Complaining at the End --> A Quick End

Parshat Chukat-Balak 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 Once we get through chapter 19 (Parah Adumah), Parshas Chukas becomes a series of relatively quick tales which all seem to take place in the final year in the wilderness – beginning with the deaths of Miriam and Aharon, with the event of mei merivah (when the people complain about the lack of water and Moshe berates them before hitting the rock to bring out water for them), and the various battles which ensue between Canaanites, and the Emorites of Cheshbon and Bashan. 

 Considering that the end of the time in the wilderness presumes that 

a. The Exodus generation has almost completely passed away 

b. Those still around were either under 20 at the time of the Exodus, or born since the Exodus one wonders how the people could come to complain in the following manner: 

 “They journeyed from Mount Hor by way of Yam Suf to go around the land of Edom, and the people became impatient on the way. And so the nation spoke against God and Moshe [saying] ‘Why have you brought us up from Egypt to die in the wilderness? For there is not bread, and no water, and our souls loathe this light bread!’ (21:4-5) 

[We can open a can of worms by asking what is meant by Yam Suf, especially if this traveling from Mount Hor is in the aftermath of Aharon’s death at that very mountain. Is this the same Yam Suf of the splitting of the sea? Is it a different place entirely? Is it a different spot on a much larger body of water than we imagine? Is Yam Suf what is now referred to as the “Red Sea” which surrounds the “Sinai Peninsula” on two sides? If it is the same location as the Splitting of the Sea, and considering that Mount Hor is almost certainly in what is modern-day Jordan, does this mean that the Splitting of the Sea was on the Eilat/Aqaba side of the Red Sea, and not on the Egypt side of the Red Sea? And what would that suggest about the location of Mount Sinai – in Sinai peninsula, or in Midian, which is current day Saudi Arabia?]

It seems hard to imagine that “the nation” that is complaining refers to the entire population. After all, those who were ‘brought up from Egypt” are mostly no longer alive. It would be hard for me to thank God (or complain to Him) for having taken me out of Galicia, if 3 of my 4 grandparents were born in the United States to parents who came to the US as children in the early 1900s! Even my American-born grandparents who were never in Galicia would not have issued such a statement!

 And for those who basically grew up in the wilderness, where they have been eating Manna and having water from a well throughout their existence (Alshikh, Kli Yakar, Or HaChaim, RSR Hirsch refer these as spiritual foods which don’t have the calories that travelers might need, and don’t produce waste that humans are used to excreting), this is their “normal” which shouldn’t breed a complaint! How would those born in the wilderness know any different, or that their experience is anything outside of the realm of a normal human experience? 

Or HaChaim notes that the specific concern about the food came about because of their interaction with other nations. As for the complaining of “why did you bring us up from Egypt?” – that only came from those still alive from the Exodus generation who knew they had just a few months to live and no longer had any kind of נחת רוח – peace of mind – in their wilderness story and existence.

Their complaint, therefore, was not as much about the food specifically, and more about the seeming uselessness of their existence. 

Perhaps we can even take this a step further, noting that this complaint triggered a plague in which snakes bit people and a large multitude died. (21:6) 

This is in the aftermath of a recorded plague in Korach, in which 14,700 people died, and another plague at the end of Parshat Pinchas in which 24,000 will die. 

Were the people complaining about the manna suicidal? Did they want to end what they viewed as their miserable drawn-out existence, highlighted as being the generation that left Egypt but did NOT make it to the Promised Land? 

It is possible that they saw complaining and challenging God as their ticket to a shortened life, or a life that no longer needed to be drawn out.

This opens up a fascinating perspective to consider. Many of us are familiar with the expression “it beats the alternative.” Anyone who can joke about current realities as “beating the alternative” has what to live for, looks forward to every day, and hopefully is finding meaning in every day.

Most people don’t respond well to complainers, and in fact find complainers to be off-putting. 

Maybe the Torah is telling us here that when people complain about things that – certainly from one perspective – are pretty good, it is a sign that their lives have ceased to have the kind of meaning that it once did. 

We ought not fall into the trap of being people who can only find negative in our experiences. Imagine having water come miraculously. Imagine if we were given our daily bread, just the right amount, it didn’t produce waste, and we didn’t have to worry about grocery bills or toilet paper. 

Maybe the food is the same texture everyday, but it has flexible flavoring and taste! 

Would we complain? 

I hope not. Hopefully we are grateful enough for having been gifted another day, every day.

The Tribe of Levi and Being Leviim

Parshat Korach

by Rabbi Avi Billet 

All the way back to the dispute between Yaakov and Eisav over the birthrite we are introduced by the Rabbis to the idea that being the firstborn was meant to convey upon an individual the right to serve God in some kind of Temple. 

 Our tradition teaches us that the firstborns, who were supposed to come from every tribe, and therefore give each tribe representation in the Mishkan/Mikdash, were removed from this possibility in the aftermath of the sin of the Golden Calf. In retrospect it may have been a good thing, because it made the Priesthood a family affair, in which a tradition could be passed from father to son, versus having random representation in families – and therefore no specific tradition of customs to be handed down from generation to generation.

 In the Torah’s narrative, we find a maximum of 6 Kohanim – Aharon, his 4 sons (two die in Vayikra 10), and Pinchas, who is awarded Kohen-status in the Parsha named for him, and eventually succeeds his father as Kohen Gadol.

 Otherwise, the focus on who works in any capacity in the Mishkan specifically is on the Levi’im, members and descendants of the tribe of Levi. There is an interesting debate on the phrase שבט אביך (18:2) to whether Aharon is tasked with having his cousins from Gershon and Merari (Midrash Aggadah) or just the family of Amram (Targum Yonatan) to serve in the capacity as described in this  verse. The “Amram” perspective would be troubling because as best we know, only Moshe and Aharon were Amram’s sons, which would therefore be quite limiting to Aharon’s family – who are already Kohanim – and Moshe’s family, who have basically disappeared from the Torah’s narrative. However, it is likely that Targum Yonatan meant “just as Amram was known to be of the tribe of Levi, include all who are known to be from the tribe of Levi.”

 

Of course, the name Levi comes from the word Leah used when naming her third son, as she declared

הפעם ילוה אשי אלי, now my husband will be forced to accompany me. Perhaps on the simplest level, now with three children (the oldest being 2 years old!), she could at most hold onto two of them when going places, and needs a second set of hands to help with a third child.

The point is that the name לוי means to accompany. When we see the instruction given for the tribe of Levi, in the role they will be taking to their task in the Mishkan, being worded this way (in Chapter 18):

(ב) וְגַ֣ם אֶת־אַחֶיךָ֩ מַטֵּ֨ה לֵוִ֜י שֵׁ֤בֶט אָבִ֙יךָ֙ הַקְרֵ֣ב אִתָּ֔ךְ וְיִלָּו֥וּ עָלֶ֖יךָ וִֽישָׁרְת֑וּךָ וְאַתָּה֙ וּבָנֶ֣יךָ אִתָּ֔ךְ לִפְנֵ֖י אֹ֥הֶל הָעֵדֻֽת:

(ד) וְנִלְו֣וּ עָלֶ֔יךָ וְשָֽׁמְר֗וּ אֶת־מִשְׁמֶ֙רֶת֙ אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֔ד לְכֹ֖ל עֲבֹדַ֣ת הָאֹ֑הֶל וְזָ֖ר לֹא־יִקְרַ֥ב אֲלֵיכֶֽם: 

... one wonders if they were called לויים because they were from the tribe of Levi, or if they were called לויים because their role is to accompany and assist the Kohanim and the service of the Mishkan. Just about every commentary defines the word וילוו as either “attaching” or “combining” or “partnering” or “assisting.” Ibn Ezra says נלוים, which means accompanying. 

 One could argue that if their job determines their title, they should have been called מלווים (pronounced m’lavim) instead of לויים. Ergo, the fact that they are the tribe of Levi is coincidental to the idea that they assist the Kohanim.

 R Shimshon Refael Hirsch notes that the Leviim have many tasks, as auxiliaries and subordinates to the kohanim, so this specific one which is attached to the word וילוו  (many commentaries define the task in question as a “guard duty” for the Mikdash) is not indicative that they are called לויים specifically and exclusively because of their job.

 Back in Bamidbar 3:7-8, Hirsch notes that the jobs of the Kohanim and Leviim is to represent the national community, as the Torah was given and entrusted to the whole community.

They stand ready to do their assigned task in the name of the nation and on behalf of the nation. In their case, guarding the Torah is the foremost duty of the Torah’s keepers. “Hence, for its own good and to fulfill its duty, the nation sends the Leviim to their watch, to guard the Dwelling Place of the Testimony of the Torah against the nation as a whole and against each of its individual members.”

 At the same time, Hirsch also writes “The לויים are commissioned by the כהן and by the entire community to perform the service of the Dwelling Place, לעבד את עבודת המשכן. They serve in the Dwelling Place on behalf of Aharon and on behalf of the entire community.”

While we could explore what every commentary has to say, or whether a similar question was ever raised and asked, I would suggest that while the name לויים is coincidental in its similarity to the task of serving the Kohanim, it happens to work to the advantage of the בני לוי that כשמם כן הם – their life task happens to be defined by their title (see Ibn Ezra quoted above). 

In a parsha that focuses quite heavily on the roles of the Leviim – whether those trying to follow in the footsteps of Korach, or in demonstrating through Aharon’s stick test that the tribe of Levi was chosen for a unique role within the community, or in chapter 18 which focuses on ALL of the tribe of Levi – the Kohanim and the Leviim! – there is a subtle reminder that our given name may simply be, on the one hand, our given name, which has little meaning to us. On the other hand, there is an understanding that names help define us as well. 

In the case of the Leviim, their names charged them with the responsibility of being those who served the people in the Mishkan, whether as guards, as singers, or some other task. Those who took their name and charge most seriously helped define how extraordinary a life in the service of God could be.

A Sure Sign of Hatred and a Challenge (for some) to Overcome

Parshat Shlach 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

 Rashi quotes a Midrash that when Kalev was trying to rally the Bnei Yisrael to his perspective on the chances the nation had to conquer the land under Moshe’s leadership, he started by saying, “Is this the only thing the ‘son of Amram’ did to us?” Referring to Moshe in this way, indicating that grievances would follow, he hoped to get the masses to listen. It was a ploy of denigration to people who were looking to be critical, so he could sneak in his counter-approach which continued with “He split the sea for us! He brought us the manna! He caused the quail to be brought to us!” 

This deliberate effort to refer to Moshe not by name, but by his “son of Amram” identity, was meant to grab their attention so he could challenge the negative report of the spies. 

 Rabbi Baruch HaLevi Epstein uses a comment of Rashi on Tehilim 4:3 where David is addressing his enemies wondering how long they will continue to refer to him as “the son of Yishai,” as if he doesn’t have his own name. David is essentially arguing that those who refer to someone only utilizing the person’s father’s name is denigrating the individual, as if the individual has no personal identity. '

This certainly happened when Shaul had his own issues with David, when he asked his son Yonatan [in the Haftorah of Erev Rosh Chodesh] “Why didn’t the son of Yishai come to the meal?” (Shmuel I 20:27), while Yonatan, David’s close friend, responds by referring to his friend by name “David was called away to Beit Lechem.” 

Ironically, Shaul was also a victim of this when he prophesied around the time he was first appointed king – those who knew him were unimpressed when they said “See what’s going on with the son of Kish?!” (Shmuel I 10:11)

The Talmud gives us two examples of this kind of conduct. Brachos 10a describes how King Chizkiyahu called the prophet Yeshayahu “ben Amotz” when he was upset with Yeshayahu’s prophesies, thereby leaving out his first name. In Sanhedrin 82a we are told of how Zimri challenged Moshe by referring to him as “ben Amram.” Moshe is similarly referred to this way in several places in the Midrash, when people are being critical of him as a leader, or suspecting him of gaining financially from skimming off the top of the Mishkan donations.

Seeing this presentation I was reminded of this dvar Torah I had seen in the book “Maayana Shel Torah” in the name of “one of the Gedolei Yisrael” (image below), that when someone hates someone else, he does not refer to the person by his name. The Shaul example – when he referred to David as “ben Yishai” is given as the first example. The ‘vort’ is presented in the context of Parshat Vayeshev, when Yosef’s brothers present his torn coat to their father saying, “Is this your son’s coat?” rather than saying, “Is this Yosef’s coat?” Yaakov was able to discern the depth of their hatred for their brother, as he noted that an animal had consumed him (for a number of the brothers are compared to animals), and when Yaakov said “Yosef has been torn apart” he was saying “the name Yosef has been torn from their mouths [as they are unable to articulate it with their mouths].”

Rabbi Epstein argues that Kalev knew full-well that referring to Moshe as “ben Amram” would get the people’s attention because that was the way they referred to him when they wanted to speak negatively of him.

Of course, his goal in getting their attention was to recall all the positive things the people had experienced under Moshe’s leadership, and to suggest that a person who had done all of that would surely be steering us correctly, under God’s watchful eye, to bring us to the Promised Land. 

 Hatred consumes. We live in a society in which people are often triggered by talking point ideas, and sometimes don’t even know why they hold the opinion they hold. When challenged, those who have not thought through their positions may find themselves stuck without an answer, or may simply prefer to walk away from a conversation. In some areas of society, the end of the conversation is accompanied by a name-calling or even a slur, in order to indicate that “your humanity is meaningless to me so I will not even indulge you through engaging in this conversation any further.” At least Moshe, David and Yeshayahu were referred to as “son of (their father’s name)” – which leaves out their own identity, but isn’t a name-calling insult! 

It’s the “ben Amram” syndrome of knocking a person down in order to put oneself up, rather than having respectful dialogue, from which hopefully both parties can grow, or at the very least come to a mutual understanding of one another.

Once parties can engage in such a respectful conversation, both sides must be able to see through the worldview of the other to find the human being that is deserving of respect and a place at the table. If there is any litmus test that prevents an otherwise decent person from being present at the table, we are missing the point of what it means to be a human being in God’s world.

Let us always see the humanity of the other first, even when we disagree. And may we erase any barriers to entry that prevent any of our fellow Jews from having a seat at the table and a role in any dialogue.

Yisro’s Role in Training Functional Jews

Parshat Beha’alotkha

by Rabbi Avi Billet

For the second time in the Torah, we see Moshe Rabbenu having a conversation with his father in law that seems focused on what is in the best interest of Moshe’s flock, the people of Israel. 

The first recorded conversation was in Parshas Yisro, in Shmos chapter 18, when father-in-law watched son-in-law sitting all day long judging the people alone. The infamous words of a father-in-law, “What you are doing is no good,” led to the establishment of a tier system of judges, which removed the overburden from Moshe, and put him in the position of handling the most difficult cases. 

The second recorded conversation takes place at the end of chapter 10 in our parsha when Moshe turns to חבב בן רעואל חתן משה - “Hovav ben Reuel” his father in law, and tells him “We are traveling to the land of which God said ‘I am giving it to you,’ so travel with us and we will share goodness with you, for God has spoken well of Israel.” The response is “I am going home…” to which Moshe says, “Please don’t leave us! You will best know our encampments in the wilderness and you will be our eyes! When you go with us, it will be that we will share with you the good which God bestows upon us.” 

[While a conversation/dissection can certainly be held over the change of names associated with Moshe’s father-in-law, for the purposes of relative brevity and ease, that concern will be ignored for now, and we will simply call the man Yisro.] 

The Torah does not make clear what Yisro chose to do. Some commentaries link the two tales, suggesting they took place at the same time, and that Yisro’s departure then (Shmos 18:27) reflects his general departure: “And Moshe sent his father-in-law, and he returned to his land.” 

I wonder, though, what Moshe was really asking him. Two verses later we are told that the Ark traveled before the people at a distance of a 3-day journey. Clearly the Ark was leading the way. Earlier in the parsha, we were told in quite certain terms that the cloud of God would determine when the people would set up camp and when they would pack up the camp to continue the journey, whether after a long stay or even very short stays. God is giving several indicators that the encampments will be determined by Him, and there is no need for human intervention. So what role does Moshe have in mind for his father-in-law, if not to be the “Guide”?

Netziv suggests that Moshe was asking for Yisro to be a teacher for the people in the ways of the world. “There will be times in the wilderness when we will need to procure for the needs of people from the nations that are near us.” In other words, we will have physical needs, whether for products, or to learn how to function in a normal realm, beyond that which is being provided for us by the Almighty, and we will need help in communicating with those nations. “You will be our eyes” in the sense of alerting us to local custom and introducing us to whichever nation and people we encounter.

This service which you will provide for us is one for which we will gratefully compensate you when we inherit the land God has promised to us. 

This approach suggests that a. there was no indication that the people would be in the land within three days (despite what 10:33 might indicate would have been an ideal), and b. their time in the wilderness would not be dedicated purely and solely to spiritual pursuits, such as exclusively studying the Torah.

In his commentary on the events of Marah, Rav Kasher quotes Ramban, who explains Moshe needed to give the people basic instructions for how to survive in the wilderness. He had to teach them how to call out to God when hungry or thirsty (which is great introduction to how Netziv explains the Mei Merivah story of Bamidbar chapter 20), without resorting to complaining. They should learn to love their neighbors and to follow the advice of the elders. They should engage peacefully with neighbors who come from outside the Israelite camp, to engage in commerce. Moshe aimed to guide them in ethical behavior lectures to avoid being like other traveling bands who engage in every abomination, and to be above such base desires. He concludes quoting an opinion that Moshe had to teach them the ways of the wilderness – how to take best care of your wife, your children, how to engage with wanderers who want to buy or sell from you.

 This perspective, even before Yisro showed up in the Torah’s chronology (that was Shemos 15:25 and Yisro arrived in Shemos 18) supports both the idea that this kind of non-slave-now-free-living was on Moshe’s mind, and that Yisro could be a great mentor for everyone in terms of how to navigate their newfound freedom and living in the real world.

This was ALWAYS the Torah’s ideal – for people to engage on the one hand in pursuing their relationship with God, but also, and always at the same time, pursuing advancement in navigating the realities of existing with other people, and engaging in business and other forms of commerce with other nations.

Moshe was simply trying to outsource a mentorship role to someone who had significant experience in that world. Especially if Moshe was to be Moshe Rabbenu, with his role focused more on spiritual growth, aside from the many issues which may come up ala Shemos 18 and his judging the people, then perhaps he was hoping to remain the Judaic Studies Coordinator while hiring Yisro to be the General Studies Coordinator. 

 While we should never focus so much on our general knowledge to the exclusion of Torah knowledge (or vice versa!) it is extremely important to have that well rounded education in both areas, to be able to function as the best Jew each of us can be, while also navigating the challenges which accompany being a successful human being in the game of life. Particularly in this increasingly complicated world, with all the innovation that continues to happen so quickly, and all the overwhelming noise which comes our way from every direction, our tool box can’t afford to get rusty as we are always meant to be growing in our knowledge and “life skillset” to represent all God, and subsequently Moshe, hoped for us to be able to take in and process to be the most functional AND God-fearing we could become.

The Blessings of the Kohanim

Parshat Naso 

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Over the years of his recorded Drashas (recorded in a book, that is!), the Sfas Emes would often reference the blessings of the Kohanim as recorded at the end of Bamidbar chapter 6, comparing the blessings to Avraham’s being promised “והיה ברכה” that he (Avraham) would be a blessing to the world; to the Torah’s depiction of how Bilaam saw it was an appropriate time to bless the Israelites; and of course to Aharon’s strength and dignity in blessing the people, as first seen in the context of the dedication of the Mishkan, at the end of Vayikra chapter 9. All of these are a reminder that the opportunity to bless the children of Israel is not one to be whitewashed, and is to be viewed as a significant one, whenever it comes up. It is to be embraced by all, and it is to serve for our benefit, perhaps even through a time and space that is beyond our grasp or comprehension.

The rules of Birkat Kohanim appear primarily in Shulchan Arukh Siman 128, and it is from there that the following laws are extracted.

Although in Ashkenazic circles outside of Israel the custom is for the Kohanim only to bless us on Yom Tov, in Sefardic circles everywhere, as well as throughout Eretz Yisrael (for Ashkenazim as well!), the custom is for the Kohanim to give their blessing daily, and twice on Shabbos and Yom Tov.

As such, here is a presentation of some of the rules surrounding this ritual, and incredible blessing the Kohanim are tasked with giving to the Bnei Yisrael. 

 A Kohen who is not disqualified (mainly on account of marrying a woman forbidden to him, see also below) has a mitzvah to bless the people, and loses out on this mitzvah if he neglects participating in the blessing. (A Kohen who is opting out of blessing – on account of weakness, illness, or injury – is supposed to leave the room before the Chazan begins saying רצה, and the custom is for him not to return to the sanctuary until after the blessings, lest people say he is tainted, i.e. not really a Kohen).

Typically a Levi washes the Kohen’s hands. If there are no Leviim, first borns are tasked with the job. If there are no Leviim or first borns, then each Kohen should wash his own hands. We do not give this job to “regular” Yisraelim. Kohanim should be ready to approach the front of the room at “R’tzeh,” and should even be in motion already at that point. Otherwise, the Kohen may not go up for that opportunity!

While going to their position for the blessing, each Kohen should recite this short prayer: יהי רצון מלפניך ה' א-לקינו שתהא ברכה זו שצויתנו לברך את עמך ישראל ברכה שלמה, ולא יהא בה מכשול ועון מעתה ועד עולם.

If there is more than one Kohen, the Chazan calls out “Kohanim!” to solicit the blessing that the Kohanim recite over their mitzvah. If there is only one Kohen, he begins reciting the bracha without being called. Kohanim should not begin the bracha until the call “KOHANIM!” is finished.

At first the Kohanim are facing the Ark. In order to fulfill both opinions as to which direction to face during the bracha, they begin saying the blessing while facing the Ark. After saying the words מלך העולם, they turn around to face the congregation for אשר קדשנו בקדושתו של אהרן וצונו לברך את עמו ישראל באהבה (S’if 10-11), though some turn at וצונו. Turning from facing the Ark towards the people, and turning back towards the Ark after the Birkat Kohanim is completed is always in a rightward direction.

A Kohen who does not have the strength to hold his arms up on his own (as a contraption that might help him hold his hand up is forbidden) should not be blessing the people. However, the Mishneh Brurah is quite specific (s”k 52) that if he can hold his hands up for each word, and put his hands down in between, then that is sufficient.

 When holding the hands for the blessing, arms are to be outstretched, hands held at shoulder height, at a slight angle, palms facing the ground, backs of hands faced heavenward, the right hand slightly higher than the left. There are also supposed to be 5 discernible air-spaces: 1. between ring finger and middle finger on right hand, 2. between index finger and thumb on right hand, 3. between thumbs, 4. between index finger and thumb on left hand, 5. between ring finger and middle finger on left hand (S’if 12). These airspaces are based on a verse referencing God’s “windows.”

Eyes of the Kohanim should be cast downward (or closed) during the three verses (S’if 23). There is a debate as to the placement of the tallis, whether over the Kohen’s head, over his hands, or over both. Our custom is for the Kohen to have the tallis over his head and hands, while some are even careful that the tallis take a dip between the head and hands, so the Kohen himself not be tempted to look at his own hands during the blessing.

Every word of the blessings must be recited after the Chazzan finishes saying it. (S’if 12 and 18) (should not say next word until Kohanim finish their word) The words must also be recited in a relatively louder voice (S’if 13). The same single tune is used through the duchening (S’if 21) (nowadays a tune might have a low-part and a high-part).

The following words should be recited accompanied by a South to North (left to right) arm-sweep of the room: יברכך; וישמרך; אליך; ויחנך; אליך; לך; שלום. (s’if 45). When finished with the third sentence, Kohanim turn back to face the Ark only AFTER the Chazzan has begun “Sim Shalom.” Hands go down when that turnaround is completed.

A Kohen is disqualified from blessing the congregation if married to a woman forbidden to him (such as a convert or divorcee), if he had killed someone, if he rejected God in favor of some other god/faith, if he has consumed a r’viis of alcohol very recently, if he deliberately became tameh through contact with a corpse. A Kohen who is in the middle of Shiva does not bless the congregation. This would never be an issue on Yom Tov, because Yom Tov cancels shiva. There is a debate recorded by the Rama as to whether a Kohen in aveilus may bless the congregation (S’if 43 and commentaries there). 

A Kohen who is known to not be observant may bless the Congregation (S’if 39), the argument being that he needs all the mitzvot he can get. 

There is a discussion surrounding an unmarried adult Kohen, as well as children-Kohanim (S’if 34), or over Bar Mitzvah but not yet of marriageable age, as to what role they play in Birkat Kohanim. Certainly, for Hinukh reasons, a child should participate if there are other Kohanim, but he does not go up if he is the only Kohen present. The unmarried Kohen may certainly bless the congregation on Yom Tov. There are differences of opinion regarding his blessing the congregation during the week.  

While there is an explicit distinction made between having Birkas Kohanim on Yom Tov vs not on Shabbos, the idea to not have “duchening” when Shabbos coincides with Yom Tov may be a Hassidic Minhag, but it does not have support in Shulchan Arukh, to the best of my knowledge. We have “duchening” on Yom Tov which falls out on Shabbos, though we do not sing nor recite the supplications that appear in the siddur. 

As for the congregation, we are to have in mind that we are the recipients of the blessings of the Kohanim. Like the Chazan, we do not overlap with any word of the Kohanim, waiting for the Kohen to finish the words of the bracha, as well as each pasuk, before saying Amen. Our bodies are to face the Kohanim (we do not turn around or face our bodies away from the Kohanim), while we humble ourselves by casting our eyes downward or looking into a Siddur.  

The 2 reasons the Mishneh Brurah gives as to why one should not look at the Kohanim is because 1. It could be a distraction to one’s kavannah, and 2. As a zecher l’mikdash, a commemorative to how things were done in the Temple, when the Kohanim would announces God’s ineffable name. However, since the Kohanim use the name of God which is pronounced Ado-nai, we may look. To avoid issues, however, as noted above, the Kohanim put a tallis over their hands anyway, so even when we look, we cannot actually see their hands.

 Outside of Israel, our opportunities to receive blessings from the Kohanim are few and far between. May we embrace the opportunities when they come, and may the blessing of the Kohanim come true for us all. 

 May the Lord bless you and watch over you. 

May the Lord cause His countenance to shine to you and favor you. 

May the Lord raise His countenance toward you and grant you peace.