As long as cadavers are required for use in medical school and as long as physicians are required to go to medical school, a kohen may not become a physician. The simple reason is that a kohen may not touch a dead body (ויקרא כא:א and ספר החינוך רסג), and a cadaver is a corpse. It does not matter whether the cadaver was jewish or goyish —even according to those who are mekil on mes nochri, such as Rambam in הל׳ טומאת מת א:יב— a kohen may never touch a dead body, with the following exceptions:
שבע קרובים- parents, children r”l, brothers, unmarried sisters r”l, and a wife. The source for becoming tameh for one’s wife is derabanan (רמב״ם הל׳ אבל ב:ז and ש״ע י״ד שעג:ד), and the source for the other six is ויקרא כא:ג. The gemora in זבחים ק ע״א recounts Yosef hakohen being forced to become tameh to bury his wife on Erev Pesach, despite his opposition to doing so, since it would preclude him from giving the Korban Pesach. It’s not that a kohen may become tameh for one of the שבע קרובים— he must become tameh for them. As Rambam writes, ״כמה חמורה מצות אבלות שהרי נדחית לו הטמאה מפני קרביו כדי שיתעסק עמהן” (אבל ב:ו). (ש״ע writes similarly in י״ד שעג:ג). Once the relative is buried, a kohen may no longer come into contact with tumah (ש״ע י״ד שעג:ו). ש״ע writes that a kohen can’t be metameh via another source during this process, and that’s why kohanic families are buried at the edges of kvorim; Rema is more lenient, and allows for a kohen to be metameh for others then (שם ז).
לדבר מצוה, whatever that may be. (Vide ש״ע and טור on י״ד שעב:א.)
כדי שלא יבוא המת לידו בזיון” (נטעי גבריאל הל׳ אבל פרק קל ס׳ כג)”.
מת מצוה- This would even apply to a kohen godol. While a kohen godol may not become tameh for one of the seven exceptions (ויקרא כא:יא), for a מת מצוה he may (נזיר ז:א).
In the last halakha of פרק ג of הל׳ אבל, Rambam lists criteria for which a kohen may be מטמא דרבנן for כבוד הבריות.
לכבוד הרבים (Vide ירושלמי ברכות דף כג א).
פיקוח נפש- I haven’t seen פיקוח נפש listed anywhere meforesh. But פיקוח נפש can fall under דבר מצוה, which can be one reason. Additionally, Rav Moshe writes that someone who says that פיקוח נפש justifies a kohen going to medical school is, meforesh, stupid. (י״ד ג:קנה). R. Moshe’s reasoning is that going to medical school wouldn’t be considered פיקוח נפש, but he doesn’t dispute the idea that פיקוח נפש would warrant a kohen being metameh.
Rav Moshe writes about the issue of kohanim going to medical school in אג״מ י״ד ג:קנה, in a letter to Rav Schwab in the summer of 1974. There was a kuntres going around which permitted kohanim to attend medical school, and R. Schwab asked R. Moshe what he thought about it.
One of R. Moshe’s main arguments against this kuntres’s heter for a kohen to attend medical school is that doing so is not פיקוח נפש. R. Moshe labels such an assertion to be ״.שטות והבל שלא ניתן לבר דעת לומר כלל״ R. Moshe says that even if there were no more doctors left in the entire world, it still would still not qualify as פיקוח נפש for a kohen to become a doctor. He writes that one only has a chiyiv tzedaka for the money they have and that there is no chiyiv to become wealthy so that one can give more tzedaka; so too, the mitzveh of פיקוח נפש is chal only when someone finds themself in a matzav of פיקוח נפש, but there is no chiyiv to put oneself in a situation in which that mitzveh would become chal, id est enroll in medical school.
Regarding whoever wrote this heter, R. Moshe writes that we can’t rely on איזה אדם שמורה להקל and can’t go off the idea that בטומאת כהנים מחמת שהם כבר טמאי מת דאין יכולים ליטהר. (This idea will be discussed in-depth below.) R. Moshe writes that “הנה באשר שהדבר הוא פשוט וברור כ״כ שאסור לכהן ליטמא למת ומפורסם זה בכל העולם, ע״כ פשוט וברור שאפ׳ אם יבואו גדולי עולם ויאמרו להקל, אין שומעין להם.”
R. Moshe also gets personal, saying the following of the author of the kuntres:
״אין צורך אף לבדוק מי הוא המחבר הקונטרוס הלז שאף אם ת״ח אינו כלום, אבל זה גופא מעיד שלא שייך זה המחבר לא לתורה ולא לחכמה אלא גס לבו. שאף בהוראה הא ידוע מה שאמרו עליו חז״ל באבות (ד:ז) והכא גס לבו לומר דברים שרוצה נגד כללי ההוראה.”
The most elaborate heter allowing kohanim to attend medical school was written by R. Shlomo Goren, in his book, תורת הרפואה. (I read it separately in the Israeli medical journal, אסיא.)
One piece of important background information before getting into R. Goren’s heter: There are three mediums through which one becomes tameh: 1) מגע (touching tumah), 2) משא (carrying tumah), and 3) אהל (being in a room that is metameh).
R. Goren starts off by pointing out that it is much easier to allow a kohen to attend medical school in חו״ל, where most, if not all cadavers are goyish.
The Shulhan Arukh states that ״קברי עובדי עכו”ם נכון ליזהר הכהן מלילך עליהם” (י״ד שעב:ב), and Rema adds that “אע”פ שיש מקילין, ונכון להחמיר.” R. Goren says that nevertheless, in a שעת דחק גדול, a kohen may enter an ohel nochri, in accordance with Rambam (טומאת מת א:יג, based on shitas Rashbi in יבמות סא ע״א. C.f. רשב״ג (שם), who we generally follow on this).
However, while Rambam does permit a kohen to be in an ohel nochri, he does not permit a kohen to touch a mes nochri (אבל ג:ג), as virtually no authorities allow for a kohen to touch one. Therefore, a solution is required in order to allow a kohen to touch a cadaver.
The בית יוסף (י״ד שעב) quotes הגהות מיומנויות in the name of one of the Tosafits, the ספר יראים, who does permit touching a mes nochri (ס׳ שכב קפ). The ספר יראים writes that if a kohen refrains from touching a mes nochri, he should be gabentched, but there is no issue with him doing so. (“והמחמיר .תבא עליו ברכה, והמיקל לא הפסיד”) While Rema and the בית יוסף reject this (ad loc), R. Goren says that one can be somech on this minority opinion in a שעת דחק גדול.
R. Goren justifies doing so in a שעת דחק גדול because being a doctor is an important profession and a good salary. R. Goren will speak about things being allowed in a שעת דחק throughout his teshuva, but he will never explain what exactly this means nor what the halakhic justification for saying this is.
R. Goren then addresses medical schools in Eretz Yisroel, where most, if not all cadavers are Jewish. There, a different solution is needed.
The gemora in נזיר מב ע״ב discusses the concept of טומאה בחבורין, a category of טומאה וטומאה, when someone touches tumah, then again touches tumah while already being tamehfrom the first point of contact.
In this gemora, Abaye presents the following case: a kohen is carrying a mes and then touches another mes. In this case, Rabah quotes Rav Huna as saying that the kohen is not chayav malkus for the second contact he had with tumah, since “ת”ל (ויקרא כא:יב) ‘ולא יחלל’ – במי שאינו מחולל, יצא זה שהוא מחולל ועומד.” (Keep in mind the term “מחולל ועומד,” someone who is already tameh, since it will come up.)
R. Yosef then comes along and says that Rav Huna says the exact opposite- the kohen would be chayav malkus for the second contact with tumah!
The gemora is meyashev these two contradictory attributions by making the following chilik: in the case brought by Abaye, the kohen was already in contact with the first source of tumah while he touched the second; therefore, he is not chayav for this second contact. However, were the kohen to lose contact with the first source of tumah, he’d be chayav for an additional malkus once he touches the second; this would be a תוספת טומאה.
The rishonim debate whether R. Yosef or Rabah hold by this distinction made in the gemora. If R. Yosef holds by this distinction, then R. Yosef would say that a kohen is only chayav for his second contact with tumah if he detaches from the first source of tumah, and Rabah would say that he is not chayav, regardless of whether or not he is in contact with the first source. If the distinction is held by Rabah, then Rabah would say that a kohen is only chayav if he detaches from the first source of tumah, and R. Yosef would say that he is chayav, regardless of whether or not he is in contact with the first source.
(This machlokes is summarized well in the לחם משנה, נזיר ה:טז.)
Tosfos sides with Rabah holding the distinction and says that within that point of view, we hold like R. Yosef (נזיר מב ע״ב ד”ה לא קשיא). This is how Rambam also reads the gemora: A kohen is chayav for an additional malkus if he detaches from the first source of tumah, but as long as he holds onto it, he is not chayav for the second contact (אבל ג:ז, נזיר ה:טז-יז).
Raabad disagrees with Rambam and sides with R. Yosef holding the distinction, and says that within that point of view, we hold like Rabah- דטומאה וטומאה שלא בחיבורין נמי לא מחייב, וכל שכן בחיבורין (אבל ג:ז). (Also vide נזיר ה:טו-טז.)
According to Raabad, once a kohen becomes tameh, he is מחולל ועומד and there is no issues of תוספת טומאה. He can touch all the tumah he wants and will only be chayav malkus once for the original tumah which he touched.
Taking this a step further, Raabad says in the aforementioned halakha in Nezirus that “הכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהם חיוב טומאה והמחייב אותם עליו להביא ראיה.” Raabad holds that today, the metzi’is is that all kohanim are mimela tameh, by virtue of empiric reality; all kohanim bezman haze are מחולל ועומד, and תוספת טומאה does not apply, as the isur of touching more tumah does not exist. טומאה וטומאה שלא בחבורין נמי לא מחייב. Lechatchila, according to Raabad, a kohen may expose himself to tumah.
Rambam (and basically all other rabbinic authorities) disagree with this Raabad. Rambam writes:
“הטומאה לקרובים דחויה היא ולא הותרה לכל לפיכך אסור לכהן להתטמא למת אפי’ בעת שמתטמא לקרוביו שנאמר ‘לה יטמא’ אינו מטמא לאחרים עמה שלא יאמר הואיל ונטמאתי על אבי אלקט עצמות פלוני או אגע בקבר פלוני” (אבל ב:טו).
Rambam’s statement above, as well as in אבל ג:ד, that a kohen isn’t lokeh for his second contact with tumah does not mean that a kohen may lechatchila touch tumah. That a kohen technically isn’t over anything for doing so is a דחויה, not a הותרה.
R. Goren quotes Ramban in תורת כהנים, עניין כהונה:
Ramban quotes a braiso in שמחות ד:טו-טז, which rules that while a kohen is burying a korov, he may also bury a non-korov; however, once he completes the burying of the former, he may no longer partake in the burial of the latter. (This is how the Shulhan Aruck paskens, as mentioned earlier in י״ד שעג:ו.) A case is then stated where a kohen is metameh himself for a non-korov on the same day as a korov, separately. In this case, R. Tarfon says the kohen is chayav for the second contact with tumah, and R. Akiva says that is he is not. In a case where the kohen touched the second source of tumah on a different day, all agree that he would be chayav.
Ramban writes that R. Akiva paskens he is not chayav if the second contact happened on the same day as the first since there is no תוספת טומאה, as no new day of being tameh would be added to the seven-day count of becoming tohor. Conversely, if the second source of tumah was touched on a later day, that would be a תוספת טומאה, and R. Akiva would hold like R. Tarfon. Either way, Ramban holds by R. Tarfon, that he is chayav for the second contact on either day.
R. Goren says that we can learn from the aforementioned halakhos in שמחות that the debate between Rambam (and Ramban) versus Raabad is based on the debate between R. Tarfon and R. Akiva. Rambam holds by R. Tarfon (that the kohen is chayav if the second contact with tumah is removed from the first) and Raabad holds like R. Akiva regarding the first case where the kohen touches a second source of tumahon the same day as the first source (that even if the second contact is removed, he is potur due to מחולל ועומד). However, in a case where a kohen touches a second source of tumah on a later day, Raabad does not hold by R. Akiva; there, R. Akiva holds that the kohen would be chayav, since it’s a תוספת טומאה, while Raabad would hold that because הכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהם חיוב טומאה, there is no תוספת טומאה- there is no difference between a kohen touching the second source on the first day or on the second, third or fourth day- there is no תוספת טומאה no matter what.
The reason that it matters whether a kohen touches tumah on the first day or on a later day is because it affects the process of becoming tohor. On the third day of the process of becoming tohor, the kohen is sprinkled with אפר פרה, as described in במדבר, פרק יט. If kohen touched tumah a day later, his count to becoming tohor would restart, and that would be a תוספת טומאה.
Raabad reasons that because there is no אפר פרה process for purification today, there is no problem with תוספת טומאה.
For Raabad, תוספת טומאה is irrelevant, and the issue relevant is a kohen being מחולל; however, since כהנים בזמן הזה are mimela מחולל ועומד, it’s okay for a kohen to lechatchila touch tumah.
For Rambam, however, that a kohen may be מחולל ועומד does not matter, even though he isn’t chayav malkus. The drosho of ‘ולא יחלל’ – במי שאינו מחולל, יצא זה שהוא מחולל ועומד, according to Rambam, renders touching tumah a דחויה, not הותרה, and one may not do so lechatchila.
R. Goren points out that Rambam’s understanding of this is based on the Yerushalmi in נזיר ג:ה, while Raabad’s is based on the aforementioned braiso from שמחות.
Rambam: R. Goren says is “המחמירה לגמרי,” that a kohen who is metameh lekrovov may not lechatchila be metamah, as it is a דחויה.
Ramban’s shita, which Rosh (מנחות, הל׳ טומאה ו), Tosfos (נדה נז ע״א ד״ה ודילמא), the Tur, and the ב״י (vide ב״י י״ד שעג ד״ה לכל אלו מטמא) agree with. (R. Goren writes about this in the eighth simon of the teshuva.) טומאה און טומאה בחבורין איז נישט מחייב, but שלא בחבורין איז מחייב.
רבינו תם (discussed by R. Goren in the eight siman), that even שלא בחבורין is מותר לכתחילה, but תוספת טומאה, id est not hayom is not permitted. (The ב״י writes that “לענין הלכה הוה ליה רבנו תם יחידאה והלכה ככל הנך רבוותא דפליגי עליה”. However, R. Goren discusses in-depth in the tenth and twelfth simon that the זרע אברהם, בה״ג, שלטי גבורים, and שער אפרים hold similarly.)
Raabad: “מעתה טומאה וטומאה אפי’ פירש וחזר ונגע פטור והכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן, ועוד אין עליהן חיוב טומאה, והמחייב אותם עליו להביא ראיה” (נזירות ה:טו). The משנה למלך wanted to follow Raabad, as well as the ספר יראים on this, but couldn’t because, as R. Goren says, the משנה למלך felt that “אין לעשות ספק ספיקא משתי שיטות מקילות אלו אפי’ לענין היתר מגע במת עכו”ם.”
(R. Goren points out that the סמ״ג (in עשין רלא) agrees with Raabad, that today, a kohen may lechatchila touch tumah because תוספת טומאה is not an issue:
״מצאתי בשם רבינו יעקב [רבינו יעקב = רבינו תם], שבזמן הזה כהן המיטמא בבית הקברות אינו לוקה ומביא ראיה ותניא במס’ שמחות הרי שקבר את מתו ובא מת אחר כל זמן שעוסק בבית הקברות יכול לעסוק בו פירש מן הקבר אם חזר וקבר לוקה דברי ר”ע. ר”ט אומר כל היום אינו לוקה, מפני שאינו מרבה עליו ימי טומאה. ובהלכות גדולות פוסק כר”ט. ואם כן בזמן הזה מה מרבה טומאה יש כיון שמי חטאת אינם נוהגים.”
You’ll notice that the סמ״ג actually writes that he is following רבינו תם, not Raabad. Shitas Raabad and shitas רבינו תם are so similar —the minor difference is that the latter doesn’t write about כהנים בזמן הזה— that they are conflated. (R. Osher Weiss also did so in a shiur on kohanim in hospitals, where he quotes רבינו תם as holding like Raabad, as the Rosh writes in הלכות קטנות הל׳ טומאה (בסוף מנחות) ד״ה לא יטמא ואינו מטמא לאחרים עמו.)
Halakha lemaseh, however, it can be deduced that רבינו תם's shiteh is the same as Raabad's. (Vide שו״ת מהרש״ם ס׳ רלג.) Since רבינו תם holds that there is no issue if there is no תוספת טומאה and since today there is no way to eliminate tumah, there is no definitional difference between רבינו תם's hayom and not hayom; רבינו תם's concern about תוספת טומאה would not ever apply, so as long as there is no אפר פרה. I still find this shver because in order to come to this conclusion, one would have to assume that R. Tam holds that kohanim are already tameh in the first place!
However, the Arukh Hashulhan (י״ד שסט:ב) points out that this was not the סמ״ג‘s intent:
״לפירושו [הסמ״ג] דבזמן הזה כולנו טמאים מטומאת מת ואין לנו אפר פרה להטהר ואפ׳ כהן כיון שנטמא לאחד מששה מתי מצוה הרי אין לו טהרה לעולם ואינו מוסיף ימי טומאה ולכן אינו לוקה אבל איסור יש מן התורה.״
R. Moshe also writes similarly and writes about this R. Tam and Raabad beiyin in אג״מ י״ד חלק א ס׳ רל ענף ב. R. Moshe really did not like the idea of holding like the Raabad.
R. Goren says that in a שעת הדחק we should be able to be somekh on Raabad, that הכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהן חיוב טומאה, despite the משנה למלך’s objections (cited earlier); or at the least, לצרף את דעתו להתיר” לכהנים לטמא למתי עכו”ם מטעם ספק ספיקא משום שיחידאה הוא״ הראב”ד בזה ולפי דעת המל”מ היא שיטה חורגת מכל הפוסקים.” R. Goren felt the need to do this “כדי לא לבטל איסור תורה של טומאת כהנים בזמן הזה לפי הראב”ד וסיעתו ללא מגבלה.”
This is not R. Goren’s chidish. This same mechanism, that one may combine Raabad’s stance on tumah with another shita, is posited by the Noda Bihuda in the דגול מרבבה (in י״ד שעב). This would create a ספיק ספיקא on the psak halakha and allow for leniency in certain circumstances. However, the Noda Bihuda later retracted his position and writes that it is possible the Raabad only meant there is no malkus if a kohen is metameh, but it is still ossur for him to do so (as the Arukh Hashulhan quoted above writes regarding ר״ת). (R. Osher Weiss said in a shiur on kohanim in hospitals that when R. Nosson Adler visited the Noda Bihuda in Prague, R. Adler corrected the Noda Bihuda, and that is what is reflected in the דגול מרבבה‘s retraction (תשובות חתם סופר י״ד שלו-לח).)
Nevertheless, there are poskim who do hold by the Noda Bihuda’s original stance. One example is the Minchas Eluzur, who write that this idea can be utilized in order to allow kohanim to visit kivrei tsadikim (שו״ת חלק ג ס׳ כד). See the יחוה דעת חלק ד ס׳ נח, where Chacham Ovadya writes why we can’t follow this idea. Nevertheless, R. Osher Weiss in the aforementioned shiur allows this mechanism to be used in a case of great need. For some reason, R. Goren considers it possible that there is a such a thing as a שעת דחק גדול for a kohen to attend medical school; despite his hesitations, R. Goren offers a solution to the issue, one which he claims works with basically every single shita mentioned.
A piece of important background information before getting into the solution: There are different gradations and a hierarchy of levels of tumah. A mes is an אבי אב הטומאה. When someone touches a אבי אב הטומאה, the entire process described in במדבר, פרק יט is required in order to become tohor. A level down from an אבי אב הטומאה is an אב הטומאה, and a level down from that is a ראשון לטומאה, then שני, until רביעי, each one taking on different and progressively lesser effects.
When a vessel touches an אבי אב הטומאה, it becomes an אב הטומאה. Metal (a כלי מתכת), however, is the exception to this rule (תוספות נזיר נד ד״ה ת״ש and רש״י בפסחים יד ד״ה בכלל חרב. C.f. Rambam, in טומאת מת ה:ג, who does not limit this principle to just metal. Vide Arukh Hashulhan ערוך השלחן י״ד שלט ס׳ ד). When metal touches an אבי אב הטומאה, it becomes an אבי אב הטומאה as well. And if a kohen touches metal, he must go through the same process he goes through vis-a-vis a mes. This principle is called חרב הרי הוא כחלל, “a sword is like a corpse,” i.e., the halakhos pertaining to mesim pertain to metal, as both are under the category of אבי אב הטומאה. This is how the ב״י and Rema hold (in י״ד שסט:א), yet the the latter writes: “י״א דכהנים אסורים ליטמא לחרב שנטמא במת ויש מקילין וכן נהגו להקל ואין נזהרין מזה.” (The Gra (שם) concurs. This, of course, is following the shita that metal is only metameh via מגע. Rashba in his teshuvos (חלק א ס׳ תעו) discusses the various shitos on whether or not metal is metameh via אהל as well.) Even though a kohen is metameh if he touches tameh metal, strictly speaking, it is not osur for him to touch it.
With this, R. Goren proposes the following:
A kohen should wear a bracelet or necklace with a כלי מתכת that was metameh mes attached to it. It is mutar for him to to wear such a thing, and now that he is tameh, he may touch a cadaver. He is now מחולל ועומד, and has not detached from the first source of tumah; furthermore, there is no תוספת טומאה.
R. Goren states that this solution, combined with Raabad’s stance that הכהנים בזמן הזה טמאי מת הן ועוד אין עליהן חיוב טומא is sufficient to allow a kohen to attend medical school.
R. Goren also adds that כהנים בזמן בזמן הזה זענען חזקת כהנים און זיי זענען נישט כהני מיוחסים, and that’s another tsiruf to permit this heter. It should be noted that this notion that כהנים בזמן בזמן הזה זענען חזקת כהנים און זיי זענען נישט כהני מיוחסים permits a kohen to be mekil on inyanei kehunah is shver.
The idea is based on a misunderstanding of the Rambam in הל׳ איסורי ביאה פרק כ, but the Arukh Hashulhan writes harshly against those who use this Rambam in order to permit kohanim to commit issurim, saying:
“ורע עלי המעשה שראיתי לאיזה גדולים שכתבו בספריהם דכהני זמן הזה אינם כהנים ברורים וסומכים על דברי הרמב״ם אלו וחלילה לומר כן וע״י זה יש קלקולים רבים שמקילים בטומאת כהן ובנשואין ולא ניחא למרייהו דאמרת עלייהו כן״ (ערוך השלחן העתיד דיני זרעים עא:טז).
The Arukh Hashulhan explains that this ruling by Rambam is specificaly qua halakhos pertaining to תרומות and is not shayach to other matters. Furthermore, the Arukh Hashulhan points out that Rambam stating that all kohanim today are כהני חזקה means that we assume all kohanim today are kohanim and we don’t question their lineage.
R. Moshe also writes against this in אג״מ י״ד ח״א ס׳ רל :
"לע״ד לא נכון כלל דכיון דלענין טומאת מת הם נוהגין איסור והוחזקו לזה יש להו לענין זה דין כהנים ודאי."
In this same teshuva, R. Moshe refutes Raabad's stance beiyin.
Another justification R. Goren gives for his heter is as follows:
אין לטעון כנגד זה, שהרי יכול ללמוד אומנות אחרת ולאו דוקא רפואה. התשובה היא שאין אדם למד אלא מה שליבו חפץ, כמו שאמרו במס’ ע”ז (יט, א) לענין לימוד תורה. הוא הדין בשאר חכמות שבעולם כי יתכן שרק ברפואה הקרובה לליבו יראה ברכה ויצליח וגם היא מקצוע המפרנסת ומכבדת את בעליה, ונפשו חשקה במקצוע זה.
R. Goren ends off noting that this entire teshuva is unideal and really shouldn’t be followed unless it’s super necessary to do so:
“אולם עלינו להדגיש ולהזהיר בצורה ברורה שפתרון זה הוא לשעת הדחק בלבד וכאשר אין שום מוצא אחר. אבל יראי ה’ המדקדקים במצוות ונזהרים בקלה כבחמורה אל להם להשתמש בפתרון הנ”ל כל עוד יכולים הם להמנע מלהזדקק לו. וה’ יאיר עינינו במאור תורתו. ויזרוק עלינו מים טהורים להטהר בזה במהרה בימינו אמן.”
The מנחת חינוך in מצוה רסג, אות י״ג asks what the nature of the din of kohanim being metameh is: does it have to do with tumah or being קרוב למת? R. Herschel Schachter discusses this beiyun in his sefer, בעקבי הצאן, in סימן לה:
The Shach quotes the Rokeach (in י״ד שעא) that an אשת כהן מעוברת may enter a makom tameh since that she will give birth to a boy is a ספיק ספיקא —pregnancies were often not successful in those times—, and that she would have a boy was uncertain. The מגן אברהם asks how this is even a question- טהרה בלועה אינה מטמא!
R. Elchonon (in קובץ שעורים חלק ב סימן מא) and R. Chaim Ozer (in אחיעזר סימן ס״ה אותיות ו-ז) write that the reasoning of ספיק ספיקא is actually necessary, because there is a הבא אמינא that an אשת כהן מעוברת should not enter a makom tameh: התקרבות למת. Based on this, R. Schachter explains that the essence of a kohen touching tumah has to do with התקרבות למת, coming close to a mes, so much so that even if a kohen isn’t metameh, he can still be over on the isur of התקרבות למת. As R. Schachter writes, “איסורה איכה לכהן שלא יתקרב למת אפ׳ באופן שאין מתטמא בכך.”
The following three examples illustrate this idea:
The Mechaber and Rema (in י״ד שע) and Tosfos (נזיר מג) write that a kohen may not be in the same room as a גוסס. The reasoning generally assumed for this is lest the גוסס die and the kohen immediately become tameh. However, R. Schachter quotes R. Chaim Ozer and is doche this reasoning, since a kohen may also not be in the same room as a relative who is a גוסס, despite the fact that once the relative passes away, he may be מטמא מת for the relative. Even if the גוסס survives, the kohen is still over on the isur התקרבות למת.
There is a מחלוקת אחרונים on whether or not a kohen may touch אפר השרופים (vide פתחי תשובה י״ד שסט קב), since אהלות ב:ב states that אפר השרופים are not metameh. R. Schachter says that if we hold by those who say that a kohen may not, it is due to התקרבות למת; one can be over an isur tumah without actually becoming tameh. And if we say that a kohen may touch the אפר השרופים, it is because the אפר השרופים do not have a ״שם מת״ and touching it would not be התקרבות למת. This is based on the gemora in נדה כז, at the bottom of the second omud; the idea is that since the original form has been significantly altered, it takes on a status as a totally different entity. (R. Daniel Wolff develops this concept in his book, מנחה טהורה, where he writes about properties having a זהות of tumah, and how that affects its status.)
The third example illustrating the idea of התקרבות למת is R. Schachter’s rejection of a “חכם אחד מכחמי זמננו,” a.k.a. R. Goren: R. Schachter writes as follows:
״והנה לפי דרכנו נתבאר, דליתא להך היתרא. דטאמא דשרינן לכהן להתטמא בטומאת חרב הרי הוא כחלל הינו משום דמעיקר הדין תפסינן להל׳ דרדר האיסור בטומאת כהנים הוא שלא להתרקב למת. וממילא פשוט וברור דמאי דמודו כ״ע דבעודו בחיבורין עם מת אחד שרי ליגע במת שני, דהיינו דווקא אם הוא בחיבורין עם טומאת חרב ה״ה כחלל, אף דע״י מה שיגע עכשיו במת לא יתוסף לו שום טומאה על טומאתו הקודמת, עדיין י״ל דאסור לדעת הרמב״ם והרוקח וכל הפוסקים הנ״ל, דאיסורא איכא לכהן שלא יתקרב למת, אפ׳ באופן שאינו מתטמא בכך.״
I have heard of a certain talmid chochom who allowed kohanim to go to medical school if all of the following criteria are fulfilled:
They desperately want to go to medical school
The cadavers are goyish
They never touch a cadaver no matter what
One version I heard is that they excel in medical school so that it could be considered פיקוח נפש to attend, the other version I heard is that they become the next godol in science so that it could be פיקוח נפש.
This seems shver, as it still goes against the aforementioned Shulhan Arukh and Rema in י״ד שעב:ב. Furthermore, in the aforementioned R. Osher Weiss shiur, R. Weiss allows kohanim to be in an אהל מת נכרי when necessary to be mekil, but these leniences were for very specific cases of needs— not for pursuing a career which one need not pursue. Additionally, R. Moshe’s teshuva seems clear that we may not rely on a das yuchid for this matter nor be mekil, and the פיקוח נפש card does not hold up.
Lastly, the Avnei Nezer writes that "אך להורות היתר ברור במקום שהרמ״א כתב טוב להחמיר לאחר שרואין פוסקין המקילין לא ידעתי" (שו״ת ס׳ תסז).
R. Chaim Hirschensohn discusses kohanim attending medical school in his sefer, מלכי בקדש, in חלק ג-ד. In שאלה ה, R. Hirschensohn notes that in 1915/1916, Rabbi Dr. Bernard Revel and Rabbi Dr. Elyakim Goldenberg (see info about the latter here) wrote in the journal יגדיל תורה, שנה הלז about the מח׳ רמב״ם ראב"ד, and paskened that kohanim may not attend medical school. R. Hirschensohn describes the two as sticking strictly to Torah and not bending to anyone. (He also writes that they can dissect a suyge like they dissect anatomy.) For himself, however, he writes:
״אמנם אנכי לא כן עמדי ודעתי שבזמן הזה כל המרבה למצא התר ע״פ דרכי התורה להדברים אשר העם להוט בולמסם מצוה להתיר למען לא יעשום באיסור.״
In תשובה לשאלה ה (on p. 153), R. Hirschensohn writes out all of the sugyes that R. Goren writes several decades later, excluding the solution of חרב ה״ה כחלל, but in much, much greater depth.
R. Hirschensohn closes his teshuva by writing that we generally stick to the approach that kohanim may not go to medical school and should not place themselves in situations in which there are mesim or in which there is tumah.
Still, R. Hirschensohn concludes that someone who badly desires to study medicine may rely on the Raabad as well as other minority mekil shitos and do so. He writes that it is unlikely that a cadaver will be jewish anyways, a goyish cadaver is not מטמא באבל, and if a kohen has to touch it, יש על מה לסמוך, i.e., the ספר יריאים, mentioned in the beginning of this post, which is rejected by Rema and the ב״י. This heter is significantly more mekil than R. Goren’s! R. Hirschensohn writes that a motivation for his allowance is that there were few young adults in his time who were יראי חטא כ״כ to care enough to follow הל׳ טומאה.
The Radatz has a teshuva (in מלמד להועיל א״ח ד׳ לא) on if a kohen in medical school is allowed to receive an aliyah. He writes that for a kohen in medical school who thinks that what he is doing is permitted, since as a doctor he will help others and since the cadavers are goyish, he should not be rebuked by the rav; it is unlikely that the student will be mekabel and drop out of medical school, as only a complete יראי שמים would do such a thing. However, if the kohen is aware that he is metame mes on the daily, he should be barred from receiving an aliyah, since it may chalila imply that the community is okay with that this kohen is doing.
Regarding a rabbi who gives a heter to a kohen to attend medical school, the Rambam (אבל ג:ה) writes that a one who causes a kohen to be metameh is over on לא תתן מכשל and is chayav malkus.
A kohen may not touch a mes, whether the mes is jewish or goyish.
A kohen should not be in the same room as even a mes nochri. There is room for leniency if necessary.
Going to medical school is not פיקוח נפש, and R. Moshe thinks that anyone who taynes such a thing is, meforesh, stupid.
כהנים בזמנו הזה adhere to the principles of tumah, according to virtually every single rishon and acharon, with the exception of almost none but a few. That kohanim have already come into contact with tumah before does not warrant them to continue to do so.
R. Goren’s heter is accepted by no one. R. Yosef Soloveitchik called it a “בזיון התורה” to follow it (מפניני הרב עמ׳ רא).
R. Moshe writes that ”אפ׳ אם יבואו גדולי עולם ויאמרו להקל, אין שומעין להם,” and we therefore cannot be mekil on this issue.
It is imperative that kohanim tell their sons from a young age that they may not attend medical school. As Rambam writes, ״כהן קטן הרי הגדולים מוזהרים שלא יטמאוהו… אביו צריך לחנכו בקדושה״ (אבל ג:יב).
R. Soloveitchik one time recounted a giyores who met a secular Jew and encouraged him to become shomer mitzvos. They became engaged and the couple visited the choson’s paternal grandfather’s cemetery before the wedding. There they discovered that his grandfather was a kohen. R. Soloveitchik said the following:
“What can we do? This is the halakha. A kohen may not marry a convert. We surrender to the will of the Almighty. On the other hand, to say that the halakha is not sensitive to problems and is not responsive to the needs of people is an outright falsehood. The halakha is responsive to the needs of both the community and the individual. However, the halakha has its own orbit, moves at a certain definitive speed, has its own pattern of responding to a challenge, and possesses its own criteria and principles.
I come from a rabbinical house- the beis horav. This is the house into which I was born. Believe me, Rav Chaim used to try his best to be meikel. But there were limits even to Rav Chaim’s kulos. When you reach the boundary line, all you can say is “I surrender to the will of the Almighty.”
With sadness in my heart, I shared in the suffering of the poor woman or the poor girl. She was instrumental in bringing him back to the fold then she had to lose him. She lost him. She walked away.” (Quoted in The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Vol. 2, p. 35)
This same idea applies to a kohen with an interest in a career as a physician: He can’t do it. (That is, as long as cadavers are required; R. Moshe points out that in the times of rishonim, there were Kohanim who became doctors, since cadavers were not used.) It’s no different than eating treif or wearing shatnez. (Contrary to R. Goren saying “כדי לפתור את בעיתם של הסטודנטים הכהנים יראי ה’ החפצים ללמוד חכמת הרפואה ואי אפשר להם לעשות זאת מבלי לעסוק באנטומיה.” C.f. R Goren also saying: יראי ה’ המדקדקים במצוות” ונזהרים בקלה כבחמורה אל להם להשתמש בפתרון הנ”ל כל עוד יכולים הם להמנע מלהזדקק לו.”) If this is what a kohen desires, he must say, “I surrender to the will of the Almighty.” Or be chayav malkus (רמב״ם אבל ג:א).