Retrospective recognition of the marriage of a priest and a divorcee
I read that if a priest marries a divorced woman in the presence of 2 witnesses + a ketubah and the entire ceremony, the Rabbinate retroactively recognizes them as married.
This is a second marriage, there will be no children together.
The man has children from a first marriage to a single woman.
1. How do you do this with the Rabbinate? Who exactly do you contact?
2. Does he lose his priesthood? If so, do his children from his first marriage also?
Thank you 🙂
According to Jewish law, a priest is not allowed to marry a divorced woman, but if they marry anyway, the marriage is valid. This does nothing to his previous children, but if they have children here, they are considered "desecrated," meaning not priests (a priest who has been desecrated).
I don't know the procedures with the Rabbinate, and unfortunately I can't advise people on how to commit offenses in a more "correct" way. I can say that if you contact the Rabbinate (or any rabbi who is committed to Halacha) they won't shame you.
I'm sorry I can't help.
You were very helpful! Thank you very much.
I wonder what the credibility of the tradition about priesthood is. What prevents someone from deciding in which town in Poland they will be called Katz from now on, and then upon their second immigration to the land, telling everyone that they have been a priest for generations. Especially after the Holocaust, when Jewish refugees arrived, one from a town and two from a family.
Beach, and what exactly will he get out of it? To be the first to go up? Well, that's okay.
Is it a slow, honorable word? Maybe there was just a mistake. When there is no supervision, you can't trust anything. And in any case, the ways of all kinds of crooks are wonderful. What did the IDF, which was a great leader, get out of forging the book of the Eshkol? What did the failed forger of the Jerusalem Holy Ones get out of? The most sincere and humane of all, we knew.
Truly, the priests today are priests of power, not priests of testimony. Something really weak…
Only to the extent that the prohibition applies to a divorced woman who was possessed by a prostitute [during the time of the Torah], and today it is clear that there is no such possession, and the reasons for divorce are certainly incredibly diverse and flexible. Is there no point in [+ priestly possession and not evidence] allowing a divorced woman to be possessed by a priest?
A prohibition that has lost its appeal. It is necessary to correct some glosses in the Pentateuch and some glosses in the words of Chazal, and peace be upon Israel.
Presumption is a valid halakhic principle. If you had a majority against it, there would be room for discussion, but as I understand it, that is not the case today.
Where did you get this verse about the prohibition against a divorced woman who has a prostitute?
I guess there are a lot.
But it is certainly possible to begin education at the roots of the mitzvah of Rasach.
By the way, the conversion of Ephi 3 years and 1 day is explicitly stated in the G.M., which is the reason. And of course it is ridiculous these days…
Building a halakhic argument about the roots of the mitzvah in education is not serious. Even if we were to demand a reason to read it, and we don't.
And regarding conversion, this is a dispute over the conditions, and even in this the Rishonim disagreed (whether when it is known that they did not come to her, is there still a prohibition). But there is perhaps room for discussion there because it is not a matter of recitation. The prohibition does not appear in the Torah, and if there is a prohibition, it is based on the reason. It is not like a divorce, for which the prohibition is explicit in Scripture and you only interpret it according to a certain reason.
Regarding the divorced woman, education is probably not unique in this.
And conversion?
From the point of view of the...
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer