Siman 135

The Rambam wrote at the beginning of chapter 12 of the Laws of Prayer: Moses our teacher ordained for Israel that they should read the Torah in public on Shabbat, Monday, and Thursday during the morning service, so that they should not remain for three days without hearing the Torah. And Ezra ordained that they should read it during the afternoon service on every Shabbat for the sake of the idlers. And he also ordained that on Monday and Thursday three people should read, and they should read no fewer than ten verses. Thus far his words. That is to say: regarding Shabbat morning, Moses our teacher ordained what to read, namely the entire weekly portion on its Shabbat and seven called-up readers. But regarding Monday and Thursday, he did not ordain how many readers or how many verses, and one reader and one verse would have sufficed. Then Ezra came and ordained the number. All of this is explained in Bava Kamma (82a). And the meaning of "idlers," Rashi explained as "shopkeepers" who did not read on Monday and Thursday, see there. And he ordained an additional reading before them even though they read in the morning. And some explain: so that they should not go and become intoxicated at the street corners, as that is a time of drunkenness. Therefore, he ordained a reading so that they would come to the synagogue. And this is why we say the verse "And as for me, may my prayer to You, Hashem, be at an auspicious time" on Shabbat during the afternoon service, because previously it is written: "Those who sit at the gate talk about me, and I am the song of drunkards." And David said: They sit and become intoxicated at the street corners, and I come to the synagogue and pray before You; for it is an auspicious time, as even Elijah was only answered during the afternoon prayer (Shita Mekubetzet ibid.).

And so Moshe our teacher instituted the reading of the Torah for the festivals, Rosh Chodesh, and Chol HaMoed, as we learned in the fourth chapter of Megillah (31a): On Pesach we read..., as it is said: "And Moshe declared the festivals of Hashem to the children of Israel" – their commandment is that they should read each and every one in its time. And so we learned in the Yerushalmi there, and the Rif and the Rosh cited them there: Moshe instituted for Israel that they should read from the Torah on Shabbatot, Yamim Tovim, Roshei Chodashim, and Chol HaMoed, as it is said: "And Moshe declared...". And the Yerushalmi added "Shabbatot" which is not in the Mishnah. And the readings of Tisha B'Av and public fasts were instituted afterward automatically; and also by the decree of Moshe our teacher, since he instituted to read every matter in its time. And the haftarot were mentioned in the Mishnah of Megillah there, and it appears that the Men of the Great Assembly instituted this. And automatically it is necessary to read some verses in the Torah as well, so that one should not read Prophets without Torah. And the reading of the Torah for Maftir on the festivals, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur was not mentioned in the Gemara. And the Geonim instituted it to read from the Musaf offerings in "Pinchas." But the reading of the Maftir of Rosh Chodesh that falls on Shabbat and of the four parshiot were mentioned in the Mishnah there, and it appears that this is also from the institutions of the Men of the Great Assembly. And parashat "Zachor" is from the Torah, and some say that parashat "Parah" is also from the Torah. And they will be explained in their place with the help of Heaven. (The Bach in siman 284 wrote that the haftarah was due to a decree that they decreed not to read from the Torah, see there.)

And how many called-to-the-Torah ascend on Monday and Thursday, and on Shabbat at Mincha? Three; one may not decrease from them and one may not add to them because of the neglect of work. And on Shabbat at Mincha, even though there is no neglect of work, nevertheless the sages did not wish to burden them excessively, because they were accustomed to lecturing all day (Rashi Megillah 21a). And furthermore: for they already read in the morning. And likewise, one does not read a haftarah from the Prophets because of the reasons that have been explained. And the number of three corresponds to the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and corresponds to Kohanim, Levites, and Israelites (Gemara ibid.). And the number of verses is no fewer than ten, corresponding to the Ten Commandments, and corresponding to the ten utterances with which the world was created (ibid.). And there are additional reasons in the Gemara there. And two read three verses each, and one reads four. And who is the one who reads four will be explained in siman 137.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 1: And if there were two bridegrooms in the beit kenset, and they are Israelites – it is permitted to add and call up four, for to them it is like a Yom Tov where it is permitted to add. And it appears that the same law applies regarding two ba'alei brit, for it is their Yom Tov. Thus far his words. This matter was written by the Mordechai in the name of Riva, and the Hagahot Maimoniyot in the name of Ritzba. However, we have never heard of anyone who would do so, and so wrote the Acharonim (Levush and Magen Avraham and Taz). Furthermore: for even on Yom Tov our custom is not to add. Nevertheless, it appears in my humble opinion that in a place where it could lead to dispute, we can rely on these words of our teachers and call up both of them, and the fourth shall read what the third read. However, according to the custom, one ascends to the Torah and one for hagbahah, and similarly with other obligations. (The Taz, subsection 2, wrote at length to question the Ritzba and our teacher, the Rema: what comparison is there between a festival of an individual and a festival of the public? And also because of bitul melachah, see there. And I wonder, for this is what he is saying: in a place where there is necessity and a chance occurrence, and the congregation forgives – there is room to say that this is not like one who violates the enactment of the sages, for they permitted us in such a case. Examine and you will find it easy.)

The place where they conclude on Shabbat morning, which is the end of the parashah—there they begin at Mincha, which is from the parashah of the coming Shabbat. They repeat it on Monday, and triple it on Thursday. And why did they not ordain that on Monday they should read a second section, and on Thursday a third section? Because since this reading does not count toward the total at all, as on the coming Shabbat they will begin from the start of the parashah, if so, why should we burden them to read new material? It is sufficient with the first section for Mincha, Monday, and Thursday. This is a dispute of Tannaim at the end of Megillah (31b), and in the Gemara the halacha was ruled accordingly. The reason appears to be as I have written. And according to this, it appears in my humble opinion that even though on Shabbat if they erred and read a different parashah they certainly return and read the parashah of the time, nevertheless at Mincha and on Monday and Thursday when they erred and read a different section, from this parashah or from another—they do not need to return and read. For since it does not count toward the public reading, as on the coming Shabbat they will read it anew, and it was only ordained so that there should not be three days without Torah, and for the sake of the "corner-sitters"—therefore, with whatever they read, they have fulfilled their obligation. And even if they remembered in the middle of the reading, it appears in my humble opinion that what they read—they read, and the remainder should be read from what is required to be read today. And if one skipped a single verse, it will be explained in siman 137.

Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 2 that if they missed the reading of the parashah in public for one Shabbat, on the following Shabbat they read that parashah along with the parashah belonging to that Shabbat. Thus far his words. And the same law applies if they left off in the middle—they read on the following Shabbat from the place where they left off along with the sidra belonging to that Shabbat. And there is one who says that if on that Shabbat that they missed there were two joined sidrot, they do not read them on the following Shabbat, because we do not find that they read three sidrot at once (Magen Avraham, subsection 4). And according to this, the same law applies if on the following Shabbat there will be two sidrot, that they also do not read. And these are astonishing matters: for since it is an obligation to complete what they did not read, what does it matter to me if it is two or if it is three? And even if they did not read for several Shabbatot, it appears that it is an obligation to complete them all, and so I saw one who ruled thus in practice (Eliyah Rabbah, subsection 2, and he brought this also from Hagahat Minhagim). And so too there is one who says that if they missed the sidra at the end of a book—they should not read it on the following Shabbat with the sidra of the second book, because the fourth aliya must read from both sidrot and it is impossible to join a single reading from two books (Magen Avraham, ibid.). And it is astonishing, for is it then an absolute requirement that one person must join the two sidrot? Furthermore: what prohibition is there in this if they join them? And the primary view appears to be that in any case the obligation is to complete it on the following Shabbat. And it appears that only on the following Shabbat can they complete it, but if they want to complete it in the middle of the week it is impossible, for seven olim were only instituted on Shabbat. And that they should read it on Monday or Thursday with three olim together with the parashah would not be according to the enactment of the sages. However, this is certain: if they are able to read it on Shabbat at Mincha—they should read seven olim then, and join with this also the coming parashah (it appears to me).

And all this is on Shabbat. But on Monday and Thursday when they omitted the reading, or on Shabbat at Mincha, it appears that they do not need to complete it, for they will read it on the coming Shabbat. And there is one who says that if they omitted it on Monday – they should read it on Tuesday, so that three days do not pass without Torah (Eliyah Rabbah in the name of the Gilyon Magen Avraham). And it is not at all clear to read from the Torah and recite blessings on a day that the sages did not establish. And there is one who disagrees for another reason: that this was only established for Shabbat morning, so that the reading of the parashah should not be completely omitted (Eliyah Rabbah ibid.). And so too on Rosh Chodesh, Yom Tov, and a public fast, when the reading was omitted they do not need to read it on another day, and so one should instruct. And so too on Shabbat morning when they read the entire parashah but the Maftir and the Haftarah were omitted for some reason – they do not need to complete it, as it was only established for that parashah and not for another. And it further appears to me that when they did not read the parashah and they complete it on the coming Shabbat, that then the Maftir must say both Haftarot since they read its parashah.

And who are these three who are called? A kohen is called first, and after him a levi, and after him a yisrael. And it is a Mishnah in Gittin (59a). And in the Yerushalmi there, there is a dispute, for Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says that this is from the Torah, as it is written: "And he gave it to the kohanim the sons of Levi," and afterwards "and to all the elders of Israel." And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi holds that this is midrabbanan. And in our Shas, it implies explicitly that it is de-oraita, see there. And that which we learned in the Mishnah that this is "for the sake of the ways of peace," they explained in the Gemara that this is what it means: that even though regarding all types of honor that we are obligated to give to a kohen, such as to recite the blessing first at a meal and to take the finest portion first, as it is written "And you shall sanctify him," meaning that we are obligated to honor him—he is able to waive it, as we explained this at the end of siman 128, see there. And I would have said that also regarding this he is able to waive it, that they should not call him first to the Torah—it comes to teach us that the sages enacted for the sake of the ways of peace, so that the matter should not lead to dispute, that it should not be within his power to waive.

This is what our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 4: The widespread custom is that even an unlearned kohen precedes a great scholar of Israel in reading. This is provided that the kohen knows how to read, for if he does not know how to read, how can he recite the blessing over the Torah? However, if he is able to read with the sheliach tzibbur word for word – that is sufficient, as will be seen below in siman 139. Thus far his words. And now it is not the custom at all to be exacting in this, and in any case they call the kohen first (Magen Avraham, subsection 5). And the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is that even if the kohen waives his honor – it is of no avail. And even though in his great work he explained certain opinions of the Geonim that with a waiver it is permitted, nevertheless he himself concludes there that the custom is not so, and even a waiver is of no avail. And such is the widespread custom in all places (and so wrote the Taz at the end of subsection 3). And there are now places that are not sons of Torah, and a blight has spread among them such that they do not pay attention to the kohanim at all, and they call an Israelite in place of a kohen even though there are several kohanim there. And they also do not seek their waiver, even though it is not effective as I have written. And they are worthy of great punishment. And I have already seen this with my own eyes, and I cried out against them until they accepted not to do so. And the matter was almost a wonder in their eyes.

And know that in the Gemara there it is explained that only on Sabbaths and Festivals when many are common in the beit din – in this they instituted that the kohen cannot forgo. But on Monday and Thursday he can forgo. And so wrote the Rosh and the Tur. However, the Tosafot wrote there that nowadays they are as common on Monday and Thursday as on Sabbath and Festival, and so wrote the R'av. And therefore it is forbidden, and this is the opinion of our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, who did not bring this at all. And nevertheless I wonder: since the Rosh and the Tur hold so, why did they not bring their opinion at all? And it requires further study. And it is further stated in the Gemara that Rav read in place of the kohen and so did Rav Huna, and even on Sabbath and Festival, because they were heads of the exile and all Israel were subordinate to them. And therefore nowadays this is not applicable. And even the Rambam, who in the Commentary on the Mishnah wrote that Heaven forbid to precede an ignorant kohen before an Israelite Torah scholar, for he holds that the law of the kohen's precedence is only when they are equal in stature, but an ignorant kohen, for they said "a mamzer who is a Torah scholar precedes an ignorant kohen" – nevertheless in his composition he did not write so. And he wrote that the custom is to precede even an ignorant kohen before a Torah scholar distinguished in wisdom. And the reason for the custom is that he holds that that which a Torah scholar precedes – this is for other matters. But regarding the ascent to the Torah, where the sages instituted that a kohen shall read first – there is no distinction in this (Beit Yosef). And like the words of the Rambam in the Commentary on the Mishnah, the R'av also wrote. And despite all this, he wrote that the custom is not so, see there, even though he holds that even regarding the ascent to the Torah a Torah scholar precedes. And one must say another reason, and that is that in the later generations it would lead to dispute from this law, as this one will say "I am greater than you." And automatically now there is the reason of the Mishnah of "the ways of peace" (Tosafot Yom Tov). And according to this, nowadays there is no permission to precede an Israelite to a kohen even with the kohen's forgoing, unless they desire to leave the beit knesset before the reading of the Torah, for then it is necessary to call an Israelite.

We say there in Gittin: We hold that if there is no kohen there—the bundle has been separated. And there are three interpretations of this: One interpretation is the interpretation of Rashi, that the levi does not read at all. And so wrote the Rambam in chapter twelve. And it seems to me regarding the reason for the matter, that seemingly since the Torah preceded the kohen to the levi, and the levi to the Yisrael, if so, when there is no kohen, the levi should precede the Yisrael. Regarding this, it comes to teach us that this is not so, for when did the Torah sanctify the levi to precede the Yisrael? When there is a kohen. But when there is no kohen—his lineage is nothing. And this is what we learned from the verse "the kohanim the sons of Levi," meaning: when are they "sons of Levi" who precede the Yisrael? When there is a kohen. And according to this, we should have said the opposite: that he is permitted to be even after the Yisrael. And it comes to teach us that this too is not so, for in any event he is more holy than a Yisrael and it is not proper that the Yisrael should precede him, and automatically he does not ascend at all. And if you say he should ascend first and afterwards a Yisrael should ascend, and not because of the law of precedence? For it can be said that if he ascends first they will say that by Torah law he precedes the Yisrael, and the Torah was particular that the obligation of his precedence is only when there is a kohen. And therefore the levi remains bare from here and from there, and he does not ascend at all. (See Taz, subsection 6, who held that there are two interpretations, but in truth there are three.)

And the second explanation was also written by Rashi: The bundle has been separated such that there is no order to the matter, and whoever wishes may precede. That is to say: the Torah did not sanctify the Levi except in a place where there is a kohen, but without a kohen, he is like a Yisrael. And if so, there is no concern and no precedence, and they may act according to their will like a Yisrael and a Yisrael, for whoever wishes may precede. And the third explanation was written by the Rosh: That if the Yisrael is greater than him—the Yisrael precedes, and afterwards the Levi ascends. And if the Levi is greater, or even if they are equal—the Levi precedes, see there (and also the intent of the Tosafot is such, see there). And it appears that he holds that certainly even without the kohen he has more sanctity than the Yisrael, as it is written: "At that time He separated the tribe of Levi"—behold, he is sanctified of himself. Therefore, when they are equal, he precedes the Yisrael. And only in this is he not of the same status as when the kohen is present, for then the kohen precedes even if the Yisrael is greater than him unless he is the leader of the generation, as has been explained. And consequently, the Levi also precedes the Yisrael even when the Yisrael is greater than him. But when there is no kohen, if the Yisrael is even slightly greater in status than him—he precedes him.

And behold, our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 6 wrote that if there is no kohen in the beit knesset – an Yisrael reads in place of a kohen, and a Levi shall not ascend after him. Thus far his words. And this is according to the first interpretation. And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this: But the first may ascend… Thus far his words. And there is one who says that he holds that even according to the first interpretation it is so (Magen Avraham, subsection 10). But it is not so, for this is only according to the third interpretation. And the reason he did not write it in the language of "there are those who say" is because according to the language of the Mechaber there is no necessity that it is not so, and such is his way in every place. And according to this, the halacha in practice is that the first may ascend, but after the Yisrael he shall not ascend. And such is the common custom. And when they call him – they call "in place of a kohen" so that they do not err to say that this is a kohen. (The Taz also in subsection 6 rules accordingly. And he wrote not like the Magen Avraham, that this is also according to the first interpretation. However, regarding what the Taz grasped that this is according to the second interpretation and in part the Rema disagrees, I wonder at him: for this is exactly the third interpretation which is the interpretation of the Rosh and the Tur, and consequently this is only when they are equal. But when the Yisrael is greater – an Yisrael reads and after him a Levi. But the custom is not so. And in this we have grasped the first opinion that the Levi does not ascend after the Yisrael. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

If the sefer Torah is open, and the kohen is reciting Kriat Shema—he is not permitted to interrupt, and they call a Yisrael in his place. And they do not wait for him because of the honor of the congregation (Magen Avraham subsection 7). And that which was explained above in siman 66, that the kohen interrupts—that is when they have already called him, but ab initio they should not call him. And there is no concern here for his blemish, since he is occupied with Kriat Shema and its blessings. But during Pesukei D'Zimrah, it is permitted to call him ab initio (ibid. subsection 6). Our teacher, the Rema, wrote that the same law applies to the fasts after Pesach and Sukkot when they read "Vayechal," if the kohen is not fasting—they call a Yisrael. And it is good that the kohen should exit the beit knesset. Thus far his words. That is to say: that according to the strict law he does not need to exit, since he is not relevant to this reading at all. Rather, it is good that he exit because not everyone knows that he is not fasting, and it could lead to a blemish. And the same law applies to any fast of the congregation when the kohen is not fasting. Rather, he spoke of the common way of the matter, for on any fast of the congregation he presumably fasts, but on the fasts of Monday, Thursday, and Monday, not everyone fasts. And it seems to me that no honor should be given to one who is not fasting, such as hagbahah and gelilah, taking out and bringing in. And know that there are those who say that on a fast of the congregation, since the reading of the sefer Torah is an obligation of the day, even one who is not fasting is able to ascend. And in my humble opinion it is not so, and it will be explained with the help of Heaven in siman 566.

If a kohen enters the synagogue after the Yisrael has begun to recite the blessings of the Torah – he does not stop. But if he only ascended, or even if he said "Barchu et Hashem HaMevorach" – he should leave it for the kohen to recite the blessing, for "Barchu" is not considered a beginning until he says "Baruch Atah Hashem." And it appears to me that the kohen does not need to say "Barchu" once more, but rather begins "Baruch...". And since the Yisrael ascended – he should therefore stand there until the kohen and the Levi have read, and afterward they should call him, for if not so, it is a disgrace to him. And it appears to me that if the Yisrael is not particular about this – he may descend and they may call another.

If there is no Levi in the beit knesset – they do not call a Yisrael in place of the Levi, and they also shall not call another Kohen. Rather, that same Kohen ascends in place of the Levi, and completes the final blessing, and afterward begins "Barchu" and reads what the Levi was supposed to read, and recites the final blessing. And there is no concern of unnecessary blessings in this, since these blessings were instituted for the reading of the Torah and all who ascend recite the blessings; if so, every time one ascends he must recite the blessings. And the reason for the matter: for if they were to call another Kohen, they would say that the first was flawed. And likewise, if they were to call a Yisrael, they would say that he is not a Kohen, for they called a Yisrael after him, as not everyone knows that there is no Levi here. And likewise, they shall not call a Levi after a Levi, as there is concern for the flaw of the second as well, that they will say he is not a Levi. But regarding a Kohen after a Kohen – there is no concern of a flaw for the second, for whichever way you look at it: if he is flawed such that he is not a Kohen, behold he is also not a Levi; but regarding a Levi after a Levi, it could be said of both of them that they are Yisraelim. (See Taz, subsection 8, and Magen Avraham, subsection 12. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

If there were a kohen and a levi in the beit din, and they thought that there was no levi there and the kohen read the second reading, if he only said "Barchu" and they saw the levi—he should leave his place and the levi shall ascend. But if he began the blessing—they do not interrupt him. And even though there is a slight to the levi, nevertheless, he must necessarily finish so that his blessing will not be in vain. Furthermore: they will more likely attribute it to the truth, that they did not know the levi was here, because it is a wonderous matter that one should read twice one after the other, and automatically they will investigate this and become aware that it is so. (So it appears to me to be the reasoning of the Rashba brought by the Magen Avraham, subsection 11, see there. Be precise and you will find it simple.)

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 9: And similarly, two levi'im should not ascend one after the other, so that they do not say that one of them is flawed. Thus far his words. And in the Gemara there it is stated because of the flaw of both of them, see there. And this is its explanation: For seemingly it is true that the Torah commanded to prioritize a kohen over a levi, and a levi over a yisrael. But why should a levi not ascend after a levi? To this they said because of a flaw, so that they do not say the second is not a levi but a yisrael, because the people are accustomed to calling kohen, levi, yisrael. Or they will say that the first is flawed and they erred regarding him, and therefore they called a true levi after him. And this is what they said in the Gemara "because of the flaw of both of them" – the intention is either the flaw of the first or the flaw of the second. And a city that is entirely levi'im or entirely kohanim will be explained in section 26.

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 10: It is the custom to call a kohen after a kohen with the interruption of a Yisrael between them. And the chazzan says when he calls the second one, "even though he is a kohen." And similarly, they practice with a Levi after a Levi. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For even though one may not call a kohen after a kohen, and a Levi after a Levi—this is when they have not yet called kohen, Levi, Yisrael. But if they have called them—we have no concern with it. For so wrote the Tur in the name of Rav Amram, that after calling kohen, Levi, Yisrael—one calls whomever he desires, and if a kohen desires to repeat (a second time) and be called, it is well and good. Thus far his words. However, even afterward they should not call a kohen after a kohen, if not with the interruption of a Yisrael between them. And this the Tur explained previously, and this is his wording: And there are places where they are accustomed to call many kohanim with the interruption of a Yisrael between them. And they are not concerned that they will say the first one is flawed, since they called a Yisrael after him. And so wrote Rav Amram... Thus far his words. Behold, it is explained that the custom and Rav Amram are one and the same thing, and that is that after they have called kohen, Levi, Yisrael—they may call as many kohanim as they desire, but on the condition that a Yisrael interrupts between them. And the same law applies to Levites.

It is clear that the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, is also as we have explained. And there is no concern regarding either the first kohen or the last. For regarding the first, they will not say he is flawed, since they called a levi and a yisrael after him according to the enactment of the sages. And regarding the last, there is also no concern of a flaw unless they did not act according to the order enacted by the sages. But when they have done so, why should they be concerned (Taz subsection 9)? And this requirement of ours for an intervening yisrael between them is so that it should not be contrary to the Gemara which said "a kohen after a kohen shall not read" (Beit Yosef). Furthermore: for in truth, for this reason our teacher, the Beit Yosef, says that the sheliach tzibbur should say "even though he is a kohen." And although even this is not necessary for the reason we have written, nevertheless, as a mere preference, they also make this distinction. And such is the law regarding a levi after a levi. And if there was no levi there at all, and the first kohen read two times and a yisrael after him – the second kohen may also read after him, and afterwards a yisrael and afterwards a kohen, and so on forever (Magen Avraham subsection 14). And the Levush explained that even the second time one must read kohen, levi, and yisrael, and so too afterwards, see there. And also one of the commentators of the Shulchan Aruch explained thus (ibid.). And so too if there is no levi, then the second kohen reads two times, and a yisrael after him (ibid.). And these are puzzling matters. (Also the Taz there and the Perishah and the Eliyah Rabbah subsection 12 wrote also as I have written. And also the conclusion of the Beit Yosef is so, and only previously did he bring thus in the name of the Eshkol. And so wrote the Eliyah Rabbah there that the conclusion of the Beit Yosef is not so, see there. And examine closely and you will find it simple.)

And our teacher, the Rema, wrote regarding this that therefore it is also permitted to call him up for Maftir in such a case. And if he calls for Maftir without naming him, there is no concern for his blemish, for behold, he does not mention his name. Thus far his words. And it is not understood: what is he teaching us? For if among the seven called it is permitted with the interruption of a Yisrael, all the more so for Maftir. And perhaps it comes for a precision and for stringency, meaning: that specifically with the interruption of a Yisrael it is permitted, such as when he called a Yisrael for the third, and a Kohen for the fourth, and a Yisrael for the fifth, and a Kohen for the sixth, and a Yisrael for the seventh, for then it is permitted to call a Kohen for Maftir. But if he called Yisraelim for the fifth and sixth, and a Kohen for the seventh—it is forbidden to call a Kohen for Maftir. And afterward he says that if he calls for Maftir without naming him—there is no concern for his blemish, meaning: regarding what the author wrote that the chazzan must say "even though he is a Kohen" in order to remove him from blemish, as I wrote in the previous section. To this he says that for Maftir it is not necessary when he calls that the Maftir should stand without the mention of his name, for such was the custom among them that without the mention of his name there is no concern of blemish here.

He further wrote: And some say that one should not call a kohen or a levi for the count of the seven, but after the count is completed, one may call a kohen or a levi. And such is the custom in these lands. However, in a case of need or pressing circumstances, one may rely on the first opinion. Thus far his words. That is to say: to call a kohen or a levi even within the seven called ones with the interruption of a yisrael. However, now our custom is not to call a kohen or a levi even after the seven called ones, except for acharon and maftir, and one may call a kohen for acharon and a kohen for maftir. And such is the simple custom among us. And this is not like one who calls a kohen after a kohen, since they are interrupted by Kaddish. And so they practice on Simchat Torah regarding Chatan Torah and Chatan Bereshit and maftir, to call kohanim or leviyim for all of them, because they are separate matters and they read each one in a different sefer Torah (Eliyah Rabbah). But on a fast day, one should not call a kohen or a levi for maftir, since he is of the count of those called (Magen Avraham subsection 16). And even if there is no yisrael here who knows how to read the haftarah – they read it for him (ibid.). And also the simple custom when there are bridegrooms or societies and they require many aliyot, for several kohanim and several leviyim – they call seven called ones in a portion of the parashah, and afterwards they begin kohen, levi, and five yisraelim in a portion of the parashah, and so further on until the end of the entire parashah. And the acharon ascends as a kohen or a levi as I have written. And they should be careful that they should not need to read one parashah twice, for the sages of Kabbalah are very strict about this. However, they are not careful about this. And there are some of the poskim who permitted the matter, and fortunate is the one who is careful in this. And in any case, one should not protest against those who do so.

One of the commentators on the Shulchan Aruch wrote (Magen Avraham, subsection 7): If the custom is to purchase with money the right of whoever is called first at the beginning of the Torah in "Bereishit," and if an Yisrael purchased it—the kohen waives his honor and exits the beit din. And once, a kohen did not want to exit the beit din, and it is permitted to compel him by means of the government to exit the beit din so that the custom and the honor of the Torah are not nullified. Thus far his words. And afterwards he wrote that there is one who wrote that even if he did not exit—the Yisrael shall read. However, from the wording of the Maharik it does not imply so. Thus far his words. And behold, this matter has placed a great stumbling block before the ignorant as I saw in the days of my youth, for through this they disparage the honor of the kohanim and say that they require permission to enter the beit din, and they degrade the kohanim by not calling them first. Woe to the ears that hear such, and eyes that see such! And they hang themselves on the law that has been explained.

And in truth, they did not find their hands and feet. For the source of this law is from the Maharik (Root 9), where there was an established custom in all places that on Shabbat Bereishit, one of the community members would volunteer money for the needs of the synagogue illumination for the entire year so that he would be called first at the beginning of the Torah. And the custom was that if there was a kohen suitable for this, he would purchase it, and if not, he would exit the synagogue. This was an established custom from days of old. In this, there was honor for the Torah, specifically that for the aliyah of the opening of the Torah they would volunteer a large sum, enough to suffice for the synagogue illumination for the entire year. And once it occurred that there was an obstinate kohen, and he did not want to purchase it nor to exit. They requested of him to go to another synagogue, where he would ascend first and not cause the loss here of this great charity, nor diminish the honor of the Torah present in this. And this too he did not want. The Maharik ruled that they did well to compel him through the government to exit the synagogue. He elaborated on this, that since there it was an established custom with the consent of the kohanim, and in this custom there is honor for the Torah and a great income to provide illumination for the entire year. And they also wanted to call him first in another synagogue, certainly such a kohen is not among the upright kohanim, and it is not within his power to nullify an established custom. He elaborated on this, see there. If so, one does not learn from this matter, which was an established custom once a year for the honor of the Torah and for the oil of the illumination, and the kohen was obstinate. Therefore, they shall be very, very careful with the honor of the priesthood, and one does not learn from this incident. (And similarly, regarding what the Magen Avraham wrote in subsection 15, that in a place where they practiced that the sage of the city reads the Thirteen Attributes, even if he is a kohen he may read third, thus far his words — we have never heard of this custom.)

There is one who says that if the chazzan calls a kohen or a levi and he is not there, and it is necessary to call another kohen—he should not call the other by his name because of the blemish to the first, but rather that other one shall ascend on his own. However, if the kohen whom they called is praying in the beit din, they may call the other by his name, for there is no blemish here to the first, as everyone sees that he is standing and praying (ibid. subsection 17). And such is the custom. Our teacher, the Rema, wrote in section 11: A shaliach tzibbur who is a kohen—may call another kohen to the Torah. Thus far his words. That is to say: for there are some of the great early authorities who forbade doing so, because of the blemish to the shaliach tzibbur, that they might say of him that he is blemished. But they disagreed with him, for everyone knows that since he is the shaliach tzibbur—it is impossible that he himself should go every time, and perforce he must also call others (Levush). And it is obvious in a place where they sell the mitzvot that he has no permission to call anyone except the one who purchased (Taz subsection 10). And likewise if the purchaser is a kohen—he may honor another kohen, for everyone knows that such is the way of purchasers to honor others (ibid.). And there is one who wished to say that if the sagan is a kohen—he should not command to call another kohen. But it is not so, for behold, this too is known, that he is compelled to call others as well (see Magen Avraham subsection 19).

Our teacher, the Beit Yosef, wrote in section 12: A city that is entirely kohanim, if there is one Yisrael among them – that Yisrael reads first for the sake of darkhei shalom. Thus far his words. And so it is explained in the Yerushalmi, Gittin chapter five, on this Mishnah that a kohen reads first. And they wondered about this: for in the Yerushalmi it says explicitly that this is according to the one who holds that the entire primary law of a kohen reading first is midirabbanan, see there. Yet it has already been explained in section 8 that our Shas holds it is de-oraita (see Beit Yosef and Magen Avraham, subsection 20). And it seems to me that it works out well even if it is de-oraita, for it has already been explained there that according to the Torah the kohen can waive his right. It is only that the sages ordained that he cannot waive it, and therefore in such a case they can waive it because in this there will be darkhei shalom, and this is the intention of our teacher, the Beit Yosef. And if they truly do not desire this – the kohen shall go up first. (And see the Beit Yosef who wrote in the name of the Maharik that the Tosafot and the Mordekhai hold it is midirabbanan. And I do not know its location. And in the Mordekhai it is explicit that it is de-oraita, see there.)

And it is simple that if there is also one Levi there—they should call Kohen, Levi, Yisrael, and afterward they should call the Kohanim one after another (Taz subsection 11, and such is the opinion of the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 20, unlike the Levush). For since it is possible to fulfill the order according to the enactment of the sages first, why should we not fulfill it? And likewise the matter is simple that when the Kohanim are called one after another—the more prominent shall be called first. And if there are two Levites and two Yisraelim there—they should call Kohen, Levi, Yisrael twice, and the last shall be a Kohen (ibid.).

This is the wording of our teacher, the Beit Yosef, in section 12: And whenever there are not enough Yisraelim for their sufficiency, or if there are no Yisraelim there at all – a kohen reads after a kohen. For there is no concern of a defect, as everyone knows that there are only kohanim there. And the same law applies to a city that is entirely Leviim. Thus far his words. And that which he wrote, that if there are not enough Yisraelim for their sufficiency a kohen reads after a kohen – his intention is not that the Yisraelim should not read at all, for there is no reason for this. Rather, this is what he means: that however many Yisraelim there are that do not suffice for the seven called – a kohen shall read after a kohen. For example, if there are three Yisraelim – the first kohen reads and after him a Levi when there is a Levi. And if there is no Levi – the kohen reads a second time, and afterwards the three Yisraelim shall read, and the sixth and seventh shall be kohanim. And it is also possible to call a kohen for the fourth, a Yisrael for the fifth, a kohen for the sixth, and a Yisrael for the seventh. And it is better to call a Yisrael for the sixth and a kohen for the seventh as has been explained, for the last one can simply be a kohen. And that which he wrote "a kohen after a kohen" – one should not imagine that it must necessarily be only when there are no more than two Yisraelim here. And the general principles of the matters have been explained, that when there is no choice a kohen reads after a kohen, and a Levi after a Levi. And when there is a choice one must separate them with a Yisrael. And therefore they shall see what is before them. (And it requires further study regarding the Magen Avraham at the end of subsection 20, who wrote: and afterwards all the Yisraelim shall go up and afterwards kohanim, see there. And why should we not separate with a Yisrael between a kohen and a kohen? And so is the primary halacha. And be precise and you will find it easy.)

In siman 282 it will be explained that even though according to the law a katan may be counted toward the quorum of seven, nevertheless for us, since all those who ascend recite the blessing, we do not call a katan for the quorum of the seven called ones except for the maftir; see there. And consequently, the same law applies on Monday and Thursday and Shabbat at Mincha—a katan does not ascend for the quorum of the three. And so too on Rosh Chodesh and Yom Tov he does not ascend. And even on a fast day for the maftir he does not ascend, since the maftir is within the quorum of the called ones. And so too on Yom Kippur at Mincha. And whether a blind person is permitted to ascend for the Torah will be explained in siman 139 with the help of Heaven.

Our teachers, the authors of the Shulchan Aruch, wrote in section 14: People who are confined in a prison—one does not bring a sefer Torah to them even on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. And this is specifically at the time of the reading. However, if they prepare a sefer Torah for him a day or two prior—it is permitted. And if he is an important person—it is permitted in any case. Thus far his words. The explanation of the matters: For it is not of the honor of the Torah to move it from another place if not for an important person. Therefore, if they are not important—one should not move it for them even when they are under duress and it is not in their power to come to the beit knesset, such as people who are confined in a prison and the like. But for an important person—it is permitted even without duress. And this is what they wrote, that "if he is an important person it is permitted in any case," meaning: even if he is not under duress. For this is explicitly implied in the Yerushalmi, the seventh chapter of Yoma, that for this reason they brought the sefer Torah to the Kohen Gadol, see there—even though he was not under duress.

And there are those who explained that we require two things: a case of duress and a person of prominence (Magen Avraham, subsection 23). According to this, one must say that when they wrote "it is permitted in any case" – their intention was whether they prepare the sefer Torah beforehand, or whether they bring it at the time of the reading. And even though in the Yerushalmi there they brought the sefer Torah only because of prominence alone, one can say a Kohen Gadol is different as he is unique to all of Israel, and likewise the Resh Galuta as is explained there. But an ordinary prominent person requires duress for this. However, in truth, there are those who say that one of them is sufficient: either one under duress, such as a sick person or one sitting in prison and the like, or a prominent person (ibid. in the name of Or Zarua, and so wrote in Darkhei Moshe, sign 10). And from the wording of the Yerushalmi it is implied so, as it says: Everywhere it says we go after the Torah, and here we bring the Torah to him? Rather, because they are great, the Torah is elevated through them. Thus far his words. Behold, it explicitly deals with a place where they are able to go to the Torah, for if not so, "we go after the Torah" would not be applicable. Therefore, one who rules thus is not rebuked. And for Parshat "Zakhor" it is permitted to bring a sefer Torah according to all opinions. And it appears to me that the same law applies to all four parshiyot.

And they further said that this is only when they bring the Torah from the beit knesset at the time of the reading, and afterward they return it to the beit knesset. But if they bring it beforehand and place it in an aron or in a chest, such that it has a designated place for some time – we have no concern regarding it. And the custom is to be exacting that they read from it three times, as this is considered like a permanent fixture, and there is no disgrace in the fact that they moved it from the beit knesset. But with fewer than three times, they moved it for a temporary need, and there is disgrace even if they brought it beforehand. And from all that has been explained, it is clear that many of the common people do not act properly on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur and Simchat Torah, when before the reading they take a sefer Torah from the beit knesset to read in another place, and after the reading they return it to the beit knesset. And their intention is in order to have an aliyah to the Torah on these sanctified days, but their reward is offset by their loss for committing a transgression on the sanctified days and for not being concerned for the honor of the Torah. Therefore, it is proper to protest against them, and to decree that they should not do so. And upon one who listens, may a blessing of good come upon him.