A Kohen's View of Kehuna
A Kohen's View of Kehuna

In this week’s article, we will forego the normal introduction and begin by alerting you to the fact that this author is a Kohen, or of the priestly clan. And since the topic of this article will be about the honor one affords the kohen, I feel full disclosure is of the utmost importance. Indeed, the skeptics amongst you are shaking their heads, questioning how one could be impartial in such a venture. Rest assured, objectivity is of paramount importance, and hopefully one will be able to see past any potential bias and come to better understanding of this commandment.

The Torah tells us (Vayikra 21:8):

You shall make him holy for he offers the bread of your God; he shall be holy unto you for I, Hashem, am holy, Who makes you holy.

The Sefer Hachinuch (269), based on the Talmud and Rambam, reviews the source, rationale and application of this commandment. He first describes the commandment to be one of sanctifying the children of Aharon, the first kohen hagadol, or High Priest. This sanctification emerges through ensuring the kohen is first in all things partaking of sanctity – and if the kohen insists on forgoing the respect given him, he is not to be listened to.

Before proceeding, we should note one fascinating halakha, or Jewish Law, that he is alluding to – the kohen cannot turn down an act of respect presented to him. This is an important distinction, as other people who are recipients of honor, such as a parent or Torah scholar, in certain situations are able to turn down, or be mochel, their honor. The same cannot be said regarding the kohen. Why not?

The Sefer Hachniuch then qualifies the idea of “partaking of sanctity”: the kohen is to receive the first aliyah when the Torah is read, lead the blessings after a meal, as well as other matters of Jewish Law. At this point, the average yisrael should breathe a sigh of relief, as the extent of the commandment does not mean the kohen gets to be bumped to the front of the line during a security check at an airport or, God forbid, a shul kiddush. The areas where he stands apart are limited to those within the system of Jewish law. This reason for this limitation will be explained shortly.

He then continues, emphasizing that this commandment was given to the Jewish people, rather than in accordance with the choice of the kohen. Why is he even mentioning this point? What do we learn from the fact that the kohen did not choose for this particular honor to be bestowed upon him?

An even more perplexing issue arises from the next stated halakha. The basis for this exceptional treatment arises from the fact that the kohen was designated for working in the Temple. If this were it, then a kohen with a physical defect (baal mum), preventing him from ever working in the Temple, should be excluded from this treatment. Yet the ruling is clear – every kohen is included in this commandment (deduced from the additional “holy” in the above verse). The assumption and conclusion need to be understood in a clearer manner, as one could ask why one would ever assume the kohen with the defect should be excluded.

The Sefer Hachinuch then offers his thoughts as to the rationale for the commandment. He writes that it is from the honor given to the master that one honors those who serve him directly. Therefore, at every moment that one gives honor to the kohen, he remembers and internalizes the honor that goes to God and His greatness. He then ends with some particular laws about this commandment, one which stands out. It seems that when we assumed every kohen naturally is a recipient of honor, including the kohen who is unable to work in the Temple, we spoke too soon. There is one kohen who specifically does not receive honor – it is the kohen who is the violator of Torah law (to make matters simple, let’s assume he married a divorcee, a specific prohibition for the kohen).

A number of questions have already been raised. There is one additional question, a fundamental question that will assist us in getting a better idea of this commandment. The idea of giving someone honor exists, as alluded to above, in other areas of Jewish law. For example, we are all intimately familiar with the myriad laws involving honoring one’s parents. And there, of course, are laws dealing with the honor one must give the sage, or an elderly individual. The honor one gives the kohen, however, seems to be different. For one, it falls under the category of sanctification, a term not applied to the other examples mentioned. Furthermore, the honor is limited to the areas of Jewish law, rather than applying in all situations. Why?

An example of honoring a Torah scholar or a parent is standing when he walks by. What this first demonstrates is that the nature of the honor is due to who the person is. The Torah scholar is a repository of God’s wisdom, reflecting both the insights of Torah and the way of life one should follow. The parent is the individual who brought the child into the world, the idea of dependent existence present in him. The honor afforded them is an exclusive one, only to be given them, standing only for them and nobody else; the average Jew or the child is not privy to them. In the case of the kohen, the person is not being honored; rather, it is the role of the kohen that one must honor. As such, the honor given to him is expressed through priority, rather than through exclusivity.

Priority here is a relativistic term. How so? The kohen receives priority in areas of halakha, areas the entire nation has equal access to. Anyone can be called up to the Torah, and we are all obligated to recite the blessings after the meal. The kohen, though, in a reflection of his unique role, is given the first shot at these actions. This idea of priority is a natural reflection of the role of the kohen, working in the Temple and teaching Torah to the nation. And this very status was given to the children of Aharon by God, not through any type of voluntary decision or personal status – thus the kohen cannot turn down this honor, as it would imply he somehow has control over his status. This also explains the emphasis on how the kohen had no choice in the matter of him being singled out for honor. God chose it, and the nation is obligated to abide by it.

With this, we might be able to answer the issue about the kohen with the physical defect who cannot work in the Temple. The assumption that the honor should be limited to those kohanim who can work in the Temple makes sense in light of the above formulation. If he is unable to operate in the unique role given to him, then what is one giving honor to? The answer must be that one is honoring the role of the kohen as it relates to the institution of kehuna. No doubt, working in the Temple is an important facet of being a kohen, but the issue of honor does not relate to any potential or actual work. It is an honor to the establishment of the kehuna, a further proof that we are not concerned about the individual when discussing this honor.

But what exactly is the reason for this honor? What is it about his role? This is where the reason offered by the Sefer Hachinuch helps direct us to this answer. He indicates that when one respects the master, he naturally respects those who have the privilege of serving him. We see such a concept, lehavdil, in with the President of the United States and his cabinet. People respect the position of the president, regardless of the person occupying the position (you can dislike President Obama but still respect the office he occupies). The same applies to those few who directly advise him, such as the Secretary of State. We intuitively understand that these people surrounding the president have unique access to him in a way nobody else can. This analogy holds true, to a certain extent, when discussing the role of the kohen. The kohen is granted access to God that the average Jew does not partake of, albeit a different type of access. The kohen, through the idea of working in the Temple, has an avenue of yediyas Hashem open to him, both on an abstract and experiential level. Therefore, the role of the kohen reflects this unique pathway.

This leads us to the final point, understanding how the kohen who is the sinner no longer deserves the respect of the nation. Again, we must stress that the honor is not being bestowed due to the uniqueness of the individual, but the role he reflects. And as we mentioned, the role involves a different relationship with God. However, when the kohen sins, especially in an area of Jewish law that specifically applies to him, he is rejecting the role outright. The kohen with the physical defect cannot participate in his role to the extent a kohen without said defect can; yet the defect does not prevent him from embracing the role. When a kohen acts in a manner that indicates he rejects his role, it would be absurd to offer him any type of honor. This kohen does not, and cannot, mirror the institution he is obligated to represent, and therefore cannot be honored.

We therefore can see how this type of honor is unique, reflecting what is indeed a distinct role given to the kohen by God. It is therefore my hope that all those of non-kohanic background be able to look at this article not as a means of ensuring personal honor, but as an attempt to uncover some important ideas regarding this commandment.