Was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai a Kohen? (full article)
Here is my article for the Jewish Link for this week.
Menachot 21b includes a quote from the Mishnah in Shekalim which reads: Rabbi Yehuda said: Ben Buchri testified in Yavneh: Any kohen who contributes his shekel isn’t considered a sinner (even though he has no obligation to do so). Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai said to him (Ben Buchri): This isn’t so. Rather, any kohen who doesn’t contribute is considered a sinner. However, the kohanim interpreted this verse (Vayikra 6:16) for themselves (meaning to their own advantage, and improperly). “Every meal offering of a kohen shall be completely burnt; it shall not be eaten.” (If the kohanim would contribute, then:) If the omer offering and the shewbread are ours, how could they be eaten?
Tosafot observe the phrase “אֶלָּא שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים דּוֹרְשִׁין מִקְרָא זֶה לְעַצְמָן”, “rather the kohanim interpreted this verse for themselves” and infer that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was not a kohen. After all, he speaks of kohanim as a separate entity. This does not readily work with another sugya, where he declared a kohen-oriented task as “what my hands did”, so they interpret that other sugya and thereby harmonize away the contradiction – namely, that it means that it was conducted under his supervision. Meanwhile, Rambam (in his introduction to Zeraim) and Rashi (on Shabbat 34a) assert that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was a kohen. They don’t explain our present sugya, but a straightforward possibility is that, even though he himself was a kohen, he speaks of fellow kohanim who did not listen to him – those whose actions led to Ben Buchri’s testimony.
Para Aduma
We can explore six Chazalic sources that imply that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was a kohen. Tosefta Para 4:4 reads (using the Sefaria Community Translation): The commandments [to be performed] with the four white vestments belong to an ordinary Kohen. If they were performed with the golden vestments or with profane clothing -- they are disqualified. The students of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai asked, “With which [vestments] did they perform the [rituals of the red] heifer?” He said to them, “With the golden vestments.” They said to him, “You [previously] taught us, with the white vestments.” He said to them, “Well said. If I have forgotten an act that my own hands performed, and my own eyes witnessed, how much more so one that I have [only] heard with my ears!” And it was not that he did not know; rather, it was that he was trying to stimulate his students. And there are those who say that they asked Hillel the Elder, and it was not that he did not know; rather, it was that he was trying to stimulate his students. For Rabbi Yehoshua says, one who teaches and does not exercise [the minds of his students] is like one who sows and does not harvest. One who learns Torah and forgets it is like a woman who bears children and buries them. Rabbi Akiva says, “Review it; continuously review it.”
Assuming that מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ יָדַי וְרָאוּ עֵינַי, “the act that my own hands performed, and my own eyes witnessed,” refers to participation in the para aduma ceremony, it would seem that he was a kohen. A plausible alternative is that while he was not a kohen, it was done under his direction. Also, assuming the event occurred with Hillel, it tells us nothing about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s kohanic status.
A parallel account appears in Sifrei Bemidbar 123. I’ll quote Rabbi Shraga Silverstein’s translation, but note that the words in parentheses aren’t translations but Rabbi Silverstein’s gloss. He writes: R. Yochanan b. Zakkai was asked by his disciples: In which vestments was the red heifer processed? He: In the golden vestments. They: But did our master not teach us (that it was processed) in the white vestments? He: If I have forgotten what my eyes have seen and what my hands have ministered, how much more so, what I have taught! And why all this? To strengthen the disciples (in application to their learning). Others say: It was Hillel the Elder, but (not being a Cohein), he could not have said “what my hands have ministered.”
This Sifrei is what Tosafot mentioned, when they suggested that מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָשׂוּ יָדַי וְרָאוּ עֵינַי just means under his supervision. Tosafot anticipated an objection, in that Hillel being unable to say “what my hands have ministered” seems tied to kohen status, in which case Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai is a kohen. They resolve this by explaining that Hillel could not say it because no para aduma ashes were made in Hillel’s time. I would suggest an alternative: the text that “Hillel could not have said it” may be a later insertion, since we don’t find it in the parallel Tosefta Para nor in its parallel in Tosefta Ohalot. Indeed, אלא שלא היה יכול לומר מה ששרתו ידי may be a corruption of the repeated statement in Tosefta of ולא שהיה יודע אלא שהיה מבקש לזרז את התלמידים, for both Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and then for Hillel.
Impure Dirt
A parallel to Tosefta Para is found in Tosefta Ohalot 16:5. Again, using the Sefaria Community Translation, it begins: One (i.e., a priest) who takes out dirt from an impure place may eat from his dema (i.e., terumah mixed with chullin). Rabbi Yehuda says, he piles this dirt on top of that dirt, but our Rabbis said, the dirt is pure. The one who inspects [the dirt to check for corpse matter] may eat from his dema. The students of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai asked him, “The inspector -- what should he eat?” He said to them, “He does not eat.” They said to him, “You taught us that he does eat.” The remainder of this tosefta matches that of the tosefta in Para, but without Hillel as an alternative figure. This is true of the 1800s Vilna printing. However, the Vienna manuscript of Ohalot even includes the Hillel alternative.
Note that the Hillel alternation repeats that he did this to stimulate his students, rather than that Hillel could not have said “what my hands did” (because of non-kohen status). This matches Tosefta Para. Also, while para aduma is rare, inspecting dirt is not, so that rarity explanation would not have worked. In terms of acting as a kohen or supervising a kohen, I think both are plausible. Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, as a Sage, could have directed kohanim in inspecting dirt for ritual impurity.
Interfering with Para Aduma
Proof that Tosafot are correct in both non-kohen status and a supervisory role might be found in Tosefta Para 3:5, which reads (Sefaria Community Translation): And they would contaminate the Kohen who burned the heifer so that the Sadducees would not say that [the burning] was performed by one upon whom the sun had set. And it so happened that there was one upon whom the sun had set for him, and he came to burn the heifer, and Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai found out about it, and he came and he placed both of his hands on him (thereby contaminating him), and he said, “Sir, High Priest, how pleasing it is that you are the High Priest. Now go back and immerse yourself one time.” He descended and immersed himself and ascended. After he had ascended, [Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai] tore his ear. He said to him, “Ben Zakkai! When I have time for you...!” He said to him, “When you have time.” It was not even three days before they put him in his grave. His father came before Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai. He said to him, “My son did not have time for the sun to set on him.”
Note that the Sadducees seem in charge of the Temple service, at least during this incident. Even if Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was indeed a kohen, he would not have been able to perform the para aduma ceremony. Instead, he influences it. I am not sure that he really supervises – he seems to lack official power. Instead, he cleverly undermines by rendering the Sadducee Kohen Gadol impure, and then by choosing violence and rendering the kohen a baal mum either in a supervisory role or by undermining it. Also, that he could render the Kohen Gadol impure by touch implies that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was himself impure, which is not something a kohen should be.
Lupines of Terumah
An important source is Shabbat 33b-34a. A miracle transpired for Rabbi Shimon ben Yochai and, in gratitude, he set out to repair something. He asked what needed fixing and was told of an area of uncertain ritual impurity which troubled kohanim who were forced to avoid the area. Rabbi Shimon asked if anyone was around from former times who could weigh in. An elder told Rabbi Shimon “Here ben Zakkai planted and cut the teruma of lupines.” Rashi there notes that Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai was a kohen, referencing the Tosefta (either Para or Ohalot) with the words אם מה שעשו ידי שכחתי. If Tosefta Ohalot was intended, it makes for a good connection, in terms of inspecting dirt of dubious purity status. Regardless, an occupation with teruma might indicate kohen status.
One final source is Berachot 28b, where Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai, on his deathbed, commands all vessels be removed from the house. He did not want them to contract ritual impurity. This may imply his family members were kohanim, or just that he generally was concerned about impurity and had these halachic thoughts even at such a fraught time.
Ultimately, I don’t believe his kohen status is knowable, as the evidence is nowhere near dispositive. I am unconvinced our sugya in Menachot truly indicates that he was not a kohen. Meanwhile, several other sources imply some strong association with kehunah and concern for ritual impurity, but these may be due to Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai’s rabbinic and leadership role.