Policy on Bat Cohen
As a community that gives first aliyah to cohanim and (otherwise) gives aliyot equally to men and women, which aliyot should the daughters of cohanim receive?
Also, does the marriage of a daughter of a cohen to a non-cohen, or the marriage of a yisraelit to a cohen, change matters regarding the aliyot that she should receive?
Also, what appellation should be given to a woman who is the daughter/wife of a cohen?
Finally, is there any difference between the law as applies for the daughters of cohanim and those of leviim?
This is an untidy issue for Masorti jurisprudence. We are caught, as a movement, between one ancient tradition that gives special honour to a select few and the desire to honour all, a tradition that has ancient roots, but is also shaped particularly by a contemporary understanding of the role of women. Moreover, we are standing on thin ice in the search for Rabbinic authority on which to rely, the tradition not having dealt systematically with the issue of giving women aliyot until 1955.
The two leading treatments are by Rabbi Joel Roth in a paper accepted by the American CJLS (which suggests that women should receive first aliyot) and a paper by Rabbi Raphael Harris accepted by the Israeli Vaad Halacha (which suggests they should not).
The Cohen and the First Aliyah (As Applied to Males)
Mishnah Gittin 5:8 reads,
The cohen reads first, the levi after him and the yisrael after him, because of the ways of peace [mipnei darkei shalom].
By the time of the Shulchan Arukh it is settled that, ‘even if the cohen is an ignoramus, they still read first, even before the wisest scholar in Israel’ (OH 135:4). It is also settled halachah that one cannot call a cohen to anything other than the first aliyah, maftir or extra hosafot aliyot. The exception to this is in the case:
Where there is no levi in the Synagogue. Then the cohen who read first, blesses a second time in place of [bimkom] the levi. But you don’t call a different cohen, lest people say the first is flawed [pagum]. (SA OH 135:8)
This concern not to suggest that a cohen is flawed, or pagum, is an important feature in the laws relating to distribution of aliyot. The concern is so strong that the Mishnah Brurah even prohibits calling the son of the first cohen to read bimkom levi since one might think that the father married a divorcee or otherwise made profane the priestly standing of his own son (OH 135:29). There is, throughout the relevant material in the Shulchan Arukh and Mishneh Brurah, a concern not to embarrass anyone with genuine cohen lineage by giving them, or anyone else, an aliyah that might suggest otherwise.
The Rabbis use a number of verses to find scriptural authority for this claim. The most satisfactory claim is based on Leviticus 21:8, as understood by the Talmud Gittin 59b.
And you shall make [the Priest] kodesh.
The school of Yishmael taught ‘make kodesh’ in all matters connected to kedushah. To open first [receive the first aliyah], to bless first [lead birkat hamazon] and to get first choice on the best portions.
Holiness, in a post-Temple Jewish world, becomes ‘going first’. This explanation stresses the connection between getting the first aliyah and avodat hakodesh – the work of the Priest in the Temple. The first aliyah, therefore, is some kind of zecher l’mikdash – a memory of the time of the Temple; however the extent to which this is the case will be addressed in more detail below.
The Status, Rights and Obligations of the Daughter of a Cohen
The child of any kosher marriage takes the status of the father, and this applies equally to sons and daughters. Mishnah Kiddushin 3:12 states:
Whenever there is kiddushin and there is no sin [in the coupling of father and mother], the child follows [the status] of the male [the father].
And who is this? This is a female Cohen, Levite or Israelite to a male Cohen, Levite or Israel.
Therefore the daughters of a male cohen and a parent allowed to marry a cohen are considered cohanot (a Rabbinic term used, as we will see below, in the Mishnah).
But what does this mean in terms of the religious rights and responsibilities of the Priesthood? Rabbi Harris suggests there are no implications; that wherever the Rabbis discuss matters of cultic or ritual significance only the males are addressed. In doing so, he claims, they develop the androcentricity of verses regarding the Priesthood in the Bible. Numbers 3:15, for example, states:
Count the bnei Levi, according to their tribe and their family, count all the males from one month upwards.
It is clear that both sons and daughters of a male cohen are permitted to eat Terumah – special foods made available to the cohen and, as Leviticus 22:11 states, anyone born in his house. However, Rabbi Harris dismisses that this can teach us anything about aliyot since the right to eat terumah is entirely ‘relational’, i.e. dependent on her relation to her father and does not vest in the daughter in her own right. Certainly the way in which the Mishnah treats the daughter of a cohen’s right to eat other foods made available for the Priesthood doesn’t suggest her ability to eat them is in any way a special right that is her own.
The Thanksgiving offering and the Shlamim offering are light offerings … and they are eaten in any part of the city… The cuts which are raised up as a heave offering are eaten by Priests, their women, their children and their slaves. (Mishnayot Zevachim 5:5 & 6 conflated for ease of presentation)
Notice the classic Mishnaic triplet of women, kids and slaves. It leads one to consider that the religious idea driving the Mishnah is looking after those who cannot look after themselves (in the eyes of the Mishnah) rather than recognising any inherent holiness in the wife or daughter of a priest.
Mishnah Sotah 3.7 – while recognising the daughters of cohanim as ‘cohanot’ – nonetheless makes clear that daughters of cohanim have very different (and fewer) rights and obligations than their brothers.
What is the difference between a cohen and cohanot? …
Cohanot can profane their status [by marrying converts or divorcees], a cohen can not.
Cohanot is allowed to become unclean through attending the dead, a cohen can not.
Cohanot cannot eat kodshim [one category of foods given to the priestly class], a cohen can.
These texts and those like them leave Rabbi Harris inclining against upsetting the ancient primacy of the male-cohen in the context of receiving the first aliyah. Since, Rabbi Harris claims, the first aliyah is intimately related to Priestly service and since women didn’t do Priestly service, and especially since change might be perceived as controversial, he recommends shav v’al toseh – sit tight and don’t do anything.
How Close is the Relationship Between Temple Priestly Service and the First Aliyah?
Rabbi Roth suggests that if the contemporary rights and obligations of the Cohen were entirely contingent on being able to do Priestly service in Temple times one would expect that baalei mumin – those with certain physical blemishes who were prohibited from Temple service – would also be prohibited from the rights, and exempt from the obligations, of the contemporary cohen. But this is not the case. Baalei mumin are allowed to eat of the holiest sacrifices, they may officiate at the ceremony of the egel arufah, bless the people and must not defile themselves by attending on the dead. This opens the possibility of the cohen having rights and obligations that are not contingent on their ability to do Temple service, but rather solely a function of their birth into the family of the sons of Aaron. This raises the question of whether the right to the first aliyah should be seen as such a right, or as a right contingent on the ability to do Priestly service.
Rabbi Roth has discovered a fascinating, and tragic, case which casts some light on this issue. A cohen, the victim of Nazi persecution, has been castrated. Can he get the first aliyah? Rav Oshri held that if there is no other cohen around, the man can since:
The elements of the priestly prerogative [including the right to receive the first aliyah] are not contingent on his serving at the altar at all, and even where a priest is not entitled to serve at the alter, as a baal mum, he nonetheless retains the sanctity of the priesthood and [he should be permitted to receive the first aliyah].
All of which suggests that the right to the first aliyah is not as closely connected to Priestly service (and therefore is not as androcentric) as we might have thought.
When the Daughter of a Priest Marries a Non-Priest
Leviticus 22:12 states:
The daughter of a Priest - when she [marries a non-Priest] - should no longer eat the holy trumah.
We see a similar sentiment in the Talmud, Yevamot 87a, commenting on Numbers 18:19:
I have given you all these holy trumot, to you, your sons and daughters while they are with you.
Rava stated ‘with you’ only when they are with you [i.e. not ‘with’ anyone else].
This is very significant authority for the notion that a significant part of priestly rights, gained by the daughter of a cohen on birth, is lost on her marriage to a non-cohen. But it is too much to say that all the rights of the daughter of a priest pass on marriage. Some quasi-priestly rights persist.
Firstly we should consider the case of pidiyon haben – redemption of the firstborn. The ‘opening of the womb’ of a yisraelit woman must be redeemed by a cohen. However, if the mother was herself a daughter of a cohen (or levi) the child is exempt, regardless of the status of the father. Even the Talmud professes surprise at this.
But doesn’t the Bible say [we should consider the child] according to their families, their father’s house [a very common phrase, especially at the beginning of Numbers]. However Mar, son of Rav Yosef says the matter depends on the [status of the woman with the] womb. (Bekorot 47a) 
Secondly, there is the case of eating trumah bshogeg. If a non-cohen mistakenly eats trumah they have to repay to the Priest what they have eaten with a 20% additional fine (see Leviticus 22:14). But if the accidental trumah nosher is a Priest’s daughter who has married a non-cohen, she is exempt from the surcharge (Mishnah Terumot 7:2).
Matanot Cehunah – gifts to the Priests of the shoulders, cheeks and stomach – can also be given to daughters of cohanim even when married to non-cohanim. Ulla, one of the great Rabbis of the Talmud, specifically understood the relevant verse he should give them to the priest (Deut 18:3) to include women married to non-cohamin.
The same is true of the first shearing of a sheep, also a priestly gift. As Rambam points out:
The first shearing is ordinary [hol] in every regard. Therefore I say that one gives it to the daughter of the cohen even though she is married to an Israelite, like animal gifts. It seems to me that one rule applies to both. (MT Bikurim 10:17)
When Rambam considers the first shearing ‘ordinary’ he makes a key point – namely that the right to these gifts is NOT connected to the ‘holy’ Priestly service (performed exclusively by males). This makes clear that there are some rights of the priest that can be considered ‘holy’ – i.e. intimately connected to Priestly service (and only open to men) while other rights can be considered ‘ordinary’, i.e. based on being born into a special family and, as such, a right that might apply equally to men and women. The question is whether the right of the first aliyah is a ‘holy’ or an ‘ordinary’ right accruing to the priestly line.
Rabbi Roth makes the claim that the right is ordinary; he claims that the collection of instances where the special treatment of a daughter of a cohen persists even post-marriage:
Makes it reasonable and proper for the Law Committee to decide that daughters of priests and levites be accorded the same aliyot that are normally accorded to priests and levites. This should be the case 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.
The Teshuvot of Rabbis Roth and Harris
Rabbi Roth makes two claims: firstly that the right of first aliyah is ‘ordinary’ and not directly connected to temple service and secondly that there are enough priestly rights in the daughter of a Priest to allow us to consider that she should receive the first aliyah even after she has married a non-cohen.
With a certain amount of trepidation I am not entirely unconvinced by my teacher’s analysis, particularly as applied to a married woman.
On the connection between Temple service and the first aliyah, while the case of a baal mum is of interest, it does not, for me, trump the connection between Priestly service in Temple times and the notion of ‘going first’. (See the statement of the School of Yishmael, Gittin 59b discussed above.)
Moreover, while some vestiges of priestly rights do remain with the daughter of a cohen after her marriage, the examples cited above should be read narrowly and not as a general case. It is no surprise to see the focus on the ‘womb’ (mother) in the case of pidiyon ha-ben, particularly given other applications of this rule. The case of the accidental trumah nosher can be explained simply in terms of a concession to a reality – she used to be able to eat terumah, so if she makes a mistake in her married state there ought to be some understanding here. This leaves the issue of Priestly gifts, which is hardly a crushing precedent, certainly when compared to the far more general notion that a daughter of a priest who marries a non-priest is considered to have left the house of her father to join that of her husband.
I also have serious misgivings with the approach of Rabbi Harris. His claim that, in matters relating to religious ritual, there is no kedushah applied to the daughter of the priest goes too far, particularly in the case of the unmarried daughter. Furthermore, Harris’s recommendation, shav v’al toseh – sit tight and don’t do anything – is not a workable principle for a community where you have to make some decision about what aliyot to give women. It is wrong to claim that these women are not cohanot (at least until marriage) and therefore giving her a later aliyah is an affront and suggests a p’gamah or flaw in her priestly lineage, which I am unwilling to do. One could duck the issue by only giving such women maftir or hosafot (rarely distributed) aliyot, but this seems cowardly and is frankly unfair (might one even say an affront to darkei shalom – the ways of peace). That said, I consider Harris correct in claiming that the wife of a cohen has only a relationship to the cehuna and should not be considered a cohen in her own right.
None of this has any impact on the name by which a woman is called to the Torah. The daughter of a cohen is to be called X bat Y Ha-Cohen, regardless of who she subsequently marries. The reason for retaining the marker ‘ha-cohen’ has nothing to do with the status of the woman; rather it is a reference to the father. We can learn this principle from laws relating to the writing of legal documents, such as bills of divorce.
In our lands [when putting the names of a husband into a get] we write X ben Y ha-cohen, or ha-levi. This is also the standard regarding the father of the woman, we write [X bat Y] ha-cohen, or ha-levi even if [the woman’s father] has become an apostate. (Kav Naki, Seder Ha-Get par. 24)
The fact that this statement appears in discussion of a woman who has been married makes it clear that the daughter of a cohen retains the honorific in her name regardless of who she marries. We can also learn, from this focus on the father of the person, that a yisraelit who marries a cohen does not pick up an honorific on marriage.
I would like to chart a middle path between Rabbis Roth and Harris. Daughters of a cohen do have some personal connection to the kedushah of their fathers and they should therefore receive the first aliyah while they are ‘with their fathers’, i.e. not married. However, if they marry a non-cohen they should be considered to have left the house of their father and entered that of their husband. The wife of a cohen has only a relationship to the priesthood and her marriage should not impact on the aliyot that she should receive. I should also state that I have seen nothing applicable to the matter at hand that suggests that the wives or daughters of leviim should be treated differently to cohanim.
Halachah L’Maseh – Practical Matters
- The unmarried daughter of a cohen should be eligible only for first aliyah (as cohen), maftir and hosafot.
- The daughter of a cohen who marries a non-cohen shall be eligible for the same aliyot as her husband,  though she shall still be called to the Torah X bat Y Ha-Cohen.
- The daughter of a yisrael who marries a cohen shall continue to be only eligible for shlishi and subsequent aliyot.
- The same rules shall apply to the daughter of a levi. With the exception that the daughter of a levi who marries a cohen does not become eligible for the first aliyah; rather she should continue to receive second aliyah, maftir and hosafot.
Rabbi Jeremy Gordon
St Albans Masorti Synagogue
 The other attempts are based on Deut 31:9, 21:5 and I Chron 23:13, but they need not delay us at this time.
 This explains why the child of a female cohen and a yisrael is considered a yisrael
 See Zevahim 101b, Sifra Deut piska 208, Megillah 24b and Sifra to Lev 21:1 & 6 respectively.
 Responsa Mi ma-amikim 2:7, p.41. My emphasis.
 See Bekhorot 47a tosafot DHM Mar, MT Bikkurim 11:10, SA YD 301.18. My emphasis.
 See also Emor 6:2, 97d, which explains the reason being that the daughter of a Priest is not to be considered a ‘stranger’ to terumah even after her marriage to a stranger.
 Hulin 131b; see also Rashi.
 I am grateful to Rabbi Charles Kraus for providing me with this source.
 This would also apply in the case of daughter of a cohen who married a levi. She would be able to receive the second aliyah even though the daughter of a yisrael who marries a levi remains a yisrael. Cohanim should correctly be seen as a subset of leviim, not a different grouping. Therefore such a woman leaves the particular (the cehunah) and enters the general category of her husband (in this case the family of levi) in the same way that the daughter of a cohen who marries a yisrael leaves the particular (the cehunah) and enters the general category of her husband (the family of yisrael).