Q. We recently learned in the Daf, that a Kushi or black cohen is considered a baal mum or blemished and can't serve in the Temple, (or according to some as Shaliach Tzibur). Is that not clear racism?
A. Mishna (Bechoros 45b) teaches that the "cushi, the gichor and the lavkan" which are individuals with unusual skin pigmentation. If they are Cohanim they would be disqualified from serving the avodah in the Beis Hamikdosh. The Talmud further explains that cushi is a Cohen whose skin is very dark. The gichor is one who is very red and the lavkan is one who is very white. (following Art Scroll translation).
Being a Cushi is not a term that connotes being faulty and imperfect or implies discrimination and bigotry.
On the contrary, the pasuk (Amos 9: 7) reads: "Are you not like the children of the Cushites to Me, O children of Israel? says Hashem.
In Parshas Behaloscha (12: 1) we read that: "Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moshe regarding the Cushite woman he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman." Rashi, explains that the name Cushi connoted her beauty, acknowledged by everyone.
Talmud (Eiruvin 96a), teaches that Michal bas Kushi donned tefilin. Rashi explains she was the daughter of Shaul Hamelech. (Moed Katan 16b)
Horav Shlomo Miller's opinion is that we are dealing here with a Cohen born white, that by disease or illness suffered skin discolorations to extremes of black, red or white. The Rov compared it to the related discolorations of the esrog, that has nothing to do with race or discrimination. See similar interpretation in Reishis Bikurim (Bechoros 40b), Mishnas Avrohom (p.194), and others. See also Shulchan Aruch (O.H. 225: 8).
An analogous explanation is also to be found in the verse (Shmuel 2: 6: 8): "And Dovid was angered because Hashem had made a breach upon Uzzah." And the Talmud (Sotah 35a) explains; his face became blackened from pain.
Rabbi A. Bartfeld as revised by Horav Shlomo Miller Shlit'a
RE printed Q&A: Black and White About Black and White? The Gemara discusses the validity of an "Esrog Kushi." One Beraisa states that an "Esrog Kushi" is valid, while an Esrog which is "similar to a Kushi" is invalid. Another Beraisa, as well as the Mishnah (34b), state that an Esrog Kushi is invalid. According to Rava's answer, even an actual Esrog Kushi is invalid, as the Mishnah states, but it is invalid only when it is used in Eretz Yisrael. Since such an Esrog is not common in Eretz Yisrael, it does not qualify as "Hadar" and thus it is invalid. The Beraisa that says that an Esrog Kushi is valid refers to an Esrog Kushi when it is used in Bavel, where such Esrogim are common. The CHASAM SOFER (CHIDUSHEI CHASAM SOFER on Sukah) presents a fascinating homiletical interpretation of the Gemara's discussion about the validity of an Esrog Kushi. As R Miller answered, the Torah refers to Tziporah, the wife of Moshe Rabeinu, as a "Kushis" (Shemos 12:1). The Gemara in Moed Katan (16b) explains that the verse does not mean that her skin color was black, but that she was outstanding in her deeds. According to the Midrash, the Esrog represents the Tzadik. Just as the Esrog both tastes good and smells good, the Tzadik performs good deeds and learns Torah. Since the Gemara in Moed Katan defines "Kushi" as "outstanding in one's deeds," an Esrog Kushi refers to an exceptionally great Tzadik, one who involves himself exclusively in Torah and spiritual pursuits and avoids involvement with the mundane activities of the world. The Gemara in Berachos (35b) records the famous dispute between Rebbi Yishmael and Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. According to Rebbi Yishmael, one should learn Torah as his primary endeavor and work for a livelihood as his secondary endeavor. According to Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai, one should be involved exclusively in learning Torah. The Gemara says that many people conducted themselves like Rebbi Yishmael and met with success, while many others conducted themselves like Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai (they learned Torah to the exclusion of all other pursuits) but did not succeed. The Chasam Sofer explains in the name of his Rebbi, the HAFLA'AH, that the reason why those who followed Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai did not succeed was because they followed his philosophy only superficially. They acted like him outwardly, while inwardly they lacked his conviction and his faith, and thus they did not succeed. They were not "Tocho k'Voro" (Berachos 28a) -- they were not as genuine on the inside as they appeared to be on the surface. They only "did like Raban Shimon bar Yochai." The Hafla'ah explains that the Beraisa here which discusses the "Esrog Kushi" alludes to the conditions necessary to succeed in following the philosophy of Rebbi Shimon bar Yochai. A Talmid Chacham who is entirely "Kushi," externally and internally, is the only
Important Numbers
