Entitlements
‘Not Returned To His Former Prominence’
(Makkos 12a)
The Mishna and the Gemara on our daf cite a dispute between R. Meir and R. Yehuda regarding a rotze’ach (specifically one who killed another unintentionally and has to flee to one of the cities of refuge) as to whether such an individual is returned to his former position of prominence when he finally returns home upon the death of the Kohen Gadol.
R. Meir’s view is that he is restored to his previous position; R. Yehuda disagrees and is of the opinion that he is not restored to that position. The halacha follows R. Yehuda (Rambam, Hilchos Rotze’ach chap. 7:14).
A Brand New Post?
The Rogatchover Gaon (cited in the hagahot to Ritvah, Novella Makkos 12a) understands R. Yehuda’s view to mean that the rotze’ach has no legal claim to his former position. Consequently, he may not forcibly remove the person who replaced him and re-assume his position. However, in his view, totally consistent with the halacha, he may be appointed to another position of prominence.
The Ritvah (ad loc.) is of the opposite view. He posits that if an exiled rotze’ach forfeits his rights to his former position – because of the seriousness of his sin, the result of his careless actions – then certainly he is not to be rewarded with another high post. He further explains this rule will only apply to one who has taken a human life. However, as regards other repentant sinners, there would be no reason not to appoint them to high positions.
A Life Peerage
Ritvah gleans from our sugya that if one is appointed to a position – even where he was not told a specific time period of service – he may not be removed from that post on a whim without a valid reason. He deduces this from the fact that the Gemara indicates that were it not for the gravity of the sin of murder, the rotze’ach would be entitled to demand his reinstatement to his former post.
Inheriting A Position
The Gemara further cites a baraisa in which R. Meir and R. Yehuda differ. R. Meir’s view is that the returning rotze’ach may even claim the rights to a post once held by his father. Ritvah sees from this that generally speaking all agree (both R. Meir and R. Yehuda) that a son has a claim to his father’s vacated position – similar to the primogeniture rights of royalty. This is indeed Rambam’s view (Hilchos Melachim chap. 1:7; Hilchos Klei HaMikdash chap. 4:20).
The Crown Of Torah
The Chasam Sofer (Responsa Orach Chayyim 12) was asked to decide in the matter of a congregation whose rabbi died and left a son who wished to assume his father’s position. Though he asserts that this rule (of inheriting a father’s position) follows in most areas, it does not apply to positions of Torah, as for example, the post of rosh yeshiva.
He cites several sources to prove that a son does not automatically inherit positions that are solely of spiritual nature – even if he is a worthy candidate. He reasoned that if the son is not acceptable to the kehillah, then he has no right to the position. However, if most of the kehillah is in favor of the son assuming his late father’s post and only a few individuals are opposed, then the son should be allowed to assume the position.
Avnei Nezer (Yoreh Deah 312:sk30) rebuts Chasam Sofer and rules that the concept of inheriting a position of prominence pertains even to the position of rosh yeshiva.
