Talk:Twenty-four priestly gifts

Page move proposed
There are 73 hits for "twenty-four priestly gifts" vs 6 hits for "twenty-four kohanic gifts" on Google books. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC) And then Naming conventions (use English) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC) + noting that one of these English sources may have a list of all 24 in English...
 * Naming conventions (use English)
 * Naming conventions (Hebrew)
 * 10 days later.... no comment, and given that the existing title is wrong anyway with "the", and given that Google books has 73 vs 6 for "twenty-four priestly gifts" I'm just going to go ahead and move. Anyone who wants to move to twenty-four kohanic gifts despite WP:EN and despite 6 vs 73 Google books, please follow WP procedure and please do a formal page move proposal. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I was incorrect to say this - if a move is made without a RM, even one 73 v 6 in Google Books there's no reason it can't be reverted by WP:BRD. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert to "kohanic" gifts but without "the" 22 December

 * I have just noticed the below page move and edit summary.
 * (cur | prev) 21:49, 22 December 2011‎ PiMaster3 (talk | contribs)‎ m (6,841 bytes) (moved Twenty-four priestly gifts to Twenty-four kohanic gifts: "priest" is not an adequate translation of "Kohen") (undo)
 * Okay, I understand that this is part of a consensus by 3 or 4 users who evidently very strongly feel that what PiMaster3 above refers to as "Yeshivish" should be applied to WP:TITLE instead of WP:UE in certain articles, plus, specifically, as edit summary above that the common English use of "priest" or the adjective "priestly" to refer to priests in Ancient Israel (whether kohen of Yahweh or kohen of Dagon, Baal etc) should not be used on en.Wikipedia. I am not going to be the one person to stand up for WP:UE in this case. However should any subsequent editors come along who share my concerns about WP:TITLE etc. not being followed here then please notice that WP:RM was not followed in the above despite 12 Sept check of 6 vs 73 Google books, and 12 Sept 2011 request "please follow WP procedure and please do a formal page move proposal." In ictu oculi (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * in octu back in da house..he'll be back again soon..--Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Marecheth Ho&#39;eElohuth, I can sympathize with your difficulties with English, and the conviction that "priestly" is Christian, but not with meaningless comment like the above. If you have access to an English-language library you can check the shelves and will find that there's no question that English language WP:RS use the following: 305 hits in Google Books, "twenty-four kohanic gifts" only gets 8, 4 of which are mirrors of your article creation here on Wikipedia. Best regards In ictu oculi (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The Gutnick Edition Chumash - Book of Numbers: With Rashi's commentary ed. Chaim Miller - 2005 Page 145 "the Torah gave him twenty-four priestly gifts as an everlasting... "
 * Jacob Neusner The Comparative Hermeneutics of Rabbinic Judaism Page 144 2000 TOSEFTA HALLAH 2:7 A. Twenty-four priestly gifts belong to Aaron and to his descendants according to a general statement [viz., Num. l8:8] and a specific enumeration [viz., Num. l8:9-l8] and the covenant of salt [viz. Num., l8:l9]."
 * Heshey Zelcer A guide to the Jerusalem Talmud 2002 Page 77 "Did you not benefit from the twenty-four priestly gifts?” 151 And they will answer, “They did not give us anything."
 * Hindy Najman, Judith Hood Newman The idea of biblical interpretation: essays in honor of James L. Kugel 2004 Page 271 reprint Lawrence H. Schiffman Qumran and Jerusalem: studies in the Dead Sea scrolls and the history of Judaism 2010 Page 248"Behind this lies the wider concept that there is a covenant with the sons of Aaron bestowing upon them eternal priesthood. This passage speaks of the twenty-four priestly gifts as having been given to Aaron and his sons through a ..."
 * Jacob Neusner ''Dual discourse, single Judaism: the category-formations of the Halakhah and the Aggadah Defined, Compared, and Contrasted 2001 Page 33 "6:9: One who performs any of the commandments must recite a benediction over them T. Hallah 2:7 Twenty-four priestly gifts belong to Aaron and to his descendants according to a general statement [viz., Num."
 * Moshe Lichtman Eretz Yisrael in the Parshah: The Centrality of the Land of Israel 2006 Page 272 "There are twenty-four priestly gifts in total, all of which are at least alluded to in our parashah. Only five of these gifts are applicable outside the Holy Land (see Rambam, Bikurim l:3ff). In addition to the priestly gifts, ..."
 * Michael Katz (Rabbi), Gershon Schwartz Searching for meaning in Midrash: lessons for everyday living 2002 Page 163 "Twenty-four priestly gifts were presented to the Kohanim — twelve in the Temple and twelve throughout the borders. Unlike the other tribes, the priestly tribe, or Kohanim, was to receive no land; it was to serve in the Temple ..."
 * Baḥya ben Joseph ibn Paḳuda Duties of the heart 1970 Page 263 "... corresponding to the twenty-four special benefits (Ie, the twenty-four priestly gifts), which the Creator has bestowed upon the Priests. Analogously, whomever God distinguishes from all others by means of some special favor must, ..."
 * Bernard Grossfeld The Targum Onqelos to Leviticus and the Targum Onqelos to Numbers 1988 Page 121 ""'I am your portion and your inheritance' — Twenty-four priestly gifts did they give to the priests, twelve in the Temple and twelve in the border towns (ie, outside Jerusalem)." Cf. similarly Deut. 18:2 where the Targum renders ..."
 * etc.

8 months later
Well, it popped up on my watchlist again. I must say it still jars. This "twenty-four kohanic gifts" basically has 1x source, Nosson Scherman's Artscroll Mishnah, although that pops up on GB in 6x different forms, which means it is a neologism. Wheras "twenty-four priestly gifts" has 135x sources from a wide range of high-quality and diverse Jewish sources, - admittedly some of those are also duplicates, scholars having their papers republished, so the actual number is nearer 80x. Or 0x vs 6x in Google Scholar.In ictu oculi (talk) 01:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Modern non-practice
Seemed appropriate to add this reference. As it stood the article read as if gifts of meat were still mainstream practice. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 19 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. No objections, valid reasoning. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Twenty-four kohanic gifts → Twenty-four priestly gifts – Naming conventions (use English) and the policy to use the most common terminology. After checking with Google Scholar, it is clear that Twenty-four priestly gifts is by far the best title pursuant to Wikipedia policy. Kohanic only had one hit. The term "priestly gifts" is used by numerous academic reliable sources (and Jewish POV sources, too). Search here twenty-four "priestly gifts" includes Flatto, Fox, Zahavy, Chernick, Mortensen, Neusner, Ostrer, Labovitz, Schiffman, Visotzky, Schwartz. See also books and G-books search cited above by another editor. Thanks! ProfGray (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:UE Red Slash 20:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per using real English. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Not practised due to there not being a temple"
this is innacurate. The whole controversy over people claiming kohenic descent is partually because jews were still being religiously obligated to give priestly gifts to them.

"it is common amongst the masses to say to the kohen "bring a proof that you are a kohen and take (the twenty-four kohanic gifts)".. this is a mistake, since the Kohen and Levi are established by Chazaka.. regarding his tith (that is) proper to give him since we are required to give it to avoid theft of their tribe (Gezel HaShevet), ..additionally.. we say.. all families (of Israel) have the Chazaka of being kosher (as legitimately Jewish).. and the Kohen.. is established with his Chazaka (to be a legitimate Kohen).. we give the gift of the foreleg cheeks and abomasum to the Kohen and we do not require him to produce proof of his linieage."129.234.0.166 (talk) 15:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)