Kohen
From Exampleproblems
- For other meanings, see Cohen (disambiguation).
A Kohen (or Cohen, Hebrew "priest", pl. Kohanim or Cohanim) is a direct male descendant of the Biblical Aaron, brother of Moses, and has a distinct personal status within Judaism.
The High Priest
Biblical Data
Aaron, though he is but rarely called "the great priest," being generally simply designated "as ha-kohen" (the priest), was the first incumbent of the office, to which he was appointed by God (Ex. xxviii. 1, 2; xxix. 4, 5). The succession was to be through one of his sons, and was to remain in his own family (Lev. vi. 15; comp. Josephus, "Ant." xx. 10, § 1). Failing a son, the office devolved upon the brother next of age: such appears to have been the practise in the Maccabean period. In the time of ELI, however (I Sam. ii. 23), the office passed to the collateral branch of Ithamar (see Eleazar). But Solomon is reported to have deposed Abiathar, and to have appointed Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, in his stead (I Kings ii. 35; I Chron. xxiv. 2, 3). After the Exile, the succession seems to have been, at first, in a direct line from father to son; but later the civil authorities arrogated to themselves the right of appointment. Antiochus IV., Epiphanes, for instance, deposed Onias III in favor of Jason, who was followed by Menelaus (Josephus, "Ant." xii. 5, § 1; II Macc. iii. 4, iv. 23).
Herod the Great nominated no less than six high priests; Archelaus, two. The Roman legate Quirinius and his successors exercised the right of appointment, as did Agrippa I, Herod of Chalcis, and Agrippa II. Even the people occasionally elected candidates to the office. The high priests before the Exile were, it seems, appointed for life (comp. Num. xxxv. 25, 28); in fact, from Aaron to the Captivity the number of the high priests was not greater than during the sixty years preceding the fall of the Second Temple.
Age and Qualifications
The age of eligibility for the office is not fixed in the Law; but according to rabbinical tradition it was twenty (II Chron. xxxi. 17; Maimonides, "Yad," Kele ha-Mikdash, v. 15; Ḥul. 24b; 'Ar. 13b). Aristobulus, however, was only seventeen when appointed by Herod ("Ant." xv. 3, § 3); but the son of Onias III was too young (νηπιος) to succeed his father (ib. xii. 5, § 1). Legitimacy of birth was essential; hence the care in the keeping of the genealogical records (Josephus, Contra Apion i., § 7) and the distrust of one whose mother had been captured in war ("Ant." xiii. 10, § 5; Jellinek, "B. H." i. 133-137; Ḳid. 66a; John see Hyrcanus). The high priest might marry only an Israelite maiden (Lev. xxi. 13-14). In Ezek. xliv. 22 this restriction is extended to all priests, an exception being made in favor of the widow of a priest. He was not permitted to come in contact with the bodies of the dead, even of his parents; and he was not permitted, as a sign of mourning, to leave his hair disheveled, to expose it, or to rend his garments (Lev. xxi. 10 et seq.). According to Josephus ("Ant." xv. 3, § 1), birth on foreign soil was not a disqualification; but the disqualifications of Lev. xxi. 17 et seq. applied to the high priest as well as to other priests.
His Costume
The ceremonial of consecration, extending through an entire week (Ex. xxviii.; Lev. viii.), included certain rites which all priests were required to undergo: purification; the sacrifices; the "filling" of the hands; the smearing with blood. But Aaron the high priest was anointed with sacred oil, hence the title of the "anointed priest"; other passages have it that all priests were anointed (Ex. xxviii. 41, xxx. 30; Lev. vii. 36, x. 7; Num. iii. 3). The high priest's vestments of office, which he wore, during his ministrations, above those prescribed for the common priests, were: the "me'il," a sleeveless, purple robe, the lower hem of which was fringed with small golden bells alternating with pomegranate tassels in violet, red, purple, and scarlet; the Ephod, with two onyx-stones on the shoulder-piece, on which were engraved the names of the tribes of Israel; the breastplate ("koshen"), with twelve gems, each engraved with the name of one of the tribes; a pouch in which he probably carried the Urim and Thummim. His Head-Dress was the "miknefet," a tiara, or, perhaps, a peculiarly wound turban, with a peak, the front of which bore a gold plate with the inscription "Holy unto YHWH." His girdle seems to have been of more precious material than that of the common priests.
The first consecration was performed by Moses; the Bible does not state who consecrated subsequent high priests. Lev. xxi. 10 states emphatically that every new high priest shall be anointed; and Ex. xxix. 29 et seq. commands that the official garments worn by his predecessor shall be worn by the new incumbent while he is anointed and during the seven days of his consecration (comp. Num. xx. 28; Ps. cxxxiii. 2).
Sanctity and Functions
The distinguished rank of the high priest is apparent from the fact that his sins are regarded as belonging also to the people (Lev. iv. 3, 22). He was entrusted with the stewardship of the Urim and Thummim (Num. xxvii. 20 et seq.). On Yom Kippur he alone entered the Holy of Holies, to make atonement for his house and for the people (Lev. xvi.); on that occasion he wore white linen garments instead of his ordinary and more costly vestments. He alone could offer the sacrifices for the sins of the priests, or of the people, or of himself (Lev. iv.); and only he could officiate at the sacrifices following his own or another priest's consecration (Lev. ix.). He also offered a meal- offering every morning and evening for himself and the whole body of the priesthood (Lev. vi. 14-15, though the wording of the law is not altogether definite). Other information concerning his functions is not given. He was privileged, probably, to take part at his own pleasure in any of the priestly rites. Josephus ("B. J." v. 5, § 7) contends that the high priest almost invariably participated in the ceremonies on the Sabbath, the New Moon, and the festivals. This may also be inferred from the glowing description given in Ecclus. (Sirach) i. of the high priest's appearance at the altar.
In Rabbinical Literature
The high priest is the chief of all the priests; he should be anointed and invested with the pontifical garments; but if the sacred oil is not obtainable (see Hor. 13a; "Semag," 173, end), investiture with the additional garments (see Biblical Data) is regarded as sufficient (Maimonides, "Yad," Kele ha-Miḳdash, iv. 12). A high priest so invested is known as "merubbeh begadim." This investiture consists of arraying him in the eight pieces of dress and in removing them again on eight successive days, though (the anointing and) the investiture on the first day suffices to qualify him for the functions of the office (ib. iv. 13). The only distinction between the "anointed" and the "invested" high priest is that the former offers the bull for an unintentional transgression (Hor. 11b).
His Powers
The Great Sanhedrin alone had the right to appoint, or confirm the appointment of, the high priest. His consecration might take place only in the day-time. Two high priests must not be appointed together. Every high priest had a "mishneh" (a second) called the Segan, or "memunneh," to stand at his right; another assistant was the "catholicos"("Yad," l.c. 16-17). The right of succession was in the direct, or, the direct failing, the collateral, line, provided the conditions concerning physical fitness were fulfilled (ib. 20; Ket. 103b; Sifra, Ḳedoshim). For offenses which entailed flagellation the high priest could be sentenced by a court of three; after submitting to the penalty he could resume his office ("Yad," l.c. 22). The high priest was expected to be superior to all other priests in physique, in wisdom, in dignity, and in material wealth; if he was poor his brother priests contributed to make him rich (Yoma 18a; "Yad," l.c. v. 1); but none of these conditions was indispensable. The high priest was required to be mindful of his honor. He might not mingle with the common people, nor permit himself to be seen disrobed, or in a public bath, etc.; but he might invite others to bathe with him (Tosef., Sanh. iv.; "Yad," l.c. v. 3). He might not participate in a public banquet, but he might pay a visit of consolation to mourners, though even then his dignity was guarded by prescribed etiquette (Sanh. 18-19; "Yad," l.c. v. 4).
Restrictions
The high priest might not follow the bier of one in his own family who had died, nor leave the Temple or his house during the time of mourning. The people visited him to offer consolation; in receiving them, the Segan was at his right, the next in rank and the people at his left. The people said: "We are thy atonement." He answered: "Be ye blessed from heaven" ("Yad," l.c. v. 5; and Mishneh Kesef, ad loc.). During the offering of consolation he sat on a stool, the people on the floor; he rent his garments, not from above, but from below, near the feet, the penalty for rending them from above being flagellation (Semag, Lawin, 61-62). He could not permit his hair to be disheveled, nor could he cut it ("Yad," l.c. v. 6). He had one house attached to the Temple (Mid. 71b), and another in the city of Jerusalem. His honor required that he should spend most of his time in the Sanctuary ("Yad," l.c. v. 7). The high priest was subject to the jurisdiction of the courts, but if accused of a crime entailing capital punishment he was tried by the Great Sanhedrin; he could, however, refuse to give testimony (Sanh. 18).
The high priest must be married; to guard against contingencies it was proposed to hold a second wife in readiness immediately before the Day of Atonement (Yoma i. 1); but polygamy on his part was not encouraged ( = "one wife"; Yoma 13a; "Yad," l.c. v. 10). He could give the "ḥaliẓah," and it could be given to his widow, as she also was subject to the Levirate; his divorced wife could marry again (l.c.; Sanh. 18). When entering the Temple ("Hekal") he was supported to the curtain by three men (Tamid 67a; this may perhaps have reference to his entering the Holy of Holies; but see "Yad," l.c. v. 11, and the Mishneh Kesef ad loc.). He could take part in the service whenever he desired ("Yad," l.c. v. 12; Yoma i. 2; Tamid 67b; see Rashi ad loc.). On the Day of Atonement he wore white garments only, while on other occasions he wore his golden vestments (Yoma 60a; comp. 68b, ). The seven days preceding the Day of Atonement were devoted to preparing for his high function, precautions being taken to prevent any accident that might render him Levitically impure (Yoma i. 1 et seq.). The ceremonial for that day is described in detail in Mishnah Yoma (see also Haneberg, "Die Religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel," pp. 659-671, Munich, 1869). For other regulations concerning the high priest see "Yad," Biat ha-Miḳdash, ii. 1, 8; for details in regard to the vestments see "Yad," Kele ha-Miḳdash, viii. 2-4, 5 (in reference to soiled vestments: the white could be worn only once); l.c. vii. 1 ("ẓiẓ"), vii. 3 ("me'il"), vii. 6 ("ḥoshen"), vii. 9 (ephod), ix.
Josephus enumerates only fifty-two pontificates under the Second Temple, omitting the second appointments of Hyrcanus II., Hananeel, and Joazar.
Critical View
Only Known to Priestly Code. The foregoing regulations concerning the office, title, and prerogatives of the high priest are given in P (Priestly Code) and the "Holiness Code" combined with it; the other Pentateuchal sources do not mention a dignitary of this order. The only seeming exception is the reference to Eleazar as the successor of Aaron "the priest" (Josh. xxiv. 33; comp. Deut. x. 6). Deuteronomy (xvii. 8 et seq.) speaks of "the" priest () as entrusted with judgment, and as possessing it rank equal to that of the judge. This has been taken to indicate that the office was known to exist and was sanctioned in the days of the composition of Deuteronomy (but see Steuernagel ad loc.). Yet this very juxtaposition of judge and priest suggests quite a different conception of the office than that prevailing in P and detailed above. Furthermore, in Ezekiel's ideal reconstitution (Ezek. xl.-xlviii.), though much attention is given to the status of the priests, the high priest is consistently ignored. Perhaps ("the" priest), referring to the person entrusted with the purification of the Sanctuary on the two days annually set apart for this purpose (Ezek. xlv. 19 et seq.), designates the high priest; but it is significant that the special title is omitted and that no further particulars are given.
The historical and prophetical books lend probability to the theory, based on the facts above, that in pre-exilic days the office had not the prominence P ascribed to it. Jehoiada (II Kings xi. 10), Urijah (ib. xvi. 10), and Hilkiah (ib. xxii. 14) are each referred to by "ha-kohen," though "ha-kohen ha-gadol" is also used, while "kohen ha-rosh" occurs in connection with Seraiah. Many have contended that this enlarged title is to be considered a later amplification of the simple , a view largely resting on II Sam. xv. 27 ("Ẓadoḳ ha-kohen"). The title ("the second priest"; Jer. lii. 24; II Kings xxv. 18), however, proves the recognition of a chief priest. Yet this chief priest in pre-exilic times must have been regarded in quite a different light from that presupposed in P. Under David and Solomon there were two priests, Abiathar and Zadok, who simultaneously bore the title "ha- kohen" (II Sam. viii. 17, xix. 12; I Kings i. 7, iv. 4). Zadok is represented as officiating both at Gibeon (I Chron. xvi. 39) and at Jerusalem (II Sam. xv. 24 et seq.). The fact that Solomon deposed Abiathar and put Zadok in his place has been invoked to remove these difficulties; but the fact that a king could control the office is proof that it was of a character other than that assumed in P. If the conclusion is warranted that every shrine had its own chief priest (Eli at Shiloh; Ahimelech in Nob) before the complete centralization of the cult at Jerusalem, the restriction of the number of high priests to one is out of the question (see High Place).
Post-Exilic Conditions
After the Exile, Joshua appears vested with such prominence as P ascribes to the high priest (Zech. iii.; Hag. vi. 13). In Ezra and Nehemiah, again, but little consideration is shown for the high priest. The post-exilic high priests traced their pedigree back to Zadok, appointed as chief priest at Jerusalem by Solomon (I Kings ii. 35), and Zadok was held to be a descendant of Eleazar, the son of Aaron (II Chron. v. 34). Immediately after the return from the Captivity, as is clearly to be inferred from Zechariah and Haggai, political authority was not vested in the high priest. Political (Messianic) sovereignty was represented by, or attributed to, a member of the royal house, while religious affairs were reserved to the high-priesthood, represented in the Book of Zechariah by Joshua. But in the course of time, as the Messianic hope, or even the hope of autonomy under foreign (Persian, Greek, Egyptian,or Syrian) suzerainty, became weaker, the high priest grew to be more and more also the political chief of the congregation, as much, perhaps, through the consideration shown him by the suzerain powers and their viceroys as through the effect of the increasingly thorough acceptance of the Levitical code by pious Judeans. In this connection the report (I Macc. vii. 14) that the rigorists received Alcimus, the high priest, with confidence because he was "a priest of the seed of Aaron" is significant. The author of the Book of Daniel regards the period from 536 to 171 B.C. (Joshua to Jason) as inaugurated by the first, and closed by the last, "anointed"; that is, Jason, deposed in 171, was for the writer in Daniel the last of the line of legitimate high priests.
Political Aspects
Ecclus. (Sirach) l. is another evidence of the great reverence in which the high priest was held. The assumption of the princely authority by the Maccabean high priests (the Hasmoneans) was merely the final link in this development, which, beginning with the death of Zerubbabel, was to combine the two ideals, the politico-Messianic and the religio-Levitical, in one office. But after the brief heyday of national independence had come to an inglorious close, the high-priesthood changed again in character, in so far as it ceased to be a hereditary and a life office. High priests were appointed and removed with great frequency (see above). This may account for the otherwise strange use of the title in the plural (ἀρχιερεῖς) in the New Testament and in Josephus ("Vita," § 38; "B. J." ii. 12, § 6; iv. 3, §§ 7, 9; iv. 4, § 3). The deposed high priests seem to have retained the title, and to have continued to exercise certain functions; the ministration on the Day of Atonement, however, may have been reserved for the actual incumbent. This, however, is not clear; Hor. iii. 1-4 mentions as distinctive the exclusive sacrifice of a bull by the high priest on the Day of Atonement and the tenth of the ephah (that is, the twelve "ḥallot"; comp. Meg. i. 9; Macc. ii. 6). But even in the latest periods the office was restricted to a few families of great distinction (probably the bene kohanim gedolim; Ket. xiii. 1-2; Oh. xvii. 5; comp. Josephus, "B. J." vi. 2, § 2; see Schürer, "Gesch." 3d ed., ii. 222).
Connection with Sanhedrin
The high priest was the presiding officer of the Sanhedrin. This view conflicts with the later Jewish tradition according to which the Pharisee tannaim (the Zuggim) at the head of the yeshivot presided over the great Sanhedrin also (Ḥag. ii. 2). However, a careful reading of the sources ("Ant." xx. 10; "Contra Ap." ii., § 23; comp. "Ant." iv. 8, § 14; xiv. 9, §§ 3-5 [Hyrcanus II. as president]; xx. 9, § 1 [Ananus]), as well as the fact that in the post-Maccabean period the high priest was looked upon as exercising in all things, political, legal, and sacerdotal, the supreme authority, shows it to be almost certain that the presidency of the Sanhedrin was vested in the high priest (see Isidore Loeb in "R. E. J." 1889, xix. 188-201; Jelski, "Die Innere Einrichtung des Grossen Synhedrions," pp. 22-28, according to whom the "nasi" was the high priest, while the "ab bet din" was a Pharisaic tanna).
The priesthood in the Hebrew Bible
The Torah appoints Aaron, brother of Moses, and Aaron's descendants as Kohanim (Numbers 3:1–4). They were given duties associated with the Tabernacle (Numbers 1:47–54; 3:5–13,44–51; 8:5–26), primarily the daily and Jewish holiday offerings of various sacrifices, collectively known as the korbanot in Hebrew.
Since Aaron was a Levite, this means that all Kohanim are Levites. Most of the service, mainly of the korbanot, in the Temple could be conducted only by Kohanim. Non-Kohen Levites assisted in the services of the Temple.
Biblical Judaism saw in the Temple the manifestation of God's presence among His people, and in the Kohanim (priests) a vehicle of divine grace. According to the Talmud, "the priests were the emissaries, not of the people, but of God"; hence, a person who had sworn that he would not accept a service from a priest might nevertheless employ him to offer sacrifices and might make atonement for sin through him (Talmud, Yoma 19a; and Nedarim).
Importance of pedigree
Later Judaism enforced rigidly the laws relating to the pedigrees of priests, and even established similar requirements for the women they married. Proof of a spotless pedigree was necessary for admission to priestly service. Anyone unable to establish their status as a Kohen was excluded from the priesthood.
Unless a woman's pedigree was known to be unimpeachable, a Kohen, before marrying her, was required to examine it for four generations on both sides, in case she was of priestly lineage; for five generations if she was not of priestly descent.
A Kohen may not marry a proselyte or a freedwoman ("They shall not marry an immoral or profaned woman. They must not marry a woman who has been divorced from her husband, because he is Holy to his God" (Leviticus 21:7 [1]). Regarding a daughter of such persons, opinion in the Mishnah is divided as to whether or not it was necessary that one of the parents should be of Jewish descent. The decision of later authorities was that, in case both of the woman's parents were proselytes or freed persons, a priest should not marry her, but if he had done so, then the marriage should be considered legitimate.
A Kohen not complying with these requirements is not allowed to give the priestly blessing.
Talmudic law prescribes that the honor of being first called upon for the reading of the Torah should belong to the priest.
According to the Talmud, the regulations demanding an unimpeachable pedigree continued to be binding, even after the Temple had been destroyed. The reason is that eventually the Jewish Messiah will arrive, gather the Jews back to the land of Israel, rebuild the Temple, and resume the priestly service; at such a time Kohanim of unimpeachable status will be required for such service.
Rules protecting against ritual defilement
The Kohanim formed a holy order. For the purpose of protecting them against all ritual profanation and defilement they were to follow many rules.
- Kohanim were forbidden to come in contact with dead bodies, except in the case of their nearest kin, nor were they permitted to perform the customary mourning rites. A Kohen is forbidden to enter any house or enclosure, or approach any spot, where a dead body, or part of a dead body, may be found. (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 1–5; Ezek. xliv. 20, 25).
- A Kohen is forbidden to touch any one or anything that is ritually unclean through contact with the dead.
- They were not allowed to marry harlots, nor dishonored or divorced women (Lev. xxi. 7).T
- They were required to abstain from wine and all strong drink while performing sacerdotal duties (Lev. x. 9; Ezek. xliv. 21).
- Any priest having incurred Levitical defilement was excluded, under penalty of death, from priestly service and from partaking of holy food during the time of his uncleanness (Lev. xxii. 2–7, 9; Ezek. xliv. 26 et seq.).
- If afflicted with any bodily blemish the priest was held permanently unfit for service; however, they were still permitted to eat of the holy food (Lev. xxi. 17–23). The Talmud specifies what constitutes a bodily defect sufficient to render a Kohen unfit for priestly service.
Exceptions to rules for contact with the dead
In contradistinction to Lev. 21:2–4, the Talmud includes a Kohen's wife and children among the persons of immediate relationship. Thus, it specifies that a Kohen must take care of and bury his dead wife and children, even though a strict reading of the Torah would mean that this renders the Kohen ritually impure.
The Talmud prescribes that if any Kohen, even the Kohen Gadol (high priest), finds a corpse by the wayside, and there is no one else in the area who can be called upon to inter it, then the Kohen himself must perform the burial.
The Talmud orders the Kohen to defile himself in the case of the death of a nasi (rabbinic leader of a religious academy). The Talmud relates that when Judah haNasi died the priestly laws concerning defilement through contact with the dead were suspended for the day of his death.
Division into work groups
Not all Kohanim (priests) worked at the same time; they were divided into twenty-four groups. This is mentioned in Chronicles; this practice continued down to the destruction of the Second Temple, as statements to this effect by Josephus ("Ant." vii. 14, § 7; "Vita", § 1) and the Talmudic sources show.
These "divisions" of priests took turns in weekly service. Those who served changed every Shabbat (Sabbath), but on the Biblical festivals all twenty-four were present in the Temple.
These twenty-four "divisions" were subdivided into from five to nine smaller groups. Each of these smaller groups was assigned to service in turn. The main "divisions" were called mishmarot, the "subdivisions" batte abot (terms which in Chronicles are used interchangeably). There was a chief at the head of each main "division", and also one at the head of each "subdivision".
Post-Temple theology and practice
After the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem the formal role of priests in sacrificial services came to an end, since in the absence of a temple in Jerusalem, sacrifices are not brought.
Women and the priesthood
A Bat Kohen is the daughter of a Kohen. The Talmud states that she loses her status as a Kohenet (i.e. "female Kohen") when she marries a non-Kohen. Some rulings in traditional Jewish law allow for the ruling that a Bat Kohen may perform the ritual of pidyon ha-ben, the ceremonial redemption of a first-born son. In practice Orthodox Judaism views this as forbidden. A Bat Kohen may not perform the ritual of Nesiat Kapayim, the priestly blessing sung aloud from the pulpit towards the congregation.
Marriages involving Kohanim
Historic and present-day Orthodox Judaism view
Such marriages are regulated by a number of special restrictions in addition to the general laws covering all Israelites. The Torah prohibits a Kohen from marrying women of certain specified categories: A divorcee, a "defiled" woman, or a "harlot". It ordains that any Kohen who makes such a marriage loses his priestly status [Lev. 21:6–7]. The Talmudic understanding of the word "harlot" also encompasses the meaning "proselyte" (or "convert"). According to the Talmud the act of marriage, although prohibited, was effective if a Kohen married in disregard of the prohibitions. Any children born of the union are legitimate.
Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, there have been no more sacrificial services, but the sanctified status of the Kohanim remains in force.
Reform view
Reform Judaism sees ritual halakha as no longer having any legal status, and this allows such marriages. Orthodox Judaism accepts that these laws are still normative, and thus usually forbids such marriages.
Conservative Judaism view
Conservative Judaism holds that, in general, Jewish law is still binding, but that these particular restrictions are no longer applicable. Thus the movement teaches that a Kohen may marry a convert or divorcee. Their reasoning is that:
- The Temple in Jerusalem is no longer extant; Kohanim are no longer needed to perform Temple services.
- According to many codes of Jewish law, the priestly status of most Kohanim is doubtful, at best. Rabbi Isaac ben Sheshet (14th century) differentiates between authentic Kohanim of ancient times, and those who carry the title today. He rules that today's Kohanim, lacking documentary evidence of clear right to the priestly title, owes any privileges and obligations not simply to halakha (law) but rather to the force of minhag (custom). [Sefer Bar Sheshet, responsum 94, Lemberg, 1805].
- Rabbi Solomon Luria (16th century) rules that because of the frequent persecutions and expulsions of Jews throughout history, Kohanim lost track of their genealogy. The Magen Avraham also rules this way, and Rabbi Jacob Emden ruled similarly.
- The intermarriage crisis in American Judaism is an extreme situation, and the movement feels it must support the decision of two Jews to marry.
See also the entry on the Jewish view of marriage
Kohanim in contemporary times
Orthodox Jewish views
Since the end of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Kohen has little formal rule in Jewish life. The one area in which the Kohen still has a formal and public ceremonial comes in the area of the aliyah, the ritual reading of the Torah during prayer services. Three times each week a portion from the Torah is read aloud in front of the congregation, in the original Hebrew, and this reading is split into a number of portions. It is customary to reserve the first reading of the Torah for a Kohen, and the second reading of the Torah for a Levite. In the Orthodox Jewish community this custom has the effective status of law.
As Orthodox Judaism does not allow women to read publicly from the Torah during formal prayer services, daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim have no role in this area.
In regards to the ritual of pidyon ha-ben, the symbolic redemption of a newborn son, Orthodox rabbis note that there are some rabbinic sources which allow women to perform this ritual. In practice, however, the custom is to use only men.
In regards to the ritual of the Priestly Blessing, a Bat Kohen (daughter of a Kohen) is not permitted to participate in Nesiat Kapayim because as a continuation of a Temple ritual, the Priestly Benediction should be performed by those who were authentically eligible to do so in the Temple.
Conservative and Masorti Jewish views
The aliyah is the ritual reading of the Torah during prayer services. It is customary to reserve the first reading of the Torah for a Kohen, and the second reading of the Torah for a Levite. In the Conservative Jewish community this custom is generally followed, but it does not have the status of law. The Rabbinical Assembly's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has ruled that a rabbi is not obligated to follow this custom. As such, in some Conservative synagogues, this custom is not followed.
The following are the opinions of the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) of the Rabbinical Assembly, the international body of Conservative Jewish rabbis. Note that the Conservative movement teaches that where the law committee has validated more than one possible position, a congregation must follow the ruling of its rabbi, who as mara d'atra, local authority, has the sole responsibility in making such a p'sak, decision of Jewish law.
- One position of the CJLS is that daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim can be accorded the same honor of reading publicly from the Torah that are normally accorded to Kohanim and Leviyim, whether they are single or married. Their status regarding being called to the Torah should not be determined by the lineage of their husbands, but by their own paternal lineage (Rabbi Joel Roth "The status of daughters of Kohanim and Leviyim for aliyot" 11/15/89). Another position is that women do not receive such aliyot. The law committee of the Masorti movement (Conservative Judaism in Israel) has also ruled that women do not receive such aliyot (Rabbi Robert Harris, 5748).
- In regards to the ritual of pidyon ha-ben, the symbolic redemption of a newborn son, women may perform it on a newborn son. However, it is forbidden to perform this ceremony on a new-born daughter.
- In regards to the ritual of the Priestly Blessing, the CJLS has approved two positions. One view holds that a Bat Kohen may participate in Nesiat Kapayim, another view holds that a Bat Kohen is not permitted to participate in Nesiat Kapayim because as a continuation of a Temple ritual, the Priestly Benediction should be performed by those who were authentically eligible to do so in the Temple. (Rabbis Stanley Bramnick and Judah Kagen, 1994; and a responsa by the Va'ad halakha of the Masorti movement, Rabbi Reuven Hammer, 5748)
Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish views
The majority of Reform Jews and Reconstructionist Jews consider all rules and ceremonies regarding the priesthood to be outdated. Many consider it to be anti-egalitarian, and thus discriminatory against Jews who are not Kohanim. Thus the above laws and customs are no longer observed in Reform or Reconstructionist Jewish communities. Many Reform and Reconstructionist Temples effectively forbid the practice of these laws and customs. Both Orthodox and Conservative Jews strenuously disagree with this latter view.
Who is a Priest?
King Melchizedek of Salem, identified by Rashi as being Shem the son of Noah by another name, is the first person in the Torah to be called a Kohen (Genesis 14:18).
When Esau sold the birthright of the first born to Jacob, Rashi explains that the Priesthood was sold along with it, because by right the priesthood belongs to the first born. Only when the firstborn (along with the rest of Israel) sinned at the Golden calf, the priesthood was given to the tribe of Levi, which had not been tainted by this incident.
Moses was supposed to receive the priesthood along with the leadership of the Jewish people, but when he argued with God that he should not be the leader, it was given to Aaron.
Aaron received the priesthood along with his children and any descendants that would be born subsequently. However, his grandson Pinchas (Phineas) had already been born, and did not receive the priesthood until he killed the prince of the tribe of Simon and the princess of the Midianites (Numbers 31:11–12).
Thereafter, the priesthood has remained with the descendants of Aaron. However, when the Messiah comes, there is a tradition that it will revert back to the first born.
Recent genetic findings: The Kohen gene
Recently the tradition that Kohanim are actually descended from Aaron was supported by genetic testing (Skorecki et al., 1997). Since all direct male lineage shares a common Y chromosome, testing was done across sectors of the Jewish population to see if there was any commonality between their Y chromosomes. There was proven to be certain distinctions among the "Kohen" Y chromosomes, implying that the Kohanim do share some common ancestry. This information was used to support the claim of the Lemba (a sub-Saharan tribe) that they were in fact, a tribe of Jews. See also Y-chromosomal Aaron.
Cohen as a surname
Many Kohanim have a surname that reflects their status, such as Cohen itself, Conn or "Anglicised" variants like Conway. Cogan may be due to a confusion between the h and g sounds in parts of Eastern Europe, or a corruption of Kagan. Katz may be short for Kohen Tzedek (Righteous Kohen). However, by no means all Jews with such surnames are Kohanim. Also, some Cohens may be Irish (corruption of Cohan).
Outside Judaism
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives legal right of Kohanim to constitute the Presiding Bishopric under the authority of the First Presidency (D&C 68; see v. 16-20). When and where Church Kohanim are not available, Melchizedek Priesthood holders substitute. To date, all men who have served as the Presiding Bishop have been Melchizedek Priesthood holders, and none have been publically identified as Kohenim. See also Mormonism and Judaism.
Trivia
The gesture that a Kohen gives when blessing a congregation was Leonard Nimoy's inspiration for the Vulcan salute.
Bibliography
- Isaac Klein A Guide to Jewish Religious Practice, p.387-388.
- Isaac Klein Responsa and Halakhic Studies, p.22-26.
- K. Skorecki, S. Selig, S. Blazer, R. Bradman, N. Bradman, P. J. Waburton, M. Ismajlowicz, M. F. Hammer (1997). Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests. Nature 385, 32. (Available online: DOI | Full text (HTML) | Full text (PDF))
- Proceedings of the CJLS: 1927-1970, volume III, United Synagogue Book Service.
External links
- The Laws of Birchat Kohanim - the Priestly Blessing chabad.org
- The description of priestly ritual, in isolation, at wikisource
- The description of ritual objects, in isolation, at wikisource
- The list of Kohanite duties, in isolation, at wikisource
- The Cohen-Levi Family Heritage
- soc.culture.jewish newsgroups FAQ Question 9.1: How does a rabbi differ from a priest?
