir ).

The late Isaac Halevi Herzog, Chief Rabbi of the State of Israel, in his new volume of responsa, “Hechal Yitzchok” (Jerusalem, 1960), responsum 16, takes a strict stand in for-bidding a priest to marry the daughter of a mixed mar-riage. However, in the case with which he deals, it was the father who was Jewish and the mother was Gentile. The mother was converted after the birth of the daughter, who now wants to marry the priest. However, on the assump-tion that this child was converted, it then becomes the problem of marrying a priest to a convert.

A dramatic case of a proselyte marrying a priest is described and decided by Judah Leb Zirelsohn, the martyred Rabbi of Kishenev, in his responsa collection, “Ma’arche Leb” 72. A young daughter from a noble family fell in love with a Jew and was converted to Judaism. When the rabbi (Rabbi Naftali Rath, of Rutchuk, Bulgaria) was about to marry them, it was discovered that the young man was a Cohen. Rabbi Rath refused to marry the couple. This created a great storm, bitterness on the part of the boy, anti Jewish anger on the part of the Gentiles. The rabbi, greatly disturbed at the outcome of his strictness, turned to Rabbi Zirelsohn, who reluctantly gave permission for him to marry the couple, but cautioned him to declare that this would not be a precedent.

In both cases cited, that of Rabbi Herzog and of Rabbi Zirelsohn, the girl was born a Gentile. But in the case cited in our question, the child is the daughter of a Jewess, and therefore is Jewish by birth. Taking into account all the various opinions, it is possible to be strict if one wishes to be strict. The Orthodox rabbi did not marry the couple. If he said that it is absolutely forbidden for them to marry, he overstated the case. If he said he “prefers not to marry them,” he is correct. In other words, according to the law, the marriage is valid, but not a preferred marriage.

What, then, should be our attitude to such a marriage? Of course, if the marriage has already taken place, it is absolutely valid, even according to the strictest Orthodox law. The question is what should be our attitude (l’chatchillo), that is, in being willing to take the initiative to officiate at such a nonpreferred marriage? It seems clear that we should not hesitate to officiate. In the first place, on general ethical principles, the Reform movement has long decided that there shall no longer be any distinctions observed between priests, Levites, and Israelites. This ethical decision is bolstered in the Halacha by the fact that actually a priest nowadays is no longer to be considered an actual priest, but a doubtful priest (Cohen Sofek) because his genealogy is no longer carefully kept. This is clearly stated in the “Magen Avraham” (Orah Hayyim IV : 57, note 9). Hence we have no reason to hold onto this law, which is uncertain from its very beginning and throughout its development. Furthermore, there is very little danger that we would arouse ill will by officiating at such a marriage, since it is a perfectly valid marriage and, according to Orthodox law, must be accepted as such.