Berakhot 112

Ron Kaminsky writes:

In Berakhot 109 you wrote concerning the blessing of the Kohanim:

Their raised hands and their heads are covered by their Tallit and people are encouraged not to look at them at this time: two precautions to avoid as much as possible the mistaken impression that it is the priests who are blessing the people, when, of course, God is the source of the blessing.

But these steps could easily be misinterpreted by the unsophisticated as connected to various biblical sources implying that looking at physical manifestations of "God's presence" is dangerous! I.e., during the time of the blessing God manifests physically somehow in or around the priests. Personally, I would have thought it more effective to add to the liturgy before the blessing exactly the explanations which you have given!

In Berakhot 110 I wrote: What is problematic for us about this mishnah is the fact that it says, in effect, that the way that a prayer is offered determines its effectiveness.

Jon Levisohn writes:

May I submit the following insight from Abraham Joshua Heschel (from the 1973 NBC interview, quoted in Glatzer's Modern Jewish Thought): "Prayer may not save us. But prayer may make us worthy of being saved."

Jack Edwin Lipinsky sends the following message in the wake of our discussion of Birkat Kohanim [Priestly Blessing – Berakhot 109]:

This reminds me of an interesting halakhic situation that I often face personally in my shule where I am the Ba'al
Shacharit, Ba'al Mussaf, and Ba'al Koreh. I am often the only Cohen there and wondered about how to deal with "Birkat Kohanim". Must I face the congregation, or the Aron [Ark] (given the fact that one cannot move during the Chazrat HaShatz) [Cantor's Repetition]. Even more important, when do the Levi'im [Levites] wash my hands? After discussing this with my local Rabbi, he ruled, based on the Maharam Schick that:

1. Birkat Kohanim had to be said.
2. My hands should be washed before I began Tefillat Mussaf.
3. I retained my position on the amud and faced the Aron, but spread my hands.
4. I did not have to say "kohanim…" since I couldn't introduce myself.

What I forgot to ask was, when they are other Kohanim available, in what role do I function? Your discussion seems to indicate that as long as I have a printed text in front of me and will not be confused I can act as Cantor/prompter and as Cohen/respondent. But isn't this needlessly repeating the Divine name as well as confusing the Tzibbur [congregation] – both of which are very important halakhic idea in terms of being a Sheliach Tzibbur.

I respond:

While most Kohanim understandably view the ceremony of Dukhan as a privilege, it is also, in fact, a duty [mitzvah]. Any Kohen who is not disqualified for any reason is required to observe this mitzvah in those congregations where the ceremony is observed, in similar manner to being required to observe any mitzvah that devolves upon us. Therefore, the presence or absence of other Kohanim is irrelevant to the issue, and a Kohen who is also officiating as cantor should participate in this mitzvah. I do not concur with item #3 above. The universally observed practice in the State of Israel (where the ceremony of Dukhan is observed daily) is that a Kohen who is also the cantor faces the congregation (and not the Ark), and does so by taking very small steps. As far as item #4 is concerned, I think there might be here a misunderstanding. There is no reason why the Cantor/Kohen cannot recite the introductory paragraph up to and including the words "Kohanim etc". However, from that point on he (and the other Kohanim, if present) should recite the berakhah ("…asher kideshanu …") and the Priestly Blessing in unison and without prompting. Again, what I have described is the custom as observed in the State of Israel.

Jeff Marker has commented that the "Pardess" that was the downfall of Elisha ben-Avuyah may have been Greek philosophy (or something similar) and not Mysticism as I wrote.

In my defence, I would quote the discussion in Tractate Ĥagigah 14b, where the little material that is offered would certainly not suggest Greek Philosophy! However, there are certainly other sources that state categorically that Elisha ben-Avuyah was also thoroughly immersed in Greek Philosophy. Perhaps the two are not mutually contradictory.