Analysis of the CJLS teshuva re:women and the priestly blessing

[elfsdh]

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

Comments

[shirei_shibolim]

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.

If I may short-circuit things a bit earlier:

It should be noted - and I don't think it is - that what the sha"tz recites during hazarat hasha"tz is not birkat hakohanim. It contains the same words, as you note, but the surrounding material, being the preamble and the congregational response "ken yehi ratzon," indicate it to be a substitute of sorts.

Terri says hi.

[elfsdh]

You are correct - in the teshuva, no distinction is made. I made the distinction by calling the passages in the regular chazarah "Birkat Kohanim" and the one done only by the Kohanim, "Nesiyat Kapaim," for lack of better terminology. The congregational response in the former case (Amen or Ken yehi ratzon) depends on custom. The main difference between the two is that one fulfils a kohen's mitzvah to bless the people, and thus, has a beracha, while the other is just a rememberance of the beracha with which the Kohanim would bless the people, and has no other significance.

[elfsdh]

oh ... and, hi Terri

Oh, and . . .

[shirei_shibolim]

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?

A classmate of mine who is a bat kohen was recently told by a rabbi that she would lose the status were she to marry a divorced man. I'm rather perplexed at this, and have yet to find any source indicating it to be true. Just thought I'd share.

[elfsdh]

Interesting, perplexing, and, perhaps, consistent?

[fleurdelis28]

If we're parsing the Torah language here, wouldn't she just be prohibited from marrying an "isha zona va'halala ... v'isha g'rusha me'ishah"? (And wouldn't THAT be interesting...)

Doesn't a bat-kohein lose her status (for whatever duration) if she marries anybody? Or is that from a later source than the Torah? Shouldn't we apply kohein status to the wives of kohanim over b'not kohein who have married out? (Though I can see why the CJLS wouldn't wanna go there, either.)

[fleurdelis28]

Oops, I see navelofwine already addressed part of the former point. Though wouldn't the language there be some evidence of to what sort of person is being described? Unless you're arguing that the priestly blessing is different from everything else kohanim do and are.

[elfsdh]

For the record, I think one of navelofwine's comments were lost when I edited the post. Next time, editing goes in the comments section if there are already comments.

[navelofwine]

Don't worry -- editing is not the problem. The reason why my comment did not appear is that I had not yet completed it when our internet connection died. Here it is:

I agree that this is a sloppy teshuvah, but I think the conclusion is defensible. Halakha is not based on history. It is based on written texts. Many of ChaZaL's interpretations of the Torah are undoubtedly not in keeping with its original meaning, yet we consider them authoritative. It is only because of this flexibility that the Torah remains relevant to our lives. For halakhik purposes, interpreting אהרון ובניו to include women is perfectly reasonable, even if has not had that meaning in the past.

You ask whether, if this interpretation is accepted, we must conclude that the Temple functioned incorrectly. I don't think that's necessary. Each interpretation may be appropriate in its historical context. אילו ואילו דברי אלהים חיים. (Rabbi Golinkin applies similar reasoning in his teshuva on women in public worshipFinally, you ask whether the negative

[elfsdh]

I also think the conclusion is defensible. Just not by this particular argument. In halacha, the means matter as much as the ends. :-)

A couple of things I would have liked to have seen discussed more seriously:
1. Why we think retaining the distinction between a Kohen/Levi/Yisrael, is important. The Masorti movement thinks the major reason we retain it is historical memory, and that's why they consistently derive the halacha the way they do.
2. On the issue of "אהרון ובניו" referring to both men and women -- it's *plausible*, but as we've both mentioned, it's got a ton of practical implications. Let's face them.
3. A more thorough historical overview of historical rabbinic opinions on the subject.
4. The concept of obligation. Spell out the hows and whys.

On the structure of the document, it should:
1. remove or defend the assertion about נשיאת כפיים being equivalent to the request of the ש"ץ in the repetition of the Amidah.
2. not leave us hanging with potentially important points in footnotes.

I think we're basically

[navelofwine]

I think we should demand that the CJLS open-source their teshuvot. (Of course, they'd have to let us read them first...)