Sotah 040

8:
The first difference noted is that a 'priestly woman can incur status annulment, a priest cannot do so'. If a male from priestly stock (a 'kohen') enters into an illicit union he does not lose his priestly status. That is to say, that if a 'kohen' copulates with a woman that is forbidden to him by Torah law he does not thereby lose either his priestly status or privileges. (Let us add here parenthetically that his male offspring from such a union do not inherit their father's priestly status, and are termed 'ĥallal'. This status was explained in Sotah 038.) However, if a 'kohenet' copulates with a man who is forbidden to her by Torah law she thereby automatically becomes a 'ĥallalah'.

9:
The second difference indicated in our mishnah between a kohen' and a kohenet' is in connection with contact with a corpse. The Torah [Leviticus 21:1-2] prohibits 'the sons of Aaron' from coming into contact with a corpse with the exception of that of a close family member: parent, sibling or spouse. The sages, as was their wont, decided that the phrase 'the sons of Aaron' must imply 'and not the daughters of Aaron'. Thus there was nothing to prohibit a kohenet" from being in contact with or in proximity to a corpse.

10:
The third difference that our mishnah mentions between a kohen' and a kohenet" is in connection with the sacrificial system. As we have seen on many occasions parts of many sacrifices were the perquisite of the priests in order to augment their daily menu. Some of these perquisites were permitted also to the immediate members of the priest's household (even including an Eved Kena'ani), but the 'most holy' sacrifices could be consumed by a priest alone. This is specifically indicated several times in the Torah: for instance, concerning the cereal-offering the Torah [Leviticus 6:11] states that 'any male among the children of Aaron may eat it'. Yet again, in connection with the guilt-offering the Torah [Leviticus 7:6] states that 'any male among the priests may eat it.' Females are here expressly excluded.

Since you raised it, could you enlighten us regarding the theological problem for the Catholic Church of James' purported ossuary having been found? And are we really so certain that it was his ossuary? I ask the latter question only because my anecdotal observation is that the sibling of a deceased is not typically mentioned on the Matzayva. The parent or parents, yes, but not a sibling, even a famous one.

I respond:

Among scholars who are seemingly not swayed by theological considerations there is almost no doubt about the authenticity of the ossuary or whose bones it originally contained. The orthography, style and date of the stone and its inscription have been generally authenticated. The Aramaic inscription reads 'Jacob, son of Joseph, brother of Jeshua'. Given historical data, computer calculations have been made and have indicated that a very small number of people could be indicated in Jerusalem during the first half of the 1st century CE. Furthermore, in the case of other ossuaries from the same locality and the same period it has been noted that a brother is only mentioned when he was well-known.

The Christian scriptures freely admit that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and by most Christian denominations this is accepted at face value. The Roman Catholic Church, however, holds as doctrine that Jesus was born parthenogenetically to a woman who was a life-long virgin, and the brothers and sisters are held to be Joseph's children from a former marriage. It would seem that the inscription on the ossuary places great strain on that doctrine.

Chanukah Same'ach to everybody!