I wrote this a long time ago, and I'm aware the current Mara D'Atra of the Shul for which it was written takes a different positions (as is entirely their privilege), but this is my take on this.
Policy on Bat Cohen
Question:
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?
Answer:
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[1]
(which suggests that women should receive first aliyot) and a paper by
Rabbi
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
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.[3]
And you shall make [the Priest] kodesh.
The
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
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
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
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.[5]
This opens the possibility of the cohen having rights and obligations
that are not contingent on their ability to do
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].[6]
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) [7]
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).[8]
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.[9]
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
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.
Appellations
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)[10]
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.
Conclusion
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, [11]
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.
St Albans
Masorti Synagogue
[3] 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.
[4] This explains why the child of a female cohen and a yisrael
is considered a yisrael
[5] See Zevahim 101b,
Sifra Deut piska 208, Megillah 24b and Sifra to Lev 21:1 & 6 respectively.
[6] Responsa Mi ma-amikim
2:7, p.41. My emphasis.
[7] See Bekhorot 47a
tosafot DHM Mar, MT Bikkurim
[8] 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.
[9] Hulin 131b; see also
Rashi.
[10] I am grateful to Rabbi Charles Kraus for providing me with this
source.
[11] 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).
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment