Print this Article
Can a Kohen be in contact with a Goses?
By Rabbi Ariel Ovadia
Introduction
This week we read about the impurity one contracts from the dead. While most Jews are allowed to contract Tum’ah (impurity) and are sometimes even commanded to do so (to bury the dead etc.)[1], Kohanim are generally prohibited from contracting Tum’at Met (the impurity of the dead) from a dead body, except for the seven relatives (father, mother, son, daughter, brother, unmarried sister, wife) or a Met Mitzvah (a body which has no caretakers; the Halachot of which are usually not practical). In this article, we will discuss the status of someone who is in their final hours, referred to in Halacha as a “Goses”, with regards to the laws of Kohanim.
The Mishna in Aholot[2] writes that a Goses – one who is breathing his last breaths of life – is considered to be fully alive. His wife is still married to him and his heirs have no right to the inheritance. Yet, the Gemara in Masechet Nazir[3] cites a debate between the Amora’im whether a Kohen is permitted to come in contact with a Goses. One opinion maintains that since a Goses is fully alive and does not render anyone impure there is no prohibition, while the other opinion maintains that it still constitutes a desecration – “Hillul”.
L’Halacha, some Rishonim permit a Nazir or Kohen to come in contact with someone who is dying[4], while others maintain that it is forbidden[5]. Maran in Shulhan Aruch[6] rules that it is forbidden, while the Rama cites the lenient opinions, adding that it is still best to refrain. This may be a cause for concern for Kohanim entering hospitals, even if the morgue is separated from the rest of the hospital, as there may still be deathly-ill patients within the Halachic parameters of the room that the Kohen is in. Similarly, we must inquire whether a Kohen may visit a deathly-ill patient and be at his bedside.
However, there are many leniencies that the Poskim apply specifically to a Goses, which may be relied upon in some common scenarios.
Room for Leniency
The Shach[7] writes that whereas with regards to a dead body in a house, the Kohanim must be immediately notified of the situation so that they should hurry to leave, one does not have to notify a Kohen that there is a Goses in the house. Additionally, even once the Kohen finds out there is a Goses in the house, he does not have to run out if he is not dressed properly – as would be the Halacha with regards to a dead body – rather he can quickly get dressed and then leave[8]. The Haye Adam[9] and others[10] even allow a Kohen to enter such a house, if he is doing so to fulfill a Mitzvah D’Orayta – such as Birkat Kohanim[11] and the like.
Some Poskim are also lenient with regards to a non-Jewish Goses, as there is a general debate with regards to the Tum’ah of a non-Jew after his death[12], therefore, with it is a Safek Sefeka if there is a prohibition with regards to a non-Jewish Goses.
Others[13] are lenient with regards to the seven relatives, as Maran rules[14] that a Kohen can become impure in the case of the seven relatives even if it is not for the purpose of burial. Thus, in this scenario, when the relative is still alive, although the Kohen is not visiting them for the purpose of burial, it would be permissible. This would be very applicable to Kohanim who want to stand by their close relative’s bedside.
Defining a Goses
Another important point to bear in mind, is that it is unclear what is the definition of Goses that Hachamim are referring to. The Shulhan Aruch[15] writes that the term “Goses” refers to one who has difficulty breathing due to his impending death. Other sources in Hazal write that a Goses has a three-day life-expectancy and that the majority of Goses cases do not survive. However, it is hard to define the parameters of this state using modern medical terminology.
This can result in a leniency and a stringency. On the one hand, since we cannot accurately define a Goses, it would seem that a Kohen should avoid coming in contact with anyone who is very critically-ill. On the other hand, whenever there is an important need, the Kohen can claim that perhaps this is not the Goses that Hachamim are referring to and thus there is no prohibition to come in contact with him (with regards to Pikuah Nefesh, see below).
Some argue, that if we can still resuscitate the person using modern technology, he does not have the status of a Goses, although in the times of Hachamim the person may have been considered a Goses or even dead[16].
Dr. Cohen
In the mid-19th century, there was a big debate between the Hattam Sofer and Maharatz Hiyyut as to Kohanim becoming doctors and treating deathly-ill patients. The Maharatz Hiyyut[17] took a very lenient approach, as a Goses is subject to the various leniencies which we mentioned. However, the Hattam Sofer[18] felt that these leniencies were not applied correctly, and wrote a very strong Teshuva to argue with the Maharatz Hiyyut.
Nevertheless, as the Hattam Sofer points out, if there is even a slim chance that a person’s life can be saved, a Kohen does not have to be concerned whatsoever with the possible prohibition of Tum’ah, as even a Safek Pikuah Nefesh (the possibility of saving a life) trumps all of the Mitzvot.
In Conclusion
A Kohen should refrain from coming in contact with deathly-ill patients. However, if it is their immediate relative or there may be a consideration of Pikuah Nefesh it is permissible. There is also room to be lenient with regards to a non-Jew and if the Kohen needs to perform a Torah obligation.
Sources:
[1] ע’ בכל בו סי’ קי”ד בשם בעל המלמד שעמד על מה שמצוה כ”כ גדולה לקבור את המת, אף שטומאתו החמורה ביותר
[2] פ”א מ”ו
[3] מ”ג ע”א
[4] נמו”י מו”ק ט”ז ע”ב מדה”ר, וע’ ברי”ף ריש הל’ טומאה שהביא את המשנה באהלות בסתם, ומשמע דס”ל דהלכה למעשה מה שנוגע בזה”ז לטומאת כהנים אין לחוש להטמא לגוסס
[5] בה”ג הובא ברא”ש ריש הל’ טומאה, ודייק הב”י דס”ל כוותיה, וכ”כ בהגה”א מו”ק פ”ג סי’ ע”ה בשם האו”ז, והיראים סי’ שכב, מרדכי פ”ג דמו”ק סי’ תתסו (ע”ש שהביא בשם הבה”ג שהתיר ובגי’ שלנו אי’ שאוסר), טור יו”ד סי’ ש”ע. וכן נקט הב”ח.
[6] יו”ד סי’ ש”ע
[7] שם סק”ד
[8] וע”ש שכתב דהיה מקום לומר דלעולם אין איסור להשאר בבית שהגוסס שם רק להכנס לבית כו’, וכמשמעות לשון הגמ’, אך דחה את זה דסו”ס מהראשונים לא משמע שחילקו.
[9] ל”ב ט’
[10] ע’ פת”ש יו”ד סי’ שע”ב ס”ק א’, ובמשנה ברורה סי’ קכ”ח סק”ח
[11] באופנים שהיא דאורייתא, כגון שיש ב’ כהנים, ועדיין לא עלה לדוכן באותו היום
[12] וע’ טהרת הכהנים, סי’ ש”ע בפרחי טהרה ד”ה גוסס שכתבו שיש מקום להקל אך הגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל ויבלחט”א הגר”נ קרליץ הורו שלא להקל כי אם בשעת הדחק או במקום מצוה.
[13] פרחי טהרה שם, ושכן הורו הלכה למעשה הגרי”ש אלישיב זצ”ל ויבלחט”א הגר”נ קרליץ
[14] יו”ד סי’ שע”ג ס”ה, לדיעה ראשונה שהביא בסתם
[15] אהע”ז סי’ קכ”א ס”ז, חו”מ סי’ רי”א ס”ב
[16] טהרת הכהנים שם סק”ו, ובפרח”ט שם ד”ה כמת, ע”ש שדחו את הראיה מבן השונמית ואליהו ובן האלמנה (ע’ רש”י נדה ע’ ע”ב ד”ה בן השונמית, ספרי זוטא חוקת סקי”א ושטמ”ק ב”מ קי”ד ע”ב בשם תלמיד ר”פ) דמשמע שקודם שהחיו אותם היו מטמאים טומאת מת, דשאני התם שרק חיו ע”י מעשה נסים משא”כ בזה”ז. ואכמ”ל בכל זה.
[17] דרכי הוראה א-ג, ושו”ת מהר”ץ חיות סי’ כ”ח
[18] שו”ת יו”ד סי’ של”ח