Halakhah Study Group 009

1:
Paragraph 11 continues the discussion concerning priests being called to the Torah. We have seen throughout this section that an effort is being made by the various poskim [decisors] to avoid any possible misunderstanding concerning the pedigree of a Kohen or a Levi. Paragraph 11 deals with two items. The first item is concerned with a situation in which the cantor mistakenly calls to read from the Torah a Kohen (or a Levi) who is not present. Rabbi Karo cites 'one authority' which states that in such circumstances another Kohen (or Levi) should come forward to read without being called by name, so that even inadvertantly he should not create the possible impression that the named Kohen was suffering under some defect of pedigree. Karo does not name this authority – though we know that he must be referring to Hagahot Maimoniyyot. This is a commentary that performs for Rambam's Mishneh Torah a function similar to that performed by Isserles for the Shulĥan Arukh: that is to say, it annotes the Sefaradi customs of Mishneh Torah with those of the Ashkenazi school of western Europe. Like the work of the contemporary Tosafists, this commentary contains the views of several scholars; so it may be that Karo refrained from mentioning the 'authority' by name because he did not know who it was. On the other hand, he may have had a more worrying reason for not wishing to cite the authority by name; we shall return to this later on. (Since the compilers of the Hagahot Maimoniyyot were students of Rabbi Me'ir ben-Barukh of Rothenberg (1220-1293) the anonymous 'authority' is almost certainly Rabbi Me'ir of Rothenberg.)

2:
Paragraph 11 also takes into account the possibility that the cantor himself may be a Kohen. (The term 'cantor' in this context refers to the synagogue functionary who is actually calling the worshippers to read from the Torah.) What is of concern here is that if Cantor Cohen calls another Kohen to read from the Torah people might assume that he has done so because he himself may not be called first to read from the Torah. However, it is acceptable to assume that people would know and understand that Cantor Cohen is merely acting as a functionary and there would be no likelihood that people would draw the wrong conclusions.

3:
Paragraph 12 is concerned with a congregation which consists almost entirely of priests (or almost entirely of Levites). At first glance it might be thought that this is so remote a possibility that it is almost ridiculous to legislate for such a situation. But we must not judge halakhah only by our own times. We, Conservative Jews, justly claim that the sages must determine the law for each generation and place according to its needs and circumstances. In medieval Europe it was quite possible – indeed almost probable – that there would be congregations consisting mainly of priests or Levites. The orthodox Rabbi Louis Rabinowitz, in an essay entitled "France in the 13th Century", writes as follows:

Under such circumstances it surely would not have been unusual for a father and his sons, all priests, to be the only Jewish family in a community. Thus we see that Paragraph 12 is dealing with what was once a very real issue. Far from dismissing it we should study it carefully, for it contains very important repercussions for our own day and age and for our own Conservative congregations.

4:
The Shulĥan Arukh makes two provisions for such a situation. If, in this congregation of priests there is one Israelite the tables are turned as it were. The Israelite should be called first to read from the Torah "in order to preserve the peace". In HSG 003 (explanation 6) I wrote:

It should now be clear that it should be the same logic that prompted our sages to accord to a Kohen the right to be called first to the Torah that prompts them to accord that privilege to a sole Israelite in a congregation of priests.

5:
The second provision of the Shulĥan Arukh in Paragraph 12 is for a congregation which either consists entirely of priests or where there are not enough Israelites to fill the remaining slots. Rabbi Karo's solution in such a circumstance is that the priests may read one after the other because there would be no aspersions cast on their pedigree since everyone knows that there are only priests there.

6:
This solution of the Shulĥan Arukh, while being logical, completely ignores a medieval 'authority' which legislated a very different solution to the problem. This 'authority' is none other than that same 'authority' which Karo refrained from quoting by name in Paragraph 11 (see Explanation #1 above). Is it possible that he just did not want to jog our halakhic memories? In a responsum (Collected Responsa, Part 4, #108) Rabbi Me'ir of Rothenberg writes as follows:

The students of Rabbi Me'ir of Rothenberg, the authors of Hagahot Maimoniyot, as we have seen, quote his decision, and carry the discussion one step further. They state [in their comment on Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Tefillah 12:19] that "in a congregation in which all are priests and which has no women or slaves or minors, the Torah may not be read at all"!!! (Curious.)

The segregation of the sexes in Jewish worship is of late provenage (and it may possibly have been instigated by this same Rabbi Me'ir of Rothenberg). Rabbi Israel Abrahams in his Jewish Life in the Middle Ages wrote as follows: