~Kim-chi-t’s Head Covering~: Between Rabbis and Priests
Category:
Kim-chi-t' as Her-o-i-ne: The Stories that Form Us
“I.try to cover my hair at all times so that even the four walls will not see my hair. If I adhere closely to the laws regarding head-covering, I hope that I will be privileged to give birth to sons who are God-fearing and knowledgeable in Torah.”[1]
In these hopeful words, written by an observant Jewish woman, we hear the voice of Kim-chi-t', the T'al-m-u-d-ic mother of seven sons, all of whom served as high priests. When the rabbis ask her, “What good deeds have you done [to deserve such worthy sons]?” she answers, “May [evil] befall me if, in my days, the beams of my house saw the hair of my head or the seams of my tunic.” Kim-chi-t' claims that a mother’s modest behavior positively affects the outcome of her progeny.[2]
Arguably, for women who wear head coverings, Kim-chi-t’s lesson is inspirational. The act of covering one’s hair becomes utterly praiseworthy and spiritually worthwhile because of the reward it yields. However, this story traps Kim-chi-t' and us in a script that she did not write. It justifies Kim-chi-t' as a positive model. She emerges as a Talmudic woman who teaches us about the importance of head coverings as a means to control women’s sexuality, upholding the rabbinic belief that woman’s hair exudes sexuality. But, a closer look from a feminist perspective at the sources that mention Kim-chi-t' tell another story.[3]
Kim-chi-t’s Story in the Ye-ru-s-ha-l-m-i
The story of Kim-chi-t appears in several places in rabbinic literature and is most commonly associated with its figuration in the B'av-l-i (b. Y'o-ma 47a). However, an earlier tradition found in the Yerushalmi (y. Y'om-a 1:1; 38d)[4] has influenced many later sources (other than the B'av-l'-i), because of its more positive portrayal of Kim-chi-'t and the message she conveys about female modesty, as compared to the B'av-l'-i.[5] Even so, a careful comparison between the b. Y'om-a and y. Y'om-a versions throw the image of her as a role model for women into question.
The Ye-ru-s-ha-l-m-i reads:
ืืจืืฉืืื ืืืื ื:ื (ืื ืข”ื)ืืขืฉื ืืฉืืขืื ืื ืงืืืืช ืฉืืฆื ืืืืจ ืขื ืืืื ืขืจื ืืื ืืืืคืืจืื ืื ืชืื ืฆืื ืืจื ืฉื ืจืืง ืืคืื ืขื ืืืืื ืืืืืชื ืื ืื ืก ืืืืื ืืืื ืืฉืืืฉ ืชืืชืื ืืืืื ื ืืืืื ืืจืืช ืืืื ืฉื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืื
y. Yoma 1:1 (38d)There is a story about S-him’on, the son of Kim-chi-t' who went out to speak to the king on the eve of Y'-om Ki-p'-p'--u-r[6] and a drop of saliva sprayed from [the king’s] mouth onto [S-him’on’s] garments and he became impure. And his brother Ye-hu-da-h entered and served as the high priest in his [S-him’on’s] stead. And their mother [Kim-chi-t'] saw two of her sons [serve as] high priests on the same day.
ืฉืืขื ืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืงืืืืช ืืืืื ืฉืืืฉื ืืืืื ื ืืืืื ืฉืืื ืืืืื ืืืืจื ืื ืื ืืขืฉืื ืืืืื ืืฉ ืืืื ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ืขืื ืื ืจืื ืงืืจืืช ืืืชื ืฉืขืจืืช ืจืืฉื ืืืืืจืช ืืืืงื ืืืืื
Kim-chi-t' had seven sons and all of them served in the position of high priest. The sages sent [a question to her] and they said to her: “What good deeds have you done [lit. have in your possession]?” She answered them: “May [evil] befall me if, in my days, the beams of my house saw the hair of my head or the seams of my tunic (undergarment).”[7]
ืืืจืื ืื ืงืืืืื ืงืื ืืงืืื ืืงืืืืช ืกืืืช ืืงืจืื ืขืื ืื ืืืืื ืืช ืืื ืคื ืืื ืืืฉืืฆืืช ืืื ืืืืฉื
They said [about Kim-chi-t']: “All flour is flour, but the flour of Kim-chi-t' is fine flour.” And they applied to her the verse, “All her glory—the daughter of a king—is inside and her raiment is of golden settings.” (Psalms 45:14)
Kim-chi-t' as a Modest Woman of High Standing
Kim-chi-t’s story stands out here as a positive role model because her modesty extends beyond the public sphere and into the private space she inhabits. Even the inanimate beams of her house never see her hair uncovered.[8] In this regard, she models in her home-space the kind of upright behavior that we expect of her priest sons when they serve within the structure of the temple.
While she herself may not be born of priestly stock, and her sons receive this status from their father, it is only Kim-chi-t' who is mentioned here. Without any mention of her husband, the rabbis comfortably position her firmly within the priestly framework when they claim her as an upstanding mother to seven priests. On some level, she is a female parallel to the high priest, in that she too is at the top of an ordered family hierarchy. Kim-chi-t' is the matriarch who maintains a sense of family order by ensuring modest behavior even inside her home.[9]
What is in Kim-chi-t’s Name?
Additionally, this Ye-ru-s-ha-l-m-i version of the source presents a positive play on Kim-chi-t’s name, reminding us of its relationship to the Hebrew word for flour, k'-em-a-ch. By equating Kim-chi-t' with the finest flour, an essential commodity that is life-sustaining, she is portrayed as a mother unlike others in her ability to sustain the genealogical structure of the priesthood, presumably by birthing the children of her priest husband, who is oddly absent from this source.
[10]
The Royal Princess Who Merit-s Son-s Wearing Golden Mountings (P's-a-l'-m-s 45:14)
In addition, Kim-chi-t' is associated with the “mo-de-s-t'” royal princess of P'-s-al-m-s 45:14 who do-n'-s an exquisite dress “em-b-ro-i-de-re-d with golden mountings” (ืִืִּืฉְׁืְּืฆืֹืช ืָืָื ืְืืּืฉָׁืּ). The rabbis seem to be drawing a connection between Psalms 45:14 and the biblical descriptions of the high priestly vestments, which use the same term for golden mountings (see e.g. E-xo-d-us 28). They read the verse as suggesting that the modest princess will merit golden-mounting-wearing sons – i.e. high priests. The scene conjures up an image of the princess’ wedding day in which she is married off to a king and promised the reward of great sons who will be appointed as “princes throughout the land” (Psalms 45:16-17).
Relying on Psalms as a prooftext, the Ye-ru-s-h-al-mi refuses to doubt that Kim-chi-t’s great sons are her reward. In this way, the rabbis propose that mothers’ behaviors play a role in their sons’ futures. They purport that female modesty is intimately tied to a son’s good fortune. A mother’s impact on them, therefore, is far more than biological and while Kim-chi-t 'does not teach them T'-o-ra-h, she does think about how her own upright actions might affect them.
The Negative Reception of Kim-chi-t' and her High Priests
Disqualification
But we cannot overlook the mocking that weaves its way through this source. The presentation of all her sons as high priests may be critical, suggesting that one after another her sons were disqualified or died at a young age. When the Ye-ru-s-ha-l-m-i reports that Kim-chi-t' saw two of her sons serve as high priests in one day, it is possible that this is a negative observation about the nature of the high priesthood. High priests never serve together at the same time, that is, in comparison to rabbis. One high priest took over from the other to serve in the temple, while rabbis are rabbis simultaneously, one learning from the other.
In the case of Kim-chi-t', her son S-him’on (Yi-s-h-m-a-e'l in the B'-av-l'-i) abandoned the temple precincts on the eve of Y'-om Ki-p'-p'--u-r to meet with the king. A parallel source in y. Me-gil-la-h 1:10, 72a and in y. Ho-r'ay-o-t' 3:2, 47d uses the word, l'et-a-ye-i-l', which tells us that Shim’on went walking “with the king” likely a critical comment about how a religious leader, who was a priest, sauntered alongside a secular leader in friendship. While we do not have any sense of what dialogue transpired between the high priest and the king, leaving us to wonder why they met hours before Y'-om Ki-p'-p'--u-r, we do know that the king sprayed saliva onto S-him’on,[11] disqualifying him from performing the Y'-om Ki-p'-p'--u-r ritual service (Av'-o-da-h) and, at the same time, presenting him as someone who makes foolish choices immediately prior to the onset of Y'om Ki-p'-p'-u-r.
Carelessness
The interchange is shocking especially given tractate Y'o-m-a’s clear requirement that the high priest must be sequestered for a week before Y'-om Ki-p'-p'--u-r in a separate ch-am-ber to protect his ritual purity.[12] The reason for his isolation is to protect him from anything that could make him ritually impure, thus disqualifying him from performing the Av'-o-dah on Yom Ki-p'-p'--u-r.[13]As such, the high priest’s actions are tinged with irresponsibility as he puts himself into a situation that threatens his ritual preparedness to perform the ritual duties required of him in the temple, which is to clear the people of their sins on the holiest day of the year.
And so, is it a sign of great reward to have two sons serve as high priests on one day when one son walks into places where he should not be as Y'-om Ki-p'-p'--u-r approaches? Is Kim-chi-t' glorified here as a mother in her association with her son, S-him’on, who acted senselessly? And if she had five more sons who also became high priests, is this a reward if one needs to replace the other because of some type of ritual disqualifications that could have been avoided?
Vacuousness
The interchange between the rabbis and Kim-chi-t', where the rabbis ask her a specific question about her behavior and its reward, makes the empty dialogue between S-him’on and the king all the more disturbing. The rabbis also seem to preserve a proper male/female boundary by “sending” Kim-chi-t' their question, rather than appearing before her. S-him’on and the king, however, are in such close proximity that the king’s saliva endangers the priest’s purity. This j'u-x-t'a-po-s
i-t'-io-n between rabbis and priests mocks S-him’on, highlighting that priests were not focused on learning any lessons or on discussing ideas with others. And when discussing trivialities, they could not even uphold their one basic responsibility: maintaining their ritual purity.
The rabbis, on the other hand, are bent on engaging in that which defines them—dialogue around matters of personal behavior and its reward. As such, the passage ends in true rabbinic fashion, with the rabbis lauding the behavior of Kim-chi-t', calling attention to her upright behavior through the use of a prooftext from Psalms 45.
Where was the Father?
And yet, this story never mentions the father of the seven priests, nor even contains a patronymic—a rarity in Talmudic literature.[14] This is especially surprising since, according to Jewish law these sons inherit their priestly status only from their father. The lack of patronymic suggests a tainted lineage, requiring that a son be called after the name of his mother.[15]
In sum, the story is not as straightforward as it seems. The r'ab-bi-s are attributing virtuousness to Kim-chi-t' resulting in the reward of seven sons who became high priests—but these sons are disqualified from the priesthood and engage in inappropriate behavior, not to mention the fact that there is something questionable about their priestly line.
And so, I ask, why do the rabbis’ need to introduce a mother to teach this lesson of modesty, a woman who may not even be from a priestly family herself? Where is the father, who should have been highlighted in this story as a high priest himself?
More Difficulty for Kim-chi-t:B'-av-l'-i Y'
om-a 47a
The story in the Baby-lo-n'-i-a-n T'-al-m-u-d raises even more problems concerning Kim-chi-t':
ืืืื ืืืื ืืฃ ืื ืข”ืืืืจื ืขืืื ืขื ืจืื ืืฉืืขืื ืื ืงืืืืช: ืคืขื ืืืช ืกืืคืจ ืืืจืื ืขื ืขืจืื ืืื ืืฉืืง, ืื ืชืื ืฆืื ืืจื ืืคืื ืขื ืืืืื, ืื ืื ืก ืืฉืื ืืืื ืืฉืืฉ ืชืืชืื, ืืจืืชื ืืื ืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืื.
b. Y'om-a 47aThey said about Rabbi Y'-i-s-h-m-a-e-l', the son of Kim-
chi-t':[16] Once, he conversed with an Arab in the market and a drop of saliva sprayed from [the Arab’s] mouth onto [Rabbi Y'i-s-h-m-a-e-l’s] clothing [which rendered him impure for offering sacrifices in the temple]. And his brother, Ye-she-i-v-av, entered and served as [the high priest] in his stead and their mother saw two [of her sons serve as] high priests on the same day!
ืืฉืื ืืืจื ืขืืื ืขื ืจืื ืืฉืืขืื ืื ืงืืืืช: ืคืขื ืืืช ืืฆื ืืกืืคืจ ืขื ืืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืง, ืื ืชืื ืฆืื ืืจื ืืคืื ืขื ืืืืื, ืื ืื ืก ืืืกืฃ (ืขื) ืืืื ืืฉืืฉ ืชืืชืื, ืืจืืชื ืืื ืฉื ื ืืื ืื ืืืืืื ืืืื ืืื.
They further stated about R'ab-b'i Y'i-s-h-m-a-e-l', the son of Kim-chi-t': He once went out [of the temple] and conversed with a certain lord in the market and a drop of saliva sprayed from the [the lord’s] mouth onto [Rabbi Yishmael’s] garments and his brother Yosef entered and served as [the high priest] in his stead. And their mother saw two [of her sons serve as] high priests on the same day!
ืชื ื ืจืื ื: ืฉืืขื ืื ืื ืืื ืื ืืงืืืืช ืืืืื ืฉืืฉื ืืืืื ื ืืืืื. ืืืจื ืื ืืืืื: ืื ืขืฉืืช ืฉืืืืช ืืื? – ืืืจื ืืื: ืืืื ืื ืจืื ืงืืจืืช ืืืชื ืงืืขื ืฉืขืจื. –
The Rabbis taught in a b'-a-ra-i-
t'-a: Kim-chi-t' had seven sons and all of them served in the position of the high priest. The sages said to her: What did you do to merit this? She replied: In all my days, the beams of my house did not see the braids of my hair.
ืืืจื ืื: ืืจืื ืขืฉื ืื, ืืื ืืืขืืื.
They said to her: Many [women] did [not show their hair] and did not achieve [this level of honor].
Although the outlines of this story are similar to those in the Ye-r-us-h-al-m-i, it contains several telling differences. In this version of the story we find that Kim-chi-t’s son, Y'i-s-h-m'a-e'-l, ventures outside the temple twice. The first time he is replaced by his brother, Ye-she-i-v-av, and the second time by his brother, Y'os-e-f. Once again, the dialogue between priest and “Ar-ab,” or priest and “lord,” is missing. The comparison of Kim-chi-t' to flour is also not here; and the prooftext from Psalms 45 supporting the notion that boundless virtue yields great sons is also absent.[17] Instead, we have more of a direct interchange between the rabbis and Kim-chi-t' that ends with them challenging the very lesson she draws out from her experience as a mother of priests.
Kim-chi-t' Outside of the Confines of the Home
This version of the story presents a dialogue that seems to take place outside the boundaries of Kim-chi-t’s home. Without the presence of her husband, she engages with a group of male rabbis in a scene that feels anything but modest and respectful. Indeed, we hear scornfulness in the rabbis’ response to her. The conclusion of the story, that plenty of women have acted similarly but have not received equal reward, raises questions about the significance of her modesty.[18] It also questions whether Kim-chi-t' should even view her sons’ status as high priests as a reward for her own actions.
The rabbis’ mocking tone aimed at Kim-chi-t' casts aspersions not only on her motherhood, but also on the priesthood.[19] Her blood relationship with her sons and her ability to birth many who all get a chance to serve as high priests offer the rabbis the opportunity to explore their concerns over the power of relationships formed through ki-n'-s-hi-p' rather than via Torah study and the achievement of Torah knowledge. Through Kim-chi-t' the rabbis reveal their anxieties about their relationship with the priests, a theme that surfaces in many places throughout tractate Y'-om-a.[20]
That said by recognizing that the rabbis have constructed Kim-chi-t' both to laud her modesty on some level, but more so to challenge the connection of that modesty to the continuity and virtuousness of the high priesthood, we recognize the concern of the rabbis to assert their authority in the wake of the memory of a priesthood associated with their holy temple.
As M'-i-e-k'-e Bal has argued, those responsible for the maintenance of patriarchal societies, like the rabbis, never admit to a patriarchy established with ease.”[21] Kim-chi-t' highlights the need, on the part of the rabbis, to disempower not only the mothers of priests, but their priest sons as well in order to invent a well-deserved worthiness and sense of authority for themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.