Talk:Priestly Blessing

Clean up notice

It was added because, users without a Jewish background might have a hard time to actually understand what it actually is about. ems 14:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction does not impart why this practice is important or what it signifies, and the rest of the writing needs to be tightened up. Yoninah 16:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Priestly Blessing vs. Nesiat Kapayim

Suggest two separate articles to distinguish the words, which are widely used in a variety of contexts in liberal Judiasm and Christianity, from the ceremony, which includes kohanim, special hand positions, etc., and is done only in Orthodox and some Conservative synagogues. --Shirahadasha 20:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)hi

Incomplete tag

At least here in Germany, the blessing (in German translation of course) occupies a prominent role in Lutheran Christian services. Maybe this should be mentioned and discussed here if somebody knows more about it. -- 212.63.43.180 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Not only in Germany: In many protestant denominations all over the world. Adding the {{incomplete}}-tag. -- 88.73.102.78 (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC) This is a contribution by de:Benutzer:CHG, who is not User:CHG.

I continue to think it would be useful to have two separate articles, one on the words and one on the Jewish religious ceremony. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a standard blessing in English-language Catholic services, particularly the burial mass. Ellsworth (talk) 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

not so accurate photo

As I noted on the Vulcan Salute talk page, the same photo used here of a person's hands is not accurate. The thumbs should be extended more and touching. Please correct this. It may be that the photographer "copied the picture" (what picture?) but one should be careful about imitating kabbalah diagrams and such, because "mistakes" were often purposely made by the artists to avoid profaning sacred things. Rooster613 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The photo provided is very confusing - for one thing I think it obviously has been altered or that the person somehow has his elbows touching (which must be very uncomfortable) ... but also, yes, the two thumbs should be touching each other. Thumbs touching is a basic requirement of the traditional hand sign.Sussmanbern (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I too noticed that the File:Kohanim_hands_blessing_photo.jpg photo depicts an incorrect gesture. Maybe a registered user can create and upload a replacement image. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Influence

Is it appropriate to talk about the influence of the Priestly Blessing in Christianity? Christian priests and pastors use the same passage to bless, for instance. Crushti (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

This person is correct. The blessing involves dividing the hand into three parts, separating the thumb from the rest of the hand, see http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/894583/jewish/The-Blessing.htm. Mr. Leonard Nimoy, a Cohen, used half of this sign as the Vulcan salute. Here is a picture which shows it properly: http://static.artfire.com/admin/product_images/thumbs/--60000--33232_product_146610345_thumb_large.jpg . Here is another http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=1019843125862&id=cbd1b693a637512a7c13c55e919c9cc4&url=http%3a%2f%2fshalomrav.files.wordpress.com%2f2011%2f06%2fhands.jpg and another http://www.musicofthebible.com/images/blessing.gif Barbreader 17 August 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbreader (talk • contribs) 06:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

¶I am adding citations to this article, bit by bit, and I hope this meets with general approval.Sussmanbern (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Mobile

When viewing this page on a mobile phone (an Android), the hebrew text is backwards. It is written left to right rather than right to left in mobile view.--Wikigold96 (talk) 16:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It's the same on my phone, however I think it's a problem with the Android browser; there's little we can do here to fix that. -- Lindert (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know because it's backwards in the Wikipedia app on my phone, too (running Droid, Gingerbread) --Wikigold96 (talk) 20:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Arm position

Should something be said about the tradition of arm position? That is, when making the blessing in the separate-arm position instead of the thumbs-together in front position, the arms should be raised only as far as the ears, so that the hands making the "shin" gesture are not above the head. This was only in the Diaspora. I belief that in Israel it was proper to raise the arms more vertically, with the hands higher than the head, as the Priest did on the Temple Mount. Is anyone able to support this with citation? Perhaps Mishnah? -- PraeceptorIP (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Popular Culture Addition?

Would anyone like to add Bob Dylan's Forever Young to the Popular Culture section?

"1973’s “Forever Young” is obviously inspired by the Birkat Kohanim"

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/249338/with-new-album-released-time-to-grapple-with-dylans-christian-period

"May you grow up to be righteous, may you grow up to be true, May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you. May you always be courageous, stand upright and be strong, and may you stay forever young. Forever Young

Bob Dylan’s lyrics aren’t taken from this week's parasha, Naso, although they seem to echo the ideas of the central-piece of the parasha, the priestly blessing in Numbers 6, vs 24 to 26. This blessing is probably familiar to you, as it is used by some communities at the end of the Shabbat morning service, and is the liturgy used in Birkat Kohanim, the duchanen ritual, which is performed by some communities on Yom Kippur in the Diaspora and throughout the year in Israel."

http://limmud.org/publications/tasteoflimmud/5771/Naso/

EDLIS Café 13:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Priestly Blessing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320162257/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/rabinowitz_women.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/rabinowitz_women.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121007023742/http://urj.org/learning/torah/archives/numbers/?syspage=article&item_id=41068 to http://urj.org/learning/torah/archives/numbers/?syspage=article&item_id=41068

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Historical/Theological History of the Priestly Blessing

                         *   *   *   Commentary on the Priestly Blessing   *   *   *

The Priestly Blessing is limited to communal recitation. Grammatically expressed in the singular, the Priestly Blessing is in actuality a collective singular encompassing the whole people of Israel. Its twice daily inclusion in the Amidah liturgy parallels the Temple’s twice daily sacrifices and further validates its linkage with the defunct Temple Service. Thus, the Amidah’s inclusion of the Priestly Blessing maintains an image of Temple service beyond the time of its existence.

Considered one of our liturgy’s most ancient formulations, it’s structured in a pattern of increasing complexity. It contains three words in the first strophe; five in the second; and seven in the third. Long before our modern liturgy was adopted and well before the Amidah had been woven into the warf and woof of other prayers, the congregation was dismissed with this blessing.

Traditionally, those who trace their patrilineal lineage to the priestly tribe (i.e. – kohanim) recite the Priestly Blessing in a ceremonial way whenever the Amidah is repeated by the prayer leader – a practice traceable back to Temple Days. Covered by their tallit (ritual prayer shawls), the kohanim stand facing the congregation. With arms extended to emulate Aaron at the dedication of the Tent of Meeting, the fingers on both hands are held to form the letter “shin” – the first letter Shaddai, one of God’s names. [If no kohanim are present, the prayer leader pronounces the blessing.]

Beyond the simple (yet difficult to attain) beauty of the Priestly Benediction’s Pshat (simple, or surface) meaning of peace, the ritual details of the Priestly Blessing also connote a mystical dimension. Having the kohanim cover their faces and raise their fingers as just described is connected with the idea that, though physically hidden from mankind, God’s presence ‘shines out’ during the ceremony; that His presence emanates from between the symbolically-spread fingers like light “through the lattices” illuminating our lives and brightening dark places.

At first blush, the idea of priests as an intercessory conduit for God’s blessings seems alien to Judaism which defines each congregant’s having an egalitarian status before God and a direct personal relationship with God. As the Priestly Blessing is considered by some as the most ancient of our prayers, some ascribe the Priestly Blessing an amended derivation of an as yet unknown Canaanite prayer.

R. Scherman’s notes to Torah portion Nasso (Numbers (6:27) affirm that it is God, not the Kohanim, who is blessing the congregation:

                                  “Let them place My name upon the children of Israel,
                                                And I shall bless them.”    

The Kohanim, explained Dr. Hertz, were “merely the channel through which the blessing was conveyed to the Israelites.”

The liturgical presentation of the Priestly Blessing emerged over time. Originally present only in the Temple, by the first century CE it was also performed in synagogues, with the ritual varying slightly to distinguish between its presentation in our holiest site and peripheral venues. In the Temple it was recited without interruption while it was delivered as three separate blessings in synagogue settings with the congregational response, “Amen” marking each blessing. In the Temple, the tetragrammaton was used, but not in synagogues.

It was after the Temple’s destruction that the Priestly Blessing morphed into an element within the Amidah. Elbogen explained that not only were the kohanim deprived of their traditional role as Temple priests, but that R. Yohanon ben Zakkai established new rules for their functioning. Among these, the kohanim were obliged to: * remove their shoes and wash their hands in preparation for the birkat kohanim; * say a pre-blessing before reciting the three-fold benediction; and * pray silently when approaching and leaving their position before the congregation.

In generations following the Temple’s destruction as kohanim no longer functioned as priests, but lapsed into ordinary citizens, the pronouncement of the three-fold blessing by the prayer leader, not necessarily himself a kohan, also emerged.

The structure of the Priestly Blessing revolves around units of three. Both the Priestly Blessing and the 19th benediction consist of three strophes with five terms in common:

                               “blessing,” “light,” “countenance,” “grace,” and “peace.”

In each of the three strophes, the tetragrammaton appears as the second word and serves as the subject of the opening verb.

Before going on to a discussion of the 19th benediction itself, a brief word on the congregational response to each of the three Birkat Kohanim blessings:

                                       Kein y’hi ratzon.    -   So may it be His will.

When the Priestly Benediction was incorporated from a stand-alone 3-part blessing into the Amidah’s 19th benediction, it’s uniqueness was recognized an additional congregational response. Rather than the usual “Amen” that follows many blessings (e.g. - morning blessings a/k/a birkat hashachar), following each of the three priestly blessings we add “So may it be His will.” Why do we add this phrase here?

By itself, “Amen” is used following a Bracha to confirm one’s belief in the statement. In the case of the Priestly Blessing, says Sperling, the three-fold blessing is prefaced with our request that God bless us, “as pronounced upon this congregation.” Accordingly, we insert "kein y'hi ratzon", meaning "we, too, ask of Him (yitbarach) that He do so, and so should be His will (yitbarach). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.40.71 (talk) 14:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 7 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. (non-admin closure) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Priestly Blessing → Priestly blessing – Apparently this is about a priestly blessing, not a work whose proper name is "Priestly Blessing". Therefore the capitalisation should be changed to reflect this. JIP | Talk 11:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose – This is about a specific prayer and blessing, not about the general concept of a blessing from a priest. The capitalisation should follow the example of Lord's Prayer. It is a 'work' in the sense that it is a named section of the Book of Numbers. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per Verbcatcher. This is a specific text, like a short poem. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support The argument of Verbcatcher, supported by Srnec, is incorrect. The priestly blessing is comprised of a blessing, a text and a prayer. Only the text part is a 3-line section from the book of Numbers, which Verbcatcher and Srnec mistakenly called the "Priestly Blessing". In addition, the priestly blessing is customary given in a certain way. All these parts of the priestly blessing and the way it is given is what this article is about, so it is incorrect to say that this article is about the 3-line text part only. Ergo, it should be written without capitals, as I did: "priestly blessing". Debresser (talk) 13:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  I disagree. The procedures of the act of blessing are distinct from the words of the blessing itself. The words of the blessing are probably older than any specific procedure now current. Srnec (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

But the article is by far not just about the "words of the blessing" (as you call it). It is really very simple. Debresser (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the prayer and the rituals that relate to it. If the prayer should be capitalised then the article should be capitalised, irrespective of the other content on the article. Verbcatcher (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

As you say: about the prayer. So not about the text. So it should not be capitalized. Debresser (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

In my view 'Priestly Blessing' is the name of this prayer. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose All this seems to me as much ado about nothing, a simple change of one capital letter... Why fuss about it. But beyond any of that, in English American culture, with Hollywood and the movies also having a "say" on the issue, the issue is certainly much larger than simply the 3 lines text from Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It is certainly a religious institution among Jews of different denominations, and a cultural institution in America, with special hand signs being used in films, etc. It apparently has been on WP as is for a while and I never noticed it until today. So just leave it as is, and let us move one to some more important stuff. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 23:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Capitalisation of opening sentence

During the move discussion, User:In ictu oculi changed the opening phrase from:

• The Priestly Blessing or priestly benediction,

to

• The priestly blessing or priestly benediction,

After the move discussion was closed I reverted this change, returning to the text before the move discussion, with the edit summary:

• change capitalisation to match title following inconclusive move discussion.

User:Debresser has reverted again, restoring the lower case text, with the edit summary:

• 1. That discussion was closed as "no consensus". 2. This same fist line says clearly that this is about the "raising of the hands", so NOT about the Biblical text.

The lead sentence should follow the capitalisation used in the article title. If it is appropriate for 'Priestly Blessing' to be capitalised in the article title then it should also be capitalised in the article text. Moreover, the opening sentence is about the prayer:

• The priestly blessing or priestly benediction [...] is a Hebrew prayer recited by Kohanim (the Hebrew Priests, descendants of Aaron).

Debresser appears to be trying to continue the move discussion in another venue. If the article title merits further discussion then the closure decision could be reviewed, see Wikipedia:Move review.

Please explain why the opening sentence should use a different capitalisation from the article title.

Verbcatcher (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate you opening this section after my revert of your edit. Please see my arguments below.

1. Don't you notice a certain lack of consistency in the capitalization of "The Priestly Blessing or priestly benediction"?!
2. Frankly, the move discussion came to an unfortunate and mistaken conclusion. This I say as an expert in the field.
3. Even if you disagree with my previous point, based on the notion that consensus should overrule common sense (even though Wikipedia rules are not so clear on this point, since WP:COMMONSENSE is also a Wikipedia policy), the fact remains that the opening sentence of this article is very clear that it is talking about the "raising of the hands" which is not a text but a ritual, and as such even those who argued in the above discussion in favor of using the capital letter, must agree that in this sentence the lowercase should be used. (If they disagree, they are simply inconsistent with their own arguments, which in itself is an argument to ignore them.)
4. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Debresser (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me. You wrote above: "This I say as an expert in the field." Could you please elucidate to me what field are you referring to, when you declare yourself an "expert" in or on it? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 02:35, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

@Debresser: to respond to your points:

1. This may be an inconsistency, but I wanted to focus on the conflict between the article title and the opening sentence. I would capitalise both of these.

2. I do not claim any relevant specialist knowledge; I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, I came across this issue and gave my opinion in the move discussion. If you think the result was perverse then feel free to have it reviewed, but please don't ignore the result.

3. If you take out the parenthetical phrases, the opening sentence is:

• The priestly blessing or priestly benediction, also known in rabbinic literature as raising of the hands or rising to the platform or dukhanen, is a Hebrew prayer recited by Kohanim.

This sentence is about a prayer that is known by these five names. If 'raising of the hands' is not a name of the prayer but is a ritual associated with it then it should not be in this sentence.

4. It wasn't broken when the move was proposed. It is now because the opening phrase conflicts with the article title.

Regards, Verbcatcher (talk) 10:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed an inconsistency, and you propose to solve one inconsistency by replacing it with another.

We are all experienced editor here. That is not the point. I meant that I am an expert in the field of Judaism, being that I am a rabbi.

I am not so sure if I shouldn't ignore the result of that discussion. I is not logical, and raises more problems, like this one. After all, WP:COMMONSENSE is "a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." And then there is WP:IGNORE as well.

You are right that the first sentence is not correct. But the solution should be to replace "is a Hebrew prayer recited by Kohanim" by "is a Jewish ritual performed by Kohanim". I have stated this in the above discussion as well, that the "prestly blessing" is not a text (prayer), but a ritual ("All these parts of the priestly blessing and the way it is given is what this article is about" is how I put it in that section).

It is no more broken than before that discussion, which did not result in a move of the article. Debresser (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Unsourced, illogical & confusing interpretation

"The triple invocation of YHWH in the three verses gave rise to various interpretations, which connect them to the three Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob), or to three attributes of God: Mercy, Courage, and Glory."

In what religion? Seems to be a rather Christian interpretation, if anything. God is brave?!! Isaac is (goes to be sacrificed), but not God. And how is Jacob the incarnation of glory? Or does it jump back and forth: once it's an attribute of God in his actions towards a biblical character (mercy, glory), and once the attribute of that character himself (mercy??, courage)? (Who actually does "mercy" refer here to, God or Abraham?) It's unsourced, so cannot be checked. Arminden (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

These are all good questions, in my view too. If they can't get explained, clarified, and/or sourced somehow, maybe they should be removed. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 19:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)