Halakhah Study Group 004

1:
The Torah [Leviticus 21:1-15] details certain restrictions that are placed upon the descendents of Aaron, the priests. Parallel to this, the Torah also requires the rest of the people to respect the sanctity of the Kohen:

The concept of the sanctity of the Kohen is problematic for those of us whose general thought processes derive from modern western culture. This is because the concept of the 'holy' in our society has been influenced from two major sources: ancient western paganism and medieval Christianity. The former left as its legacy the concept of the holy being numinous: the inherent presence of the deity creating a special aura which could be felt by those appropriately attuned. The latter held that a person, by the dedication of their life and the subjugation of their humanity to God's divinity, could attain sanctity, sainthood. Thus, according to this legacy, a person is holy either because God has clearly filled them with His presence or because they have filled themselves with God's presence, as it were. None of this really corresponds to the biblical concept of holiness.

2:
The Hebrew root קדש originally indicates that something (or someone) is 'dedicated' to the deity, therefore, by implication, also removed, inaccessible, untouchable, taboo. For example: Israel is 'a holy nation' [Exodus 19:6] because Israel is dedicated to the service of God; on the other hand, God is holy by implication: God is 'removed, inaccessible, untouchable', and the appurtenances of His worship are definitely 'taboo'. The ancient Hebrew mind would automatically associate the appropriate meaning to the root.

Thus, the biblical record is not speaking of a Kohen who is holy because he has been filled him with God's awesome presence, nor is he holy because he has subjugated his humanity to the perceived divine behest. His sanctity is not inherent in the Kohen as the individual which he is, but is imposed by virtue of his have been dedicated to specific tasks by the Source of Sanctity. Thus this sanctity is not dependent on the personal characteristics of the individual Kohen, be they good, bad or indifferent. It is for this reason also that the Kohen may not forego his sanctity: he is held to be sanctified by divine command and therefore he is bound by this command subjectively no less than his fellow Jews are bound by it objectively. The original idea seems to have been that the priest forgoes his personal convenience by dedicating himself to the upkeep of the divine ritual, therefore he is entitled to some modicum of respect and appreciation from his fellows.

3:
In those congregations where the rights and duties of the Kohen are still observed, the duty to call a Kohen first to the Torah is absolute. He may not waive his right and duty, since these were established in order to preserve the peace, as we have seen. If the priest were permitted to waive his right to be the first to read from the Torah the old problem of a scramble for precedence would return. Thus the right, while remaining a right, also becomes a duty. Perhaps we should say that it is his duty to exercise the right, and in doing so he is promoting peace within the Jewish people. Therefore, the Kohen may not yield this right of his even for the greatest Torah scholar of the age. This is a duty imposed on him by the sages and it is not his personal privilege to generously allocate to others at will.

4:
However, it is recognized that an anomalous situation could arise in which the only priest present in the synagogue might be illiterate. In earlier times each person called to the reading of the Torah did not recite a blessing. The blessing was over the whole reading, not each individual section of it. Therefore, the custom was that the first person to be called would recite the blessing customary before reading from the Torah and the last person to be called, upon completion of the reading, would recite the blessing customary after the reading. If the first person is a Kohen and that Kohen is illiterate, how can he recite the blessing over reading from the Torah? – he will not be reading! When we reach the time and place of Rabbi David ben-Yosef Abudraham (Spain in the 14th Century CE), we find him already 'finding excuses'. Even if the Kohen cannot read from the Torah himself, if he can follow the reading of the Torah Reader and whisper the words with him, word for word, he is entitled to be called first to the Torah. Centuries later the problem had not only not been solved but had become even more problematic – to such an extent that we find great sages prepared to completely ignore the illiteracy of the Kohen in order to maintain his right to be called first to the Torah. Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan, that great authority of the early 20th century, basing himself on an even earlier 17th century authority, in his commentary on Oraĥ Ĥayyim "Mishnah Berurah", states that

In some parts of the Jewish world today I do not know how easily that assumption can still be made – that every Kohen 'can at least mouth the words with the Torah Reader'. My guess is that Hebrew literacy is not the legacy of every Jew, including within our own Movement. This would be a further argument in the arsenal of those who beleive that it is now appropriate to divest the Kohen of his privilege to read first from the Torah: if it cannot be assumed that he 'can mouth the words with the Torah Reader' he is no better and no worse than any other Jew in this regard.

Derek Fields writes:

This is tangential to the Shiur, but is raised by your discussion of the modern privileges of the priesthood. We have been having a discussion recently in my house about Pidyon HaBen. Our question is whether the first-born son of a man’s second wife would require Pidyon HaBen if the man has a son by his first wife? In other words, is the requirement for Pidyon HaBen determined by a) whether the father is Yisrael, b) whether the mother is Bat Yisrael, and c) whether the child is her first-born and naturally-delivered son, regardless of whether the father has other children?

I respond:

Whether or not a son is a first-born son is determined by the status of the mother. It is possible for each woman to bear a first-born son only once in her lifetime. The Torah [Exodus 13:11-13] describes this first parturition as פטר רחם, 'the newborn which opens the womb': if this newborn is a male it is dedicated to God, as it were, and must be redeemed from that dedication.

Without going into details we should say that 'newborn male which opens the womb' is understood by the sages as implying conditions: 'opening the womb' must be natural, thus precluding, for instance, a ceasarian section; the newborn must be male, not female. Therefore a male child born after a caesarian section or after a female child had been born previously is not deemed as answering to the requirement of 'newborn male which opens the womb'. (For practical details please ask your rabbi.)

From what I have written it should be clear that it is quite possible that a Jewish man might have to redeem a son more than once, if two or more women bear him a firstborn son. If the man is a Kohen or Levi or if the mother is the daughter of a Kohen or Levi the requirement of Pidyon ha-Ben is obviated. Thus, the answer to all of Derek's questions is 'Yes'.