Genealogy Law
Can a rabbi or a judge decide on a lineage issue that is relevant to them? That is, take the facts, evaluate them, and come up with a ruling that will affect their status (it determines whether they are a priest or a Levite, for example).
If you have any source for this or a more in-depth reasoning for the ruling in any case, it would be helpful to know.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
0 Answers
It's hard for me to think of such a situation, and therefore it's hard to think of sources that would be decisive. I'll say a few things anyway.
- The question is also about testimony, not just about judges. Can a witness testify about something that will indirectly affect him as well? For example, a witness who testifies that her husband died can be disqualified because he might want to marry her.
- As long as we haven't found anything invalid, there's nothing invalid. Every witness or judge is valid unless we find a source that disqualifies. Of course, if there is a concern that a lie is involved, this can be a basis for disqualification locally even if there is no source that is categorically disqualifying.
- The Sanhedrin/Sages decided that there is no turning back from any ruling of the Sanhedrin. This is the kind of situation we are talking about.
- You are talking about an implication that is not a personal consequence but a principled implication. We are talking about a ruling that will make someone a priest (for example, if a judge rules that the son of a priestess mother is also a priest) and what will constitute an implication for me is that I also become a priest for the same reason (because I am also the son of a priestess mother), but not that his becoming a priest directly affects me. This is not a violation in its normal definition. For two reasons: A. My ruling applies only to the case that comes before me. My case will be heard separately and there is no binding precedent here (unless it concerns the Sanhedrin). B. After all, every ruling should be reasoned, and therefore a fundamental ruling like this will be based on reasons and these will be examined in their entirety. There is no need to disqualify a person because of touching on such a situation. An example of this is my arguments regarding the authority of the Sages at this time (which allows for changes in halakha). Can I myself use this to make changes? Of course, yes. My words will be examined in their entirety and others will be able to decide whether to adopt it or not. Now I remember that this is related to the dispute between B.S. and B.H., which is based on a dispute over whether the determining majority is the majority of wisdom (this is what B.S. thought, who were themselves sharp-eyed) or the majority of people (this is what B.H. thought, who were the numerical majority). Here you have a situation in which a judge expresses a position that establishes his own position, and no one ponders this possibility.
לגלות עוד מהאתר הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
השאר תגובה
Please login or Register to submit your answer