rashi keeps on saying that a גיורת is not allowed to marry a כהן because we assume she was נבעלה to a גוי , does that mean that if you have witnesses that she never had relations that she would be permissible to a kohen?
תוספות clearly holds that any גיורת even one that is less the 3 years old has a דין זונה no matter what.
Another related point, Tosfos opinion's is that זונה happens from any חייבי כריתות, the rambam holds that it comes from חייבי לאוין ועשה ששוין בכל, again my question is what does rashi hold? in 61b he gives the example of עריות and ממזר ונתין, if he holds like the rambam he should say a bigger chidush of חייבי עשה, is rashi a third opinion?
a final point regarding a גיורת פחותה מג' there is an argument rambam and raavad if she is a זונה or if she is אסור from a הל"מ, see אגר"מ אה"ע א' י"א
3 comments:
Shitas Rashi about Zonah:
Rashi 61b comments on the Chachamim that a giyores is a zonah "because she had bi'ah with a goy". The Beis Shmuel 6:20 understands from this rashi that a giyores is only assur m'doraysa if we know she had bi'ah with a goy. However, R' Shlomo Kluger (Chochmas Shlomo) points out that Rashi 60b (d.h. iy hachi afilu) implies that even acc. to RASHBI that a convert less than 3 is permitted to a kohen, would agree that a convert above 3 would be assur even if we know for sure that she did not have bi'ah. Therefore, the Rabbanan who argue on RASHBI and assur a giyores even less than 3 (like we pasken), would certainly be machmir that a convert more than 3 is assur even if she did not have bi'ah. Rashi must hold that a convert who converted when she was more than 3 is assur even if she was not mezaneh, but if she converted when she was less than 3 is assumed to be assur bec. she is b'chezkas mezaneh, but if we know for sure that she was not mezaneh then she is mutar.
Regarding Zonah from Chayvei Aseh:
The Beis Shmuel 6:16 points out the machlokes between Rambam and Tosafos. He als mentions that Rashi agrees with Rambam that chayvei lavin is a mamzer (as we see from the examples of rashi that you pointed out). He seems to say like you, that Rashi is a middle opinion.
i also did some research mainly in encyclopedia (my new cheating sefer), regarding rashi in less then 3, or more then 3 with witnesses - i think they learn that it is only asur m'drobonon acc to rashi. this makes sense to me.
regarding rashi as a middle opinion, see also ramban in chumash (ויקרא יט כט). i did find that the meiri holds (in kidushin) that חייבי עשה makes a zona but there is no מלקות, i thought to myself that maybe rashi holds like him and that is why in the mishna he says a general statement of anyone that is asur to him but later he specifies חייבי לאוין, but i don't have a clear proof.
Post a Comment