From the Ravs Desk: Latest articles and Q&A [Tuesday 25th Adar 5785]

I heard a rumor that in the future era, the firstborn’s will become the new Kohanim who will serve in the temple and the Kohanim will longer serve. Is this true?

There are indeed sources which make such a claim and so was famously written by the Arizal in Sefer Hagilgulim, the Or Hachaim Hakadosh, and the Alter Rebbe who writes that not only will the priesthood return to the firstborns, but it will return to the firstborns of the mother and not the firstborns of the father, unlike the law today that we follow the father for lineage of priesthood. However, this matter is not mentioned in the Talmud or Rishonim, and is seemingly based on the debate regarding whether the Kohanim received their appointment at the time of Matan Torah, which would make it seem unchangeable in the future, being that the Torah is eternal [Opinion of Rebbe]. Or, if the appointment occurred only later prior to the building of the tabernacle, and until that point, it was indeed the firstborn’s who offered the sacrifices [Opinion of Rebbe Yehoshua Ben Karcha]. The Or Hachaim Hakadosh adds that indeed both the Bechoros and Levi’im will serve together as Kohanim.

Sources: Sources which write that will return to Bechoros: Sifri Behalosecha; Yalkut Shimoni Remez 364; Sefer Hagilgulim 23; Or Hachaim Hakadosh Bereishis 49:28; Bamidbar 3:45; Ahavas Yonason of Reb Yonason Eibashitz Haftoras Emor; Mamarei Admur Hazakein 5572 p. 128 “However, we find a clear proof of this matter from the fact that in the future, the firstborn will be Joseph, whereas now the firstborn is Reuben, not Joseph. As it is written about Joseph, “His firstborn bull,” etc., which refers to the future. For this reason, in the future, the service will be performed by the firstborns and not by the Kohanim, as it is known that the service initially belonged to the firstborns when they left Egypt, as it is written, “Sanctify for Me every firstborn, the first opening of every womb,” etc. This sanctification was for service, as it is written, “For Me, you sanctified every firstborn,” etc. However, because of the sin of the Golden Calf, the service was taken away from the firstborns and given to the Kohanim, the sons of Aaron. But in the future, the service will return to the firstborns as before. However, it will not be like the current law of firstborns, which is only to the father, just as the current Kohanim are only from the sons of Aaron according to their families and father’s house, as it is written. Thus, a Kohen whose father was a Kohen is fit for priesthood, not if his mother was a Kohenet. But in the future, the firstborns will not be associated with their father’s house to be considered firstborn only to the father, but rather to the mother, as it is written, “Sanctify for Me every firstborn, the first opening of every womb,” which refers specifically to the mother. If one is a firstborn to the mother, even if not to the father, he is fit for service. If a man has several wives, and each has a firstborn son, all are fit for service. However, in terms of inheritance, only the firstborn to the father takes a double portion, as he is considered the first of his strength and has the right of the firstborn regarding inheritance. Yet for service, it does not require being the first of his strength, but being the first opening of the womb.”; Mamarei Admur Haemtzai Devarim 2:594; Or Hatorah Mikeitz p. 686; Sources which imply that will remain with Kohanim: Yuma 5b; Taanis 17a; Sanhedrin 22b;The dispute regarding when they began the Kehuna: Zevachim 116b; Midrash Raba Naso 6; Encyclopedia Talmudit Vol. 27 Erech Kohen p. 171;

I heard that there are rabbis who permit cutting toilet paper, paper towels, disposable tablecloth rolls etc. on Shabbos, although I read your article which unequivocally states it is forbidden. Please clarify.

Indeed, debates amongst rabbis and sages is a common phenomenon in halachic jurisprudence as clearly seen from the Mishneh and Talmud. Accordingly, many approaches which have been accepted by the mainstream may still find debate in scholarly works and amongst rabbis and scholars. Thus, the fact that we hear that there are rabbis who disagree with an article I wrote should not lead to a distrust of the material, or a distrust of the rabbis of the other side, but rather should be viewed as a being a natural part of the healthy debate that occurs and has occurred in Torah scholarship throughout our history. Even the most conventional and accepted positions in Halacha face the possibility and potential of a scholar debating its conclusion with a scholarly essay. This of course does not mean that the scholar is correct but rather that it is simply part of the healthy dialogue that is so natural to Talmudic study and codifying of Jewish law.

Now for the subject itself, the long-standing understanding and accepted approach both by Rabbanim, Poskim, scholarly literary work on the laws of Shabbos has always been to accept the above actions as forbidden to be done on Shabbos under the prohibition of Tikkun Keli. There are up to 10 different sources from the Talmud and Poskim and rulings in Shulchan Aruch that support this conclusion as I delineated in the article, and personally prior to writing the article I was never even aware that any Posek debated this conclusion and actually permitted it to be done. In recent years, a famous author in Hilchos Shabbos began writing and proposing an allowance for doing so based on his juggling of understandings of the different rulings of the Alter Rebbe and other Poskim on the subject. His novelty has come under strong scholarly attack for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to it being claimed to be an incorrect analysis and understanding of the Shulchan Aruch of Admur, and leaving the simple understanding of the text for an intellectually acrobatic conclusion, which comes from Pilpul. The lack of any prior source stating his novelty is itself notable on its own. In addition, even if there was basis and room for his conclusion of allowance, he himself limits his own allowance to specific conditions and if those conditions are not met he too agrees that the prohibition is transgressed. Accordingly, even according to his own approach, the conclusion should still remain that people should be taught not to do so in any circumstance, as it is blatantly obvious as we have seen throughout history, if we allow something to be done under certain conditions, often those conditions are forgotten especially by those who are ignorant or don’t care to follow the conditions due to not understanding their importance. This will lead to widespread transgression of Shabbos even according to the author of the lenient opinion and cause that Shabbos is not being guarded Kehalacha [Shabbos Kehalacha], but rather that Shabbos is being transgressed against Halacha [Chillul Shabbos Delo Kehalacha]. This conclusion to negate any allowance both due to the reason of it being an incorrect conclusion, as well as due to the practical applications, has been voiced by a number of leading Chabad Rabbanim and scholars.

Accordingly, despite the fact that you have found an opinion that dissents my article, my conclusion remains the same, as I respectfully disagree with the authors analysis of the sources. Those of course who desire to follow the Pesak of the other author may do as they please, as we do not enforce on a person which Rav he should follow.

Sources: See Shabbos Kehalacha Volume 4; Heaors Ubiurim Ohalaei Torah Volumes 1130-1136; https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/cutting-items-on-shabbos-such-as-a-table-cloth-garbage-bag-paper-towel-piece-of-tinfoil-and-toilet-paper/#_ftn11; https://shulchanaruchharav.com/halacha/cutting-an-item-on-shabbos-i-e-paper-towel-toilet-paper-tablecloth-to-a-larger-than-desired-size/