In the absence of the Beis haMikdash, there is little practical relevance to the Halachos of Mumin (defects or deformities) that disqualify Kohanim from performing the Avoda. However, during the eras of the Mishkan and Batei Mikdash, these Halachos were extremely important and we fervently hope to soon merit observing these Halachos again. In that light, the next two essays will examine the subject, including 00a fascinating look at whether certain illnesses render a Kohen a โBaโal Mumโ.
There is, however, one practical modern application of these Halachos, namely, the Mitzva of โvโKidashtoโ โ honoring Kohanim and giving them precedence in a wide range of circumstances, such as receiving an Aliya. We will examine whether this Mitzva applies to a Kohen who is a Baโal Mum.
The Pri Megadim (O.C. 135, Mishbetzos Zahav 8) addresses this question: )
I speculated whether a Kohen who is a Petzua Daka or Kerus Shafcha (crushed testicles or injured male member) retains his Kedusha and reads first from the Torah or not. [I] also [speculated about] a Kohen who is a Baโal Mum or a minorโฆ
He cites the Magen Avraham (282:6) who rules that there is no obligation of vโKidashto for a Kohen who is a Katan. This is because a minor cannot perform the Avoda in the Beis haMikdash and the Torah clearly links the Mitzva of vโKidashto to the performance of the Avoda: โAnd you shall sanctify him for he offers the food of your Godโ (Vayikra 21:8).[1] The Pri Megadim argues that the same should apply to a Kohen who is a Baโal Mum. Since he cannot perform the Avoda there should be no Mitzva to honor him.
However, he then questions this comparison. Unlike Ketanim, Baโalei Mumin do receive a portion of the Korbanos (Zevachim 98b). If so, they do fulfill the notion of โoffering the food of your Godโ in some sense, and should qualify for vโKidashto. Furthermore, although Ketanim do not receive a share in the Korbanos they are permitted to eat them. If so, we should also consider them to be โoffering the food of your Godโ, and they should likewise qualify for vโKidashto.[2]
Ultimately, the Pri Megadim does not endorse a distinction between a minor and a Baโal Mum in this regard. He therefore concludes that the Mitzva of vโKidashto does not apply to a Baโal Mum just as the Magen Avraham concluded regarding a minor.
However, this conclusion is far from simple. Rโ Akiva Eiger (Gilyon Shulchan Aruch ibid.) challenges the Magen Avrahamโs ruling from the Sifra that states (Vayikra ibid. 6): โvโHayu Kodesh โ And they shall be holy โ thisย includes Baโalei Muminโ. The Sefer haChinuch (Mitzva 269) derives from the Sifra that there is an obligation to honor a Kohen who is a Baโal Mum:
โฆ โvโHayu Kodesh โ this includes Baโalei Muminโ โ thus we should not claim that since this [blemished Kohen] is not fit to offer the food of your God, why should we give him precedence and honor him? That is why they said, โvโHayu Kodesh โ in other words, all of the seed [of the Kohanim] is distinguished โ both unblemished and blemished ones.
It is interesting that Rโ Akiva Eger questions the Magen Avrahamโs ruling about Ketanim from a Sifra and the Sefer haChinuch that discuss Baโalei Mumin. Evidently, he made the same comparison as the Pri Megadim, namely, that since the Magen Avraham links vโKidashto to the possibility of performing the Avoda, there should be no difference between Ketanim and Baโalei Mumin.
However, as explained above, the Pri Megadim himself questions the comparison given that a Baโal Mum receives a portion of the Korbanos unlike a Katan (even though a Katan is permitted to eat the Korbanos). Though the Pri Megadim ultimately rejects that distinction and maintains the comparison, perhaps the Magen Avraham held that it is indeed flawed. This would resolve Rโ Akiva Eigerโs question: The Mitzva of vโKidashto does apply to a Baโal Mum, as stated explicitly by the Sifra, however, the same is not true of a Katan since he does not receive a portion of the Korbanos.
We could suggest an additional difference between a Katan and a Baโal Mum. First we will pose another question: Why does the Torah state both โvโKidashtoโ and โvโHayu Kodeshโ? Surely, as stated by the Sefer haChinuch, they convey the same command and should therefore be redundant!
The answer may be that a Baโal Mum and a Katan each have a unique reason to be included in vโKidashto and a unique reason to be excluded. A Baโal Mum is essentially a Kohen who is fit to serve in the Beis haMikdash โ there is nothing lacking in the โCheftzaโ of his status as Kohen. His only disqualification is that he has a Mum โ a physical defect which constitutes a Psul. On the other hand, this disqualification is absolute and will not change.[3]
A Katan, on the one hand, is destined to serve in the Beis haMikdash when he reaches the age of majority. On the other hand, at this time he is inherently unfit to serve since he is not yet of age and has not reached the full status of โKohenโ.
If so, we may suggest that the Torah gives two commands to Yisraelim to honor the Kohanim; one that honors a Kohenโs dedication to the Avoda, akin to the honor due to Hashem and his Mikdash, and the other that honors a Kohenโs inherent, honored status. One could contend that the first command only applies to somebody who is practically able to serve in the Beis haMikdash, whereas the second command applies to all Kohanim.
This may be the intent of the Sifra. Though the basic obligation to honor a Kohen stems from the commands of โvโKidashtoโ, it only teaches us to honor somebody who โoffers the bread of Hashemโ, as stated in that Pasuk. It does not teach us to honor a Kohen simply for his inherent status. For this reason the Torah reiterates โvโHayu Kodeshโ โ they are inherently holy and deserving of honor regardless of their ability to perform the Avoda.
However, this does not mean to say that the two commands โ โvโKidashtoโ and โvโHayu Kodeshโ are completely separate. It seems logical to assume that the command of โvโHayu Kodeshโ is qualified by the parameter of โoffering the food of your Godโ. We may suggest that โvโHayu Kodeshโ teaches us that in order to qualify for honor, a Kohen does not need to actually be permitted to serve in the Beis haMikdash, but the Pasuk of vโKidashto teaches that he does need the inherent status that would qualify him to serve (absent an โexogenousโ defect or deformity). If the Kohen has a holy status that essentially would qualify him to serve, he is worthy of honor.
We may use this understanding of the Pesukim to explain the difference between a Katan and a Baโal Mum. A Katan does not yet have the status of Kohen that makes him essentially able to serve, thus there is no Mitzva to honor him. However, a Baโal Mum does essentially have holy status โ it is only a Psul that prevents him from serving. He is thus worthy of honor. This resolves Rโ Akiva Eigerโs question on the Magen Avraham.
The Maharit (Shuโt 1:145) discusses whether a Kohen Katan should read from the Torah first. His argument against it is that โwe afford honor to Kohanim and a Katan is not someone to whom honor can be affordedโ. This implies that it is simply not possible to afford honor to a Katan โ not that a Katan is merely not worthy of honor. If so there is another distinction between a Katan and a Baโal Mum.[4]
At any rate, the Halacha seems to be that honor is due to a Kohen who is a Baโal Mum. This is reflected by Tosfos in Menachos (109b) who state that a Baโal Mum may be called to the Torah first, and it is practically an explicit Halacha in Shulchan Aruch (135:13): โIf the only Kohen is blind or is not fluent โ see Siman 139โ.
The reference to Siman 139 is to a ruling that one should not call a person to the Torah if he is not fluent in the reading unless he is the only Kohen or Levi present. If he is the only Kohen or Levi and he is able to repeat the words when somebody recites them to him, he may receive an Aliya. In Seโif 3, the Shulchan Aruch explains that this is why a blind person cannot receive an Aliya โ he cannot read the words from the Torah, even if somebody says them to him.
These rulings imply that the only issue with a blind Kohen receiving the first Aliya is that he is unable to read the text. The fact that he is a Baโal Mum does not disqualify him. Therefore, those with other Mumin which do not prevent them from reading from the Torah, should certainly be honored with receiving the first Aliya. (This proof is also cited by the Pri Megadim ibid.)
Next weekโs essay will discuss specific defects and deformities and whether they would cause a Kohen to be considered a Baโal Mum.
ย
[1] One could have interpreted the Pasuk as describing the eminence of all Kohanim. However, the Magen Avraham appears to hold that the Pasuk links the Mitzva of vโKidashto of each individual Kohen to his actual performance of the Avoda.
[2] [Editorโs note: The Pri Megadim is challenging his original suggestion to distinguish between a Katan and a Baโal Mum. As we will see in the following paragraph, he seems to accept the premise of the Magen Avraham that the qualification of โfor he offers the food of your Godโ refers to actual performance of the Avoda, and therefore neither a Katan nor a Baโal Mum would be subject to vโKidashto.]
[3] [Editorโs note: This obviously would only be true of a Baโal Mum Kavua โ one whose defect is permanent. Discussion of whether vโKidashto applies to a Baโal Mum Ovair (whose defect is temporary) is beyond the scope of this essay.]
[4] In fact, the Maharitโs conclusion is that a Kohen who is a Katan can be afforded honor since honor was granted to all of the seed of Aaron, adult and child alike. The Kesav Sofer (O.C. 15) maintains that the Maharitโs intent is that even a child Kohen will serve in the Beis haMikdash in the future, thus he is deserving of honor now. This would not apply to a Baโal Mum. However, the Kesav Sofer does not explain how he infers this from the Maharitโs words; if he refers to the Teshuva cited here, this is not alluded to in the Maharitโs comments at all โ if anything the opposite is implied.
Add comment