Talk:Kohen/Archive 2

Capitalisation
Capitalisation for B/bible L/levite and K/kohen (and derivations) is inconsistent through this article and in relation to other articles. Not knowing which is more accurate, I leave this task to someone else.–OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i ✅ and good point, -it should be capitalized in all instancesMarecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Too detailed and scholarly
Definitely needs more trimming and rewriting for a general audience. This reads like a text for Jewish scholars. Whereas probably half the people looking for it just want to how come cousin Ben didn't have to go to Aunt Sarah's funeral and the rest want to know what Leonard Nimoy was doing. I did move the all the biblical cites to footnotes, which makes it slightly more readable.75.56.62.232 (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i agree, the page does seem archaic. I will give a shot at ("attemting to") clean up a bit (wish me luck!).Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 19:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * i've tried a bit but..this article is heavy heavy with wordy (way too wordy -and sometimes even inaccurate) info..Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * From the tone of the arguments here, there's a real need to know all the Talmudic terminology to understand anything pertaining here, and that's not what the article should be doing. There's a reason there are degrees in Jewish law, but it doesn't mean that the concepts can't be explained to laymen.  You in fact might want to start with what the average "Jew on the street" definition of a Kohen is, and then go into the legal stuff later, as they aren't mutually exclusive. MSJapan (talk) 22:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Kohen or Kohein?
May i suggest the title be changed to Kohein or Kohain? reason being that in Hebrew the vocalization (nekudah) on the "Hey" ("ה") is always a "Tzeireh" (the "ei" and/or "ay" sound) and never a "Segol" (the eh sound)Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And? It's dialectical.  Everyone else who knows the term, speaks English, and is not trained in Hebrew linguistics is going to say it's "Kohen", which makes it common usage.  That's like me saying "Yisrael" should be "Yisroel" because that's how the Ashkenazi Jews pronounce things in Yiddish, and that since Modern Hebrew is a constructed language, what it says doesn't apply.
 * I happen to be a trained Orton-Gillingham instructor, and while I generally don't use expertise to leverage arguments, in this case it means that I know the mechanics of why a sound does what it does, but it's not specialized knowledge - any reading teacher can do this. So let's talk about sounds and phonics:


 * In English we have four different constructions that generally make the /ay/ sound, and more if you want to get cute about loamwords. ai, ay, a-consonant-e, and an open syllable a (usually with a soft c or s like "erase") all make the sound you want (and I'll leave out "et" in "valet"). However, there are rules as to what comes before and after them as far as spelling is concerned.  "-ain" words (which fit your pattern) are like "brain, train, sprain, paint" etc., which need a consonant blend to come before it, or a "t" to come after it.  If there's an "h", it still generally can't be by itself unless it's going to use "ane" ("Hanes" is the only thing that comes to mind), and "Kohane" is just not going to fly, because then it doesn't fit the Hebrew if you try to go backwards (doesn't read as a final nun).


 * Also, "ei" generally does not say /ay/; it mainly says "e" as in "receive", which requires a soft c, and only says "ay" when followed by a gh, like "weigh, neigh, sleigh". So if we want "ay" we get "Koheighn" as a spelling, which isn't proper English because gh is only followed by t, which then changes the whole piece to "-ate" ("eight"), "ite" ("sleight"), or silent ("ought").  "Koheight" would therefore be "Kohate", "Kohite", or "cot", none of which are even remotely correct, and also don't read the final nun like it's supposed to be read.  Your choices violate the rules of both languages. MSJapan (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Section moved here for discussion
I've moved the following section here for discussion: "According to some, made famous by the Shulchan Aruch, Kohanim retain a lesser though still somewhat distinct status within Judaism and remain bound by additional laws in Orthodox and, to a lesser extent, in Conservative Jewish communities. According other Rabbinic authorities, such as the the Ran, Rivash, Maharashdam, Jacob Emden and to a certain extent the Vilna Gaon, Ovadia Yoseph and others- Kohanim, with the exception of the Rappaport family, no longer retain a distinct status or yichus (pedigree) and are not deserving of privileges. These sources are often utilized in order to allow a Kohen to remain married to a woman who is prohibited to him and to force a Kohen to return the pidyon haben money. With regards to the future, some authorities say that the role of the Kohen will be returned to the Bechor while other say it will remain with the decedents of Aharon." Can you explain how sources such as "Rivash" 15, "Divrei Yatziv" by R' Y. Halberstam, E.H. 6;,Maharashdam in Ibn Ezra sןman רלג satisfy Wikpedia's WP:V and WP:RS requirements? Also, can you explain how http://chabadtalk.com/forum complies with WP:RS? Jayjg (talk) 03:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The sources being quoted, if they are being quoted accurately, are reliable, with the exception of "chabadtalk" which may be more of a personal website and not an established rishon, acharon, or posek. However, they are along the lines of shittos yechidos, or minority opinions. I admit to ignorance in whether or not the lack of shtarei yichus (certified documents proving lineage) is used to prevent mamzerus, which is what the above paragraph implies, but the predominant opinion, at least as far as I can recall, is that as duchaning and the first aliyah (and leading a zimun for that matter) do not have monetary ramifications, klal yisrael "believes" anyone claiming kehuna and affords them those privileges (and responsibilities in as much as there is the prohibition against becoming tamei, marrying a divorcee, etc.). Where a yisrael must give up money in any event (pidyon haben, pidyon peter chamor, etc.) we accept the claim of kehuna even without a shtar. Where the money amount is not forced (for example, since, mideoraysah "Chitah Achas Poteres Es HaKri" (one grain exempts the silo [from the requirement of Terumah]), we allow farmers to take off a miniscule amount for Terumah and destroy it respectfully (since we are all tamei) instead of taking the customary full 2% and giving that to a Kohen. Similarly the other preistly gifts (Chazeh, Shok, Lechi, etc.) since they are actually allowed to be consumed by non-Kohanim (unlike terumah) we stand on the requirement for the documentation (Hamotzei Machavaro Alav Harayah). Therefore, it may be that even if the above shittos are quoted accurately, they may be UNDUE vis-a-vis wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

avi, see the giving of the foreleg cheeks and abomasum page, המוציא מחבירו עליו.. seems to not be relevant..(at least to that gift)--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Since there is the necessity for the Yisrael to give something to the Kohen, something that is not assur for the Yisrael to use, we apply "המוציא מחבירו עליו" to demand that the Kohen prove that he is a Kohen Meyuchas in order to take the gifts, and today, there is no shtar validated by bes din that proves anyone is a Kohen Meyuchas. That is the application, as best as I remember from learning the sugyos years ago :/ -- Avi (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

i hear ya :-), have a peek at the page Giving of the foreleg, cheeks and abomasum.--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 20:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have simply removed the content and I suggest that it stays out of the article until our prolific editor can explain the following:
 * Do you dispute that Kohanim are to be called up first to the Torah, are prohibited from touching the dead, and may not marry a divorcee?
 * Have you considered the fact that citing numerous primary sources may be original research, and that a single secondary source might be more appropriate (e.g. a review in a Rabbinical journal, ideally an English one such as Tradition)?
 * Would you consider adding the material about the status of Kohanim today to a separate section that is not the introduction?

Looking forward to comments. JFW | T@lk  13:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * i have found the "rivash 15" citation is erroneous. view The status quo Kohen, for accurate opinion of the Rivash. Overall good job to all the folks who undid ventura's wild spree of melee :-)--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 13:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you make a critically important point about WP:OR. Searching through primary legal sources for who support a particular position is the very definition of OR, which is what has been done here. Also, even if he has drawn valid conclusions, inserting these minority views into the lede is the height of WP:UNDUE weight, which is why I moved the material to the body of the text (and was reverted almost immediately, of course). Jayjg (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

eElohuth|Marecheth: The Rivash cited does say that but the Maharashdam and others take it even further; stating that the names of Kokhanim are "balul" mixed up, and no one knows who is an actual Kohen anymore.

There is a lecture on this on the yutorah website that will certainly clarify things up. (http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735643/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/_Parshas_Korah_Yichus_of_Kohanim_Today)

I, myself a Kohen, have personally spoken to former chief Rabbi Ovadia Yoseph about an issue regarding my status as a Kohen after I found out my wife had relations with a non-Jew in college. I have received a written stamped letter from him stating that I can "be somech" (rely) on this Rivash and Maharashdam. I will be happy to send it to whoever requests. With regards to the chabad reference website about the bechor; this can more accurately be found printed in the "the Gutnick chumash; Devarim". However, this chabad thread site did list an image of the primary source material.

Regarding the pidyon haben money- this is a contemporary issue that has been argued about amongst the achromin. It is true that Rabbi Jacob Emden states that such money would constitute geneiva (theft) and should be returned.

While I doubt anyone would say a kohen should not get the first alliya- I also believe it is important for the public to know that this privilege is only extended due to the fact that it is worth nothing (or it would constitute theft as well). I also believe it is important for the public to know that the pedigree is not the same for Kohanim today and that according to many such as Ovadia Yoseph Shlita there is a way out to preserve a marriage for Kohanim. If I saw this on wiki originally it would have saved me much time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisroelbernskohen (talk • contribs) 17:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way of addressing these facts (such as the transfer to bechor; lack of pedigree ect...) in a section of the article significantly closer to the beginning. On a side note, it is certainly true that many people of the religious right-wing are subjective about this issue- phrases such as "more special" or "more sanctified" do not belong on an objective website such as Wikipedia. Shalom to all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yisroelbernskohen (talk • contribs) 17:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Except the fact that they are minority opinions, which fall under WP:FRINGE. The vast majority of Jewish communities and congregations don't operate under those opinions,  and it's likely that the minority opinion worked in your case because it was probably worse for your life in general if that opinion wasn't used.  A halakhic decision isn't automatically binding on another similar case, though the general rules that halacha sets out do apply.  MSJapan (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

"Except the fact that they are minority opinions, which fall under WP:FRINGE..."

Having watched this article go back and forth for sometime now, I think there are two points to be made. Firstly, there is a difference between a minority opinion and a fringe opinion- let alone an opinion that is used to decide Jewish Law. I think people would have a very hard time saying that Rabbi Yaakov Emden or the Vilna Gaon for instance is a "fringe opinion". Minority opinions have the right to be heard as well- I believe. Additionally,this might be an equal opinion- just that most people do not practice it as often.

More importantly however, there is a fundamental difference between Jewish law and what most Jews do. If a Kohen is technically permitted to remain with his wife that is prohibited to him or if a yisroel is technically permitted to get the first alliya or lead benching, even if this is not common within the Jewish community- it is nevertheless substantially part of a complex system of Jewish law that individuals have the ability to follow if they so choose to in accordance with halacha (even though most may choose not to). Regarding th halachic status of minhagim is an entirely different subject that I do not want to get into which is also up for debate. Most importantly, as far as I know, the majority opinion reflects the views that kohanim get the first alliya not out of right but out of custom. This entire debate I believe is therefore not regarding so much the "what" but the "why". The "why" of this law is what needs to be addressed here. However, UNDO WEIGHT was certainly violated by posting it in the opening. This article does need (along with many other Jewish articles) clearer seperations between the what and the why- between actual "halacha" and practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.160.138 (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, in the scope of halachic legalities (and I am a bit rusty in that area), aren't all opinions equal insofar as they are all valid interpretations that can be applied to a situation? Therefore, some distinction needs to be made between what is followed most often (though I have a feeling that that can vary community to community) and that which is not.  Also, I can't imagine that even the great Talmudists were in the majority all the time, so I don't buy "the luminary so-and-so can't be called a minority opinion" argument; no one has found it yet, is all, and it may not apply in this situation, but it's by no means a whooly supportable statement.
 * Nevertheless, I do completely agree with the opinion given regarding the differences between theory being "why" and practice being "what", but I also think there is a way to address both without needing to reference every instance since the Babylonian Talmud to do it. It's really as simple as "the theory is this" and another section saying "the practice is this", keeping in mind what is acceptable under policies.  There are plenty of places here to ask for help for evaluating sources and such, and there will be an independent eye that is perhaps more representative of the audience that should be written for here.
 * More importantly, to forestall some of the legal wrangling that appears to be going on herein, let's consider the following: if you want halachic decisions on a case, you don't ask Cousin Saul down the street, you go see a rabbi. By the same reasoning, Wikipedia is not a Beit Din, should not give the appearance of one, and should not be a place for legal discussion nor results of decisions.  Wouldn't you feel dumb telling the rabbi you needed a get because Wikipedia said so?  Even Yisroelbernskohen had the brains to ask the rabbi; he's just aggravated because he thinks he should have seen it here first (which, BTW, violates the spirit of the encyclopedia - we are not a news source nor the first reporter of information). MSJapan (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

what should be done
I just finished looking through the article as is and it seems pretty good. Being that yisroelbernskohen, ventura488 and others are bound to come back eventually- i suggest the following be done. First, immediately remove everything in the article that has no sources- this is bound to cause trouble. Second, people should know who our kohanim today really are- change the current "who is a kohen" section to "modern kohanim" or something similar and let people who are kohanim that many orthodox Rabbis allow them to remain married to their wives. Third, add a "future" section to the bottom (I looked up the transfer to the bechor thing in the Gutnik Chumash and it is legit). Lastly; put a severe lock on the page for a year because it has been the source of much vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.160.138 (talk) 03:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Bechor and Kehuna
It appears to me that the change of status from Kohen to Bechor is stated in the Gutnik edition of the Chumash as well as the Ohr Chaim. Many non-sourced statements on this page exist, yet the Bechor statement was taken down even though it was sourced. This does not make sense to me.
 * im kind of scratching my head on this one too..--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It may be sourced but it is not a well-accepted perspective. (To be honest I'd personally never heard of it). WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy. JFW | T@lk  10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * for reference sake i am placing the relevant text below for others to comment on it's usefullness to the article:

"The Kohen's role in the Third Temple" The servicial role of the Kohen in the third temple albeit clear from the Written and Oral Torah, is somewhat obscure from certain parts of the Kabbalah point of view; "The Kohen and Levi switching roles" The Arizal -as recorded by his pupil Rabbi Chaim Vital- explained that in the future temple the souls from the source of Kayin will be Kohens, all the souls with their rooting in Hevel will be Levi'im (Levites). This idea is echoed by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi in his book The Tanya. This seemingly blatant contradiction to numerous verses and Chazalistic discourses detailing the service of the Children of Aaron in the times of the Moshiach was explained by Rabbi Menachem Schneerson -the seventh Lubavitch Rebbe succeeding Rabbi Schneur Zalman. Rabbi Schneerson -in his Igrot Kodesh work- explained that the change will appear purely on a Kabbalistic and spiritual level, with the soul of the Levi being born into the sons of Aaron. Thus, the spiritual qualities of the Levi -in the days of the Moshiach being of extra-fine character- being housed in the body of the son of Aaron -the Kohen thanks,--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen what you have written above in writing- though it is certainly possible. Both possibilities should be included. However, the Chabad Rebbe represents a very large segment of the practicing Jewish population- and the Rebbe's opinion should be heard as well. The Rebbe held that it will return to the Bechor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 19:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Here is a link to one of the numerous sources.

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=43246&st=&pgnum=697&hilite=

One can simply email the Rabbi this question to the main Chabad Rabbi at http://www.chabad.org/asktherabbi/default_cdo/jewish/Ask-the-Rabbi.htm and he will answer it for you.


 * The link you placed above is to the third lubavitch rabbi, the tzemach tzedek and is to a chassidic discourse. where -as you stated- there are numerous references to the bechora idea in many chabad discourses -but as is known by the Rabbi Menachem Schneerson's teachings, chassidic discourses are here to explain all rabbinic opinions on any given matter -they are not to be taken as halacha.--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If there are indeed multiple sources that allude to the same concept, it should be discussed further down in the article, in appropriate context, amongst other things that might happen to Kohanim le'osid lovo. In particular, I'm pretty certain that there are sources about how the go'el tzedek is going to determine the status of individual Kohanim; was it the Urim ve-Tumim? JFW | T@lk  23:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * RE: Yes, this should be included further down- though it is not included. I would advise you to include it. Unsigned

Genetic Testing
Kohen- Genetic Testing (why should this not be included? It is from a governmental website that says the genetic testing was invalid.)

It became apparent that there is a problem with omission of samples when the second article "Origins of Old Testament priests" (Thomas et al., 1998. Nature 394, 138-140) was published. In the fourth article a remarkable 55% of the Ashkenazi Levite samples from the earlier 1998 study are not included. This causes the "Levite modal haplotype" to double its frequency from 21% of the Ashkenazi Levite sample in 1998 to 42% of the Ashkenazi Levite sample in 2003. The authors offer three main explanations: (1) The studies are independent using different sample sets.(2) Typing errors and poor quality exclude samples from future studies.(3) Correction of typing errors means that some samples are classified under different haplotypes. The explanations offered to the problem of omitting samples from subsequent studies after their haplotypes or partial haplotypes are known, are not convincing. Consequently their sample sets cannot be considered random and non-biased. At the least, these laboratories have bad practices of sample handling and many typing errors, which are enough to invalidate their studies.

PMID: 16427053 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16427053


 * The inserted text in question stated the following:
 * "The Department of Haematology and Genetic Pathology at Flinders University School of Medicine has found the following studies to be invalid due to bias and flawed test data. The popular genetic testing service 23andme have corroborated these findings as being biased and flawed."
 * I deleted it for several reasons, as follows:
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16427053 refers to a study of Levites, not Kohens, so it's irrelevant here.
 * https://www.23andme.com/ is not a reliable source, and the link merely points to the website's homepage anyway.
 * the paragraph stated conclusions in Wikipedia's voice, rather than in the name of those drawing then, and therefore failed WP:NPOV.
 * --Jayjg (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This whole situation is discussed on Y-chromosomal Aaron and should really be linked through there rather than the whole debate being rehashed over here. JFW | T@lk  21:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Edit to "who is a kohen"
The fact is that a kohen today is not simply anyone who is "recognized by his peers as such". Most people do not know about this psak (ruling) by Rabbi Moshe Feinstein. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein rules that a Kohen who "knows" that he is a Kohen from non-observant relatives or friends is not to be considered a Kohen. A logical extension of this ruling would be if his father knows that he is a kohen from non-religious relatives or friends. Additionally, he rules that an individual from a family of two generations of non-observance is not to be considered a Kohen. (Igrot Moshe Even Haezer 4 siman 39)
 * "recognized by his peers as such" is a small part of many factor's brought by poskim granting the status of "Muchzak". The Sdei Chemed is the one (that -in my hours of research- i found) to nicely bring all heavy opinions to this way and that -with ample explanation and respect given to all of them--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As the material has many inaccuracies and other issues, I've moved it here for further discussion: The status of Kohanim today is a matter of dispute. Some early rabbinic commentators (Rishonim) state that Kohanim remain bound by the Torah and various rabbinic laws while others say they do not. . Rabbi Moshe Feinstein do not automatically invalidate all Koahnim though nevertheless invalidate those Kohanim who come from two generations of non-observance or know that they are Kohanim from non-observant relatives or friends

For this reason, Rabbi Jacob Emden state that Kohanim are not entitled to the Pidyon Haben money, as taking such money could constitute theft. Thus, the Vilna Gaon would redeem himself from multiple Kohanim until he found a real Kohen with the last name of Rappaport. The Rappaport family is said to be a family of Ashkenazim who are Kohanim Meyuchasim. Additionally, according to many, all forms of monetary privileges granted to Kohanim are held back due to the lack of the Beit Din keeping tabs on Kohanic heritage; the Kohen therefore only receives non monetary honors, as to keep the Kehuna not attractive to Non-Kohanim Other authorities state in the Shulchan Aruch that many of the laws of Kohanim remain in effect to this day on various levels for various reasons. Much of the material is not sourced. The sources that do exist do not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:V and WP:RS: Can anything be saved from this mess? Jayjg (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Divrei Yatziv" by R' Y. Halberstam, E.H. 6 - this source means nothing in a general-purpose English-language encyclopedia.
 * http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735643/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/_Parshas_Korah_Yichus_of_Kohanim_Today - this is a video of a 52 minute lecture by Michael Taubes. There's no indication it is authoritative in any way, and it's not properly cited.

New Sources
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40932&st=&pgnum=105&hilite= ובעונותינו' מחני אריכות הגלות ונוירו׳ וגירושים נתנלנלן * והלזאי שלא יהא נתבלבל זרע קדש בתול ״' אנלזרע כהנים ולויס קרוב לודאי שנתכלנלן יי ואם לא כולו החבנתבלנל כמעשה ואליהו רל עס הלוים.הידוע מכרי י"ל ״י ואם לא הרוכ נוריאיקרונ למחצה נתנלנלו •־ ןאיכיניתי לילי הקלה שמאי יתןלנהן שאינו כהן *

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19989&st=&pgnum=44&hilite=

This rivash clearly says at the end of צד that kohanim are not kohanim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 05:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We need modern secondary sources that do not require expertise to interpret, and which are properly cited. You are citing 14th century primary sources. Please review WP:V carefully before proposing further edits. Jayjg (talk) 05:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The Igerot Moshe I posted was published in the 80's and Kohanim are also Leviem so you cannot say the genetics article did not include Kohaniim. additionally, others do not even post primary sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article on the genetics of Levites specifically excluded Kohens, and only included those people who identified as Levites and not as Kohens, so it was completely inappropriate for this article. Please recognize that, and do not restore it. The "Igrot Moshe" is not one of the sources you have brought to this talk page. If you continue editing in this way, you will undoubtedly get yourself blocked again. Please try discussing things with editors who actually know what material is appropriate for Wikipedia, rather than edit-warring in completely inappropriate stuff. Jayjg (talk) 05:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"Kohanim today (1500's) do not have the yichus which they had during the days of the Beit Hamikdash. Nor do Kohanim have today the yichus which they had after the destruction of the Beit Hamikdash during the times of the Tannaim and Amoraim. Due to our long exile, the Kohanim and Leviem have without a doubt become mixed up amongst the people. Our divorce'es have become mixed up amongst the people- and it should only be that the seed of the holy should not become mixed up with the seed of the secular. However, the seed of the Kohanim- if not all of them have become mixed up then most of them have become mixed up. If not most of them have become mixed up then half of them have become mixed up." see this Maharshal (The Maharshal, 1510-1573, was a (if not the) leading ashkenazic posek of his generation).

Here is the link to the Igerot Moshe

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14678&st=&pgnum=80&hilite= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Response from website "23andme" regarding Kohanim genetic testing

Hello,

We base our ancestry features and summaries on the most rigorously tested and up-to-date genetic research. Our ancestry specialists and consultants are experts in the field of both mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome ancestry analysis.

Upon the recommendation of these experts, we have refrained from including information on the Cohanim type because it does not yet meet our standards. There have been several conflicting reports since the original Cohanim paper was published in 1998, and we await further research before publishing such content to our customers.

If you'd like to learn more about the criticisms of the Cohanim hypothesis, we encourage you to read the following scientific paper:

Zoossman-Diskin, A. 2006. Ashkenazi levites' "Y modal haplotype" (LMH)-- an artificially created phenomenon? Homo. 2006;57(1):87-100.

Best Regards, The 23andMe Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 06:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally, here is a third source that cannot make it more clear that modern Kohanim are not Kohanim (the very end of siman ד).

http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40933&st=&pgnum=137&hilite= —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.97.251 (talk) 06:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, 23andMe does not constitute a reliable source, by Wikipedia standards, as previously explained, nor does your personal correspondence with them. Second, the sources you have brought are obscure as best, generally primary, improperly cited, and thus unsuitable for Wikipedia. For example, the Maharshal is a 16th century primary source. Third, you can't just plop links to complicated Hebrew legal texts on Talk: pages, and expect that they're appropriate responses or citations for Wikipedia. Fourth, please login and sign your posts. And finally, please discuss this rather than reverting. Jayjg (talk) 06:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The sources I quoted are old but are not obscure, are studied in every yeshiva and are available in new print for online purchase as well (http://www.eichlers.com/Product/seforim/pirushim_al_shas/yam-shel-shlomo-al-hashas-small-4-vol-_hs9916.html). The Igerot Moshe was a proper source as was the Akiva Eger. The information I provided does not even contradict what the halacha is in many cases (someone who claims he is a Kohen still receives the first alliya in shule). Rather, it states the reason why; we treat people who claim that they are Kohanim today as Kohanim NOT in order to fulfill the mitzvah of honoring a Kohen but rather to avoid arguments (darchei shalom). This fact also allows for the manipulation of the way Kohanim are treated when loss in involved (a Yisroel does not have to pay a Kohen the pidyon Haben money nor does a Kohen have to divorce his wife subsequent to discovering she is "prohibited" to him). To many people who visit this site- the "why" is just as if not more important to the "what". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an English-language, general-purpose encyclopedia, not a yeshiva. It has rules about what constitutes proper sourcing and proper citing. Have you read them? Please start by reviewing the full contents of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. This will explain what can be used as sources on Wikipedia, and how they must be used. Jayjg (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies of this Page
To all who are interested: I unfortunately can no longer devote my time towards disputing what I believe to be a manipulation and fabrication of the basic truths regarding the Kohen Wiki Page. Even if I could devote my time; this would most likely prove futile as I lack authority and numbers on Wikipedia. There are two users in particular who revert everything I post. They claim that only English sources are accepted, though Rabbi Moshe Feinstein specifically forbade anyone from translating his Igerot Moshe. I have sources from the Magen Avram and Rema on the Shulchan Aruch, The Rivash on siman צד, the Igerot Moshe on Even Haezer 4 siman 39, The Yam Shel Shlomo Bava Kama perek ה siman לה and Chulin perek ח siman ד, the Chelkas Mechokek E''H 2:1 Divrei Yatziv by R' Y. Halberstam E.H. 6 and "Yechaveh Da'at" by R' O. Yosef, V 61, the Gra and Yaakov Emden.

All I request is that there be some indication on a fitting part of this page that people today are treated as if they were Kohanim not because of a Torah commandment- but rather: in order not to cause arguments (darchei shalom). In addition I believe it is logical to assume that it is dishonest for one to quote the halachic opinion of the Rambam regarding Kohanim while at the same time entirely ignore his philosophical opinions about them. Lastly, the Gutnick Chumash in Devarim states that the role of the Kohen will be transfered to the Bechor when the third Beit Hamikdash is built; this too has been completely ignored simply because it comes from Chabad.

There are statements that are left on the orthodox section of this page that come from Reformed, Conservative and Hebrew sources. There are statements that are left on the orthodox section of this page that are not even sourced at all. There are statements that are left on the orthodox section of this page who's sole authority come from as little as one shule or one Rabbi. Yet, my sources which consist of the most authoritative people in Jewish history are deemed as being outdated, in the wrong language or not popular enough. For instance, I was told that I cannot use the Yam Shel Shlomo (which the Magen Avram in the Shulchan Aruch quotes) or the Rivash because they were too old, the Igerot Moshe because it was in a different language, the Gutnick Chumash because this is "only used by Chabad" and is not popular enough and a YU Rabbi because he is only one Rabbi. Yet, an article about the practice of one modern Rabbi in the middle of no-where who allows women to receive alliyas by having a minyan composed of entirely Kohanim and women- was permitted to be left on and was not deemed to be independent research.

To conclude; I can only assume that there are personal motivations by a large segment of the orthodox population to maintain whatever belief serves to benefit Kohanim while remove any information that serves as a detriment to them. There is a www.hebrewbooks.org link to all the sources mentioned above and more at the website www.kohen.webs.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

"this is not a yeshiva" was what I was told; yet every Jewish section of Wikipedia is like this. For example, see the wiki Kashrut page where the Yoreh Dea is cited over ten times, together with the "invalid hebrew Igerot Moshe" and The Guide for the Perplexed on the philosophical reasons for Kashrut. This was sometimes added by the very same people who removed my sources from the SAME BOOK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be placing a lot of undue emphasis on some ideas which you manage to support with scholary sources but without a reliable secondary source. For the purposes of this article, I suspect there is plenty of English-language material that could serve as the framework for most of the content. JFW | T@lk  22:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ventura is correct that today, most "benefits" of Kehuna are because of "darchei shalom" and some imes where there is minimizable monetary loss (terumah and chazeh v'shok, as oposed ot bechor, where the loss is not minimizable) we do not allow modern kohanim to demand these monies. The tamim noraim are coming up and I wont have much time, but I'll try to look at the mar'eh m'komos (sources) that Ventura brought; they should be acceptable secondary sources--albeit printed in Hebrew as opposed to online in English, but V specifically allows for this. -- Avi (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-English is fine, but I think we should be at least sticking to mid-20th century or later sources. Given the extremely large number of commentaries written explaining sources like the Shulchan Aruch, it's obvious that it's a complex primary source for Jewish law. I think even works like the Mishna Berurah qualify as complex primary sources. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, being that the Shulchan Aruch is a condensation of the Bais Yosef which is a commentary on the Arba Turim which was a response to the Mishna Torah, I'm not sure it's a primary source. That's Halakhic history for you; every generation will write commentary on the works of the previous. The Mishnah Berurah is certainly not a primary source, as I have always been taught was that the Chofetz Chaim did not do much innovation but based his rulings on the majority of prior rishonim and acharonim. I'm not sure I'll have time for a while, but there is certainly useful sourcing in what Ventura brings; I'll track it down eventually. -- Avi (talk) 04:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Avi, I hate to disagree with you, but they're all quite obviously primary sources of Jewish law. Even the Mishnah Berurah is a primary source; in fact, one of the main criticisms of it is the innovations in it, particularly in favoring written sources over minhag hamakom. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * May I quote:


 * If anything, the Mishnah Berurah is at best a secondary source, since almost all rulings are based on previous poskim (even when minhag hamakom went against accepted poskim, yes 8-) ). Even if for the sake of argument, we deem the Shulchan Aruch or Mishnah Berurah as a primary source, and I will be happy to take this to WT:OR and discuss this, they may still be used to cite prevailing halachic opinion as per WP:OR which states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."' Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of Hebrew can open up one of these texts and read the words to verify the statements. -- Avi (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

www.kohein.com provides much more information on this issue. Many other poskim are also of the opinion that Kohanim today do not have yichus. see: Magen Avraham 201:4. Y.D. 322 Taz 5 and Shach 9; Sh'elas Ya'avetz 155; Chazon Ish, Shvi'is 5:12. See also Rama O.C. 457:2 and Mishnah Berurah 22. "Divrei Yatziv" by R' Y. Halberstam, E.H. 6; "Yechaveh Da'at" by R' O. Yosef, V 61. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventura488 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ventura488 may be be biased with his view of the modern Kohen--חודר לעומר (talk) 20:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Kohen or Kohein?
May i suggest the title be changed to Kohein or Kohain? reason being that in Hebrew the vocalization (nekudah) on the "Hey" ("ה") is always a "Tzeireh" (the "ei" and/or "ay" sound) and never a "Segol" (the eh sound)Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And? It's dialectical.  Everyone else who knows the term, speaks English, and is not trained in Hebrew linguistics is going to say it's "Kohen", which makes it common usage.  That's like me saying "Yisrael" should be "Yisroel" because that's how the Ashkenazi Jews pronounce things in Yiddish, and that since Modern Hebrew is a constructed language, what it says doesn't apply.
 * I happen to be a trained Orton-Gillingham instructor, and while I generally don't use expertise to leverage arguments, in this case it means that I know the mechanics of why a sound does what it does, but it's not specialized knowledge - any reading teacher can do this. So let's talk about sounds and phonics:


 * In English we have four different constructions that generally make the /ay/ sound, and more if you want to get cute about loamwords. ai, ay, a-consonant-e, and an open syllable a (usually with a soft c or s like "erase") all make the sound you want (and I'll leave out "et" in "valet"). However, there are rules as to what comes before and after them as far as spelling is concerned.  "-ain" words (which fit your pattern) are like "brain, train, sprain, paint" etc., which need a consonant blend to come before it, or a "t" to come after it.  If there's an "h", it still generally can't be by itself unless it's going to use "ane" ("Hanes" is the only thing that comes to mind), and "Kohane" is just not going to fly, because then it doesn't fit the Hebrew if you try to go backwards (doesn't read as a final nun).


 * Also, "ei" generally does not say /ay/; it mainly says "e" as in "receive", which requires a soft c, and only says "ay" when followed by a gh, like "weigh, neigh, sleigh". So if we want "ay" we get "Koheighn" as a spelling, which isn't proper English because gh is only followed by t, which then changes the whole piece to "-ate" ("eight"), "ite" ("sleight"), or silent ("ought").  "Koheight" would therefore be "Kohate", "Kohite", or "cot", none of which are even remotely correct, and also don't read the final nun like it's supposed to be read.  Your choices violate the rules of both languages. MSJapan (talk) 22:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * to quote: "-ain" words (which fit your pattern) are like "brain, train, sprain, paint" etc., which need a consonant blend to come before it, or a "t" to come after it. If there's an "h", it still generally can't be by itself unless it's going to use "ane" ("Hanes" is the only thing that comes to mind).

what about Kohain (Kohen is -although used in modern hebrew, perhaps, not proper for encyclopedic knowledge), are there any other folks who would like to share their input?--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

"A Kohen (or Kohein, Hebrew כֹּהֵן, 'priest', pl. כוהנים, Kohanim) is a Jew who is in direct patrilineal descent from the Biblical Aaron."

This assumes that a Biblical Aaron actually existed. It also assumes that no Jew ever took the name Cohen without being directly descended from anyone. While some may believe this to be so - it cannot be stated as undisputed fact.

The Kohanim were priests. That's the ONLY undisputable fact regarding Kohanim - and it is only implied in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.57.113 (talk) 11:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Page name change
Propose change is to Kohain.

Reasoning: In Hebrew, the vocalization (nekudah) on the "Hey" ("ה") is a "Tzaireh" (the "ai" sound) and never a "Segol" (the eh sound). Gentleman, cast please your votes--108.21.120.5 (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please review the discussion immediately above this one. Jayjg (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion put an effective end to kohein, the proposed page name change is to Kohain, i.e. the proposed change is from the current Kohen to Kohain--24.189.57.29 (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Kohen" gets 2.6 million google hits. "Kohain" gets 38 thousand. Please review WP:COMMONNAME. Jayjg (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * and? are we to build on common error? if we agree the mechanics of the name change are correct, the spelling of the masses should follow suit--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't attempt to "correct" the "erroneous" spellings used by "the masses". WP:COMMONNAME is what guides Wikipedia's use of article titles. Jayjg (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedic articles should be accurate as much as us humans can strive for -I foresee change with the WP:COMMONNAME policy and with proper contemplation by Ernest contributors I hope sooner than later.--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

complete name change
By WP:COMMONNAME many of the names/spellings/refs in this article should be corrected.In ictu oculi (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * such as?--חודר לעומר (talk) 22:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello, Hadar l'Omar? Can I ask what your username means? "Piercing to Omar"? Mine means "in the blink of an eye."
 * The title for a start. It's appropriate to use a foreign language term where scholarly sources use the term, and there is certainly case for using the Hebrew term Kohen in relation to articles on the Kohen family genealogy. However academic sources use the same as the JPS Tanakh, "priest" when discussing the priests of the tabernacle and temples. See e.g. Jacob Neusner A Theological Commentary to the Midrash: Sifre to Numbers 2001 p56 "X:Vl "...and the priest shall take some of the dust that is on the floor of the tabernacle and put it into the water:" It should be sufficient dirt so that it can be discerned in the water (M. Sot 2:2G]. " for a standard example. There are others. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi "in the blink of an eye.", feel free to ask about my surname once you've got it's pronunciation correct ;-).

Are you suggesting that we change the page name to Priest or Jewish priest? if yes, that is not modern common usage. (see stats above and artscroll Tanach for starters)--חודר לעומר (talk) 19:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides the name of this article, which you discuss below, are you suggesting any other wording changes? Jayjg (talk) 21:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions (use English)
In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

--חודר לעומר (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * User חודר לעומר. But that evidently isn't the case here.
 * This is not a case of a "national variety of English" since the Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, scholarly works by Jewish University-tenured academics all use the same English terminology for "priest" "priesthood" as other English speakers.
 * When talking about the Kohen family/class in rabbinical Judaism, fine, yes clearly the title Kohen applies to a class in rabbinical Judaism who do not offer animal sacrifices in the Temple.
 * However when talking about the kohenim of Baal, the kohen Melchizedek, the kohenim of tabernacle, Solomon's Temple, Second Temple, no reliable mainstream source uses the Hebrew word in English language texts.
 * Is there any WP:RS reason why priesthood (Judaism) and Kohen have to be in the same article?
 * Further in Israeli publications and on he.wikipedia the Hebrew term כוהן is also used for Hindu etc. priests isn't it? So why here on en.wikipedia can we not use the same English word as Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, etc.? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Some non-English words gain significant currency and use in English. "Kohen", which gets 6.7 million Google hits and 137,000 Google Books hits, is one of those words. Jayjg (talk) 21:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, you're missing the point ...in regard to rabbinical kohen, yes. But not in regard to [Israelite priest] which gets 1,130,000. The Jewish Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Judaica, Jewish Publication Society Tanakh, do not use the word "kohen" for Aaron any more than the "kohenim" of Baal or Dagon. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems where all missing the point here. What, in other words, is your intention?--חודר לעומר (talk) 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello חודר לעומר. The intention I hope of all editors is to follow Naming conventions (use English) in regard to both priesthood (Ancient Israel), where the English word "priest" "priesthood" and English spellings "Aaron" "Moses" are used, and also regarding rabbinical Cohen families in WP:RS in English. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Rabbinical kohens" are descendants of Israelite priests - that's why they're called kohens. I don't understand your proposal. Jayjg (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My proposal is that Naming conventions (use English) is followed. This would mean the term "priest" is used for priests in the Tabernacle till Second Temple, "kohen" for rabbinical kohens. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have just made some edits following Naming conventions (use English). I have also moved section "High Priest" from rabbincial Judaism into Ancient Israel. And have taken out primary sources from footnotes into text where they occur, which I believe is normal practice where no secondary sources are cited. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The term "priest" (with dictionaries sourcing the word to mean "elder") is merely a loose translation of Kohen, and modern translations have by and large adopted that difference (this being in-line with Naming conventions (use English) as "Demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole"). Note too that a Kohen is qualified and may be young as well as old to be titled such -this being true from the times of Ahron up till today -whether they where in the Tabernacle till Second Temple era or the modern kohen. (I likewise do not agree with your making changes to the article prior to the completion of this discussion -I propose a revert.)--חודר לעומר (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello חודר לעומר - re "Demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole" please provide a mainstream English language printed source which uses terms such as "the kohenim of Ancient Israel," " or "the kohenim in the Maccabean era" etc. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello In ictu oculi, please define what you mean by "English language printed source"--חודר לעומר (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello חודר לעומר Please see Identifying reliable sources In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion to Merge Following in Existing Article
ON the SACERDOTAL FAMILY (Priests of Aaron’s lineage) In the Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 70b-72b) we find a dispute between the Sages regarding which Jewish communities in the Diaspora were considered the most pure and untainted by their line of descent and, especially, with respect to their observance of strict divorce and marital laws, making them fit for intermarriage with priests (Heb. Kohanim) of Aaron’s lineage. For example, if a priest of Aaron’s lineage were to marry a divorced woman, or even if he were to marry a Jewish woman who had intercourse with a non-Jewish male (which things are strictly prohibited by the Torah, in accordance with Lev. 21:7), the offspring born of such a unions would no longer be considered priests, but are rather deemed as profaned priests (Heb. Ḥallal), while the daughters of such a priest, and also his sons’ daughters, and the daughters of the sons of his sons, and so forth for all succeeding generations, would forever be forbidden to marry any priest of Aaron’s lineage, since their lineage has been tainted (see: Lev. 21:7, s.v., Ḥalelah = the daughter of a profaned priest).

The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 71a) designates those places wherein Jews resided erstwhile and who were considered highborn and of good family stocks in those places, by virtue of their ancestors’ adherence to these laws:

“Shemuel said in the name of an elder: ''‘Babylonia, [as far as its Jewish lineage is concerned], is generally assumed to be fit, and remains as such, until it is known unto you how it became tainted. The other countries, [as far as their Jewish lineage is concerned], are generally assumed to be tainted, and remain as such, until it is known unto you how [that particular country] was deemed fit. The land of Israel, [as far as its Jewish lineage is concerned], he that is held as being of tainted [lineage], he is tainted; he that is held as being of fit [lineage], he is fit.’''”

The Babylonian Talmud (Kiddushin 71b) explicates further about other Jewish communities in other lands, bringing down a parable to illustrate its point and making use of a “play on words,” with an element of truth behind those same words, by which it seeks to establish the status of these Jewish communities, as far as priests of Aaron’s lineage are concerned and who may wish to take a wife from those communities. There (ibid.), it says:

“Rav Pappa the elder said in the name of Rav (Abba Aricha): ‘Babylonia is healthy (i.e. its inhabitants are thought to be derived from an unimpaired stock. The relation between the word ‘Babylonia’ [Heb. babel] and ‘healthy’ [Heb. beri’ah] is that both words commence with the Hebrew character ‘bet’); Meshan (var. Meshah) is dead (i.e. a province to the immediate south of Babylonia, adjoining the Persian Gulf, and formerly known to the Romans as Charax spasini. The relation between the words ‘Meshah’ and ‘is dead’ [Heb. ‘methah’] is in the Hebrew characters ‘shin’ and ‘thau,’ which two letters are often interchanged in Hebrew and Aramaic words. The province known as ‘Meshah’ has been expounded in the parable to mean ‘methah’ = lit. ‘she has died’, although the real sense here is explained in the Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 43a, meaning, the priests there were not particular about whom they marry, many of whom having married even Jewish women who were divorced from their husbands, making their daughters prohibited unto all other priests); Media has taken ill (i.e. a ‘play on words,’ seeing that the Hebrew word for Media is ‘Madai,’ which same word rhymes with ‘dewai’ [Heb. דוי], meaning ‘illness’ or ‘affliction.’ The sense here is that a few Jewish priests in that vast territory have already married divorced Jewish women, although the majority of priests have not done so. Geographically, Media is a country to the east of Babylonia, with Hamadan as its metropolis, although the territory of Media stretched northwards as far as the city of Amadiya [Amedia], now in Iraqi Kurdistan); Elam is already dying (meaning, the Jewish priests living in those parts have mostly married those whom they were forbidden to marry, whereby the situation is nearly beyond repair, and soon it will be irreparable. Geographically, Elam was a large province in Persia, and which lay directly to the south of Media. One of its most famous cities was Shushan, or Susa, as it is called today). ''Now, what is the difference between those who are ill and those who are dying? Most of the ill will recover (lit. will live); most of the dying will, [indeed], die.”''

The same excerpt is brought down in the Jerusalem Talmud (Kiddushin 43a) and in the Midrash Rabba (Genesis Rabba 37: 8 [12]), with slight variations.

The Babylonian Talmud, having determined that Babylonia proper was considered a place of good Jewish family stock, it then proceeds to describe the boundaries of Babylonia proper, etc. Later, the Talmud (Kiddushin 72b) seems to retract all of the above, saying that that opinion belonged primarily to Rabbi Meir, and that his view was not accepted by the Sages. The Sages have said rather: “All countries, [as far as their Jewish lineage is concerned], are generally assumed to be fit.”

Notwithstanding, Rabbi Ishmael HaCohen Tanugi, Chief Rabbi of Egypt (16th century), has written in his book “Sefer Hazikaron” (chapter four of Tractate Kiddushin) – a condensed work on Halacha extracted from each of the Talmudic tractates:[1] “Ten family stocks came up from Babylon: Kohenae (i.e. priests of Aaron’s lineage), Levites, Israelites, profaned priests, proselytes, freed [Canaanite] slaves, bastards, ‘Nethins’ (i.e. Gibeonites that were given over to draw water and cut down trees for the Israelites), ‘Shetūqis’ (i.e. those who are unable to tell who their fathers were) and ‘Asūfis’ (i.e. those children who were initially abandoned by their parents, and were gathered in by Israel from the marketplaces, but who no longer know their fathers nor their mothers). Had there been a [Jewish] family where a doubtful condition of unfitness happened to be mixed in with them, it is not permitted to set them apart at a distance, seeing that they will be purified in the future. Nevertheless, let not a Kohen (i.e. a priest of Aaron’s lineage) take any one of them in marriage. A [male] bastard is permitted to marry a [female] proselyte, as also a [male] proselyte can marry a [female] bastard, insofar that the congregation of proselytes is not considered a congregation, although [in all such cases], the newborn child will be a bastard. Yet, this applies only up to the tenth generation, but had more [generations transpired than this], he has become so much assimilated [in the Jewish life] that no longer would he bear the name of proselyte, and they would then say, ‘an Israelite has taken in marriage a [female] bastard!’ Moreover, a proselyte and a profaned priest are permitted to marry a Koheneth (i.e. a female of the family of Aaron’s lineage), seeing that women of pure descent have not been cautioned against marrying those who are unfit. …. All who would disqualify others do so with the very same malady with which they themselves are plagued! But he who hears his reproach and holds his peace, it is a sign that he is of noble birth. The ‘Asūfi’ is a doubtful case, inasmuch as he may be a bastard. As long as he is in the marketplace, his father and mother are faithful in what concerns his status. The moment he has been gathered in from the marketplace, they are no longer faithful in what concerns his status, although in the years of famine [when small children are wont to leave their families] they are still faithful. A midwife is faithful to say that this [child] is a Kohen, or this [child] is a Levite, or this [child] is a ‘Nethin,’ or this [child] is a bastard. However, if such claims are met with contradiction, even if it happened to be only one, she is not faithful. All those unto whom have arisen cases of doubt as to their status they are prohibited to marry each another, meaning, lest perhaps one of them happens to be fit [as far his Jewish lineage is concerned]. …A profaned priest (Heb. Ḥallal) who married an Israelite woman, his daughter is invalid for marriage unto the priesthood forever. However, an Israelite man who married the daughter of a profaned priest (Heb. Ḥalelah), or a man who brings back his divorced wife, when his daughter marries, she is fit for the priesthood.”

NOTES: [1] Ishmael HaCohen Tanugi, Sefer Hazikaron, London 1974. This book was first printed in 1555. Davidbena (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Azoulai
I was told that the name "Azoulai" is common even among non-Kohanim and non-Jews, and therefore probably does not stand for "ishah zonah vahalalah lo yikahu." I don't know where to verify this. Can someone please try to confirm this, and, if so, either delete the reference to Azoulai or make a note of the false belief? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.193.108 (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I was told by my mentor that Rabbi Chaim Joseph David Azulai (1724-1806) denied vehemently this tradition, but, still, I have heard Moroccan Jews of this surname mention the same tradition that they are descended from a "Chalal" priest (Profaned priest) who married a woman prohibited unto them in Jewish Law. There is another family from Djerba, Tunisia, the "Hadad family" who are also alleged to have formerly been priests (kohenim), but who are today "Chalal," the descendants of a profaned priest. Davidbena (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Kohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127130257/http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/goodman_marriageconvert.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/goodman_marriageconvert.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20101127130736/http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/goodman_marriagedivorcee.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/goodman_marriagedivorcee.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090320162257/http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/rabinowitz_women.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19912000/rabinowitz_women.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150703034017/http://rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/roth_daughtersaliyot.pdf to http://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/teshuvot/docs/19861990/roth_daughtersaliyot.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kohen < - > Rabbi
Hi,

as a know-nothinger ... I see in the page lead a contrasting to Rabbinic tradition, and Rabbinic is linked; but I miss a link to "Rabbi" to clarify the difference, if it would. Clicking on to "Rabbinic", there is also no link to "Rabbi" in the lead.

I know it's not harder than to type "Rabbi" in the search field, but ... as a service?

T 88.89.219.147 (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120831114327/http://www.hir.org/women.html to http://www.hir.org/women.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209230313/http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html to http://www.familytreedna.com/nature97385.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090118061402/http://www.lind.org.il/features/bnotkohanim_v24.htm to http://www.lind.org.il/features/bnotKohanim_v24.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)