Daily Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora
Daily
Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora *
Birkat Cohanim in the Diaspora *
By Rabbi Daniel
Sperber
Sperber
Question: May
Cohanim outside the Land of Israel give the priestly blessing (Birkat
Cohanim, or Nesiat Kapayim) on weekdays and on regular Shabbatot?
Cohanim outside the Land of Israel give the priestly blessing (Birkat
Cohanim, or Nesiat Kapayim) on weekdays and on regular Shabbatot?
Answer: The
Torah explicitly requires the Cohanim to bless the people (Numbers
6:23), but does not tell us where or when they should do so. Rambam (Sefer
ha-Mitzvot, Mitzvat Assei 26) who gives no details, but refers us to
B. Megillah 24b, Taanit
2b, and Sotah 37b, to work out the details. However, there are
versions of the Rambam’s text (edited by R. Hayyim Heller and R. Yosef Kefir)
when there are the additional words “every day”, and this, indeed, is
his ruling in the heading of his Hilchot Tefillah and Birkat Cohanim;
and see further ibid chapter 14, and this also is the ruling in Sefer
ha-Hinuch, Mitzvah 367. However, there we find the additions that
“the Mitzvah applies in all places at all times…” Hagahot
Maimoniyot, to Rambam Hilchot tefillah 15:12 note 9 writes, on the
basis of R. Yehoshua ha Levi’s statement in B. Sotah 38b, that any Cohen
who does not bless the people transgresses three commandments, splitting as it
were the biblical verse in Numbers ibid. thus: “So shall you bless
the children of Israel/ say unto them”, adding verse 27 ibid., “And
they shall put my name upon the children of Israel…” The Hagahot
Mordechai modifies this by adding that if the Cohen has not been summoned
to bless the people, he does not transgress by not doing so, referring to the
Yerushalmi text, and this view is accepted by the Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim
128. There is also a minority view, rejected by mainstream authorities, that of
Rabbenu Manoah, that even if the Cohen was not called, if he did not bless the
people, he transgresses at least one commandment.
Torah explicitly requires the Cohanim to bless the people (Numbers
6:23), but does not tell us where or when they should do so. Rambam (Sefer
ha-Mitzvot, Mitzvat Assei 26) who gives no details, but refers us to
B. Megillah 24b, Taanit
2b, and Sotah 37b, to work out the details. However, there are
versions of the Rambam’s text (edited by R. Hayyim Heller and R. Yosef Kefir)
when there are the additional words “every day”, and this, indeed, is
his ruling in the heading of his Hilchot Tefillah and Birkat Cohanim;
and see further ibid chapter 14, and this also is the ruling in Sefer
ha-Hinuch, Mitzvah 367. However, there we find the additions that
“the Mitzvah applies in all places at all times…” Hagahot
Maimoniyot, to Rambam Hilchot tefillah 15:12 note 9 writes, on the
basis of R. Yehoshua ha Levi’s statement in B. Sotah 38b, that any Cohen
who does not bless the people transgresses three commandments, splitting as it
were the biblical verse in Numbers ibid. thus: “So shall you bless
the children of Israel/ say unto them”, adding verse 27 ibid., “And
they shall put my name upon the children of Israel…” The Hagahot
Mordechai modifies this by adding that if the Cohen has not been summoned
to bless the people, he does not transgress by not doing so, referring to the
Yerushalmi text, and this view is accepted by the Beit Yosef, Orah Hayyim
128. There is also a minority view, rejected by mainstream authorities, that of
Rabbenu Manoah, that even if the Cohen was not called, if he did not bless the
people, he transgresses at least one commandment.
Outside
Israel it is the practice for the Cohanim not to give the priestly blessing, even
though the mitzvah clearly applies abroad (see R. Hayyim Hezkel Medini, Sdei
Hemed vol.3, p.271, vol.8 pp.177 and 381), and for the congregation not to
request that they do so, – this with the exception of musaf on the
foot-festivals and Yom Kippur – even during Neilah. The Beit Yosef was very
perturbed by this practice. He writes (Orah Hayyim 128):
Israel it is the practice for the Cohanim not to give the priestly blessing, even
though the mitzvah clearly applies abroad (see R. Hayyim Hezkel Medini, Sdei
Hemed vol.3, p.271, vol.8 pp.177 and 381), and for the congregation not to
request that they do so, – this with the exception of musaf on the
foot-festivals and Yom Kippur – even during Neilah. The Beit Yosef was very
perturbed by this practice. He writes (Orah Hayyim 128):
The Agur wrote that Mahari Kolin [the Maharil] was
asked why the Cohanim do not give the priestly blessing every day, since it is
a positive commandment. And he answered that it was the custom of the priests
to make a ritual ablution [in the Mikvah] before blessing,
asked why the Cohanim do not give the priestly blessing every day, since it is
a positive commandment. And he answered that it was the custom of the priests
to make a ritual ablution [in the Mikvah] before blessing,
* This is
an expanded version of an article published under this title in Conversations
20, 2014, pp.150-155.
an expanded version of an article published under this title in Conversations
20, 2014, pp.150-155.
as is recorded in Hagahot Mordechai, and to do so
every day in the winter would be very difficult for them.
every day in the winter would be very difficult for them.
Hence, the custom evolved to do so only on the
festivals. Furthermore, [doing so] would curtail the business activities (mi-taam
bitul melachah), and in any case if the Cohen is not summoned he
does not transgress.
festivals. Furthermore, [doing so] would curtail the business activities (mi-taam
bitul melachah), and in any case if the Cohen is not summoned he
does not transgress.
However,
the Beit Yosef continues:
the Beit Yosef continues:
He forced himself to justify his local custom; but the
reasoning is insufficient. For that which he said that they were accustomed to
make a ritual oblution every day, this is a stringency – i.e. it is not really
required – which leads to leniency… Since ritual ablution as a requirement for
the priestly blessing is not mentioned in the Talmud. And even if they took
upon themselves this stringency, why would they cancel three commanments, even
if they were not transgressing since they had not been summoned. Surely it
would be better that they carry out these three commandments clearly and not
make the ritual ablutions, since there are not required, and by not doing so
they could fulfill the three commandments.
reasoning is insufficient. For that which he said that they were accustomed to
make a ritual oblution every day, this is a stringency – i.e. it is not really
required – which leads to leniency… Since ritual ablution as a requirement for
the priestly blessing is not mentioned in the Talmud. And even if they took
upon themselves this stringency, why would they cancel three commanments, even
if they were not transgressing since they had not been summoned. Surely it
would be better that they carry out these three commandments clearly and not
make the ritual ablutions, since there are not required, and by not doing so
they could fulfill the three commandments.
He ends
by saying:
by saying:
And praise be to the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael and
all Egypt who give the priestly blessing every day, and do not make ritual
oblutions for it.
all Egypt who give the priestly blessing every day, and do not make ritual
oblutions for it.
Indeed
there are some congregations that still follow the Beit Yosef’s position. Thus,
the Syrian community has birkat Cohanim every day, (see H.C. Dobrinsky, A
treasury of Sephardic Laws and Customs, Hoboken N.J., New York 1986, p.168).
This too was the Amsterdam custom of the Portuguese community, (Shemtob
Gaguine, Keter Shem Tov, vol.1, Kédainiai 1934, pp.222-227 note 268, who
also quotes Even Sapir, that this was the practice in Yemen, and
possibly in some Moroccan congregations), while in Djerba they did it on
Shabbatot and festivals, (R. Moshe HaCohen, Brit Kehunah, Orah Hayyim,
pp.101-102, and note 30). Thus, there are several precedants for this practice.
there are some congregations that still follow the Beit Yosef’s position. Thus,
the Syrian community has birkat Cohanim every day, (see H.C. Dobrinsky, A
treasury of Sephardic Laws and Customs, Hoboken N.J., New York 1986, p.168).
This too was the Amsterdam custom of the Portuguese community, (Shemtob
Gaguine, Keter Shem Tov, vol.1, Kédainiai 1934, pp.222-227 note 268, who
also quotes Even Sapir, that this was the practice in Yemen, and
possibly in some Moroccan congregations), while in Djerba they did it on
Shabbatot and festivals, (R. Moshe HaCohen, Brit Kehunah, Orah Hayyim,
pp.101-102, and note 30). Thus, there are several precedants for this practice.
However,
the Ashkenazi Rema, R. Mosheh Isserles, in his Darkei Mosheh ibid. 21,
seeks to justify the Ashkenazi custom. He writes:
the Ashkenazi Rema, R. Mosheh Isserles, in his Darkei Mosheh ibid. 21,
seeks to justify the Ashkenazi custom. He writes:
Because [doing so] would curtail business activities
for the people in these countries, for the Cohenim are struggling to support
themselves in the exile, and they can barely support their families, other than
the bread they gather by the sweat of their brows daily, and they are not
happy. And it is for this reason that they do not carry out the priestly
blessing, which leads to bitel melachah la-am. And even on Shabbat they
do not do so, because they are troubled and concerned about their future…, and
they are only joyful on the festivals. And thus the custom evolved only to
bless the people on the festivals. So it would appear to me.
for the people in these countries, for the Cohenim are struggling to support
themselves in the exile, and they can barely support their families, other than
the bread they gather by the sweat of their brows daily, and they are not
happy. And it is for this reason that they do not carry out the priestly
blessing, which leads to bitel melachah la-am. And even on Shabbat they
do not do so, because they are troubled and concerned about their future…, and
they are only joyful on the festivals. And thus the custom evolved only to
bless the people on the festivals. So it would appear to me.
The
notion that the Cohen must be joyful when blessing the congregation has its
roots in the early Rishonim, (in Rash’s teacher, R. Yitzhak ben Yehudah).
notion that the Cohen must be joyful when blessing the congregation has its
roots in the early Rishonim, (in Rash’s teacher, R. Yitzhak ben Yehudah).
The Mateh
Efraim, of R. Efraim Zalman Margaliot, added that this was an ancient
practice, even more than five hundred years old, going back to the Tashbetz
ha-Katan, a disciple of the Maharam Mi-Rothenburg, and the Kol Bo
sect.128, and accepted by the Maharit, the Agur, the Darkei
Mosheh etc., “and one may not stir from this custom” . He also
gives additional reasons to support this custom.
Efraim, of R. Efraim Zalman Margaliot, added that this was an ancient
practice, even more than five hundred years old, going back to the Tashbetz
ha-Katan, a disciple of the Maharam Mi-Rothenburg, and the Kol Bo
sect.128, and accepted by the Maharit, the Agur, the Darkei
Mosheh etc., “and one may not stir from this custom” . He also
gives additional reasons to support this custom.
R. Efraim
Zalman Margaliot (1760-1811) in his response, Beit Efraim, Orah Hayyim 6,
Lvov 1818, also suggested that the reason for the absence of birkat Cohanim
abroad is because in our days the pedigree of Cohanim is questionable, and a Zar,
non-Cohen, may not bless the people (see B. Ketubot 24b), and doing so
several times every day would be making a berachah le-vatalah – an idle,
that is to say, unnecessary, blessing, which is forbidden – on numerous
occasions by many people. However, since birkat Cohanim is a mitzvat
aseh, a positive commandment, and we rule that even in questions of
uncertainty – safek -, when we are dealing with a mitzvat aseh,
we rule le-humra, stringently; and certainly it is superceded by the
seriousness of the mitzvah. Furthermore, if the Beit Efraim‘s
argument were correct, how come the Cohanim abroad do bless the people
on festivals during musaf? [1]
Zalman Margaliot (1760-1811) in his response, Beit Efraim, Orah Hayyim 6,
Lvov 1818, also suggested that the reason for the absence of birkat Cohanim
abroad is because in our days the pedigree of Cohanim is questionable, and a Zar,
non-Cohen, may not bless the people (see B. Ketubot 24b), and doing so
several times every day would be making a berachah le-vatalah – an idle,
that is to say, unnecessary, blessing, which is forbidden – on numerous
occasions by many people. However, since birkat Cohanim is a mitzvat
aseh, a positive commandment, and we rule that even in questions of
uncertainty – safek -, when we are dealing with a mitzvat aseh,
we rule le-humra, stringently; and certainly it is superceded by the
seriousness of the mitzvah. Furthermore, if the Beit Efraim‘s
argument were correct, how come the Cohanim abroad do bless the people
on festivals during musaf? [1]
The
Sefardi Kaf ha-Hayyim, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, on the other hand (Orah
Hayyim ibid note 16), cites French R. Yaakov of Marvege, (in his Shut
Min-ha-Shamayim no.38), who writes that:
Sefardi Kaf ha-Hayyim, R. Yaakov Hayyim Sofer, on the other hand (Orah
Hayyim ibid note 16), cites French R. Yaakov of Marvege, (in his Shut
Min-ha-Shamayim no.38), who writes that:
In a place where there are suitable Cohanim to bless
the people, and they do not do so even once a year, both the congregation that
do not call them to do so, and the Cohanim themselves, who do not make the
blessing, transgress, also because they seem not to be relying on their Father
in Heaven.
the people, and they do not do so even once a year, both the congregation that
do not call them to do so, and the Cohanim themselves, who do not make the
blessing, transgress, also because they seem not to be relying on their Father
in Heaven.
This was
cited by the Egyptian Radbaz, R. David ben Zimra, and especially the Hesed le-Avraham of R. Avraham
Azulai, who writes at length censuring those who do not bless the people, enumerating
the negative effects of their flawed thinking, concluding that “it be
proper to do so in every place, and not to seek out strategies to avoid doing
so.”
cited by the Egyptian Radbaz, R. David ben Zimra, and especially the Hesed le-Avraham of R. Avraham
Azulai, who writes at length censuring those who do not bless the people, enumerating
the negative effects of their flawed thinking, concluding that “it be
proper to do so in every place, and not to seek out strategies to avoid doing
so.”
And even
the Ashkenazi Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishnah Berurah 128:12 in the
Beur Halachah wrote:
the Ashkenazi Hafetz Hayyim, in his Mishnah Berurah 128:12 in the
Beur Halachah wrote:
It is only because of weekness that the Cohanim can go
out and not go up [to bless the people. For if not so, certainly they are not
acting well to needlessly nulify a positive commandment.
out and not go up [to bless the people. For if not so, certainly they are not
acting well to needlessly nulify a positive commandment.
Indeed,
there are some Ashkenazi congregations where they do carry out the priestly
blessing at least once a month, as we learn from the Sefer ha-Miktzoot,
or even every Shabbat, as is mentioned in the Mateh Efraim.
there are some Ashkenazi congregations where they do carry out the priestly
blessing at least once a month, as we learn from the Sefer ha-Miktzoot,
or even every Shabbat, as is mentioned in the Mateh Efraim.
Finally,
we may cite the words of R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, in his Aruch ha-Shulhan,
Orah Hayyim 128:4, who writes:
we may cite the words of R. Yehiel Michel Epstein, in his Aruch ha-Shulhan,
Orah Hayyim 128:4, who writes:
And behold, it is certainly the case that there is no
good reason to nullify the mitzvah of birkat Cohanim the whole
year long, and [it is] a bad custom. And I have heard that two great
authorities of former generations – probably the Gaon Eliyahu of Wilna and R.
Hayyim of Volozin – each one wished to
reestablish birkat Cohanim daily in their location, and when they
decided on a given day [to begin], the issue become confused and they did not
succeed, and they said that from Heaven it was thus decreed.
good reason to nullify the mitzvah of birkat Cohanim the whole
year long, and [it is] a bad custom. And I have heard that two great
authorities of former generations – probably the Gaon Eliyahu of Wilna and R.
Hayyim of Volozin – each one wished to
reestablish birkat Cohanim daily in their location, and when they
decided on a given day [to begin], the issue become confused and they did not
succeed, and they said that from Heaven it was thus decreed.
In view
of all the above we may state that Birkat Cohanim does not require
ritual oblution, and in present day diaspora countries, blessing the people
will not effect or curtail any business activities, and people in the diaspora
are not downtrodden nor do they live in permament misery, so that they cannot
be joyful enough to bless the congregation. And according to some opinions
(e.g. the Pri Hadash) even if they are not called to give the blessing,
they may/should do so, (see e.g. Piskei Maharitz, Orah Hayyim vol.1,
Bnei Brak 1987, pp.259-260, with the note of R. Yitzhak Ratzabi ibid. Note 7,
ibid. Beerot Yitzhak). Thus, the reasons given for avoiding giving the
priestly blessing are for the main part largely irrelevant in present-day diaspora
conditions.
of all the above we may state that Birkat Cohanim does not require
ritual oblution, and in present day diaspora countries, blessing the people
will not effect or curtail any business activities, and people in the diaspora
are not downtrodden nor do they live in permament misery, so that they cannot
be joyful enough to bless the congregation. And according to some opinions
(e.g. the Pri Hadash) even if they are not called to give the blessing,
they may/should do so, (see e.g. Piskei Maharitz, Orah Hayyim vol.1,
Bnei Brak 1987, pp.259-260, with the note of R. Yitzhak Ratzabi ibid. Note 7,
ibid. Beerot Yitzhak). Thus, the reasons given for avoiding giving the
priestly blessing are for the main part largely irrelevant in present-day diaspora
conditions.
On the
other hand, not doing so means not carrying out three positive biblical
commandments, and according to some ,albeit minority, opinions this is also the
case when the congregation does not summon the Cohanim. Some, somewhat mystical
sources also stress the great spiritual benefits of the priestly blessing, and
the considerable negative effect of their absence. Furthermore, we have seen
evidence that in some Ashkenazi communities Birkat Cohanim was practiced
on Shabbatot or monthly, and not merely on the festivals.
other hand, not doing so means not carrying out three positive biblical
commandments, and according to some ,albeit minority, opinions this is also the
case when the congregation does not summon the Cohanim. Some, somewhat mystical
sources also stress the great spiritual benefits of the priestly blessing, and
the considerable negative effect of their absence. Furthermore, we have seen
evidence that in some Ashkenazi communities Birkat Cohanim was practiced
on Shabbatot or monthly, and not merely on the festivals.
Taking
into account all of the above, I would think that nowadays, there is little
justification for not carrying out the priestly blessing daily in our diaspora
congregations.
into account all of the above, I would think that nowadays, there is little
justification for not carrying out the priestly blessing daily in our diaspora
congregations.
I would
like again to refer to the Hesed le-Avraham:
like again to refer to the Hesed le-Avraham:
מי שאינו
מברך מאבד טובה הרבה ומראה שאינו חפץ במצות ולא חפץ בברכה, ובז לדבר יחבל לו, לכן
הכהן הירא את דבר ד’ ובמצותיו חפץ, לא יעבור מלברך לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו, כי טוב
בעיני ד’ לברך את ישראל ומה טוב ומה נעים מנהג איזה מקומות, שהכהנים נושאים כפיהם
בכל יום וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל מקום, שלא לבקש תחבולות לבטל מ”ע מן התורה.
מברך מאבד טובה הרבה ומראה שאינו חפץ במצות ולא חפץ בברכה, ובז לדבר יחבל לו, לכן
הכהן הירא את דבר ד’ ובמצותיו חפץ, לא יעבור מלברך לעשות נחת רוח ליוצרו, כי טוב
בעיני ד’ לברך את ישראל ומה טוב ומה נעים מנהג איזה מקומות, שהכהנים נושאים כפיהם
בכל יום וכן ראוי לנהוג בכל מקום, שלא לבקש תחבולות לבטל מ”ע מן התורה.
To
summarize:
summarize:
This is a
biblical commandment obligating the Cohanim to bless the people.
biblical commandment obligating the Cohanim to bless the people.
Not doing
so means not fulfilling that biblical commandment, and, according to some
authorities, even transgressing three biblical commandments.
so means not fulfilling that biblical commandment, and, according to some
authorities, even transgressing three biblical commandments.
Here we
may add yet another element to our discussion. There is a well-known opinion of
R. Eliezer Azikri, in his Sefer Haredim chapter 4 (with the commentary
of R. Yitzhak Leib Schwarz, Kunszentmiklos 1935, p.19), that “those who
stand before the Cohanim in silence and direct their hearts to receive the
benedictions as the words of God, they too are included in the mitzvah
as parts of the 613 [mitzvot]”.
may add yet another element to our discussion. There is a well-known opinion of
R. Eliezer Azikri, in his Sefer Haredim chapter 4 (with the commentary
of R. Yitzhak Leib Schwarz, Kunszentmiklos 1935, p.19), that “those who
stand before the Cohanim in silence and direct their hearts to receive the
benedictions as the words of God, they too are included in the mitzvah
as parts of the 613 [mitzvot]”.
The
commentator, ad loc. (note 18-19) discusses this opinion, printing out that it
is a subject of considerable controversy among the greatest of authorities, but
he quotes the author of the Haflaah, R. Pinhas ha-Levi Horowitz, (in his
notes to Ketubot 24b and Rashi ibid.), that just as there is a
commandment to the Cohanim to bless Israel, so too is there a commandment to
Israel to be blessed by the Cohanim. He states that there are other examples
where the torah, explicitly commands only the active partner and not the
passive recipient, but nonetheless both are obligated. He brings as one example
to mitzvah of yibum which devolves both on the levir (yavam)
as well as the sister-in law (yevamah), even though the Torah
commandment is directed towards the levir alone. The Haredim‘s novum was
widely accepted, even though his source remained to many unclear.
commentator, ad loc. (note 18-19) discusses this opinion, printing out that it
is a subject of considerable controversy among the greatest of authorities, but
he quotes the author of the Haflaah, R. Pinhas ha-Levi Horowitz, (in his
notes to Ketubot 24b and Rashi ibid.), that just as there is a
commandment to the Cohanim to bless Israel, so too is there a commandment to
Israel to be blessed by the Cohanim. He states that there are other examples
where the torah, explicitly commands only the active partner and not the
passive recipient, but nonetheless both are obligated. He brings as one example
to mitzvah of yibum which devolves both on the levir (yavam)
as well as the sister-in law (yevamah), even though the Torah
commandment is directed towards the levir alone. The Haredim‘s novum was
widely accepted, even though his source remained to many unclear.
Furthermore,
the Gemara in B. Sotah 38b states in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, that God
Himself yearns to hear Birkat Cohanim, basing himself on the verse in Numbers
6:27, “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel; and I will
bless them”, further adding that “Every Cohen who blesses [the
people] is blessed”, and he that does not do so is not blessed”, as
it is written, “And I will bless them that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3).
the Gemara in B. Sotah 38b states in the name of R. Yehoshua ben Levi, that God
Himself yearns to hear Birkat Cohanim, basing himself on the verse in Numbers
6:27, “And they shall put My name upon the children of Israel; and I will
bless them”, further adding that “Every Cohen who blesses [the
people] is blessed”, and he that does not do so is not blessed”, as
it is written, “And I will bless them that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3).
This view
is already found in a statement of the Tosafist R. Yaakov of Mervege,
Sheelot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (ed. R. Reuven Margaliot, Jerusalem
1957, no.37, p.69), already briefly
cited above, who writes as follows:
is already found in a statement of the Tosafist R. Yaakov of Mervege,
Sheelot u-Teshuvot min ha-Shamayim (ed. R. Reuven Margaliot, Jerusalem
1957, no.37, p.69), already briefly
cited above, who writes as follows:
I was also uncertain as to those places where there
are Cohanim who are suitable to carry out birkat cohanim and were
accustomed not to do so even once a year. And I asked [advice] concerning this
issue, whether [in their not doing so] there is a transgression, or whether one
can rely upon R. Yaakov who said that the Cohanim are not obligated to bless
other than when the people tell them to do so.
are Cohanim who are suitable to carry out birkat cohanim and were
accustomed not to do so even once a year. And I asked [advice] concerning this
issue, whether [in their not doing so] there is a transgression, or whether one
can rely upon R. Yaakov who said that the Cohanim are not obligated to bless
other than when the people tell them to do so.
And they [i.e. from Heaven] replied: Both these and
these transgress; namely, the people (literally: Israel who do not tell them [to bless], and appear not to be fearful of [the requirement to receive] the
blessing of Father in Heaven, and the
Cohanim, who do not bless on their own accord the nesiat kapayim, for is
it not written, “And I will bless those that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3), and from the positive [statement] we may deduce the negative, (i.e. that
from the positive statement that God will bless the blessers, we may deduce
that he will curse them that do not bless).
these transgress; namely, the people (literally: Israel who do not tell them [to bless], and appear not to be fearful of [the requirement to receive] the
blessing of Father in Heaven, and the
Cohanim, who do not bless on their own accord the nesiat kapayim, for is
it not written, “And I will bless those that bless thee” (Genesis
12:3), and from the positive [statement] we may deduce the negative, (i.e. that
from the positive statement that God will bless the blessers, we may deduce
that he will curse them that do not bless).
Admittedly
this is an opinion of a Kabbalistic nature, and we do not necessarily rule
accordingly when there is an opposing view of the niglah (the
rationalist position), as is well known. However, this same view was also
indicated in the commentary attributed to the Raavad to Tamid 33b, [2] but
which is actually by the rationalist Tosafist R. Baruch be-R. Yitzhak Vermaiza,
[3] the
author of Sefer ha-Terumah. This commentary in this instance
bases itself on (the largely lost) Sefer Miktzoot. [4] The editor of this commentary pointed out (in
note 48) that this was the view of the Haredim, adding that it was also
noted by R. Zeev Pomeranchik, in his Emek Berachah, Jerusalem 1948,
sect.7, further cited by R. Pinhas Horowitz, in his Sefer Haflaah (to Ketubot
24b), and so also in Hagahot R. Akiva Eiger to Shulhan Aruch, Orah
Hayyim 128:1, and similarly in the Beur Halachah ibid.
this is an opinion of a Kabbalistic nature, and we do not necessarily rule
accordingly when there is an opposing view of the niglah (the
rationalist position), as is well known. However, this same view was also
indicated in the commentary attributed to the Raavad to Tamid 33b, [2] but
which is actually by the rationalist Tosafist R. Baruch be-R. Yitzhak Vermaiza,
[3] the
author of Sefer ha-Terumah. This commentary in this instance
bases itself on (the largely lost) Sefer Miktzoot. [4] The editor of this commentary pointed out (in
note 48) that this was the view of the Haredim, adding that it was also
noted by R. Zeev Pomeranchik, in his Emek Berachah, Jerusalem 1948,
sect.7, further cited by R. Pinhas Horowitz, in his Sefer Haflaah (to Ketubot
24b), and so also in Hagahot R. Akiva Eiger to Shulhan Aruch, Orah
Hayyim 128:1, and similarly in the Beur Halachah ibid.
It should
however not be overlooked that this point of view was not accepted by all
authorities. Thus, it was questioned by R. Yosef Babad, in his Minhat
Hinuch, Mitzvah 378, (ed. Machon Yerushalayim, vol.3, Jerusalem 1991, p.66) [5],
basing himself on the Ritba to Sukkot 31b, [6] who writes explicitly that there is no
obligation on the part of “Yisrael to be blessed. [7]
however not be overlooked that this point of view was not accepted by all
authorities. Thus, it was questioned by R. Yosef Babad, in his Minhat
Hinuch, Mitzvah 378, (ed. Machon Yerushalayim, vol.3, Jerusalem 1991, p.66) [5],
basing himself on the Ritba to Sukkot 31b, [6] who writes explicitly that there is no
obligation on the part of “Yisrael to be blessed. [7]
Nonetheless,
considering the gravity of the iussue, [8] we
should surely take servious account of the Haredim’s view, appearing as
it does in a number of significant rishonim and aharonim, and not
deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora from having opportunity to participate in
this important mitzvah.
considering the gravity of the iussue, [8] we
should surely take servious account of the Haredim’s view, appearing as
it does in a number of significant rishonim and aharonim, and not
deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora from having opportunity to participate in
this important mitzvah.
The
reasons given by the various authorities for not fulfilling this mitzvah
regularly in the diaspora, are, of themselves problematic, but in any case
quite irrelevant to present day diaspora communities. There exist precedents in
different congregations, even outside Eretz-Israel, for daily, weekly or
monthly priestly blessings. [9]
reasons given by the various authorities for not fulfilling this mitzvah
regularly in the diaspora, are, of themselves problematic, but in any case
quite irrelevant to present day diaspora communities. There exist precedents in
different congregations, even outside Eretz-Israel, for daily, weekly or
monthly priestly blessings. [9]
In
Jerusalem and in some parts of Eretz Yisrael the priestly blessing is carried
out daily.
Jerusalem and in some parts of Eretz Yisrael the priestly blessing is carried
out daily.
This
being the case, why should we deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora and its
Cohanim, and even, as it were, God Himself, from the opportunity to participate
in this all important mitzvah?
being the case, why should we deprive Am Yisrael in the diaspora and its
Cohanim, and even, as it were, God Himself, from the opportunity to participate
in this all important mitzvah?
In view
of all of the above, I see no reason why the daily, or at least weekly,
blessing on the part of the Cohanim not be reinstated in diaspora communities.
of all of the above, I see no reason why the daily, or at least weekly,
blessing on the part of the Cohanim not be reinstated in diaspora communities.
[1] R. Shaar
Yishuv Cohen, Shai Cohen vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.54, discusses this
issue in detail, showing that the view of that a Zar is forbidden to
bless was not mentioned in the Rambam, the Rif and the Rosh,
and that there is no issue of a berachah le-vatalah, etc. We shall not
repeat his detailed argumentation, which is beyond the scope of this study.
Yishuv Cohen, Shai Cohen vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.54, discusses this
issue in detail, showing that the view of that a Zar is forbidden to
bless was not mentioned in the Rambam, the Rif and the Rosh,
and that there is no issue of a berachah le-vatalah, etc. We shall not
repeat his detailed argumentation, which is beyond the scope of this study.
[2] Ed. Yair
Goldstoff, Jerusalem 1989, p.131.
Goldstoff, Jerusalem 1989, p.131.
[3] See E. E.
Urbach, Baalei ha-Tosafot: Toldotehem, Hibburehem, Shitatam, 2nd
edition, Jerusalem 1980, vol.1, pp.346-361, on this personality. He was a disciple
of Rabbenu Tam (ibid. p. 347 note 13), and definitely of the rationalist
school.
Urbach, Baalei ha-Tosafot: Toldotehem, Hibburehem, Shitatam, 2nd
edition, Jerusalem 1980, vol.1, pp.346-361, on this personality. He was a disciple
of Rabbenu Tam (ibid. p. 347 note 13), and definitely of the rationalist
school.
That this commentary is by R. Baruch be.R. Yitzhak was
demonstrated by A. Epstein, in his pamphlet on Sefer Yihusei Tannaim
ve-Amoraim p.16; Poznansky, Anshei Kairuwan, (Harkavy Festschrift
, Petersburg 1909), p.22; Hayyim Michel, Or ha-Hayyim 2nd
edition, Jerusalem 1965, p.28; M.M. Kasher and Y. Mandelbaum, Sarei ha-Elef
2nd edition, Jerusalem 1979, vol.1, p.330 no.4; vol.2, p.629,
referring also to Eliav Schochetman, Alei Sefer 3, 1979, p.83.
Goldstoff, in his introduction seems to have been quite unaware of all of the
above.
demonstrated by A. Epstein, in his pamphlet on Sefer Yihusei Tannaim
ve-Amoraim p.16; Poznansky, Anshei Kairuwan, (Harkavy Festschrift
, Petersburg 1909), p.22; Hayyim Michel, Or ha-Hayyim 2nd
edition, Jerusalem 1965, p.28; M.M. Kasher and Y. Mandelbaum, Sarei ha-Elef
2nd edition, Jerusalem 1979, vol.1, p.330 no.4; vol.2, p.629,
referring also to Eliav Schochetman, Alei Sefer 3, 1979, p.83.
Goldstoff, in his introduction seems to have been quite unaware of all of the
above.
[4] Ed. Simhah
Assaf, Jerusalem 1947, pp.39-40, no.47. In his note at the end of the passage,
he brings a wealth of bibliographic references, which supplements that which
was cited in the preceding note.
Assaf, Jerusalem 1947, pp.39-40, no.47. In his note at the end of the passage,
he brings a wealth of bibliographic references, which supplements that which
was cited in the preceding note.
[5] For some
reason that sentence is bracketed in that edition.
reason that sentence is bracketed in that edition.
[6] Ed. Eliyahu
Lichtenstein, Jerusalem 1975, p.97. And see editor’s note 319 ibid.
Lichtenstein, Jerusalem 1975, p.97. And see editor’s note 319 ibid.
[7] The editor
also refers us to R. Avraham Dov Shapira, Dvar Avraham, vol.1,
Warsaw-Pietrokow 1906, sect.31, basing himself on Yerushalmi Megillah
4:8, and cited by the Tosafot in Hagigah 16a, s.v. be-Cohanim,
and the Shiyarei Korban to Nazir 7:1, R. Reuven Margaliot, in his
note ibid., also refers to the Rashba to Sukkah ibid. However,
here I think his albeit (prodigious) memory failed him, since there is no
Rashba to Sukkah, and no doubt he really meant the Ritba. And
perhaps his mistake came about because the Ritba to Sukkah was
first published in Sheva Shitot la-Rashba, Berlin 1757, so that many
authorities mistakenly attributed it to the Rashba. See Lichtenstein’s
introduction, ad init and his note 1.
also refers us to R. Avraham Dov Shapira, Dvar Avraham, vol.1,
Warsaw-Pietrokow 1906, sect.31, basing himself on Yerushalmi Megillah
4:8, and cited by the Tosafot in Hagigah 16a, s.v. be-Cohanim,
and the Shiyarei Korban to Nazir 7:1, R. Reuven Margaliot, in his
note ibid., also refers to the Rashba to Sukkah ibid. However,
here I think his albeit (prodigious) memory failed him, since there is no
Rashba to Sukkah, and no doubt he really meant the Ritba. And
perhaps his mistake came about because the Ritba to Sukkah was
first published in Sheva Shitot la-Rashba, Berlin 1757, so that many
authorities mistakenly attributed it to the Rashba. See Lichtenstein’s
introduction, ad init and his note 1.
[8] We may
further note that this has a lively current discussion in Habad circles. See,
for example, Hearot Ha-Temimim ve-Anash, published by Yeshivat
Tomchei Temimim Lubawitz ha-Merkazit, Kfar Habad, issues 219-221,
224, 233, 239, and in Pardes Habad 15-18. There the discussion is
primarily directed to Eretz Yisrael. And the case for Eretz Yisrael was argued
very persuasively and in great detail by R. Shaar Yashuv Cohen, in his Shai
Cohen, vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.3-79. And on p.24 he brings a letter from
the Lubawitch Rebbe, in which he mentions that the Baal ha-Tanya
expressed his desire to reinstitute the daily birkat Cohanim, especially
since in his words this blessing “is rapidly drawn throughout all the worlds,
without prevention or hiderance and with no examination of the forces of
stringency” (Likkutei Torah, Korah ad fin.). However, despite this, he did not do so for
some unknown reason. And it was for this reason that the Rebbe preferred to let
the existing situation be, rather than reactivating the daily blessing. Very
recently this subject has also been discussed in Mosheh Rahamim Shayo’s Mehkerei
Aretz: Hilchot Birkat Cohanim Jerusalem 2015, chapter 10, pp.128-129, who,
however, makes no significant novum to the whole issue.
further note that this has a lively current discussion in Habad circles. See,
for example, Hearot Ha-Temimim ve-Anash, published by Yeshivat
Tomchei Temimim Lubawitz ha-Merkazit, Kfar Habad, issues 219-221,
224, 233, 239, and in Pardes Habad 15-18. There the discussion is
primarily directed to Eretz Yisrael. And the case for Eretz Yisrael was argued
very persuasively and in great detail by R. Shaar Yashuv Cohen, in his Shai
Cohen, vol.1, Jerusalem 1997, pp.3-79. And on p.24 he brings a letter from
the Lubawitch Rebbe, in which he mentions that the Baal ha-Tanya
expressed his desire to reinstitute the daily birkat Cohanim, especially
since in his words this blessing “is rapidly drawn throughout all the worlds,
without prevention or hiderance and with no examination of the forces of
stringency” (Likkutei Torah, Korah ad fin.). However, despite this, he did not do so for
some unknown reason. And it was for this reason that the Rebbe preferred to let
the existing situation be, rather than reactivating the daily blessing. Very
recently this subject has also been discussed in Mosheh Rahamim Shayo’s Mehkerei
Aretz: Hilchot Birkat Cohanim Jerusalem 2015, chapter 10, pp.128-129, who,
however, makes no significant novum to the whole issue.
A more comprehensive discussion may be found in Eitan
Shoshan, Minhat Eitan, vol.1, Bnei Brak 2003, sect. 7 note 1, pp.141-144.
He refers us to Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim sect.22, who seems to find
support for this view from the Tosafot to Rosh ha-Shanah 16b,
s.v. ve-Tokin; but he notes that in a different responsum, (sect. 167),
he wrote that most decisors are of the opinion that there is no obligation upon
the Yisrael to be blessed. The problem of this apparent contradiction is left
unsolved. The Maharsham, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, vol.8, Satmar
1910, sect.25, cites the view of the Ritba, but concludes that,
nonetheless, there is an obligation on the part of the Yisrael, since he
is assisting the Cohen to carry out the mitzvah. (See Bentzion A.
Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, vol.2, Jerusalem 2002, p.2, note 4.)
Shoshan brings a number of additional sources supporting this view, but also
the opposing position, e.g. Mahari Assad (R. Yehudah Assad) Yehudah
Yaaleh, Lvov-Petersburg 1873-1880, sect.46, Aruch ha-Shulhan, Orah
Hayyim 128:4; and that this was apparently the view of the Hazon Ish,
according to R. Hayyim Kanievsky, (referring to R. Shalom Yuda Gross, Nesiat
Kapayim ke-Hilchata p.14). (Incidentally, his references are not altogether
reliable, and his attributions likewise.) Finally, he examines the implications
(nakfa mina) of these two opposing views. And see his summarizing
remarks on p.611.
Shoshan, Minhat Eitan, vol.1, Bnei Brak 2003, sect. 7 note 1, pp.141-144.
He refers us to Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayyim sect.22, who seems to find
support for this view from the Tosafot to Rosh ha-Shanah 16b,
s.v. ve-Tokin; but he notes that in a different responsum, (sect. 167),
he wrote that most decisors are of the opinion that there is no obligation upon
the Yisrael to be blessed. The problem of this apparent contradiction is left
unsolved. The Maharsham, R. Shalom Mordechai Schwadron, vol.8, Satmar
1910, sect.25, cites the view of the Ritba, but concludes that,
nonetheless, there is an obligation on the part of the Yisrael, since he
is assisting the Cohen to carry out the mitzvah. (See Bentzion A.
Rabinowitz, Piskei Teshuvot, vol.2, Jerusalem 2002, p.2, note 4.)
Shoshan brings a number of additional sources supporting this view, but also
the opposing position, e.g. Mahari Assad (R. Yehudah Assad) Yehudah
Yaaleh, Lvov-Petersburg 1873-1880, sect.46, Aruch ha-Shulhan, Orah
Hayyim 128:4; and that this was apparently the view of the Hazon Ish,
according to R. Hayyim Kanievsky, (referring to R. Shalom Yuda Gross, Nesiat
Kapayim ke-Hilchata p.14). (Incidentally, his references are not altogether
reliable, and his attributions likewise.) Finally, he examines the implications
(nakfa mina) of these two opposing views. And see his summarizing
remarks on p.611.
[9] Indeed, this
is exactly what R. Y.M. Tycocynsky wrote concerning Eretz Yisrael…”for the
reasons given by the Poskin for abolishing a positive mitzvah
outside Israel every day, and the reasons… because of the need for ritual
ablution and also the problems of livelihood that cause them to be without
being joyful, and birkat Cohanim has to be [carried out] with joy and
good will, since we end the blessing ‘be-ahavah‘, ‘with love’ – [these
reasons] were not sufficient for the greatest of Poskim to abolish a
great mitzvah that [actually] comprises three mitzvot, and
[consequently] they praised the people of Eretz Yisrael who keep this positive
commandment…, (cited by Shaar Yiashuv Cohen, ibid. pp.16-17).
is exactly what R. Y.M. Tycocynsky wrote concerning Eretz Yisrael…”for the
reasons given by the Poskin for abolishing a positive mitzvah
outside Israel every day, and the reasons… because of the need for ritual
ablution and also the problems of livelihood that cause them to be without
being joyful, and birkat Cohanim has to be [carried out] with joy and
good will, since we end the blessing ‘be-ahavah‘, ‘with love’ – [these
reasons] were not sufficient for the greatest of Poskim to abolish a
great mitzvah that [actually] comprises three mitzvot, and
[consequently] they praised the people of Eretz Yisrael who keep this positive
commandment…, (cited by Shaar Yiashuv Cohen, ibid. pp.16-17).