Bnot Kohanim: Our Holy Daughters
By Rachel Kohl, student at Midreshet Lindenbaum 5759.

Since the times of the Mishkan in the desert, the Kohanim were expected to uphold a higher level of sanctity than the rest of the nation. By performing the avodah, the sacrificial work in the Temple, they were the people’s connection to God. Similarly, they were God’s personal “representatives” within the nation, serving as spiritual role models as well as community leaders. Even today, after the destruction of the Temple, Kohanim have distinct laws and commandments which apply only to them, and specific privileges which are reserved for them. Kohanim are considered an “elite” – a holier group within the Jewish nation. They are subject to special prohibitions (for example, they are not allowed to be exposed to a dead body) and have spiritual influence over the nation, as they bless the triplet blessing. What about the Bnot Kohanim, the daughters of the Kohanim? Are they, too, special and holy? Is there any way we should distinguish them from other Jewish women?

A Bat Kohen receives some Kehuna privileges, and there are laws which are specific to her, including exemption from giving her son a pidyon haben and a right to eat from the Terumah. Nevertheless, are the privileges she receives merely because of her connection to her father, the Kohen? Or does some intrinsic kedusha (sanctity) distinguish her from the rest of Bnot Yisrael? We will see that this has some implications in contemporary Halacha. Can a Bat Kohen accept pidyon haben money? Should she lead in a women’s zimon?

To help define the status of a Bat Kohen, and her level of connection to the Kehuna, we must examine the Gemara in Yevamot 68b. The Gemara explains that a Bat Levi partakes in the ma'aser portions allotted to Levi’im only because of her connection to the male Levi’im of her family. A Bat Kohen, however, "eats because of her own sanctity". The Gemara then specifies, "a Kohenet, whose essence is holy". It is not only her connection to her father’s house which gives her sanctity, but the Gemara asserts that she has an intrinsic holiness of her own. It seems that her Kehuna birth has embedded in her an irremovable kedusha, a sanctity which is always part of her, as a Bat Kohen.

Nevertheless, this Gemara is open to interpretation. While the Rishonim do not discuss this issue, Rav Moshe Feinstein, in his Iggrot Moshe,¹states

…a Bat Kohen, whose sanctity in regard to the eating of the Terumah is only because of her relation to her father… [when] her relation ends, her kedusha is totally removed…

Still, even the Iggrot Moshe, who assumes that the kedusha of a Bat Kohen is derived from her connection to her father, is referring specifically to a Bat Kohen’s “sanctity in regard to the eating of the Terumah.” The fact that a Bat Kohen partakes in the Terumah because of her connection to her father does not eliminate the possibility of her possessing a sanctity of her own in other contexts.

Another demonstration of a Bat Kohen’s status and connection to the Kehuna is her right to the food portions allotted to Kohanim. Does she hold any personal claim on them, or does she only eat them as does any other member of her father’s household?

Numbers, Chapter 18 lists the matanot kehuna, the portions received by Kohanim. In verse 9, the Torah explains that the Kohanim eat the sacrifices of mincha, chatat and ashem, the meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. These are clearly the holiest portions which Kohanim eat, and are therefore subject to the strictest laws. They must be eaten "in a sanctified place", and clothing and vessels which come into contact with these foods must be thoroughly cleansed or destroyed.² The verse specifies that only the male Kohanim eat these portions.

...most holy for thee and for thy sons. (Numbers 18:9)

The Mishna in Sotah 23a discusses this:

What is the difference between a Kohen and a Kohenet?... She does not eat kodshei kodashim.

These sacrifices, the only ones which are called "kodshei kodashim" are the only portion to which Bnot Kohanim have absolutely no connection, and can never eat. Kohanim are in the purest of states while eating them, as part of their service in the Temple. Since Bnot Kohanim do not participate in the avodah, and are never obligated to uphold the same level of purity (i.e. not being exposed to a dead body) it makes sense that they may not partake in the holiest foods, the "kodshei kodashim".

There are other matanot kehuna which possess a lower status of holiness than the kodshei kodashim. The breast and shoulder, of the korban shlamim are given to the Kohanim to eat.

And the wave breast and heave shoulder shall you eat in a clean place; thou and thy sons, and thy daughters with thee: for they are thy due and thy sons’ due, which are given out of the sacrifices of peace offerings of the children of Yisra’el. (Leviticus 10:14)

The verse specifies that both the sons and daughters of the Kohanim eat the breast and shoulder. However, the Torah adds "your law and the law of your sons". Rashi, quoting Torat Kohanim³, explains

You and your sons receive a portion, but your daughters do not… however if you give it to them as gifts, they are permitted to eat…

The Kohen and his sons have what is called a "chalek" a portion, a right to the breast and shoulder, but the daughters do not have a "chalek", an intrinsic right to them. The daughters still may eat from the kadshim, but are considered to be on a lower level than their brothers.

Rambam describes these laws in Hilchot Ma’aseh Korbanot (Perek 10 Halacha 4):

The breast and shoulder of the shlamim are eaten by the male and female Kohanim.

He then quotes the above verse in Leviticus, and continues in Halacha 5:

All these [portions] which are fed to the Priesthood are fed to the servants of the Kohanim and to their wives, as the Terumah is.

This second halacha seems to be an afterthought. The Rambam first lays down the law that the sons and daughters of Kohanim eat the breast and shoulder, as is stated in the verse, because they, too, are identified as Kohanim. Only afterwards does the Rambam mention that servants and wives eat them as well. Also, he uses the word " as the Terumah is". This implies that the only reason wives and servants partake in the kadshim is for the same reason that they can eat the Terumah: by virtue of the fact that they are members of the Kohen’s household, but through no merit of their own.

The clear implication of the Rambam is that even though the Bat Kohen has a lesser right to the breast and shoulder than do the males, she still is on a higher level, and more connected to the Kehunah than is the rest of the household. It is also interesting to note the Rambam’s use of the words “male and female Kohanim,” implying that not only the males, but also the females, the Bnot Kohanim, are, on some level, identified as Kohanim in their own right.

Like the breast and shoulder, Terumot, the next level of Kehuna portions, are called "kadshim " as well.

All the heave offering of the holy things, which the children of Yisra’el offer to the Lord, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, by a statute forever... (Numbers 18:19)

As the phrase Terumat Kadshim suggests, Terumah definitely has an element of holiness. The Gemara, in fact, tells us:

Everything which is holy, as Terumah… (Chulin 131b)

Still, Terumah is not on as high a level of sanctity as are the breast and shoulder. While the latter are actual parts of sacrifices, Terumah is a part of the nation’s harvest. Furthermore, the Rambam includes Hilchot Chazeh Veshok in Hilchot Ma’aseh Korbanot, and not in Hilchot Terumot, with other matanot kehuna.

Rambam in Hilchot Terumot ⁴ explains that everyone in the Kohen’s household partakes of the Terumah, including his wife, children and servants. A Bat Kohen, as a member of the household, is included among those who partake. With regard to "breast and shoulder", the Rambam indicated that a Bat Kohen held a higher level of claim on the portion than did the rest of the household. When discussing Terumah, however, the Rambam makes no distinction between a Bat Kohen and the rest of the household. It is important to note, though, that, with regard to Terumah, the verse mentions specifically “to you and to your sons and to your daughters with you,” but mentions nothing about the rest of the household (i.e. wives and servants). Here the Torah itself indicates that a Bat Kohen has a stronger connection to the Kehuna gifts than do other members of the household.

When a Bat Kohen marries any non-Kohen, or any other man -- who is considered forbidden to her,⁵ she loses her right to the matanot kehuna.

And if a priest’s daughter be married to a stranger, she may not eat of an offering of the holy things. (Leviticus 22:12)

This verse is quoted, and the details of the laws are explained in Yevamot 87a. The Mishna in Yevamot 85b adds that even if she is only betrothed to a Yisrael, she cannot eat the Terumah⁶.

But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and has returned to her father’s house, as in her youth, she shall eat of her father’s bread: but no stranger shall eat of it. (ibid 22:13)

A Bat Kohen returns to her eating of the Terumah if she has no children from the "ish zar" (stranger)⁷ and she is not pregnant from him⁸. As long as she remains connected to the ish zar, she cannot eat the Terumah. However, once she has been completely separated from him, she is no longer considered a "zarah". The verse, therefore, concludes " but no stranger shall eat of it" to emphasize the fact that the Bat Kohen is never intrinsically "zarah". It was only her technical connection to the ish zar which temporarily placed her in the "zar" category.

It is important to note that a Bat Kohen may only resume eating the Terumah if the ish zar to whom she was married was a Yisrael. If, however, she has been married to a non-Jew, or any other man who is forbidden to her, she is considered "mitchalelet" (permanantly tainted), and she may never return to eating any of the matanot kehuna, not even Terumah.⁹ This status of "mitchalel" never applies to a male Kohen. Even if he is married to one that is forbidden to him (i.e. divorcee, prostitute) he regains his right to the matanot kehuna (which he had lost as a result of his forbidden marriage) as soon as he divorces her or becomes widowed.¹⁰

The verse specifies that when a Bat Kohen breaks her connection with the ish zar and returns to her father’s house, she may eat "from her father’s bread". This implies that she cannot eat all of it. The Gemara¹¹ explains that once she is widowed or divorced from a Yisrael, a Bat Kohen once again eats from the Terumah, but not from the breast and shoulder,¹² the holier of the foods. This implies that the Bat Kohen’s marriage to an ish zar has in some way “tainted” her kedusha. Despite this, however, we know she has retained some of her intrinsic holiness, for she can still partake in the Terumah, which holds some kedusha as well.

Yet another portion of the sacrifices that the Kohanim and their families receive are the matanot. The Mishna and Gemara in Chulin 130, and Rambam in Hilchot Bikurim¹³ explain the commandment of giving matanot (presents) to the Kohanim from animals which are slaughtered for hulin (non-sacrificial) purposes. This includes specific parts of the animal.

The Gemara then makes the following statement:

Every thing which holds no sanctity, as the shoulder, the two cheeks and the maw... (Chulin 131b)

Clearly, the matanot not hold any holiness.

The Gemara goes on to discuss that not only a Kohen, but also a Kohenet, has the privilege of eating the matanot. Not only that, but we see that a Bat Kohen can transfer this right to her husband, who would not have eaten from the matanot otherwise. There is a Beraita that appears several times in the Gemara¹⁴, which lists some Amoraim who, though they were not Kohanim, ate matanot because their wives were Bnot Kohanim. The Gemara uses the phrase "ate on account of his wife". This implies that even after a Yisrael is married to a Bat Kohen, he is not given an intrinsic right of his own to the matanot. The Gemara classifies his eating the matanot as, on account of, or as representative of, his wife, who still holds a higher level of right to this holy portion than he does.

The Rambam minimizes the significance of a Bat Kohen’s claim on the matanot. He emphasizes that there is no kedusha in them whatsoever. A Kohen can sell these matanot to whomever he wishes, even to an idol worshipper. He can even feed them to the dogs, for as the Rambam points out, "there is no kedusha in them at all".¹⁵ Therefore, a Bat Kohen’s right to the matanot says nothing about her own holiness since these foods have no intrinsic sanctity to them. However, the Rambam still places the Bat Kohen on a higher level than other non-Kohanim who may eat the matanot. In quoting the Talmudic phrase "ate on account of his wife", Rambam is asserting that the husband of a Bat Kohen relies on his wife for the right to partake in the matanot. She still holds a higher right to these foods than would any non-Kohen, for there is still some significance, if not kedusha, in determining who eats them.

As demonstrated through her partaking in the matanot kehuna, a Bat Kohen inherits a connection to the Kehuna, although her Kehuna privileges are not on as high a level as those of the male Kohanim. She has an unconditional right to some of the holy foods, but the Torah affords her a lower level of claim, or no portion at all, in the foods of higher kedusha.

However, it is not only the food portions in which a Bat Kohen may partake. In Kidushin 8a, the Gemara says that R’ Kahana accepted money for pidyon haben, a privilege of the Kohen. Tosfot there explain that R’ Kahana was not a Kohen, but he accepted the money "on account of his wife". This is the same language which was used in connection to those non-Kohanim who were granted the right to eat matanot because of their wives’ right to them. It seems that R’ Kahana’s wife, a Bat Kohen, held some claim of her own on them pidyon haben money even though it was conventionally a male Kohen who accepted the money. Traditionally, though, only a male may accept the money,¹⁶ and that is why the Bat Kohen needed her husband to act as her representative.

Purity laws specific to Kohanim, which do not apply to women, can also help define the nature and status of a Bat Kohen. A Kohen must uphold a higher standard of purity, and is prohibited from coming into contact with a dead body. The Mishnah in Kidushin 29a specifies that this is one of the mitzvot lo ta'aseh (prohibitions) that do not apply to women. This implies that we would have thought that women were included, had the Mishna not told us otherwise. The Mishna had to specify women’s exclusion from the purity laws; for if it had not, we would have assumed that women were included in the prohibition as they are included in all other mitzvot lo ta'aseh.

According to the Sefer Hachinuch¹⁷, the prohibition against males becoming "impure from dead bodies" comes because they work in the holiest place on earth, the Temple in Jerusalem. It seems logical that the females are not required to uphold this higher level of ritual purity, for they do not enter the Temple, as the males do. However, the Midrash Tanchuma gives a different reason for women’s exclusion:

Since they caused ‘death’ to man, therefore they will become impure from dead bodies.¹⁸

This is a general statement about all women, not something specific to a Bat Kohen, which excludes her from the prohibition. It is implied that despite the fact that a Bat Kohen does no avodah in the Temple, we still would have assumed that she should uphold a higher standard of purity. Only because of a sin of womankind is a Bat Kohen removed from this mitzvot lo ta'aseh.

The ritual purity laws may not apply in practice to a Bat Kohen, but we have seen that at least in theory, a Bat Kohen has a higher standard of ritual purity and a higher level of holiness. In addition, she is expected to uphold a higher level of honor.

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the harlot, she profanes her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)

The Gemara in Sanhedrin 49b discusses the four death penalties executed by the Beit Din. In order of severity, from the harshest punishment to the least harsh, they are: stoning, burning, killing by sword, and choking. On page 50a, the Gemara explains that for this crime of znut, prostitution, a Bat Kohen gets burning, while a Bat Yisrael who commits the same exact crime receives only choking. This punishment is two “levels” down in severity than the punishment a Bat Kohen receives for an identical crime. Why does a Bat Kohen receive a harsher punishment?

The Torah describes the reason for the Bat Kohen’s punishment as

… for she profanes her father

Rashi clarifies: “She profanes and shames his honor (kavod).” The Gemara in Sanhedrin 52a elaborates on this concept, explaining that people will speak badly about the Kohen because of his daughter’s despicable actions. Apparently, a Bat Kohen has an obligation to uphold a higher standard of behavior because of her connection to her father specifically, and to the Kehuna generally.

With that in mind, let us examine the Gemara in Sanhedrin 50a, which teaches that the difference of punishment between a Bat Kohen and a Bat Yisrael applies only when the women are already married! Were the Bat Kohen to commit znut (prostitution) while engaged, she receives the same exact punishment as does the Bat Yisrael (stoning). At first glance, this would appear counter-intuitive. Once she is married, we might think that she is no longer held responsible to uphold a higher standard of kavod since she is no longer in her father, the Kohen’s, house. It is then that the Torah emphasizes our greater expectations of a Bat Kohen by giving her a harsher punishment than her Bat Yisrael counterpart. It would appear that even when the Bat Kohen no longer lives in her father’s house, and she can no longer even partake in the matanot kehuna, she is still identified as a Bat Kohen. No matter what her status, she must uphold a higher standard of kavod. Although one might argue that this higher level of honor is only because of her connection to her father, that does not diminish the fact that there is a higher level of kavod which a Bat Kohen is expected to uphold. This is so whether it is for her father’s honor, or for her own.

The honor of the Kehuna demands a higher standard of kavod not only from the Kohanim themselves, but also requires others to show them kavod. A Beraita, which appears several times in the Gemara,¹⁹ quotes Leviticus 21:8

Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offers the bread of thy God...

The Beraita explains that this verse teaches that we are obligated

To sanctify him with regard to all things which are holy.

To fulfill this obligation of "To sanctify him", says the Beraita, we allow a Kohen the privilege of being "the first to open": the honor, the kavod, of being first in a group to do anything holy. The Gemara explains that this includes being first to read from the Torah (today, this means getting the first “aliyah”), first to recite the blessing (hamotzi) to begin a meal, and first to pick a desirable portion of food. This is brought down as a practical halacha in the Mishna Brurah²⁰, which says that a Kohen’s privileges also include leading the zimon for Birkat Hamazon, exempting others in Kiddush, and even to be the first in a group to speak.

There is an argument as to whether this commandment is d'oraita (an enactment founded on Bible text) or d'rabanan (a Rabbinic enactment), with the verse being used as an asmachta b'alma.²¹ The Tosfot²² say that it is clearly an "asmachta", a d'rabanan. The Rosh’s opinion remains ambiguous. In Gitin 59a, he implies that it is d'oraita, but then in Chulin 87a he contradicts himself by saying that it is an "asmachta". Practically, the Mishna Brurah (ibid) specifies that it is a d'oraita, and emphasizes that it is not an asmachta b'alma. The Magen Avraham on that section takes this Biblical obligation very seriously and says that one who does not give a Kohen extra kavod by allowing him to be the "first to open" is deserving of the death penalty.

Whether a d'oraita or d'rabanan, this mitzva is connected to a verse in the Torah. Is a Bat Kohen also included in this obligation? Are we required to give her the extra kavod of being first in the aforementioned situations?

The verse gives as the reason for this extra honor, “ ...for he offers the bread of thy God.” We would therefore assume that since a Bat Kohen does not perform any offerings or sacrifices, this privilege does not apply to her. However, the Sefer HaChinuch, based on a Gemara in Sanhedrin 51a,²³ states that even a Kohen with a defect, who may perform no work in the Temple, receives the right of being "the first to open". Evidently, performance of the avodah is not a deciding factor in determining who receives this privilege.²⁴

We have seen that a Bat Kohen is included in the higher standard of kavod connected with Kehuna. Her harsher punishment for znut makes this evident. We would therefore assume that she is included in all aspects of kavod associated with Kehuna, including being "the first to open". However, allowing the Kohen this kavod of being "the first to open" is not only an issue of honor, but it is also directly related to a Kohen’s higher level of sanctity. This is apparent in the verse which our Rabbis use as basis for the mitzva and is also made clear by the language of the Beraita: "in all holy matters".

The Rambam implies that we give this extra kavod to Kohanim as a way to sanctify them. In Hilchot Klei Hamidkash²⁵, he says:

It is a positive commandment to separate the Kohanim, and to sanctify them... as it says ‘Thou shalt sanctify him therefore; for he offers the bread of thy God.’

In the very next Halacha, Rambam specifies that to fulfill this commandment of sanctifying them,

Every man from Israel must act towards them with great honor and must make them first with regard to every thing which holds sanctity.

The Minchat Yitzchak²⁶ clearly makes this connection between sanctity and honor.

It is because of his sanctity that we show honor to the Kohanim...

We have definitely seen that a Bat Kohen does hold some kedusha of her own. Therefore, it would follow that she be given the kavod of Kehuna, since it is directly related to a Kohen’s sanctity. In addition, the Minchat Yitzchak mentions that the reason for imparting to Kohanim the privilege of being first is because "It is an honor for the descendants of Aharon". The use of the word "descendants" implies all of Aharon’s descendants, not only one specific gender. Indeed, in Pesachim 49a, the Gemara uses the term "Aharon’s descendants" when referring to Bnot Kohanim.

Allowing a Bat Kohen the privilege of being "the first to open" is one way to recognize her high Kehuna status. Another way to give her honor is by being especially selective when choosing a husband for her. The Gemara in Psachim 49a says:

As R’ Yochanan says:The marriage of a Bat Kohen to a Yisrael, their partnership will not be successful.

The Gemara goes on to explain that the marriage will cause tragedy:

It will bury him, or bury her, or bring him to the hands of poverty.

The Gemara later modifies this prohibition and says that a Yisrael who is a talmid chacham, a pious Torah scholar, is worthy of marrying a Bat Kohen, while only an am haaretz, an ignoramus, is not. This is brought down as Halacha l’ma’aseh in the Shulchan Aruch²⁷.

There is an argument between Rashi and Rambam with regard to how to understand this prohibition. Rashi says that the marriage of a Bat Kohen to a Yisrael brings a "pagam" (discredit) to her family. The Rambam²⁸, however, believes that it is more than just her connection to her Kohen family which makes this marriage unfavorable. He describes it as a "a desecration of the descendants of Aharon"²⁹. When a Bat Kohen marries a Yisrael, it is she who suffers digrace, not merely her family.

The Ran, on this Gemara, seems to hold a middle opinion. A Bat Kohen’s actions are directly connected not only to the reputation of her father’s family, but to the kavod of the Kehuna in general. He says,

For the honor of the Kehuna, it is fitting that she marry a Kohen.

However, he does not say that her marriage to a Yisrael reflects on her as an individual.

The Shyarei Knesset Hagedolah³⁰, an 18^th century commentary, seems to take the opinion of Rambam a step further. The Rama and others prohibit owning a servant who is a Kohen because it is considered "mi'ela b'kadshim"³¹ Since a wife sometimes serves, or does housework, the Shyarei Knesset Hagedolah says that it is for this reason that an am haaretz is prohibited from marrying a Kohenet. Clearly, not only does a Bat Kohen’s family, and the Kehuna in general, become desecrated by her marriage to a Yisrael am haaretz, but her personage (considered kadshim) is so holy that when it is used in an inappropriate way, it is considered "mi'ela b'kadshim".

Rav Ovadiah Yosef³², however, asserts that this "desecration to the descendents of Aharon", as Rambam describes it, is not a personal desecration of the Bat Kohen. The "desecration" caused by marriage of a Bat Kohen to a Yisrael is that her children will be Yisraelim, and not Kohanim. This decline in kedusha, he says, is a general desecration of the descendants of Aharon, for it goes against the rule of "we go up in kedusha, not down".

Rav Ovadiah Yosef says that in modern times we do not have the ability to halachically classify someone as a talmid chacham or an am haaretz. Therefore, though the prohibition still applies, it has been modified:

A Yisrael should not marry a Bat Kohen unless the groom is very fearful of God, and designates set times for Torah study, and even more so, he should learn in yeshiva regularly, even if he is not yet considered a Talmid Chacham.

This high standard for who is fit to marry a Bat Kohen is one way to give honor not only to the Bat Kohen herself, but also to the Kehuna in general. Aharon and his descendants were singled out as “royalty” within the nation of Israel; to be physically closest to God through the service in the Mikdash, and to be separated from the rest of the nation by special laws and privileges. That distinction remains today with regard to both Bnei and Bnot Aharon.

A Bat Kohen maintains a strong connection of her own to the Kehuna, as is evident through her claim on matanot kehuna and pidyon haben money. We have determined that she has a higher level of kedusha than other Bnot Yisrael, and is held to higher standards of purity and honor. There is still room to say that her higher status is only because of her association with her father, but a strong case can be made that she is intrinsically special. Accordingly, we should be very careful to give our Bnot Kohanim the same respect and high regard we accord the male Kohanim. This would include allowing her the privilege of being "the first to open" with regard to speaking first, saying a blessing first, and leading a zimon for Birkat Hamazon³³. Although this has not generally been in practice, we have seen how seriously the Rishonim and Acharonim take this obligation with regard to the male Kohanim, and there is no reason the same privilege should not apply to the females as well. In addition, this higher status of a Bat Kohen obligates us to be very careful when choosing her husband.

Bnot Kohanim are not only recipients of kavod and distinction, but must uphold the other responsibilities which the Kehuna entails. One reason the Kohanim were chosen from the descendants of Levi was because they did not participate in the Sin of the Golden Calf³⁴. Bnot Kohanim should be encouraged to continue this legacy, to be spiritual role models, as the Kohanim have been since Biblical times. They must be taught that just as their fathers and brothers have special rights and responsibilities, they, too, are the “representatives” of God within the people of Israel. Bnot Kohanim should take active roles in the community and strive to be a positive influence on their fellow Bnei and Bnot Yisrael. Maybe then, our nation will better fulfill the role assigned to us by God at Mount Sinai, and we will come closer to becom a true "kingdom of priests and a holy nation":³⁵ an entire nation of “priests,” distinguished from the others, and a holy people, properly representing God in the world. R’ Kook, in his Shmu’ot Re’iya in the section of Vayeshev, describes such a future:

And Israel will rise in level and will be called priests of God, servants of our Lord, and what is today the sanctity of the Kohanim within Israel will afterwards be the sanctity of Israel within the nations.

Return to Ohr Torah Stone