In his effort to move beyond chosenness, Mordechai Kaplan not only experimented with new liturgy, he also formally removed all ritual traces, including the symbolic ancient caste system of kohein (priest), levi (levite) and yisra’el (all other Jews) from communal practice. No one gets born into spiritual privilege in the Kaplanian system. This under-the-radar move was consistent with building a Judaism without chosenness. After all, the priests and levites were the chosen of the chosen. True egalitarianism had no place for ascribed status that is granted upon birth. The position was logically sound at the time and has gone relatively unchallenged in the Reconstructionist movement over the years. But at what cost?
Before diving into what Kaplan forfeited, we might look at the history of how the kehunah (priesthood) managed to survive to the present day. How can we understand the evolving role of the Jewish Priesthood over the centuries? The earliest biblical Israelite communities were led at various points by different kinds of leaders. We know the most about the judges, kings, prophets and priests, each operating within the political or religious domain and sometimes both. But what made the priesthood unique was that, unlike the judges, kings and prophets, the priests never disappeared completely. Even as the rabbis took the mantle of leadership after the destruction of the Second Temple, the priestly and levitical lines remained intact even as they were forced to adjust their now-diminished roles.
Relating to the religious systems of our desert-dwelling ancestors is actually an essential part of keeping our story alive and requires a multi-tiered approach.
After the destruction of the Second Temple, Judaism became the domain of the rabbis. The kohanim and levi’im became relics who were relegated to a few ritual moments in the Jewish calendar, but they had no authority or decision-making power in the new emerging landscape of rabbinic law. Surely, one would have thought that it was only a matter of time before this ancient status with diminishing influence would become extinct. Yet somehow, the priesthood carved out a place for itself. How did it last?
At its core, the “concept” of priest goes deep into our ancestral psyche. At the moment of Matan Torah, when the Torah was given at Sinai, the Torah refers to the entire Israelite people as a “nation of priests.” When most Jews no longer lived in the land of Israel, this powerful image became a focal point in our national identity, giving us a collective sense of purpose through the centuries of diaspora life. Priesthood morphed into critically symbolic/metaphoric language for the nation at large. As the kohanim had been and continued to be to the Israelites, the Jewish people were to the rest of the world. Separated out. Given a unique task. Chosen. For better or for worse, the Jews as the chosen people, like the priesthood, is an idea that adapted and endured because it gave us strength and endurance.
Yet Mordecai Kaplan understood chosenness — and by extension, the priesthood — not as a source of strength, but as a potential source of harm and spiritual weakness. Given the moment he lived in, there is no denying that his stance gained traction and offered a way back “in” to the widespread exodus of American Jews from Jewish communities. There is no denying that Kaplan’s pioneering of a “chosen-optional” Judaism was an essential contribution to the shape of American Judaism. However, could he have achieved the same ends without severing the place of kohanim and levi’im? There are always costs to ideological pivots, some explicit, some hidden and some only understood down the road. Here are four costs of throwing out the priestly caste alongside chosenness.
Reconstructionist communities are disconnected from the opportunity to learn from other egalitarian movements that embrace different forms and understandings of the priesthood lineage.
The Costs of Eliminating the Priestly Case
- It severs an experiential connection to the Torah. Ridding synagogue life of any practical way of relating to priests and levites renders huge parts of the Torah even harder to relate to in any experiential way. Volumes of Torah text describe the priesthood as the first generation of communal religious leadership during the wilderness. The laws within Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are filled with duties, expectations and prohibitions related to the priests and levites. For the average contemporary Jew who attends synagogue services and hears the reading of the Torah, establishing a connection to the huge swaths of Torah that describe the priesthood is a tough sell. Relating to the religious systems of our desert-dwelling ancestors is actually an essential part of keeping our story alive and requires a multi-tiered approach. When community members take on the remnant of those roles, even in only a few symbolic ways, they bring to life a huge segment of the Torah. Pedagogically, it is simply more interesting to study priests and levites when there are priests and levites in the room.
- Conversation Stopper. Because of the hardline position he took, Kaplan effectively ended any conversation about what roles a kohen, levi, bat kohen or bat levi could have in the movement today. To this day, there has been no conversation about the role of Reconstructionists who identify as levi’im and kohanim. The ideological stance leaves little room for curiosity and exploration because it is viewed as a threat. The assumption is this: You cannot claim to uphold egalitarian values if you do not categorically reject the caste system. The message is clear: If you have any attachment to or curiosity about a modern understanding of priesthood, then you should probably investigate another movement. Reconstructionism is going to be slightly less hospitable to anyone interested in making a public claim on that aspect of their heritage.
- Reconstructionist have excluded themselves from the conversation. Because of the ideological position that rejects priesthood, Reconstructionist communities are disconnected from the opportunity to learn from other egalitarian movements that embrace different forms and understandings of the priesthood lineage. Two modern-day examples:
- Traditional Egalitarian Judaism: The Trad Egal movement, most associated with the independent minyan movement, is the first movement that categorically accepts daughters and nonbinary descendants of priests or levites with all the ritual duties of a traditional kohen or levi. They see no contradiction in values in maintaining the lineage as long as it is done so in a fully egalitarian way.
- Kohenet: The Kohenet (Priestess) movement of the past 20 years brings to life other important conversations about the role of lost ancient earth-based models of spiritual leadership, particularly as related to feminine leadership. Part of the inspiration of the modern-day priestess came through a reclamation of lesser-known female leadership models in the biblical period. Kohenet also gave voice to a feminist critique that women in seminary were being trained in a system designed to create “male rabbis.” What might it mean, they asked, to anchor contemporary female leadership in ancient Hebrew feminine models? These are questions that might have been embraced and deemed worth exploring, but have generally been repelled in Reconstructionist contexts because of the association with the priesthood. It should come as no surprise that few kohenet leaders, if any, have found a home in Reconstructionist communities.
- Loss of ancient spiritual technology. The priesthood has an ancient relationship to the art of giving and receiving blessings, specifically around the ancient concept of ohavei shalom (Lovers of Peace). Through rituals like Pidyon Haben (Redemption of the First Born), dukhening (blessing the congregation during the service on holy days) and purification rituals, kohanim and levi’im often bring an ancient blessing practice to life.
They do this in a variety of ways — sometimes offering traditional blessings at designated liturgical moments, but also offering spontaneous personalized blessings. This is a practice anyone can do, not just a kohen or a rabbi, but it makes a difference when there is an expectation that there are those in the community who have an extra duty of bringing down blessings for the community. The priesthood was intended to proliferate blessing. When we lose the priesthood, we lose our lay blessing exemplars.
It makes a difference when there is an expectation that there are those in the community who have an extra duty of bringing down blessings for that community.
We also lose some of our history and connection to the concept of spiritual peace-makers within a community. Aaron, the first priest, was considered an Ohev Shalom, a lover of peace. The biblical priests and levites were the only tribe without their own land. As descendants of Aaron, a lesser-known aspect of their role was resolving disputes between the other tribes. Our tradition recognizes, at least in part, that their role as mediators between conflicting tribes was an aspect of our people’s history worth knowing.
* * *
One cannot be a student of the Torah without cultivating some awareness of Aaron and his offspring and their role in the spiritual birth of the Israelite nation. Kaplan himself was a kohen and aware of the customs to which he was personally heir. Nevertheless, his uncompromising commitment to egalitarian principles led him to give up his inherited priestly status. Yet there is value in pointing out some of the unintended consequences of that decision. With any gain, there is loss, and there is value in understanding what was lost. Might it be possible to reject the hierarchical claims of superiority inherent in Chosenness while reclaiming and reconstructing, in a non-hierarchical way, some of the value of the priestly and Levitical roles?
