Cohen's Blessings

Bless you! We say when someone sneezes. My Facebook feed was overflowing the other day with Eid blessings, Eid Mubarak - literally blessed festival - between Muslim and non-Muslim friends. The Torah contains a blessing ritual (1), which would normally have been performed as part of the recent Shavuot festival (at the end of May). With the gradual reopening in Australia, these blessings would have been my community’s first gathering since March. Unfortunately, the opening of Synagogues in Sydney was postponed after a child in the community tested positive to COVID-19. However, the following Saturday our community did indeed hold the blessing ceremony for the first time ever (in our community) on an ordinary Saturday that was not a festival.

Blessings are a curious thing. On one hand, the notion that ‘we tell the universe what it is that we want, and we will get it’, makes little sense to me. Yet, I think there is something mysterious and perhaps event potent about the energy of blessings and curses. The Talmud advises that the blessing of an ordinary person should not be taken lightly as they can be fulfilled (2).

The idea of an “evil eye” is the opposite of a blessing. If someone sees a neighbour’s good fortune and is envious and resentful, there is an implicit desire that the blessing should be reversed, and the object of envy lost or destroyed. In fact, the need to counter the evil eye is one explanation for the introduction of the ritual of blessing in the first place (3). The Torah appears to take other curses seriously too, as we can see from the Jews being reminded that God transformed Balaam’s intended “curses to blessings because he loved you” (4).

For religious people, the idea that humans could wield such power can appear to infringe on the power of an omnipotent God (5). Despite such concerns, such a ritual is not just tolerated but required in certain contexts as an everyday ritual (6). It is suggested that this concern is addressed by the ritual being highly formulaic, rendering the priests as mere functionaries. Those performing the blessings were instructed to do it exactly “like this” (7). The procedure for the blessings is that the cantor (the person leading the prayers) leads the blessing reciting each word, one word at a time, and that word is repeated one word at a time as prompted.  The implication is clear, the priest has no magical powers and is merely a messenger from God to deliver a blessing (8).

If we assume the priest is unimportant in the operation of blessings, it would follow that that the quality of the priest – even if there are rumours circulating about him being a murderer – is irrelevant as it is God who blesses the people rather than the priest (9).

I am drawn to the opposite approach that sees humans engaged in blessings using a power handed over to them by God (10). This would fit with the requirements that the blessings be done with full intention and heart - not quickly or rushed (11). A mystical teaching explains that while the blessings ultimately come from God, these blessings can sometimes be delayed by divine judgement of human failings. The power of the priests was to accelerate the delivery of the blessings to arrive with great speed, like “rushing water too powerful to be slowed by a watermill” (12).   

One beautiful explanation of the blessings is that the intention of blessings is to provide a loving God with the pleasure of acting on His benevolent nature. This approach points to the peculiar way that hands are displayed during the Cohen’s blessing ritual. It is different to the familiar prayer pose which is to have ones’ hands extended out, palms flat and facing heaven symbolising supplication and seeking a handout from God. During the blessings, the hands are held in the opposite position with the back of the hand toward heaven. This suggests that rather than asking for something from God, we are providing an opportunity for Him to enjoy giving (13).

The business of blessings can get quite sensitive. In fact, the translation of the text of the blessings was withheld from the ignorant masses who did not understand Hebrew (14). The controversy relates to an apparent contradiction between the blessing that God “will turn his face to you” signifying forgiveness (15), and the contradictory verse that states that God will not turn his face to show favouritism - and forgive sins - nor accept bribes (16).  There are complex resolutions of this apparent contradiction such as forgiveness being applied when we sin in ritual matters but withheld when harming other people (17). Unfortunately, it was assumed that the common man would find this confusing. I am pleased that modern translations of the Torah do not censor the blessings and appear to trust the masses with, rather than shield the masses from, the complexity.  

This year on Shavuot, a 3000-year-old tradition of the blessing ceremony was interrupted for many Jewish communities. Perhaps there is a dual message to consider. On the one hand, some humans are not feeling very blessed at this difficult time, as they struggle with loss of loved ones or livelihoods, or their sense of security and social connection. On the other hand, for those of us who have our health and our needs met and our loved one around us - in my case all of my six children have been together under the same roof for over two months - let us redouble our awareness of the blessings we have been granted. Perhaps that was the purpose of the blessing ritual in the first place, to assist us in being grateful for the blessings we have been granted (18).  

Notes

1) Numbers 6:23-27

2) Talmud, Megilah 15a

3) Bamidbar Rabba 12:4, p. 99

4) Deuteronomy 23:6

5) Chido, p.25, 34

6) Sefer Hachinuch Mitzva 376

7) Numbers 6:23

8) Samson Raphael Hirsch in his commentary on Numbers 6:23-27

9) Jerusalem Talmud, Gitin, 5:8

10) Midrash Rabba 11:b
11) Rashi on 6:23

12) Derech Mitzvoteacha, Mitzva Birchas Cohanim, p. 112

13) Kedushas Levi, Naso, p.277

14) Talmud, Megila 25a & b

15) Rashi

16) Deuteronomy 10:17

17) Talmud Rosh Hashana 17b

18) Rothstien, G. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/five-rashis-naso-birchat-kohanim/

Spirit vs Form - Kavana. Chukat

For 45 minutes I was in another zone as I combined mindfulness and meditation with my ritual morning blessings. I felt spiritually uplifted and filled with a deep gratitude for the wisdom of animals, my eyesight, having all my needs met and the dignity of clothing.

That was another morning.

This morning was a completely different story. This morning I recited the same blessings but I arrived late and feeling stressed about many things. Prayer is meant to be the "service of the heart[i]" but my mumbling this morning was just robotic compliance.

It’s now 8:53 am. I just sat down at my desk at work, but I have been on my way to the office since 7:05 after my uninspired worship. I had the wrong combination for the back gate of the Synagogue, so I missed my bus. Instead I tried the train but neglected to check the sign so I jumped on to the wrong train. 4 trains later I am finally here and I am not so sure that what matters is really love and truth, or if compliance with requirements, times and rules is actually more important than it would seem. Clearly, my work fostering acceptance and belonging depends on attending to these technicalities.

Religion can be inspiring and can engage the heart and mind, but it can also be experienced as oppressive. In our Torah reading this week we learn about the red cow that would be killed and burned; its ashes sprinkled on water to be used as part of a purification ritual[ii]. This commandment is expected to be obeyed because God has decreed it and we “have no permission to question it[iii]”. We are called to subjugate our minds to the will of God[iv] because obedience, not fulfilment is valued. 

On the other side of this argument, in this reading we hear that Moses and Aaron were reprimanded after Moses hit a rock, causing water to miraculously flow. They were instructed to speak to the rock[v] rather than hit it. The symbolism of talking to the rock vs. hitting it is instructive. Forty years earlier, Moses also drew water from a rock when he hit it by God’s command.  But four decades before, Moses and Aaron had been leading slaves; they were accustomed to being told what to do (the dominant approach, symbolized by a stick), but now they were free people. The “stick” approach was no longer needed – now it was time for a “words”.[vi]

The themes of submission vs. engagement of the heart can be discerned in some of the details of the “stick” story. Although God had instructed Moses and Aaron to speak to the rock, He also instructed him to take “the staff” along. This is puzzling: why bring a stick at all[vii]? One answer is that “The stick” they were told to bring along was the staff of Aaron that miraculously sprouted almonds[viii]. This dry piece of wood had miraculously produced water as part of the miracle of the almonds and was to be used as inspiration for the rock that was going to be asked to also produce water. The symbolism of ‘the’ stick (rather than any stick) is not of a lifeless instrument of coercion but of a fusion between obedience and engagement.

The episode with the rock follows the death of the elder sister of Moses, Miriam, from whom Moses and Aaron had previously sought advice. Perhaps her feminine influence could have helped her brothers be more alert to the nuances of God’s command?[ix]. Instead, Moses missed the subtle point about “the stick” of Aaron with the almonds and its implied message and instead hit the rock with “his (own) stick[x]”. One lesson for us from Moses’ mistake is the need for being “very settled” and attentive in carrying out instructions[xi] so that we don’t fail to achieve their purpose, rather than being rushed like Moses was, or jumping on the train without checking the board to see where it was going.

The apparently irrational ritual of the burning red cow is also complex. It has elements that can engage the heart. One theme is the quest for balance and pursuit of the middle path, which can be inferred from the inclusion of a piece of wood from a tall cedar tree and a lowly hyssop plant in the fire. It symbolizes the message that we should not be arrogant like the cedar, nor should we be too humble like the hyssop, instead we must work toward the golden mean[xii]. 

A message of our reading can be to combine the pursuit of transcendence and spiritual expression with submission to rules and rituals. In fact, I think if I was more obedient to the requirements to always pray with Kavana, to do an intentional ritual hand washing when arriving at the synagogue[xiii] and to be on time, then even on an off day, the morning blessings words of gratitude would have greater power to engage my spirit.  The social justice, inspirational side of Judaism is nurtured by the adherence to rules and rituals and the resulting refinement of the spirit and growth in God’s consciousness.  A bird needs two wings to fly, one is love that motivates our positive activity and the other is fear which motivates obedience to prohibitions and rules[xiv].

---

[i] Talmud, Taanis 2a

[ii] Numbers 19

[iii] Cited in Rashi to Numbers 19:2, the ritual of the red heifer is the ultimate example of the Chuka category commandments which are not understandable.

[iv] The words “this is the statue of the Torah” is also taken to mean that it would be better for a person to treat all the laws of the Torah as unexplainable commandments rather than try to find reasons for them- R. Mendel of Kotzk, quoted by R. Zeev of Strikov, in Greenberg, A, Y, (1992) Torah Gems, Y Orenstien/Yavneh Publishing Tel Aviv, this is consistent with the emphasis in Chabad Chasidism on Bittul, self-nullification. There is another very strong side of Chasidism that emphasises self-refinement and spiritual engagement.

[v] Numbers 20:8

[vi] Sacks, (2009) Chief Rabbi Jonathan, Future Tense, Hodder & Stoughton London

[vii] Klei Yakar

[viii] Numbers 17:17-23

[ix] Ralbag makes the connection with Miriam ‘s death and the loss of her advice, which he assumes was frequently sought, he does not refer to the feminine aspect which is my own addition

[x] Numbers 20:11

[xi] Ralbag

[xii] Seforno on Numbers 19:2

[xiii] The custom I am familiar with is for Jews to wash their hands when arriving at the Synagogue. Typical orthodox synagogues will have a wash basin near the entrance, but technically one can ritually wash one’s hands at home. Not doing it again at the synagogue is a missed opportunity for a “kavana” enhancing ritual

[xiv] Tanya

Did not make me a goy?! Sacred text, prejudice and Interpretation (Bahalotecha)

“Bless you God for not making me a goy" (the word "goy" is often translated as a non-Jew 1, but it's meaning is highly contested). These words confronted me in a series of prayers that I have recited every morning since I was five. One morning I was in a meditative mode, fully present and intentional with every word I was saying. I paused. The most obvious inference in this prayer is that I am grateful for not being made an impliedly inferior type of person. But this makes no sense to me. There are many people I know personally who are not Jewish and whom I deeply respect and admire.  If I skipped the prayer, it would mean rejecting the theological/legal system that forms the basis of my Orthodox spiritual life.  So I reinterpret the prayer to mean that despite my acknowledgement of the various paths to personal and spiritual greatness of the Muslims, Christians, Hindus, atheists/agnostics, traditionally spiritual Aboriginals and others whom I so admire, I still thank God for giving me my own cherished Jewish heritage and identity rather than any of those other profoundly beautiful other ways of being.  Afterwards I thought, whom am I kidding? Don’t words have a fixed meaning beyond their creative reinterpretations? Perhaps they do, but that is how I chose to deal with it. 

 

The blessing about not being a non-Jewish person  is followed by an expression of gratitude for not being a slave. I thought that the two prayers could be interpreted in similar ways. To be a "slave" has a certain appeal. As the CEO of a not for profit charity I carry the responsibility for a mission and a few persons’ livelihoods. It's often stressful. Like the Israelites in the desert, I'm tempted by the freedom from responsibility that comes with being an employee or, in the case of the Israelites, the lack of accountability to God they had as slaves of the Pharaohs. 2  Yet despite the attraction of "slavery" I choose to be grateful for the freedom to pursue my vision according to my own conscience and I am happy to pay the price.

The price of leadership can be high. In our Torah reading this week this theme can lead us back to the theme of prejudice. The Israelites in the desert complained and thereby challenged Moses and God. Moses was so frustrated that he would rather have died 3  than continue with his impossible mission of leadership unless God helped him. One group of people are highlighted as being at fault; these were “the multitude among them [who] began to have strong cravings.” 4  The multitude was “not of them 5” (the Jewish nation), but joined the Israelites during the exodus from Egypt and in this case the ethnic Jews are said to have followed the lead of the multitude and also rebelled.

But there is an opportunity for a strong anti-prejudice lesson in our Torah reading too. We read that Moses was married to a black woman, in fact as black as a raven 6 and that Moses’ siblings were rebuked for wrongly criticizing Moses on account of his black wife. I would assume that if his wife was black so was his non-ethnically Jewish, Midyanite father-in-law, Jethro. Shortly before Moses descended into despair he begged his father-in-law to stay in the desert. “Please don’t abandon us…you have been like eyes for us 7” Moses pleaded.  Moses cherished his father-in-law’s advice. A few verses later we are told that Jethro did in fact leave Moses without his support, and that Moses cried out bitterly about the burdens of leadership.   As our sages taught us, there is wisdom among the nations.8  One of our greatest scholars would rise in honour of the accumulated life wisdom of elderly people who were not Jewish 9, while Maimonides happily incorporated ethical teachings from non-Jewish philosophers in his writing. 10

Yet, these highly plausible interpretations in the previous paragraph are far from unanimous. The words “Kushite”/black that describe Moses’ wife are taken to mean that she was not black but undeniably beautiful 11 just as a black person is clearly black. Another commentary argues that in fact Moses didn’t really need his father-in-law’s advice at all and just pretended he needed it out of humility 12.  I suggest that when it comes to religion, especially mine, interpretation is almost everything. So thank you God for making me Jewish even thought I could have been gloriously wonderful in a somewhat different way, being someone else.

This is one demonstration of creative interpretation of a religious text that at first glance seems to say one thing but can actually mean something else.   

Notes

1. I object to words like “goy” or non-Jew as a noun. I think that a person should be defined by what they are and how they define themselves rather than how they are not like me. The literal meaning of the word "goy" is nation and can have a neutral meaning referring to a person from a nation other than the Jewish nation. The blessing traditionally is understood to reflect additional commandments that Jews are obligated in according to Judaism. 

2.  This comment is based on commentary to Numbers 11:5 when the Jews talked about free fish they age in Egypt, which is interpreted by Sifre, cited in Rashi, as being free from Mitzvot

3.  Numbers 11:10-15

4.  Numbers 11:4

5.  Ibn Ezra on 11:4

6.  Numbers 12:1-9 according to Ibn Ezra and Abarbanel

7.  Numbers 10:31

8.  Midrash Eicha Rabba 2:13 מדרש איכה רבה פרשה ב סימן יג

9.  Talmud 33:1

10.  Maimonides,

הרמב"ם בתחילת הקדמתו למסכת אבות ("שמונה פרקים") כותב: "ודע, כי הדברים אשר אומר אותם באלו הפרקים... הם עניינים מלוקטים מדברי החכמים (חכמי ישראל)... ומדברי הפילוסופים גם כן ומחיבורי הרבה בני אדם. ושמע האמת ממי שאמרה". על הפילוסוף היווני אריסטו כותב הרמב"ם: "הוא אשר לימד לבני אדם את דרכי ההוכחה וחוקיה ותנאיה" ("מורה הנבוכים" חלק ב פרק טו(.
cited in http://www.kipa.co.il/ask/show/86913

11.  Sifre, Unkelous, Rashi, and Ralbag, see Ibn Kaspi’s (cited in Nechama Lebovitz) withering critique of these teachings that essentially take the verses to mean the opposite of what the plain text appears to be saying

12.  Ralbag