[Avodah] Chezkas Kehuna

[Micha Berger]

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 01:06:11AM -0500, jew at when.com wrote:
:> Doesn't this reverse cause and effect? We allow kohanim to duchen
:> because we don't posit a safeiq unless we have reason to. That's what
:> chazaqah means -- we presume that this case follows the rule of thumb.
:> (Technically that's what the Sheiv Shemaatsa would call a chazaqah
:> disvara, in distinction to a chazaqah demei'iqara.)

: I think you are confusing the chazaka itself with the validity and the
: validity of the validity of the chazaka; I was attacking the validity
: of the validity of the chazaka and not chazaka itself or the validity
: of the chazaka.

Yes, which is what I think you're doing in error. The LOR in question
attacked the applicability of the chazaqah to one particular case,
not whether or not the chazaqah ought to remain in general.

:> We allow kohanim to duchen because we don't posit a safeiq unless we
:> have reason to.

: This is false; we allow kohanim to duchen not because we do not posit a
: safek unless we have to but rather because they have a father who duchend
: in conjunction with the fact that he would not have duchened if he was
: not permitted to duchen; a chazaka AND it's stipulated requisites.

In your own terminology, what we both said is correct:
:                                      ... The eiruv is only considered
: kosher consequent to mainly the presence of x, y and z:

: x: two kosher aidim who testified that the eiruv was up at a certain
: time prior to shabbos.(validity of the chazaka)

: y: non-existence of a certain level of bad weather subsequent to x
: (validity of the validity of the chazaka)

I said the parallel to y, and you said the parallel to x. That doesn't
make what I said incorrect.

: z: assumed negation of change ("Status quo chazaka" - this is the most
: common type of chazaka...

Chazaqah demei'iqarah might be more common than chazaqah disvarah
(the rule of thumb / somthing-like-a ruba deleisa leqaman). However,
I'm not sure it would work on its own for a chezqas kehunah.

The only chazaqah demei'iqarah is that once you establish that the family
really are kohanim, you would need to prove that they became chalalim.

However, here even their lineage from Aharon is part of the question. It
would therefore be a chazaqah disvara -- a rule of thumb that a family
that claims to be kohanim are.

BTW, the terminology I'm using for subtypes of chazaqah are borrowed
from the Sheiv Shemaatsa right before explaining his shitah that they
do not work identically. (A chazaqah disvara doesn't add any weight
to a side of a doubt where there is already contradictory testimony --
terei uterei, whereas a chazaqah disvara does.) Point being, the shared
word "chazaqah" doesn't mean we can generalize from one to the other.

: According to the Rabbi I spoke to; most if not many kohanim today have the
: presence of w, probably lack the non-presence of "t", have the presence
: of x, have the presence of y, yet lack the presence of both z and u;
: unless the kohen holds by RMF before he realizes he has to divorce his
: wife and by the Rivash only after...

You're taking a senif lehaqeil among others that the LOR wants to combine
to rely upon bedi'eved and turning it into a solid argument to be used
in general. The level of proof for the particular context of the question
isn't the same as the norm.

(Much like RMM's recent attempt to take one line of reasoning RYYW used
only in addition to others, in a context where there were other reasons
not related to qol ishah to be meiqil, and asserting that it should always
hold to reduce the scope of qol ishah in a manner no poseqim propose.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If you won't be better tomorrow
micha at aishdas.org        than you were today,
http://www.aishdas.org   then what do need do you have for tomorrow?
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Rebbe Nachman of Breslov