somewhat of the nature of all three, a duty, aright, or a privilege. Ephraim Margolies, the famous scholar of Brody(1762-1828), wrote a book dealing specifically with the questions involved in the reading of the Torah (Sha’arei Ephraim, many editions). In Section 1, paragraph 32, he discusses who should not be called up to the Torah . Most of this discussion is based chiefly upon two passages in the Shulhan Arukh which provide some material analogous to our problem. One in Orah Hayyim 128 deals with sinful priests and their rights to go up to bb# the people; and the other in Yoreh Deah, 334(also Orah Hayyim 55:11) speaks of a man who has been put under ban, as to whether he may be included in the minyan, etc.
The implications of these two laws and their bearing on our question about calling an unworthy man up to the Torah have been rather fully explored in an interesting responsa sequence. It is found in Shetei Helehem(331) by Moses Hagiz , a Palestinian rabbi who lived in Leghorn and Amsterdam (1671-1750).
The incident which evoked this series of responsa throws some light on the social conditions of the time. In one of the Sephardic congregations, a man embezzled the money of the chazan and ran away with the chazan’s wife. The guilty couple fled to Spain , but terrified by the Inquisition , they came to Lon don . Meantime, the chazan, in poverty and anguish, died. The culprit in London was told by the Chacham to make a public confession of guilt. This he did in the synagogue, in the presence of the congregation. Thereafter he was frequently called up to the Torah . One Yom Kippur , the brother of the dead chazan was in London and saw this man holding the Torah at Kol Nidre . He bitterly protested. He said that this man had not returned the embezzled money or made any attempt to do so; his repentance is, therefore, insincere, and such a scoundrel should not be called up to the Torah .
Although this was a quarrel within the Sephardic community, many Ashkenazic scholars were consulted, as well as the rabbis of Mantua, etc., and among the Ashkenazim were the famous scholars, Jacob Reischer of Metz(Shevut Jacob) and Jacob Emden of Altona. Between them, they dealt with the implications of the references to the sinful priest in Orah Hayyim and the excommunicated man in Yoreh Deah. Most of the opinions were to the effect that since the man had made no attempt to restore what he had stolen, his repentance is incomplete and, therefore,