Q&A: Eligibility to Enter the Congregation — Forbidden to the Husband and the Adulterer
Eligibility to Enter the Congregation — Forbidden to the Husband and the Adulterer
Question
Hello Rabbi,
A married woman was ruled to be forbidden to both her husband and the adulterer. Afterward she divorced her husband. Then a child was born to her and the adulterer. What is the status of the child with respect to eligibility to enter the congregation?
Answer
What do you mean by afterward? If it was from the original forbidden act of intercourse, the child is a mamzer. Do you mean to ask about the status of a child born from intercourse with the adulterer that took place after the divorce from the husband? Here there is only a prohibition by a negative commandment, and in Jewish law we rule (not like Rabbi Akiva) that a child born from unions prohibited by negative commandments is not a mamzer. You can see a discussion here at the beginning: http://asif.co.il/?wpfb_dl=1296
As for whether the daughter would be permitted to marry a kohen, that requires discussion (the woman herself is certainly forbidden to a kohen under the law of a zonah), and simply speaking it seems that the daughter who was born is permitted to a kohen, since the status of zonah is not a matter of lineage and does not pass on to daughters. But I have not looked into this now.
All this is when it is clearly known that there was adultery. If she was forbidden because of a doubt about adultery, the situation is more complicated and of course easier.
Discussion on Answer
To the best of my judgment, the ruling is only declarative. The prohibition exists even without it. Of course, without a ruling from the religious court, the child and anyone who wants to marry him are not required to believe the mother or the adulterer. But the prohibition itself exists. But as I wrote, it seems to me that this has no implication for the child’s lineage status. Certainly not regarding an ordinary Jew, and it seems to me not regarding a kohen either. If the question is for practical Jewish law and not just for theoretical analysis, it requires further checking.
Thank you for the response. Indeed, as you wrote — the intention is a child born from intercourse with the adulterer that took place after the divorce from the husband.
Is the ruling of the religious court that the woman is forbidden to the husband and the adulterer declarative (informing us of the prohibition, but the prohibition exists from the moment of the forbidden intercourse with the adulterer) or constitutive (creating the prohibition, since the prohibition did not exist before the court ruling), with respect to:
1. the prohibition on being with the husband and the adulterer?
2. the lineage status of a child born from intercourse with the adulterer that took place after the divorce from the husband (according to the opinion that there is a defect in lineage)?