Halakhah Study Group 007

1:
We have already seen that every effort should be made to ensure that the pedigree (or rather, the assumed pedigree) of the priests and Levites not be accidentally brought into question. The second of the paragraphs above actually explains the first.

2:
A Kohen, as has been established, is always to be invited first to read from the Torah (if there is a Kohen present). If a Kohen has received the first honour but there is no Levite to come after him that same Kohen reads the second Aliyyah which would have been given to a Levite had one been present in the synagogue. That is to say, if no Levite is available, when he has recited the blessing after reading the Torah the Kohen once again recites the blessings to be read before reading the Torah (including Barekhu) and the second Aliyyah is read. (Afterwards, of course, he recites the second blessing.)

3:
The reason for this should now be obvious: there is no Levite present; if an Israelite were called in place of the Levite the possibility is created that people might wrongly assume that some disqualification had suddenly been discovered in the pedigree of the Kohen and that is why he is being replaced. The same erroneous possibility is invited if one Kohen would be followed by a different Kohen in place of the Levite. Therefore, the second paragraph above, stipulates that the same Kohen reads both Aliyyot.

4:
The meaning of the first paragraph now becomes clear: if a Kohen has already received the first Aliyyah and it is mistakenly thought that there is no Levite present in the synagogue to receive the second Aliyyah, the Kohen is accorded the honour a second time, as we have seen. If it suddenly transpires that there is indeed a Levite present and the Kohen has already started reciting the blessings a second time he is not to be interrupted. He is to complete the second Aliyyah as if there was no Levite available. Again, the reason is so that no aspersions be inadvertently cast on his pedigree.

5:
We have established previously that in the absence of a Kohen the Levite loses his right of precedence and need not be called first in place of a Kohen. On the other hand, we have also seen that there is no reason not to call him first if that is the desire of the congregation. However, what may not be done is to call two Levites one after the other. The reason is now, of course, obvious: calling one Levite after another might cast inadvertant aspersions on the pedigree of the first.

Concerning the qualifications of priests who may ascend the Dukhan in order to invoke the priestly blessing I wrote that it would be socially problematic to investigate whether any given Kohen is sabbath observant and has never, even unwittingly and unintentionally, shed human blood. Josh Greenfield writes:

The Shulhan Arukh in OC 128:39 says that only bloodshed and apostasy prevent a Kohen from performing this mitzvah – "even if [the Kohen] is not scrupulous in performing the mitzvot." The Rema in his gloss makes it clear as well that aside from the exceptions mentioned, other aveirot do not disqualify a Kohen from performing Birkat
Kohanim. The Mishnah Berurah there cites the Rambam, who explains that you wouldn't want to tell someone who has transgressed a commandment that they have to now add further non-performance of a commandment on top of
that by not taking part in Birkat Kohanim. So I don't know why you say that shabbat observance is an issue in this regard.

I respond:

The situation is not as simple as Josh presents it. Rambam, in his great code, Mishneh Torah [Tefillah 15:1] gives six matters which might disqualify a Kohen from the Dukhan, one of which is "sin". Later in that same chapter he defines the disqualifying sins as being bloodshed and apostasy. (It is quite true that he adds that these are the only sins that might prevent a Kohen from taking part in this ceremony.) However, many authorities, throughout the centuries, in differing countries and in different cultures, have classed sabbath desecration as being equivalent to apostasy. For instance, just to cite one very popular composition, Rabbi Shlomo Ganzfried in his Kitzur Shulĥan Arukh [72:2] writes:

It is clear that such severity is quite out of place in a Conservative congregation, but it does indicate that the authorities quoted by Josh may well have assumed that 'apostasy' includes sabbath desecration. However, modern authorities have taken a much more liberal attitude and distinguish between people who desecrate the sabbath because it has no meaning for them at all and those who desecrate the sabbath even though they recognize its inherent sanctity. Rabbi Ovadya Yosef, for example, in Yabbi'a Omer after much soul-searching permits the latter kind of Kohen to take part in the ceremony. This is why I added: If a Kohen protests that he is sabbath observant and to the best of his knowledge has never killed another human being, your rabbi would not stand in his way.

---

I wrote (in response to Dan Werlin): Some of these variations mentioned by Dan seem very strange to me! To call a non-Kohen in place of a Kohen and then to say bimĥilat ha-Kohen does not make sense. The phrase means "with the permission of the Kohen", but we have already seen that the Kohen does not have that right…

Josh Greenfield again writes:

I imagine the concern Dan Werlin had here was that people in the shul should know that the Kohen wasn't being ignored and was merely unavailable for the aliyah. Perhaps another response would be to clarify that the assumption is that people in shul who see the Kohen will also see that the Kohen is busy reciting the shema, and won't worry about the aliyah going to someone else.

I comment:

I agree. See below.

---

I wrote: The Rema (basing himself on Maharik) suggests that … it would be best if non-fasting priests were to temporarily leave the sanctuary. Michal Roth asks:

According to the Maharik, what is to be done when the Kohen that is not fasting, and is the only Kohen present, is the tenth man of the Minyan (that is to say that if he should step out for a minute there would be no Minyan)?

I respond:

In such circumstances, obviously, the Kohen would have to remain in the sanctuary: he would make it obvious by his behaviour that he is engaged in his prayers and therefore cannot be disturbed.