Analysis of the CJLS teshuva re:women and the priestly blessing
Inspired by conversations between DW and shirei_shibolim.
The priestly blessing is traditionally recited by kohanim (men only) during the repetition of the festival musaf amidah (with the exception of Simchat Torah, when it is recited during Shacharit; Sephardim have a different custom as to when it is recited). Following a hand-washing by Levites (I just had to get my moment in the spotlight in there somehow), and the removal of their shoes, the kohanim ascend to the bimah, cover their hands and faces with talitot, face the congregation and recite a blessing ("אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרון וצוונו לברך את עמו ישראל באהבה...", "... Who sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to bless His nation Israel, with love."). They raise out their hands, and form a _\\// like sign, and recite three Biblical passages (Num. 6:24-26), following the word-by-word recitation of the chazzan, lest a Kohen be embarrassed by being unable to remember or recite the blessings on his own:
22 וידבר הֿ אל-משה לאמר:
23 דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם:
24 יברכך הֿ וישמרך:
25 יאר הֿ פניו אליך ויחנך:
26 ישא הֿ פניו אליך וישם לך שלום:
27 ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם:
A 1994 CJLS-approved teshuva written by R. Mayer Rabinowitz allowed a בת כהן - a woman whose father is a Kohen - to participate in the ceremony, whether or not she is married. It is online and is located here. Is this an example of the Conservative movement, as well-intentioned as it is in promoting and expanding egalitarianism, being sloppy with halacha?
The first part of the teshuva correctly argues that the נשיאת כפים ritual should not be eliminated from Conservative practice. Doing so would prevent a Kohen from performing positive Biblical commandments.
It then goes into the sources used in the past to justify limiting the ritual to men.
They are:
1. Num 6:23: The commandment to bless the people is directed "אל אהרן ואל בניו" towards Aaron and his sons, but not his daughters.
2. The ritual commemorates one that was historically performed in the Temple, where women did not participate.
3. Since the destruction of the Temple, women have not participated in the ritual.
The teshuva attempts to knock down these barriers; some are easier than others.
It attempts to address #1 by using a "classical" Conservative argument, directly from the Biblical text: Because Hebrew is a gendered language with the default gender being the masculine, "בניו" (lit, "his sons") could be understood to mean "his children." Use of this argument should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The only proof given here that the pasuk is not gendered is its later reference: "כה תברכו את בני ישראל" - lit. "this is how you shall bless the sons of Israel." R. Rabinowitz renders the translation as "thus shall you bless the people of Israel," interpreting "sons of Israel" to mean the entire community of Israel, in which "it is clear that the women are included." But, is that true? For the purposes of the census (Num. 1), only the men are counted in the community, with the women, children, and elderly considered to be accessories. In this case too, women may have been blessed through their fathers and husbands. This doesn't really kill the logic, it only says that it's not so clear in this case that women are included by the Biblical text. Even if "בני ישראל" always includes women, we would still need a place where "אהרן ובניו" includes them as well.
The second argument addresses that issue. Basically, it argues that if a בת כהן is a member of the group that has the "lineal sanctity" of the Kohen, she may participate in the blessing. The argument focuses on an analogy to redemption of the firstborn, where the Biblical text (Num. 3:48) reads: "ונתת הכסף לאהרון ולבניו", "and [you shall] give the money to Aaron and his sons." In that case, the Rambam interprets "ולבניו" to exclude daughters, but Tosefot, Rashi, and the Rosh allow them to participate (this is where I wish there were a reference, so I could actually find what they actually said rather than take R. Rabinowitz's word for it, fortunately, R. Roth was more careful with his citations: the Rashi is on Pesachim 49b, "אמר"; the Tosefot Kiddushin 8a, "רב כהנא"; for more, see Roth footnotes 40-42). He concludes with a quote from a R. Joel Roth teshuva that states that even the Rambam may not have been denying lineal sanctity to daughters of Kohanim. But, R. Roth was writing about whether daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim may share precedence for aliyot, which has to address a much less-stringent standard than reinterpreting or overturning a Biblical commandment. Either way, R. Rabinowitz appears to be relying heavily on R. Roth's argument that a daughter of a Kohen, married or unmarried, is entitled to "lineal sanctity," and would like us to say that "lineal sanctity" implies fitness for the priestly blessing.
The third, and final, attempt to address the issue surrounds the supposed role of the priest in the performance of the priestly blessing, derived from Num 6:27. "ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם" - "and they [the priests] will place My name on the children of Israel and I will bless them." A long discussion comes to the conclusion that the Kohanim are acting as a medium to place God's blessing on Israel, but, they are not themselves blessing Israel. The relevance of the difference to our question is never really spelled out, but, R. Rabinowitz claims that this is "added reason to include the daughters of kohanim who have lineal sanctity" in the performance of the ritual.
R. Rabinowitz then continues addressing problem #2. He states the the Biblical verse didn't limit the performance of the ritual to the Temple, and, therefore, what was done in the Temple is irrelevant. He also makes a rather confusing linkage between נשיאת כפים and the ברכת כהנים in the repetition of the Amidah, which is recited either at times when the congregation does not ordinarily do נשיאת כפים, such as on a non-festival Shabbat, or when no Kohanim are present. He tries to imply that the Biblical verse limits the recitation of the words of the blessing to Kohanim, but it clearly doesn't. Anyone can speak the words of the blessing, as שלוחי צבור who are not Kohanim do regularly. However, only the Kohanim are obligated in reciting the blessing, and, only they recite it with a beracha. R. Rabinowitz's argument could just as easily be applied to anyone - Kohen or not Kohen. A curious footnote (#15) appears here - "An examination of the discussions found in Menahot 18b and Taanit 26b-27a imply that there are grounds to permit daughters of kohanim to participate in ברכת כהנים." It would have been nice had he elaborated on it. As an aside, the Masorti movement (Israeli branch of Conservative) considered the historical positions of the Kohen and Levi to be the most important aspect of retaining the distinctions, and, thus rejected both a Bat Kohen's ability to perform נשיאת כפים in addition to a Bat Kohen or Bat Levi's precedence for the first and second aliyot. It appears to me that this one was a deal-breaker for them.
Problem #3 is barely addressed, but, it seems to me essentially a "things change" argument -- until recently, women didn't participate in any public ritual services, now they do.
IMHO, if you are willing to acknowledge that you are changing historical roles, the major issue that has to be addressed with regards to נשיאת כפים, of course, is problem #1 - who exactly is obligated in the Biblical commandment to bless Israel - male Kohanim, or their daughters as well? R. Rabinowitz does not address whether he believes that women are in fact, obligated; he only mentions that they should be able to participate. Further, what is the nature of that obligation? R. Rabinowitz, if he is intending to state one, would probably like it to equal to a male's -- Biblical. But, given the wording of the verse, and its context, is this argument really valid? And, if it is a Biblical commandment, then, was the Temple functioning incorrectly? The latter question is really philosophical: Is the purpose of retaining the Kohen/Levi/Yisrael division backwards-looking or forwards-looking? But the philosophy leads back to practical issues: How far do those obligations go? If we want to be fully-egalitarian, then is a Bat Kohen also obligated in the negative Biblical prohibitions that only apply to a Kohen? All of these problems should be addressed, rather than bypassed.
Note: last paragraph edited for clarity after publication: 1/10/04.
The priestly blessing is traditionally recited by kohanim (men only) during the repetition of the festival musaf amidah (with the exception of Simchat Torah, when it is recited during Shacharit; Sephardim have a different custom as to when it is recited). Following a hand-washing by Levites (I just had to get my moment in the spotlight in there somehow), and the removal of their shoes, the kohanim ascend to the bimah, cover their hands and faces with talitot, face the congregation and recite a blessing ("אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרון וצוונו לברך את עמו ישראל באהבה...", "... Who sanctified us with the holiness of Aaron and commanded us to bless His nation Israel, with love."). They raise out their hands, and form a _\\// like sign, and recite three Biblical passages (Num. 6:24-26), following the word-by-word recitation of the chazzan, lest a Kohen be embarrassed by being unable to remember or recite the blessings on his own:
22 וידבר הֿ אל-משה לאמר:
23 דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם:
24 יברכך הֿ וישמרך:
25 יאר הֿ פניו אליך ויחנך:
26 ישא הֿ פניו אליך וישם לך שלום:
27 ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם:
A 1994 CJLS-approved teshuva written by R. Mayer Rabinowitz allowed a בת כהן - a woman whose father is a Kohen - to participate in the ceremony, whether or not she is married. It is online and is located here. Is this an example of the Conservative movement, as well-intentioned as it is in promoting and expanding egalitarianism, being sloppy with halacha?
The first part of the teshuva correctly argues that the נשיאת כפים ritual should not be eliminated from Conservative practice. Doing so would prevent a Kohen from performing positive Biblical commandments.
It then goes into the sources used in the past to justify limiting the ritual to men.
They are:
1. Num 6:23: The commandment to bless the people is directed "אל אהרן ואל בניו" towards Aaron and his sons, but not his daughters.
2. The ritual commemorates one that was historically performed in the Temple, where women did not participate.
3. Since the destruction of the Temple, women have not participated in the ritual.
The teshuva attempts to knock down these barriers; some are easier than others.
It attempts to address #1 by using a "classical" Conservative argument, directly from the Biblical text: Because Hebrew is a gendered language with the default gender being the masculine, "בניו" (lit, "his sons") could be understood to mean "his children." Use of this argument should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The only proof given here that the pasuk is not gendered is its later reference: "כה תברכו את בני ישראל" - lit. "this is how you shall bless the sons of Israel." R. Rabinowitz renders the translation as "thus shall you bless the people of Israel," interpreting "sons of Israel" to mean the entire community of Israel, in which "it is clear that the women are included." But, is that true? For the purposes of the census (Num. 1), only the men are counted in the community, with the women, children, and elderly considered to be accessories. In this case too, women may have been blessed through their fathers and husbands. This doesn't really kill the logic, it only says that it's not so clear in this case that women are included by the Biblical text. Even if "בני ישראל" always includes women, we would still need a place where "אהרן ובניו" includes them as well.
The second argument addresses that issue. Basically, it argues that if a בת כהן is a member of the group that has the "lineal sanctity" of the Kohen, she may participate in the blessing. The argument focuses on an analogy to redemption of the firstborn, where the Biblical text (Num. 3:48) reads: "ונתת הכסף לאהרון ולבניו", "and [you shall] give the money to Aaron and his sons." In that case, the Rambam interprets "ולבניו" to exclude daughters, but Tosefot, Rashi, and the Rosh allow them to participate (this is where I wish there were a reference, so I could actually find what they actually said rather than take R. Rabinowitz's word for it, fortunately, R. Roth was more careful with his citations: the Rashi is on Pesachim 49b, "אמר"; the Tosefot Kiddushin 8a, "רב כהנא"; for more, see Roth footnotes 40-42). He concludes with a quote from a R. Joel Roth teshuva that states that even the Rambam may not have been denying lineal sanctity to daughters of Kohanim. But, R. Roth was writing about whether daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim may share precedence for aliyot, which has to address a much less-stringent standard than reinterpreting or overturning a Biblical commandment. Either way, R. Rabinowitz appears to be relying heavily on R. Roth's argument that a daughter of a Kohen, married or unmarried, is entitled to "lineal sanctity," and would like us to say that "lineal sanctity" implies fitness for the priestly blessing.
The third, and final, attempt to address the issue surrounds the supposed role of the priest in the performance of the priestly blessing, derived from Num 6:27. "ושמו את שמי על בני ישראל ואני אברכם" - "and they [the priests] will place My name on the children of Israel and I will bless them." A long discussion comes to the conclusion that the Kohanim are acting as a medium to place God's blessing on Israel, but, they are not themselves blessing Israel. The relevance of the difference to our question is never really spelled out, but, R. Rabinowitz claims that this is "added reason to include the daughters of kohanim who have lineal sanctity" in the performance of the ritual.
R. Rabinowitz then continues addressing problem #2. He states the the Biblical verse didn't limit the performance of the ritual to the Temple, and, therefore, what was done in the Temple is irrelevant. He also makes a rather confusing linkage between נשיאת כפים and the ברכת כהנים in the repetition of the Amidah, which is recited either at times when the congregation does not ordinarily do נשיאת כפים, such as on a non-festival Shabbat, or when no Kohanim are present. He tries to imply that the Biblical verse limits the recitation of the words of the blessing to Kohanim, but it clearly doesn't. Anyone can speak the words of the blessing, as שלוחי צבור who are not Kohanim do regularly. However, only the Kohanim are obligated in reciting the blessing, and, only they recite it with a beracha. R. Rabinowitz's argument could just as easily be applied to anyone - Kohen or not Kohen. A curious footnote (#15) appears here - "An examination of the discussions found in Menahot 18b and Taanit 26b-27a imply that there are grounds to permit daughters of kohanim to participate in ברכת כהנים." It would have been nice had he elaborated on it. As an aside, the Masorti movement (Israeli branch of Conservative) considered the historical positions of the Kohen and Levi to be the most important aspect of retaining the distinctions, and, thus rejected both a Bat Kohen's ability to perform נשיאת כפים in addition to a Bat Kohen or Bat Levi's precedence for the first and second aliyot. It appears to me that this one was a deal-breaker for them.
Problem #3 is barely addressed, but, it seems to me essentially a "things change" argument -- until recently, women didn't participate in any public ritual services, now they do.
IMHO, if you are willing to acknowledge that you are changing historical roles, the major issue that has to be addressed with regards to נשיאת כפים, of course, is problem #1 - who exactly is obligated in the Biblical commandment to bless Israel - male Kohanim, or their daughters as well? R. Rabinowitz does not address whether he believes that women are in fact, obligated; he only mentions that they should be able to participate. Further, what is the nature of that obligation? R. Rabinowitz, if he is intending to state one, would probably like it to equal to a male's -- Biblical. But, given the wording of the verse, and its context, is this argument really valid? And, if it is a Biblical commandment, then, was the Temple functioning incorrectly? The latter question is really philosophical: Is the purpose of retaining the Kohen/Levi/Yisrael division backwards-looking or forwards-looking? But the philosophy leads back to practical issues: How far do those obligations go? If we want to be fully-egalitarian, then is a Bat Kohen also obligated in the negative Biblical prohibitions that only apply to a Kohen? All of these problems should be addressed, rather than bypassed.
Note: last paragraph edited for clarity after publication: 1/10/04.