Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 128:22-24

Sugya Map

The present sugya in Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 128:22-24, delves into the intricate regulations surrounding Birkat Kohanim (the Priestly Blessing), with a particular focus on the role of the mekareh (the individual who prompts the Kohanim word-by-word) and the special considerations that arise when the Chazan (prayer leader) himself is a Kohen. The discussion navigates the tension between ideal practice (l'chatchila) and permissible alternatives (b'dieved) to ensure the mitzvah is performed.

Central Issue

The primary concern is the identity and function of the mekareh for Birkat Kohanim, specifically:

1. Who should serve as the mekareh? Is there a preference for a Yisrael (non-Kohen) over a Kohen?
2. What happens when the Chazan is a Kohen? Can he perform Birkat Kohanim? If so, who prompts him and who concludes the Amidah?
3. The halachic force of the drasha "אמור להם" (Numbers 6:23) in determining the mekareh's status.

Nafka Mina(s)

• Selection of the Chazan: Should a Kohen be avoided as Chazan if Birkat Kohanim is expected to be recited, due to the preference for a Yisrael mekareh?
• Procedure for a Kohen Chazan: If a Kohen Chazan must perform Birkat Kohanim (e.g., he is the only Kohen present), what are the procedural changes to the Amidah and Birkat Kohanim sequence? Who prompts him, and who concludes Sim Shalom?
• The Mekareh's role in Birkat Kohanim: Is the mekareh merely a facilitator, or does their identity impact the validity or optimal performance of the blessing?
• The Kohen's Obligation: The text emphasizes that a Kohen must ascend, even incurring "three positive commandments" for refusal (OC 128:22), highlighting the importance of ensuring the blessing proceeds. This pushes towards leniency b'dieved regarding the mekareh's status to avoid bittul mitzvah.

Primary Sources

• Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 128:22-24: The core text, outlining the preference for a Yisrael mekareh, the scenario of a Kohen Chazan with other Kohanim, and the scenario of a Kohen Chazan who is the only Kohen.
• Numbers (Bamidbar) 6:23: "אמור להם וברכתם את בני ישראל" – The foundational verse for Birkat Kohanim, from which the drasha regarding the mekareh's identity is derived.
• Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah u'Birkat Kohanim 14:10: Explicitly states the preference for a Yisrael mekareh based on "אמור להם", as cited by the Beit Yosef and Kesef Mishneh.
• Yerushalmi, Megillah 4:9 (cited by Tosafot Shabbat 118b, s.v. "דלמא"): Rabbi Yochanan said, "The Chazan must be an Israelite," which is interpreted as a l'chatchila preference for the mekareh.
• Mordechai, Megillah 823 (cited in SA 128:23 Gloss): Discusses the obligation of a Kohen Chazan to ascend if called.
• Tur, Orach Chayim 128 (cited extensively in SA and commentaries): The structural basis for the Shulchan Arukh's rulings, reflecting earlier Rishonim.
• Turei Zahav (Taz), Orach Chayim 128:17-18: Critiques the derivation from "אמור להם" and discusses the conclusion of Sim Shalom.
• Magen Avraham (MA), Orach Chayim 128:34: Interprets "משתדלין" and cites Kenesset HaGedolah.
• Mishnah Berurah (MB), Orach Chayim 128:85-87: Synthesizes Acharonim and provides practical guidance.

Text Snapshot

The relevant sections of the Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 128:22-24, lay out the guidelines for the mekareh's role, especially when a Kohen serves as the Chazan.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 128:23: "...If the prayer leader is a Kohen - if there are other Kohanim, he does not raise his hands [i.e. perform Birkat Kohanim]. (And they should not tell him to go up or to wash his hands; however, if they did say this to him, he is required to go up, because otherwise he would be in violation of a positive commandment if he does not go up.) Even if there is no Kohen there except him, he should not raise his hands [in Birkat Kohanim] unless he is certain that he is able to return to his prayer [the repetition of the Amidah] without becoming confused; for if he certain of this, then since there is no Kohen except him, he should raise his hands [in Birkat Kohanim] so that the Lifting of the Hands [i.e. Birkat Kohanim] will not be cancelled. How should he perform it? He should "uproot" his feet a little bit at Avodah [i.e. the blessing of "R'tzei"]; then he should continue reciting until "u'lekha na-eh l'hodot" [the ending of the Modim blessing], then he should ascend the platform and bless Birkat Kohanim, and someone else calls [i.e. prompts] for him; and then the chazan [i.e. prayer leader] concludes with "Sim Shalom". But if the caller had intention [to fulfill his obligation] with the prayer [i.e. Amidah] of the prayer leader from beginning to end, it is better if the caller concludes with "Sim Shalom"."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "אם יש שם כהנים אחרים אינו נושא כפיו" (if there are other Kohanim, he does not raise his hands) is crucial. The Chazan, being the Shaliach Tzibur, is generally exempt if other Kohanim are present, to maintain the flow of his Amidah. However, the gloss qualifies this, stating that if told to go up, he must due to the mitzvah. This highlights the tension between the Chazan's role and the Kohen's obligation. The unique procedure for the Kohen Chazan who is the only Kohen (uprooting feet, having someone else call, then returning to conclude Sim Shalom) underscores the b'dieved nature of this scenario, where the continuity of the Amidah is temporarily broken for the sake of Birkat Kohanim. The condition "אם המקרא נתכוין" (if the caller had intention) for the mekareh to conclude Sim Shalom indicates a higher level of involvement than a mere prompt, suggesting the mekareh might be fulfilling the role of Shaliach Tzibur for the latter part of the Amidah.

Shulchan Arukh, Orach Chayim 128:24: "They should try to have the caller be an Israelite [i.e. a non-Kohen]... And when the chazan is a Kohen, an Israelite should stand next to him and call out "Kohanim" and he calls [out each word] to them, and the chazan [who is a Kohen] stands next to him and remains silent."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The term "משתדלין" (they should try/strive) is significant. It implies a l'chatchila preference, not an absolute requirement. This leaves room for a Kohen to be the mekareh b'dieved. The phrase "והחזן עומד אצלו ושותק" (and the Chazan stands next to him and remains silent) is distinct from the previous s'if. Here, the Kohen Chazan does not leave his place but rather steps aside for the Yisrael mekareh, maintaining a more continuous presence in the Amidah repetition. This distinction will be critical in the Acharonim's discussion of who concludes Sim Shalom.

Readings

The role of the mekareh for Birkat Kohanim, particularly when the Chazan is a Kohen, is a point of significant lomdus among the Rishonim and Acharonim. Their discussions often revolve around the interpretation of the biblical phrase "אמור להם" (Numbers 6:23) and its practical implications for the optimal performance of the mitzvah.

1. The Rambam and the Derivation from "אמור להם"

The foundational source for the preference of an Israelite mekareh is the Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Tefillah u'Birkat Kohanim 14:10. He writes: "משתדלין שיהא המקרא כהן ישראל, שנאמר אמור להם מכלל שאין המקרא מהם." "They strive to have the caller be an Israelite, as it is stated, 'Say to them' (Numbers 6:23), from which it is inferred that the caller is not from among them [the Kohanim]." The Kesef Mishneh on the Rambam (ad loc.) further elaborates, noting that this is mentioned in the Yerushalmi, Megillah 4:9, which states, "רבי יוחנן אמר: צריך שיהא החזן ישראל" (Rabbi Yochanan said: The Chazan must be an Israelite). The Kesef Mishneh clarifies that the Yerushalmi's "Chazan" here refers to the mekareh.

Chiddush: The Rambam establishes a clear l'chatchila preference for a Yisrael mekareh, grounding it in a drasha from the verse "אמור להם". The underlying logic is that the one commanding or directing the blessing should be distinct from those performing it. This creates a hierarchical separation, where the Yisrael acts as an intermediary, conveying God's command to the Kohanim to bless the people. This isn't merely a matter of convenience but rather a hiddur mitzvah (beautification of the commandment) rooted in a scriptural interpretation. The word "משתדלין" (strive) indicates that while it is the preferred method, it is not an absolute impediment if a Yisrael is unavailable. This leaves open the b'dieved scenario, a critical point for later Acharonim.

2. The Taz's Scrutiny of "אמור להם" and its Implications for B'dieved

The Turei Zahav (Taz), in his commentary on Orach Chayim 128:17 (which is the s'if in the SA referring to "משתדלין" but in the context of the mekareh in general), launches a rigorous critique of the Rambam's derivation. The Taz first cites the Kesef Mishneh's reference to the Yerushalmi and Rambam's interpretation. He then expresses difficulty in understanding the Kesef Mishneh's statement that the drasha is "לא לעיכובא" (not an impediment b'dieved), especially if it's a drasha gemurah (a full-fledged midrashic derivation). He further challenges the L'vush's explanation that the drasha is merely an asmachta (a textual support, not a strict derivation), arguing that the Rambam does not invent drashot, even as asmachtot, unless they have a source. Moreover, if it were an asmachta because the verse has other drashot, the Taz points out that many verses have multiple drashot, yet they are still considered drashot gemurot.

Taz OC 128:17 (translated): "משתדלין כו'. זה מדברי רמב"ם פי"ד מה' תפלה ונתן טעם שנאמר אמור להם מכלל שאין המקר' מהם. וכתב שם בכ"מ וז"ל ירושלמי פרק א"ע כתבוהו התוספות פרק א"נ אר"ח צריך שיהיה החזן ישראל והיינו להשתדל אחריו אבל לעיכובא לא דהא תנן בפ' א"ע ואם אין שם כהן אלא החזן לא ישא את כפיו אלמא יכול להיות החזן כהן עכ"ל. ולא יכולתי להבין דבריו במ"ש אבל לא לעיכובא אם הוא נתכוין שבאם אין שם ישראל שיוכל להקרות יוכל הש"ץ שהוא כהן להקרות וכ"כ בלבוש ונתן טעם דהאי דרשה דאמור להם מכלל שאינו מהם היא אינה דרשה גמורה אלא אסמכתא בעלמ' ועיקר הפסוק דרשינן ליה לענין כד יימרון כו' זה אינו מספיק להבין דברי הכ"מ דא"כ מה ראייה מייתי מההוא דא"ע אם אין שם כהן אלא הוא כו' דהתם אע"פ שהשליח צבור כהן מ"מ אחר הוא המקרא כמ"ש כאן יעמיד ישראל אצלו כו'. ותו קשה על מ"ש הלבוש דהאי דרשה אסמכתא הי' דהא ליתא לא בגמ' דילן ולא בירושלמי אלא הרמב"ם כתב לה ואין הרמב"ם כותב דרשה מעצמו אפי' דרך אסמכת' אלא ע"כ דאין כאן דרשה לגמרי אלא דרך פשוטו של פסוק הוא וא"כ אין כאן אסמכתא. ותו דאמאי יהיה אסמכתא מטעם דיש בו דרשה אחרת והלא בגמ' מצינו הרבה דרשות מהאי קרא דאמור להם והם כולם דרשות גמורות. והנלע"ד דודאי אין כאן דרשה כלל אלא פשוטי דקרא היא כן דהמקרא יהיה מן הצבור המתברכים והיינו כל זמן שאפשר להמצ' בישראל אבל אם אין ישראל יכול להקרות אז נושאין כפיהם בלא הקראה כלל מידי דהוה אעיר שכולה כהנים דבסמוך סעיף כ"ה שעולים כלם לדוכן ושם ודאי אין הקראה כלל דמי מהם יקרא ה"נ כן הוא וע"כ כתב הרמב"ם משתדלין שיהיה המקרא ישראל דהיינו כדי לקיים מצוה מן המובחר שתהיה שם הקריאה וכ"ה ראוי ונכון:" "They strive, etc. This is from the words of Rambam, Chapter 14 of Hilchot Tefillah, who gave the reason that it is stated 'Say to them,' implying that the caller is not from among them. And the Kesef Mishneh wrote there, in the name of the Yerushalmi, Perek 'Eilu Ne'emarin' (which Tosafot also wrote in Perek 'Eilu Ne'emarin' [Shabbat 118b]), that Rabbi Yochanan said: The Chazan must be an Israelite, and this is to strive for it, but not as an impediment. For we learned in Perek 'Eilu Ne'emarin' [Sotah 38b], 'If there is no Kohen there but the Chazan, he should not raise his hands,' from which it implies that the Chazan can be a Kohen. So far the Kesef Mishneh. And I could not understand his words regarding 'but not as an impediment' if he intended that if there is no Israelite who can call, then the Chazan who is a Kohen can call. And so wrote the L'vush, and he gave the reason that this drasha of 'Say to them,' implying that he is not from them, is not a complete drasha but merely an asmachta. And the main verse is expounded for 'when they say,' etc. This is not sufficient to understand the words of the Kesef Mishneh, for if so, what proof does he bring from that of 'Eilu Ne'emarin' 'if there is no Kohen but him,' etc., for there, even though the Shaliach Tzibur is a Kohen, nevertheless, another person is the caller, as stated here, 'he should appoint an Israelite next to him,' etc. Furthermore, it is difficult regarding what the L'vush wrote, that this drasha is an asmachta, for it is not found in our Gemara nor in the Yerushalmi, but the Rambam wrote it, and the Rambam does not write drashot of his own accord, even as an asmachta. Therefore, it must be that there is no drasha here at all, but rather it is the simple meaning of the verse, and if so, there is no asmachta here. Furthermore, why should it be an asmachta because it has another drasha? For in the Gemara, we find many drashot from this verse 'Say to them,' and they are all complete drashot. And what seems correct to me is that there is certainly no drasha here at all, but rather it is the plain meaning of the verse that the caller should be from the congregation being blessed, and this is as long as it is possible to find an Israelite. But if no Israelite can call, then they raise their hands without any calling at all, just like in a city full of Kohanim, as mentioned below in S'if 25, where they all ascend to the platform, and there certainly there is no calling at all, for who among them would call? So too here. And therefore, the Rambam wrote 'they strive to have the caller be an Israelite,' meaning in order to fulfill the mitzvah in the most beautiful way, that there should be a calling, and this is proper and correct."

Chiddush: The Taz's chiddush is profound. He argues that the Rambam's statement is not based on a drasha in the traditional sense, but rather on the peshat (plain meaning) of the verse: "אמור להם" means that the one conveying the instruction to bless should be from the community receiving the blessing, i.e., an Israelite. This implies that the mekareh is acting as a representative of the community. Critically, if no Israelite is available, the Taz suggests that Birkat Kohanim can be performed without a mekareh at all, drawing a parallel to a synagogue comprised entirely of Kohanim (OC 128:25), where no mekareh is possible. This perspective significantly relaxes the b'dieved stringency, viewing the Yisrael mekareh as a hiddur but not essential to the performance itself. This stands in stark contrast to the implication of a drasha, which might suggest a more fundamental requirement.

3. The Magen Avraham and Ba'er Hetev: "משתדלין" as L'chatchila

The Magen Avraham (MA), in his commentary on OC 128:34 (which corresponds to the phrase "משתדלין שיהא המקרא ישראל" in SA 128:24), reinforces the idea that the preference for an Israelite mekareh is l'chatchila. He writes: MA 128:34 (translated): "The phrase "work to," has a connotation that the initial choice should be someone who's a yisroel (and only if can't get one should a cohen be used.) (Kenneset Hagedola in the name of great Rabbis.)" Similarly, the Ba'er Hetev on OC 128:39 reiterates this point, explicitly stating: Ba'er Hetev 128:39 (translated): "ישראל. פי' דלכתחלה משתדלין שיהא הש"ץ ישראל. מ"א בשם הכנה"ג:" "Israelite. Meaning, l'chatchila they strive for the Shaliach Tzibur (caller) to be an Israelite. Magen Avraham in the name of the Kenesset HaGedolah."

Chiddush: Both the MA and Ba'er Hetev, citing the Kenesset HaGedolah, crystallize the interpretation of "משתדלין" as a l'chatchila preference. This confirms that while an Israelite mekareh is ideal, a Kohen may serve as mekareh b'dieved if an Israelite is unavailable. This is crucial for avoiding bittul Birkat Kohanim, aligning with the practical imperative that the mitzvah should be performed. Their brevity in this regard suggests that this understanding was widely accepted among Acharonim as the practical psak, even amidst the lomdus debate on the source's nature.

4. The Mishnah Berurah's Synthesis and Practical Halacha

The Mishnah Berurah (MB), in his Bi'ur Halacha and Sha'ar HaTziyun on OC 128, offers a comprehensive synthesis of the Rishonim and Acharonim, providing practical halacha l'ma'aseh. He directly addresses the Rambam's derivation and its application in contemporary practice.

MB 128:85 (translated): "(פה) שיהא המקרא ישראל - כ"כ הרמב"ם ואסמכה אקרא שנאמר אמור להם מכלל שאין המקרא מהם ולפ"ז לפי מנהגנו שהש"ץ הוא המקרא כמש"כ בסי"ג ממילא צריך להשתדל לכתחלה שהש"ץ העובר לפני התיבה לא יהיה כהן:" "(85) That the caller should be an Israelite - So wrote the Rambam, and he supported it with the verse that states 'Say to them,' from which it is inferred that the caller is not from among them. And according to this, according to our custom that the Shaliach Tzibur is the caller, as written in S'if 13, it follows that l'chatchila one should strive that the Shaliach Tzibur who leads the prayer should not be a Kohen."

MB 128:87 (translated): "(פז) והחזן עומד ושותק - פי' עד גמר ברכת כהנים אבל משים שלום ואילך יאמר החזן בעצמו. והנה כל דין זה של המחבר הסכימו האחרונים שאין זה רק לכתחלה אבל כשאין שם מי שיודע להקרות יקריא הכהן הש"ץ בעצמו:" "(87) And the Chazan stands and remains silent - Meaning, until the completion of Birkat Kohanim, but from Sim Shalom onwards, the Chazan himself should say it. And behold, all this law of the Mechaber [SA] has been agreed upon by the Acharonim that this is only l'chatchila, but when there is no one who knows how to call, the Kohen Shaliach Tzibur himself should call."

Chiddush: The Mishnah Berurah, despite the Taz's strong critique, leans towards the Rambam's drasha from "אמור להם" as the basis for the l'chatchila preference. He acknowledges the prevailing custom where the Chazan acts as the mekareh and therefore applies the l'chatchila preference to the Chazan's identity: l'chatchila the Chazan should not be a Kohen. However, the MB explicitly states that the Acharonim agree that this is only l'chatchila. Crucially, he rules that b'dieved, if no one else is capable, a Kohen Chazan should prompt himself or other Kohanim. This reflects a fundamental halachic principle: the performance of a mitzvah generally overrides a hiddur or a non-essential preference, especially when its cancellation is at stake. The MB also clarifies the procedure for Sim Shalom, stating that the Chazan resumes this blessing himself, aligning with the Taz's view in OC 128:18 in the scenario where the Kohen Chazan remains at his post.

In summary, these readings present a dynamic interplay of textual interpretation, halachic reasoning, and practical considerations. The Rambam establishes the ideal from a scriptural inference. The Taz challenges the very nature of this inference, suggesting a peshat-based understanding that allows for greater leniency b'dieved. The MA and Ba'er Hetev confirm the l'chatchila nature of the preference. Finally, the Mishnah Berurah synthesizes these views into a working halacha, prioritizing the performance of Birkat Kohanim even if the ideal conditions for the mekareh are not met.

Friction

The sugya surrounding the mekareh and a Kohen Chazan presents several points of tension and disagreement among the poskim. Let's explore two significant kushyot and their potential resolutions.

Kushya 1: The Halachic Nature of "אמור להם" – Drasha vs. Peshat

The primary source for the preference of a Yisrael mekareh is the drasha on "אמור להם" (Numbers 6:23), as presented by the Rambam and cited by the Kesef Mishneh. The drasha states that "מכלל שאין המקרא מהם" – the one who tells them (the Kohanim) should not be from them. This implies a l'chatchila preference for a non-Kohen. However, the Taz mounts a strong challenge to this, arguing it's neither a proper drasha nor an asmachta, but rather peshat.

The Kushya: If the Taz is correct that there is no drasha at all, and it's merely peshat that the caller should ideally be from the tzibur being blessed, what is the halachic force of this "preference"? A mere peshat might not carry the same weight as a drasha in determining l'chatchila vs. b'dieved. Furthermore, if it's peshat, why would the Rambam present it as a drasha (implicitly, by saying "שנאמר... מכלל שאין...") and why do later poskim like the Mishnah Berurah continue to lean on this drasha despite the Taz's critique? The Taz's alternative explanation – that if no Yisrael is available, they bless without any mekareh – fundamentally alters the understanding of the mekareh's role from an ideal facilitator to a potentially dispensable one, even for l'chatchila. How can we reconcile these conflicting views on the very source and nature of this halacha?

Terutzim:

1. Reconciling Drasha and Peshat as Complementary: One approach is to suggest that the Rambam's understanding of "אמור להם" is a sophisticated blend of peshat and drasha. The peshat might indeed indicate a natural separation between the one giving the instruction and the one receiving it. The drasha then elevates this natural distinction to a halachic preference, perhaps even a hiddur mitzvah (beautification of the commandment). The Taz's critique might be understood as arguing against a halakha l'ma'aseh (practical law) that would invalidate the blessing without an Israelite mekareh, rather than denying any derashic insight entirely. The Rambam, by stating "מכלל שאין המקרא מהם," is not necessarily implying a formal derasha in the style of midrash halakha, but rather a logical inference from the phrasing of the verse that establishes an ideal. Even if not a drasha gemurah, it points to the Torah's intent for a certain dynamic.

   • This view allows the Mishnah Berurah to maintain the drasha as the source for the l'chatchila preference, while still acknowledging that b'dieved, when the ideal is unattainable, the mitzvah is not nullified. The drasha sets the standard, but its non-fulfillment does not always constitute bittul. The Yerushalmi's "צריך" (must) can then be read as l'chatchila "must strive," rather than an absolute must for validity.

2. The Mekareh's Role as a Representative of the Kahal: The Taz's interpretation that the mekareh should be "מן הציבור המתברכים" (from the congregation being blessed) offers a compelling terutz. If the mekareh functions as the voice of the kahal (congregation) receiving the blessing, requesting it from the Kohanim, then it logically follows that the mekareh should be a Yisrael. This aligns with the idea that the Kohen is blessing the Yisraelim. In this framework, the presence of a Yisrael mekareh enhances the Birkat Kohanim by creating a complete cycle: the Yisrael mekareh representing the kahal requests the blessing, the Kohanim deliver it, and the kahal responds "Amen."

   • This understanding helps to bridge the gap between the drasha and peshat. The drasha "אמור להם מכלל שאין המקרא מהם" can be seen as highlighting this representative role: the one initiating the blessing (by calling out the words) should not be from the group performing the blessing, but rather from the group receiving it. This is a subtle yet powerful interpretation that gives the mekareh a deeper, albeit non-essential, role. When no Yisrael is available, the Kohanim still bless the kahal, but the full representative dynamic is absent. The Birkat Kohanim itself is still valid, as it's the Kohanim's action that is primary, but the hiddur of the mekareh's role is missed. This supports the Taz's view that b'dieved they can bless without a mekareh (or with a Kohen mekareh) if necessary.

3. The Principle of Bittul Mitzvah vs. Hiddur Mitzvah: Ultimately, the underlying principle guiding the psak is the tension between bittul mitzvah (canceling the commandment) and hiddur mitzvah (beautifying the commandment). The Rambam and the Yerushalmi establish a preference for a Yisrael mekareh as a hiddur. The Taz, by arguing it's peshat rather than drasha, perhaps seeks to prevent the hiddur from being elevated to a sine qua non (an indispensable condition) that would lead to bittul mitzvah when a Yisrael is unavailable.

   • All Acharonim, including the Mishnah Berurah, agree that b'dieved, if no Yisrael is available or capable, a Kohen Chazan can and should serve as the mekareh rather than canceling Birkat Kohanim. This consensus demonstrates that while the drasha or peshat creates an ideal, the overriding concern is the performance of the mitzvah itself. The Chazan's obligation as a Kohen "if they told him to go up, he is required to go up, because otherwise he would be in violation of a positive commandment if he does not go up" (SA 128:22 Gloss) further underscores this priority.

Kushya 2: Who Concludes "Sim Shalom" when a Kohen Chazan is Involved?

The Shulchan Arukh presents two distinct scenarios involving a Kohen Chazan and Birkat Kohanim, and the question of who concludes Sim Shalom (the final blessing of the Amidah repetition) becomes complex.

Scenario A (SA 128:23): A Kohen Chazan is the only Kohen present. He begins the Amidah, then "uproots his feet" at R'tzei, recites up to "u'lekha na-eh l'hodot" (end of Modim), ascends the duchan (platform) for Birkat Kohanim (with someone else calling out for him), and then "the Chazan concludes with Sim Shalom." An alternative is given: "But if the caller had intention [to fulfill his obligation] with the prayer... it is better if the caller concludes with Sim Shalom."

Scenario B (SA 128:24): A Kohen Chazan is present with other Kohanim. Here, "an Israelite should stand next to him and call out "Kohanim" and he calls [out each word] to them, and the Chazan [who is a Kohen] stands next to him and remains silent." The text does not explicitly state who concludes Sim Shalom in this scenario.

The Kushya: The wording in SA 128:23 ("the Chazan concludes with Sim Shalom") seems straightforward for Scenario A, unless the mekareh had kavana for the entire Amidah. However, the Taz (OC 128:18) and Ba'er Hetev (OC 128:40) discuss Scenario B (where the Kohen Chazan stands silent at his place while a Yisrael mekareh prompts other Kohanim) and disagree with the Bach. The Bach held that even in this case, the mekareh should conclude Sim Shalom and the Chazan say Kaddish. The Taz vehemently rejects this, stating, "I have not seen this anywhere, and on the contrary, many times in my youth I was the mekareh for a Chazan who was a Kohen, and the Chazan said Sim Shalom, and my father-in-law, of blessed memory, was in that synagogue, and so is the primary ruling in my opinion." How do we reconcile these two scenarios and the differing opinions regarding who concludes Sim Shalom? What is the rationale behind each choice?

Terutzim:

1. Distinguishing the Two Scenarios Based on Chazan's Movement: The key to resolving this kushya lies in the distinction between the two scenarios presented in the Shulchan Arukh.

   • Scenario A (SA 128:23 - Kohen Chazan alone): Here, the Kohen Chazan uproots his feet and physically ascends the duchan. This constitutes a significant break in his role as Shaliach Tzibur. When he returns, the continuity of his Amidah is somewhat disrupted. In this specific and more unusual scenario, the mekareh might indeed have taken on a larger role, especially if he had kavana for the entire Amidah. If the mekareh effectively stepped in to lead the Amidah during the Chazan's absence, it is logical that he would conclude it. However, the default is still for the Chazan to resume his role, highlighting the preference for the original Shaliach Tzibur to complete the prayer.
   • Scenario B (SA 128:24 - Kohen Chazan with other Kohanim): In this case, the Kohen Chazan "עומד אצלו ושותק" (stands next to him and remains silent). He does not leave his place as Shaliach Tzibur. His Amidah recitation is paused, but his position as leader is maintained. The Yisrael mekareh is merely a prompt for the other Kohanim, not a substitute Shaliach Tzibur. Therefore, it is entirely logical, as the Taz argues, that the Kohen Chazan would resume his Amidah and conclude Sim Shalom. The mekareh in this instance is a functional helper, not a temporary replacement for the Chazan.
   • The Taz's strong statement ("I have not seen this anywhere") directly addresses the Bach's opinion for Scenario B, emphasizing that the Chazan's continuity, when he has not left his spot, is paramount. The Mishnah Berurah (128:87) explicitly supports the Taz for Scenario B: "והחזן עומד ושותק - פי' עד גמר ברכת כהנים אבל משים שלום ואילך יאמר החזן בעצמו." (And the Chazan stands and remains silent - meaning until the completion of Birkat Kohanim, but from Sim Shalom onwards, the Chazan himself should say it.)

2. The Kavana of the Mekareh in Scenario A: The condition "אם המקרא נתכוין" (if the caller had intention) in SA 128:23 is unique and points to a deeper halachic principle. If the mekareh did not merely prompt but actively intended to fulfill the congregation's obligation for the Amidah repetition, then he essentially became a temporary Shaliach Tzibur. In such a rare case, his completion of Sim Shalom would be appropriate, as he is concluding the prayer he effectively led. This highlights that the default is for the Kohen Chazan to complete Sim Shalom, and only under specific conditions of the mekareh's kavana and the Chazan's physical absence does the alternative become preferable. This supports the idea that the Chazan's role is primary and should be resumed unless a strong reason dictates otherwise.

In sum, the differing rulings on who concludes Sim Shalom are not necessarily contradictions but rather nuanced responses to distinct procedural situations involving the Kohen Chazan. The critical factor is the extent to which the Kohen Chazan's role as Shaliach Tzibur is disrupted by his participation in Birkat Kohanim. If he physically leaves his post as the sole Kohen, the mekareh might assume a more central role. If he merely pauses and stands silently while others bless, his role as Shaliach Tzibur remains intact, and he naturally resumes leading Sim Shalom.

Intertext

The sugya of the mekareh for Birkat Kohanim and the role of a Kohen Chazan weaves through various layers of Jewish legal and spiritual thought. Connecting it to other texts enriches our understanding of its principles and broader implications.

1. The Source Verse: Numbers 6:23 ("אמור להם")

The cornerstone of the discussion is the verse in Bamidbar (Numbers) 6:23, "דבר אל אהרן ואל בניו לאמר כה תברכו את בני ישראל אמור להם" ("Speak to Aaron and his sons, saying: This is how you shall bless the children of Israel. Say to them..."). The drasha "מכלל שאין המקרא מהם" (from which it is inferred that the caller is not from among them) is the Rambam's primary source for the preference of an Israelite mekareh.

• Connection: This verse is not just a command for Birkat Kohanim but also delineates the structure of its performance. The phrase "Say to them" establishes a necessary intermediary. This highlights the concept of shlichut (agency) in Jewish law – one person acting on behalf of another. Here, the mekareh (ideally a Yisrael) acts as a shaliach of the kahal (or even of Hashem, giving the command to the Kohanim) to prompt the Kohanim, who in turn act as shlichim of Hashem to bless the people. The drasha ensures that the link in the chain (the mekareh) is distinct from the one performing the core action (the Kohen), preserving the unique status of the Kohen's blessing. The Taz's argument that it's peshat – that the one calling should be from those being blessed – reinforces the mekareh's role as a representative of the kahal, ensuring that the call for the blessing originates from the recipients. Both interpretations underscore the importance of the mekareh's function in setting the stage for the Kohen's mitzvah.

2. Sotah 38b: The Talmudic Foundation for Birkat Kohanim Laws

Masechet Sotah, particularly pages 38b-39a, is the primary Talmudic sugya detailing the laws of Birkat Kohanim. It discusses the requirements for a minyan, the Kohen's obligation to ascend, disqualifications, the form of the blessing, and the sequence of events.

• Connection: The Shulchan Arukh's regulations, including the specific procedures for a Kohen Chazan, are built upon these Talmudic foundations. For instance, the discussion of Kohanim who are disqualified due to physical blemishes (OC 128:23) or having killed someone (OC 128:24) is directly derived from Sotah 38b-39a. The Gemara's emphasis on the solemnity and precision of Birkat Kohanim lends weight to the l'chatchila preference for a Yisrael mekareh as a hiddur mitzvah. However, the overriding concern of not cancelling the mitzvah (lo nivatel Birkat Kohanim), which allows for leniencies b'dieved (such as a Kohen Chazan acting as mekareh if no one else is available), is also deeply rooted in the Talmudic imperative to perform mitzvot whenever possible. The Gemara discusses Birkat Kohanim without a mekareh in the case of a minyan composed entirely of Kohanim (Sotah 38a), a point the Taz leverages in his argument.

3. Rambam, Hilchot Tefillah u'Birkat Kohanim 14:10: The Broader Context of the Mekareh

The Rambam's ruling (Hilchot Tefillah 14:10) is the direct source for the Shulchan Arukh's statement regarding the Yisrael mekareh. The full context of the Rambam's chapter discusses all aspects of Birkat Kohanim, from the preparation of the Kohanim to the manner of blessing.

• Connection: By embedding the rule about the Yisrael mekareh within the broader framework of Birkat Kohanim, the Rambam signals its importance as part of the proper performance of the mitzvah. His meticulous outlining of procedures, including the Kohen Chazan's unique steps when he is the only Kohen (uprooting feet, having someone else call, returning to conclude Sim Shalom), demonstrates a careful balancing act. The halacha prioritizes the mitzvah of Birkat Kohanim (hence the Kohen Chazan must bless if he's the only Kohen) while simultaneously striving to maintain the integrity and flow of the Amidah and the hiddur of the mekareh's role. The fact that the Chazan is to return and conclude Sim Shalom (unless the mekareh had kavana) shows the Rambam's concern for the Chazan's continuity as Shaliach Tzibur.

4. Responsa Literature: Practical Applications and Nuances

• Aruch HaShulchan, Orach Chayim 128:50: The Aruch HaShulchan, a prominent Acharon, discusses this sugya and largely aligns with the Mishnah Berurah. He emphasizes the l'chatchila nature of having an Israelite mekareh due to the drasha "אמור להם." However, he clearly states that b'dieved, if no Israelite is available or if the Kohen Chazan is the only Kohen, he should act as mekareh himself to avoid canceling Birkat Kohanim.

  • Connection: The Aruch HaShulchan reflects the practical consensus in halacha l'ma'aseh. He echoes the sentiment that while ideal conditions are sought, the performance of the mitzvah takes precedence. His discussion often incorporates the local minhag and the realities of synagogue practice, demonstrating how theoretical lomdus translates into pragmatic halachic rulings. He underlines the fact that the Kohen Chazan should not refrain from blessing merely because the ideal mekareh is absent.

• Kaf HaChaim, Orach Chayim 128:227: Rav Yaakov Chaim Sofer, in his comprehensive work, also addresses these issues. He extensively quotes earlier poskim, including the Taz and Mishnah Berurah, and generally affirms the l'chatchila preference for a Yisrael mekareh while permitting a Kohen Chazan to be the mekareh b'dieved. He delves into the mystical aspects of Birkat Kohanim, which might implicitly lend more weight to the hiddur of an Israelite mekareh but ultimately not to the extent of invalidating the blessing.

  • Connection: The Kaf HaChaim's approach, common in Sephardic poskim, synthesizes various views and often incorporates Kabbalistic considerations. His reaffirmation of the b'dieved leniency, despite the emphasis on hiddur, demonstrates the widespread acceptance of the principle that Birkat Kohanim must proceed. His detailed citations act as a compendium of the sugya's development, showing how the interpretations of "אמור להם" and the role of the Chazan have been consistently weighed against the imperative of performing the mitzvah.

These intertextual connections reveal a consistent halachic trajectory: the ideal is a Yisrael mekareh based on a scriptural inference, but practical necessity and the overriding importance of Birkat Kohanim ensure that the mitzvah is performed even when ideal conditions are not met. The discussion balances textual fidelity with the pragmatic needs of the community and the spiritual obligation of the Kohanim.

Psak/Practice

The psak halacha regarding the mekareh and a Kohen Chazan for Birkat Kohanim reflects a careful balance between ideal practice (l'chatchila) and practical necessity (b'dieved), prioritizing the actual performance of the mitzvah.

1. The Ideal Caller (L'chatchila)

The Shulchan Arukh (OC 128:24) states, "משתדלין שיהא המקרא ישראל" (They should try to have the caller be an Israelite). This is the established l'chatchila preference, rooted in the Rambam's drasha from "אמור להם" (Numbers 6:23), as the Mishnah Berurah (128:85) explains. The underlying principle is that the one instructing the Kohanim to bless should be distinct from the Kohanim themselves, ideally representing the kahal receiving the blessing.

• Practical Application: If the Chazan is a Kohen, the ideal practice is for a Yisrael to stand next to him and prompt the Kohanim (OC 128:24). The Kohen Chazan in this scenario stands silently during Birkat Kohanim, maintaining his position as Shaliach Tzibur but allowing the Yisrael to fulfill the role of mekareh.

2. When a Kohen Chazan Must Be the Caller (B'dieved)

Despite the l'chatchila preference, the halacha firmly dictates that Birkat Kohanim should not be cancelled if a Yisrael mekareh is unavailable.

• Mishnah Berurah (128:87) explicitly rules: "והנה כל דין זה של המחבר הסכימו האחרונים שאין זה רק לכתחלה אבל כשאין שם מי שיודע להקרות יקריא הכהן הש"ץ בעצמו" (And behold, all this law of the Mechaber [SA] has been agreed upon by the Acharonim that this is only l'chatchila, but when there is no one who knows how to call, the Kohen Shaliach Tzibur himself should call). This is a crucial psak for avoiding bittul mitzvah.
• Scenario of Kohen Chazan as the Only Kohen (OC 128:23): If the Chazan is the only Kohen present, he must perform Birkat Kohanim to prevent its cancellation, provided he can return to his Amidah without confusion. In this case, someone else (ideally a Yisrael, but b'dieved even a Kohen if no one else is available, though the SA refers generally to "someone else") calls out for him.

3. Conclusion of "Sim Shalom"

• Scenario A (Kohen Chazan alone, SA 128:23): The primary ruling is that the Chazan concludes "Sim Shalom" after descending from the duchan. Only if the mekareh had kavana to fulfill the Amidah for the congregation is it preferable for the mekareh to conclude. This is a rare scenario.
• Scenario B (Kohen Chazan with other Kohanim, Yisrael mekareh, SA 128:24): In this more common scenario, where the Kohen Chazan remains at his post and merely stands silently while the Yisrael mekareh prompts the other Kohanim, the Chazan unequivocally resumes his Amidah and concludes "Sim Shalom." The Taz (128:18) strongly affirms this, rejecting the opinion of the Bach. The Mishnah Berurah (128:87) concurs with the Taz.

4. Meta-Psak Heuristics

The overarching principle guiding these rulings is lo nivatel mitzvah (do not cancel a commandment). While hiddur mitzvah (beautification of the commandment), such as having a Yisrael mekareh, is highly valued, it does not override the fundamental obligation to perform the mitzvah itself. When faced with a choice between performing the mitzvah under suboptimal conditions or not performing it at all, Jewish law generally leans towards performance. This is particularly true for Birkat Kohanim, which is a mitzvah d'Oraita (biblical commandment) and a profound spiritual moment for the congregation.

5. Ashkenazi Custom

It's essential to note the prevalent Ashkenazi custom, mentioned in the Rama's gloss to OC 128:44, that Kohanim only perform Birkat Kohanim on Yom Tov (and Yom Kippur), and often only at Musaf. This minhag significantly reduces the frequency of Birkat Kohanim and thus the practical occurrence of the Chazan-as-Kohen-and-mekareh scenario on regular weekdays or Shabbats. However, the halachic principles discussed remain relevant for communities that maintain daily or weekly Birkat Kohanim, or for the Yom Tov services where it is observed.

In summary, halacha l'ma'aseh prioritizes the performance of Birkat Kohanim. While a Yisrael mekareh is ideal, a Kohen Chazan is permitted to act as mekareh b'dieved to ensure the blessing is not lost. The Chazan typically maintains his role and concludes Sim Shalom, unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise.

Takeaway

The sugya of the mekareh in Birkat Kohanim exemplifies the halachic tension between hiddur mitzvah and bittul mitzvah, ultimately prioritizing the performance of this essential biblical commandment even amidst procedural compromises. The debate surrounding "אמור להם" reveals the depth of textual interpretation that underpins practical halacha.