Posted October 8, 2009, by Rabbi Judy Abrams. Please refer to Maqom's home page for information about previous passages.
Jewish mothers have been getting nachus from their children for a very, very long time, all the way back to the Second Temple, at least. The Yerushalmi tells us an interesting tale of a woman named Kimchit and her sons:
Shimon ben Kimchit went out to talk with a non-Jewish king on the eve of the Day of Atonement at twilight and a spur of spit from the king¹s mouth splattered on the priest's garment and so rendered him unclean. Therefore, his brother Judah served as the high priest in his place. Their mother had the pleasure of seeing two sons in the office of the high priest on the same day (//T. Kippurim 3:20).
Kimchit had seven sons and all of them served in the high priesthood. Sages sent and said to Kimchit: What good deeds did you do to merit such glory?
She said to them: May so and so happen to me if even the beams of my house ever once gazed upon the hair of my head or the thread of my chemise in my entire life (i.e., she was very modest).
They said: All meal (kemach) is fine, but the meal of Kimchit is the finest of fine flour.
They recited in her regard the following verse: "The princess goes inside with all her goods (k'vudah). Among her garments are those embroidered with gold. (Psalm 45:14)" (Y. Yoma 1:1)
A little background may make this passage more comprehensible. The high priest had to officiate in a state of absolute purity at all times; all the more so on Yom Kippur. The king may not have been in a state of ritual purity and when his spit made contact with the priest, he was thereby disqualified from officiating at the cult for that day. Apparently, Shimon ben Kimchit (17-18 C.E.) began the day (which begins at sundown) as the officiating high priest but had to step down from officiating the next day since this incident happened in the evening. Therefore, his brother stepped in and took his place. What is interesting is that this is characterized as the height of maternal, but not paternal, nor spousal, satisfaction.
Discussion Questions: