Halakhah Study Group 006

1:
This paragraph is still concerned with the order of procedure to be followed if there is no Kohen in the synagogue when the moment comes to start reading the Torah. What we noted in the previous shiur is repeated in this paragraph: that if there is no Kohen present (or available) in the synagogue and Israelite is called first instead. You will find the rationale for this in the previous shiur.

2:
However, what happens if immediately after an Israelite has been called in place of an absent or unavailable Kohen, a Kohen does present himself? The present paragraph makes procedure in such a case clear: if the Israelite has already started reciting the blessing before the reading he must continue through to the end of his Aliyyah. This could not be otherwise, for having recited the blessing if he we not to continue with the reading from the Torah he would have made a 'pointless blessing'. Making a 'pointless blessing' is very wrong because it involves the needless mentioning of the Divine names (Adonai, Elohenu), which is deemed to be in contravention of one of the Ten Commandments (not to take God's Name in vain).

3:
In his commentary on this paragraph, Mishnah Berurah, Rabbi Israel Meir Kagan goes even further. He writes that even though there is now a Kohen standing in the synagogue the Israelite should not stop because there is no danger that people would assume that the newcomer was a disqualified Kohen because they would all have seen him arrive late – or they would assume that a mistake had been made when they announced that there was no Kohen present. Now the Mishnah Berurah continues: on a Shabbat morning, when more than three people are called to the Torah, this Israelite is considered one of the seven who must be called and there is no need to call a Kohen at any stage in the reading after him – even if there really was a Kohen present at the start and they called the Israelite in error. Indeed, he adds, not only is there no need to call a Kohen thereafter but this should be positively avoided, so as not to call the lineage of the Kohen into doubt.

4:
All that we have said so far is on the assumption that the Israelite 'replacing' the Kohen has already started reciting his blessing when the Kohen enters the synagogue. However, the invocation 'Barekhu is not part of the blessing: it is just that – an invocation. When the Israelite invites the congregation to praise God ( Barekhu et Adonai ha-mevorakh) the congregation responds (Barukh Adonai ha-mevorakh le-olam va-ed) so nothing 'pointless' has been said. In such circumstances the Israelite can stand to one side at the Reading Desk while the Kohen completes his Aliyyah (and the Levite after him), and then the Israelite can have his Aliyyah. He does not leave the Reading Desk so as not to shame him.

5:
We have now noted on several occasions that in the absence of a Kohen the Levite loses all his rights and privileges as regards Torah Reading, and an Israelite replaces the absent Kohen. However, Rabbi Mosheh Isserles now makes explicit something that I had already implied in the previous shiur: although the Levite now has no greater rights than an Israelite neither is his right any less than that of the Israelite. Therefore, when a Kohen is not present (or available) in the synagogue a Levite may be called in place of the Kohen: this may be done, but it does not have to be done. However, if an Israelite were called instead of a Kohen and a Levite is called some time afterwards it should be made clear (see below) that he is a Levite, so that his lineage not be impugned in error.

6:
Whenever an Israelite is called first to replace an absent Kohen it should be made clear when calling him that he is bimkom Kohen, in place of a Kohen, to avoid all misconceptions.

Dan Werlin writes:

If a Yisrael or Levi were to be called in place of a Kohen who is reading the Shema, presumably, the Kohen would not be asked or expected to leave the shul, right?

I respond:

Right.

Dan continues:

If such a case, with what prefatory remarks would the Yisrael or Levi be called to the aliyah? "bimichilat hakohanim?" "bimkom kohen"? "af al pi sheh-yesh kan kohen"? No mention at all? Something else? [I have only heard these usages when a Kohen is present AND available for an aliyah but it was nevertheless given to another (on Shabbat Mincha or a weekday leining) in order to accommodate a chiyyuv or because there was no Levi present and the gabbai did not want two of the three aliyot to consistently go to the same person.]

I respond:

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 the right to forego this privilege: 'it is his duty to exercise his privilege'. Just as strange is the use of the phrase af-al-pi she-yesh kan kohen ("Even though a Kohen is present"): if there is a kohen present by what authority has he been denied his duty and privilege? I fully understand the needs that Gabbayim have to accommodate people who feel that must have an Aliyyah: before the Torah Reading began the Gabbai should have quietly asked the Kohen to leave the synagogue until after the Israelite had begun reciting his Berakhah.

---

Yiftah Shapir asks concerning the usage of his own congregation:

I want to better understand our congregation's position on the subject: on one hand we are strict about giving the first Aliyah to a Kohen. On the other hand we never let them perform Birkat Kohanim – not even on Yom Kippur. Besides – are we sure that all those who are treated as Kohanim are Kohanim?

I respond:

All Kohanim today are such by presumption only. When the Bet Mikdash was in existence strict records were kept as regards lineage, but this has not been the case for almost two millennia. Today a Kohen is a Kohen because he says so (presumably because his father told him so). We recognise his claim out of tradition and because it does not cost anyone else anything to grant him this recognition. Birkat Kohanim is not a privilege: it is a duty, a mitzvah of the Torah [Numbers 6:24]. However, not every Kohen is permitted to perform this mitzvah. Two major stumbling-blocks that stand in his way are sabbath observance and bloodshed. In the circumstances of a modern Israeli congregation it would be socially problematic to investigate whether any given Kohen is sabbath observant and has never, even unwittingly and unintentionally, shed human blood. (Think of all the Kohanim who have served in the army…)

However, having said that, 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. (Do not ask me how I know: I just know [grin].)