Talk:Kohen

Initial version

Way too much detail. Way too little modern scholarship. I will get to it when I get back. As for the title, why not something in English--priest or Jewish priesthood come to mind. Danny

Absolutely! This data dump from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopaedia is a mere beginning. I already have trimmed out about 25% of the original text, as well as many of the detailed references that would be useless to the average Wikipedia reader. But much (much!) more work needs to be done. The article, as it stands, is only the framework for the much better article that will evolve over the next few weeks here. RK

I have made more changes and addition. I have added a proposed new structure for the entry. Any comments or suggestions? I have also added some material in these sections, and have tried to convey the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform points of view. The original material is still below, which can be used as the source for new writing, but we shoudl try to rely on more modern writing and scholarship. RK 09:57 Aug 18, 2002 (PDT)

I'm not sure I agree with the last edit. The topic is about priests and Ezra, apparently, was giving a bit on the history of the legend. Whether it's 'conflicting' would seem very much a matter of which synagogue you attend, doesn't it? --dgd

Actually, no. The point wasn't that the legends conflict, though they do. The problem was the presentation of legend as historical fact, which it is not. With the very existence of certain biblical figures questioned by most scholars (and this includes figures such as Abraham, Melchizedek, Jacob, and Esau, all mentioned here as historical personages), the presentation of external mythologies as fact is certainly neither a historically sound nor an NPOV position. Besides, even internally within the relevant religious literature, these positions can be challenged. Essentially, what it amounted to was a particular fundamentalist interpretation of texts, and not even a very sound one at that. Danny

Even for somebody who is not prepared to accept the Torah as divine, the historical accuracy of the Torah has not been seriously questioned. Any questions about its accuracy are pure conjecture. Therefore treating the Torah as an accurate account of the past is perfectly legitimate. In addition, I have very little knowledge of biblical criticism and do not consider it my responsibility to have that knowledge. If you wish to question the accuracy of the Torah it is your responsibility to come up with some basis.

insertion here/ Danny beat me to the edit...

How much historical fact can you have with a religion that has 'always' been in contention with itself and the world around it? How many legends are there? How many different conflicting stories? At what point do the traditions/legends/mythology harmonize? I ask this because, though I'm not a biblical scholar, I can appreciate the value of reading different translations (read: interpretaions) of the same text. Or set up a Kohen: Priest Legend One/ Kohen: Priest Legend Two eventually the legends will run out and then you'll be able to work on the 'globals' that you can agree upon. --dgd

Do you state that as fact? Please tell me you are kidding. It has been questioned, challenged, disproven. The Bible is not a historical document. Period. Treating the Bible as an accurate account of the past is in no way legitimate. It is not a question of criticism. It is a question of history and archeology. Where would you like me to begin? On the other hand, if you want to assert that a 2,500 year old religious text is historically accurate, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies with you. Danny

Begin wherever you like and back it up with proofs that I can check for myself. I can only tell you what I was taught, and I was taught to assume that the Torah is literally true unless I know differently, and even then to not be so sure. You obviously come from a very different background. EW

Danny, I have to agree with Ezra here. Just who are you and what are your qualifications here? While it is a fact that the Bible has been "questioned" and "challenged", it has never, NEVER been disproven. On the contrary, both archeology and an examination of contemporary, non-Jewish, texts (ie: Egyptian, Sumerian, Greek and Roman histories, etc.) have verified the existence of the places and people mentioned as well as confirmed many of the actions ascribed to them. Most of the historical information in the Bible is accepted by an overwhelming majority of scholars in all fields as being reliably accurate. Period.

If you have knowledge of any instance where the history portayed in the Bible has been authoritatively disproven as you say, please list it here, in specific detail, with proofs, and refrain from making such ridiculously broad and obviously uninformed statements. William

P.S. I cannot refute that there are some Jews who consider that Jesus was pious because, then you will tell me that you do. I only know that the primary source for somebody who might be Jesus is a story that was censored out of the Talmud that talks about Rabbi Yehoshua ben Perachya pushed away his student who some say was Jesus with both hands when he should have pushed him away with only one hand. That does not sound to me like a pious person.

Danny: I have replaced the page as it was before. Feel free to mark up what I have put there with your point of view.

---

Ezra, you are starting by making an assumption about what I believe then tearing it down. You'd be better off investing your energies elsewhere, because your assumption is incorrect. I never use the word pious to describe anyone. Furthermore, it is not my job here to teach you ancient Near Eastern history, Semitic languages, and whatnot. You might want to look at some basic books on the subject of who wrote the Bible. Also, aggadata is just that: aggadata. It should not be taken for history. Finally, you have no idea about my background, so please cut the yeshivishe speculation to a minimum. In the meanwhile, I will be wary of any assertions you make based on some uniformed literalist reading of the Bible, Talmud, etc. Danny

Children of kohen and convert

"Any children born of the union are legitimate." (Referring to a union of a Kohen with a female convert)

If by "legitimate" you mean "Kohen," the article should say so. I think the child is legitimate in the sense that he is not mamzer, but he still is not a legitimate Kohen. To be sure, I need to consult my Orthodox Rabbi. - Nahum 02:05 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Cohen as surname

A question I feel that this article should answer:

Is a person with the last name of "Cohen" (or a variant I've encountered like "Kohen" or "Coen") necessarily one of the Kohenim? If not, how did this title lose some of its meaning to allow this measure of looseness? -- llywrch 00:52, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

By no means does the Cohen name correllate fully with Cohen-ship. For example, if a Cohen marries out his son is a non-Cohen non-Jew, while his last name is Cohen. Moreover, if this Cohen now converts to Judaism, he will be a non-Cohen Cohen, i.e. he will receive none of the Cohen privileges (such as getting called up first for the Torah reading) but he will be called Cohen! There are many more examples, accounting for the many people called Cohen who are not. On the other hand, many Cohanim have adopted different names (Cowan comes to mind), especially after moving countries. Jfdwolff 20:48, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Whatever Danny's beliefs about the Bible and "modern scholarship", I would recommend him to take a less contrarian look at the historicity of the Bible. Some books of it may seem more historical than others. Specifically, the books of Ezra and Nehemia are as historical as you can get for any book. They are essentially personal autobiographies of the people in question, detailing the things that they have done during the time of the rebuilding of the Second Temple. Mind you, that Temple really was rebuilt, and really under those same Persian rulers mentioned in the Bible. No matter how militantly opposed you may be to the Christian or Jewish faith, ignoring historical evidence that happens to be in the Bible offhand is too POV. Btw, our best sources on let's say, history of Israel after seventh century and the Assyrian invasions also come directly from the Bible and are accepted by majority of scholars. In fact, what you read in the history textbook about it is just rephrased First and Second Kings and Isaiah/Jeremiah with a modicum of modern archeological research which is as usual far inferior in the quality of info yielded to the actual contemporary written sources, which just happen to have been canonized by the Jews. And I would bet that if Ezra, let's say, were not part of the canon, being just a historical writing like that of Thucydides, you would not have been nearly as critical of it. So keep an open mind, do some Bible research, and stop making too sweeping statements. Peace. Watcher 12:41, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

About the details part. I faintly recall that "Wikipedia is not paper". The more details we will incorporate, the easier it will be to do research on the topic, whether on the topic of modern scholarship or on the topic of Jewish law. So why such reluctance to incorporate such details? It is always possible to put them into additional articles linked from the page. The same, of course, is true for the modern scholarship also. Watcher 12:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know if Kasdan/Kasdin/Kasden derives its origins from the same kaf-shin-daled-nun acronym that gives us Kagedan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.35.84.36 (talk) 17:50, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sacerdoti

Sacerdoti, from Sacerdos, is a native Latin word and has nothing to do with Kohen. 71.116.217.242 19:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Check my work for factual accuracy

I just merged two mutually redundant subsections into "Post-Temple Theology and Practice", but since I am not a Judaic theologian the result needs checking for currency and factual accuracy. I did try to keep the basic information the same and only alter the literary presentation, but I can't be certain of the result. DocWatson42 04:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Did a fairly major reworking of the the formatting, though not of the content in the (sub)sections. Hopefully this is more in line with the Manual of Style.  :-/ DocWatson42 05:20, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Move of the 1906 material

I have moved the material from the 1906 Jewish encyclopedia to Kohen/1906, where it can be consulted for incorporation. The main article looked messy, prohibitive to edit, and perhaps this makes it better. Of course the 1906 material needs to be merged (for example, the Kohen Gadol, High Priest, is not covered now), and other research needs to be done. There are some factual mistakes (Terumah rarely given to Kohanim nowadays due to uncertainty of their status) and some repitition (Melchizedek is mentioned twice). I've done some further copyedit, but this article still needs a fair bit of attention before it approaches being truly encyclopedic... JFW | T@lk 14:32, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kohen Gadol article

I think we should put all the high priest stuff in a separate article, called Kohen Gadol (capitalize because it's a title of a job). We could place a redirect at High Priest, but let's use the Hebrew term to be consistant with this article and becuase the Jews don't like the non Jewish names. HereToHelp 22:49, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nah, we just need to improve this article. It contains a lot of old speculative material from 1906. JFW | T@lk 04:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I Agree with HereToHelp, particular's of the Kohen Gadol should be moved to that page.Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hands

The picture of the hands appears wrong - the thumb should be out (not touching the index finger). It's possible the hands pictured are in the corect position and the angle is simply not condusive to showing this fact, but either way I feel that a new picture is probably in order.

Yes, the photo of the hands is wrong. The thumbs should be outstretched and touching to form three spaces to symolize the hebrew letter shin. --Marty Goldberg 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

The hands are wrong but should not be touching in any case. --Shuki 14:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that I really look at it, this is really all wrong. It's as if the photgrapher held his palms face up with arms crossed to try to get the same effect, but unfortunately, doesn't come close. Another picture should be found, not the previous grey version either.

--Shuki 22:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Spelling: Kohen or Cohen

Why is the primary spelling Kohen? --Shuki 14:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

In general you will find that when referring to the last name then Cohen will be used but when referring to the status then Kohen is used. This article is about the status not the last name. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Tomer^talk 21:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree. JFW | T@lk 03:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep. -- Olve 03:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be changed to Cohen, because the Hebrew spelling of Cohen, both the status and the name, starts with the letter Kaf (כ), which is equivalent to C in English, and not with the letter Qoph (ק), which is equivalent to K in English.

Just my 2 cents.

Actually, Kaf (כ) is equivalent to K, even though, in modern Hebrew print, it looks like a backwards C. Look at the sequence of the Aleph-Bet: . . . Yod (I/J), Kaf (K), Lamed (L), Mem (M), . . . .

Qoph (ק) is equivalent to the letter Q. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree with Josh-Levin@ieee.org, Kohen should be with a K. reason being that C can -in English- be used for the S sound (serviCe for example), whereas K is exclusive to the K sound, as is Kohen is Hebrew (i.e. it is not found to be pronounced "Sohen").Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Sorry, the new intro just does not seem 'clean'. The rest of the article itself has still yet to be cleaned up, adding this part does not contribute to that effort. I don't want to nitpick on each word of the intro, it should be entirely be written. --Shuki 22:44, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I jumped the gun. I am in the process of rewriting the whole article, which looks like a tremendous research effort. I'll revert back to the original version until I input all my changes. Yoninah 12:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest letting it out little by little.--Shuki 12:45, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite

I just did a total reorganization and partial rewrite on the material to make it more informative and accessible. You will see a number of blanks that need to be filled in by those in-the-know (or by me, when I can complete the research). Don't worry—I didn't dump all that Biblical/historical stuff, but will put it into a new article called Kohen Gadol, which lends itself much better to all the detail about the inauguration ceremony, priestly garments, history of the office through the Destruction of the Second Temple, and critical scholarship. Yoninah 00:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to DRosenbach for filling in the blanks and adding good detail. I don't understand, however, why you un-capitalized "Kohen" and "Levi," as they are capitalized in other Wikipedia articles and do refer to a specific status within Judaism. I also don't understand why you incorporated the Vulcan salute into an explanation of how the Kohen holds his hands. This detail is already listed under the "Trivia" subhead at the bottom. Explaining the Priestly Blessing by referring to a modern TV show seems too folksy, if not blasphemous, to me. Yoninah 13:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Kohens and rabbis

Are Kohens permitted to be rabbis? If so, do they tend to become rabbis more or less often than other Jews? --04:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Kohanim (plural of kohen) are permitted to become rabbis. I have never seen a study of whether they become rabbis at a disproportionate rate to any other segment of the Jewish population, but from personal experience I would doubt it. --Bachrach44 06:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

If a fellow applying for a pulpit position is a Kohen, however, he must inform the congregation of this fact before they hire him, because he won't be able to perform funerals (other than those of his immediate relatives)! So those congregations with a Kohen rabbi have to have an assistant rabbi, layperson, or someone else officiate at funerals -- not a huge deal, but something that does need to be addressed.

kudos to Yoninah for doing his homework with "the head of an international kohanim organization in America and Israel". one Q though; who is that head?(i've got a question or two for him myself :-) )Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 16:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

From my experience, in literally every yeshiva I have been to the Kohanim have been in the lower level groups. My theory is that they think they have to work less than others.

and which yeshiva's are those?, since i've been to yeshiva (In israel) and seen the total opposite :-)--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 22:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Possible typo in Hosea reference

At the end of the first paragraph under Synagogue aliyah, the quotation is attributed to Hosea 14:3. Using the King James version of the free Bible software from BibleOcean.com, the quote appears to be from Hosea 14:2 instead of 14:3. Is there some other version of Hosea with different numbering of verses?

It's definitely 14:3. See [1] --Shirahadasha 17:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Aaronites merge discussion

My understanding is there is a Biblical criticism theory that there were two groups of priests in a political/religious conflict, followers of Moses at Shiloah and Aaron at Jerusalem, and they each wrote different parts of the Torah. Only in such a context would there be any difference. --Shirahadasha 21:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support merger. Mathmo ^Talk 07:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC) (perhaps when and if the other article because larger it could be separate)
• Support merge. Let's absorb it into the article and then talk about Aaronic and Mosaic priests within the Kohen article.Valley2city 22:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
• Merge or delete/redirect Aaronites article. No point having Aaronites as a separate article, particularly given the article's content. Imagine a Wikipedia article titled Jesusites containing nothong but a few cryptic references to a small ancient sect. The present Aaronites article creates a similar impression of obscurantism about what's actually an important subject both in the Bible and in present-day traditional Judaism. I'd simply delete given the current content; the article seems to have chosen the least relevant and informative Biblical quotes from virtually any point of view. --Shirahadasha 00:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Additional disqualifications

Arent Kohanim(plural Kohen) who are born to a woman who is a divorcee, or a harlot, considered "Chalal" and therefore not qualified for service? As well, a Kohen who is a child of an illict union, is a Mamzer, and not fit for service( not sure if he is not even a Cohen) Also, a Cohen who marries someone he is not allowed to (i.e. a divorcee) isnt he not allowed to serve in the Temple? I didnt edit this in myself because I dont have the best skills at prose, and I have no citations. As well, being new to wikipedia, I want to learn the rules before I edit articles.

There are a couple of distinctions here. A child of a marriage forbidden to a Kohen is not a mamzer, and out-of-wedlock birth doesn't affect Kohen status. Also, if a Kohen has a child from a suitable partner (whether after or concurrently with a forbidden one), children from the suitable relationship are considered full-fledged Kohanim. However, children from the illicit one remain Challel, and they and their descendents aren't full-fledged Kohanim forever. If he ends the not-suitable-for-a-Kohen relationship, he regains Kohen priveleges. My understanding is that, while in theory the label "Chalal Kohen" could apply to male descendents for all time, in practice the label doesn't actually stick. Children or grandchildren pretty quickly call themselves and become regarded as Levites, which is de facto what they are, and it's a much more dignified label/ The "Chalal" label doesn't follow them for very long. But there may be communities in which this isn't so. --Shirahadasha 21:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i didnt read the article properly. it does include what i said, but since it was under the topic "ritual defilement" i didnt process it properly. however, now my question is: is that the proper place to talk about who is and who is not a Kohen? shouldnt it have more than a passing mention?

Perhaps it deserves more content. As an FYI, the Haredi organization www.cohen-levi.org has a list of restrictions that includes a stricture not mentioned in the article, a Cohen cannot marry a women who has been held hostage, which it describes as a rabbinic rather than a biblical prohibition. See [2] Also, it says that the children of a Chalal Kohen "are no longer regarded as Kohenim", suggesting that the practice of simply being regarded as a Levi may have firmer grounding. --Shirahadasha 02:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

yes, the hostage is considered "illegal" for the Kohen, but since this is based on the assumption that she has been raped (or rather the strong possibility), it should not be listed seperately, but rather as a part of the zonah requirment. I think this is only if she was held captive by non-jews. Also, saying that a "Chalal Kohen is no longer a Kohen" only implies that he is therefore a "levi" if you assume that a "normal" Kohen is both a Levi and a Kohen. This is certainly not a simply assumption. either way, i remember a rashi saying that a Chalal is considered a "yisrael" although, since I dont remember where the fact that I "claim" to remember doesnt have much credence, now does it?

Physicians

I had been taught at study camp that if a Kohen wishes to become a physician, which involves transgressing the prohibitions involving dead bodies, then such a man is relieved of his Kohanitic duties so that he can perform the Mitzvah of piku'ach nefesh (Hebrew: פיקוח נפש) "guarding of life". However, this does not affect the Kohanitic status of his sons. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Lineage of priests in the Torah

Calling MalchiTzedek a "Kohen" as well as refering to what Easu sold to Jacob as the priesthood we are refering to in this article, contradicts the earlier statement in the intro that a Kohen is a descendant of Aaron. Either we should qualify that *now* and *within the context of Judaism* a Kohen is only defined as such, but that before that line started they were as well, Or we should consider saying that MalchiTzedek was not a Kohen, rather merely a priest. What I mean is that we should say that the term Kohen as used in this article is talking about not the Hebrew word for priest, rather the Jewish caste of priests. I dont know if this would require another article, but since (logically) it would, the first option would be a better one. If anyone has a different suggestion, thats a different story, but nonetheless as the article stands there is a contradiction in it. As well, if we are going to include MalchiTzedek, should we not include Yisro who was "Kohen Midyan" or a *Kohen* of Midian?

The word "Kohen" can also mean a priest in general, not just Aaron and his male-line descendants, and it should always be apparent from the context as to what "Kohen" means. Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Y-chromosome haplogroup of a cohen?

To which haplogroup do cohenim belong that "confirms" a shared common ancestry among cohenim? This should be in the article. 67.5.156.53 03:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

j1 Mewoone (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

List of famous Kohens

Would it be worthwhile to provide a list of notable Kohens? From the Jewish Bible we could list Aaron, Pinchas (Phinehas), Ezra, and maybe the most notable of the many High Priests. From the Christian Bible we can add John the Baptist. How about from later Jewish history? Even New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia was descended from Kohanim, but certainly was not a Kohen himself -- he wasn't even Jewish! Josh-Levin@ieee.org (talk) 00:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

bible verse

The reference to Numbers 31:11-12 says absolutely Nothing about Phineas! Why is it in here? Perhaps that's something derived from somewhere other than the Torah?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.97.101 (talk)

thank you for pointed that out, I have correct it. Jon513 10:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

marriage rules

A child of a Jewish mother and non-Jewish father, while halakhically Jewish, is prohibited from marrying a kohen, by rabbinic law....this ios not universal and only according to some opinions-I will edit to reflect this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.222.9 (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi! I've tagged this material with a citation request. Do you have a source? Minority opinions and other matters that are not necessarily common knowledge to people who know something about the subject need to be verified. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Ritual Defilement

In the Ritual Defilement section it states, "A male kohen may not marry a divorcee, a prostitute, a convert, or a dishonored woman ( Leviticus 21:7). Any kohen who enters into such a marriage loses his priestly status while in that marriage. The kohen is not allowed to "choose to forgo his status" and marry a woman prohibited to him (Leviticus 21:6-7)."

From the link to Leviticus cited, "⁶ They shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God; for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, the bread of their God, they do offer; therefore they shall be holy. ⁷They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband; for he is holy unto his God." I have compared this to two copies of the Torah, and neither version has anything here about converts, or forgoing status. The Torah is very explicit about the rules for the sons of Aaron, but there is nothing about not marrying a Jew, convert or not, nor a gentile at all, with the exception of the High Priest who must marry a "virgin of his own kin." (Lev. 21:14)

Can someone explain why there are rules attributed to Leviticus 21:6-7 that don't exist? I am new here, so I wanted to ask before I get my scissors out. :) Gotmywaderson (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi! In Judiasm, these Biblical rules are interpreted in the light of Rabbinic interpretations. Much the way the U.S. Supreme Court sometimes interprets phrases in the U.S. constitution to have meanings that an outsider casually reading the Constitution might find surprising, Rabbinic law over centuries has judicially interpreted the Biblical phrases (in their original Hebrew) to have meanings different from what an outsider reader reading a translation might perceive. Much as an article on U.S. law would generally refer to the constitution through the lens of the court system's judicial interpretaion, an article on Judiasm generally refers to the Bible through the lens of the classic Rabbinic interpretation. --24.91.183.35 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

wow, i like the way you worded that (in ref. to above talk)--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:37, 16 July 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'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'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'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)

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 Agree and good point, -it should be capitalized in all instancesMarecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 18:07, 7 June 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 Judaism|Orthodox]] and, to a lesser extent, in [[Conservative Judaism|Conservative]] Jewish communities. According other Rabbinic authorities, such as the [[Nissim of Gerona|the Ran]], [[Isaac ben Sheshet|Rivash]], [[Samuel de Medina|Maharashdam]], [[Jacob Emden]] and to a certain extent the [[Vilna Gaon]], [[Ovadia Yoseph]] and others- Kohanim, with the exception of the [[Rappaport|Rappaport family]], no longer retain a distinct status or yichus (pedigree) and are not deserving of privileges.<ref>"Rivash" 15</ref> <ref>"Divrei Yatziv" by R' Y. Halberstam, E.H. 6;</ref> <ref>Maharashdam in Ibn Ezra sןman רלג</ref> 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. <ref> "Yechaveh Da'at" by R' O. Yosef, V 61. </ref> 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.<ref>http://chabadtalk.com/forum/attachment.php3?attachmentid=555&d=1093750082</ref> <ref>http://chabadtalk.com/forum/attachment.php3?attachmentid=554&d=1093750075</ref> <ref>http://chabadtalk.com/forum/showthread.php3?t=3627</ref>

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'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'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#The responsa of Rabbi Yitzchok Ben Sheshet, for accurate opinion of the Rivash. Overall good job to all the folks who undid ventura's wild spree of melee :-)--Marecheth Ho'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'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'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'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:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16427053 refers to a study of Levites, not Kohens, so it's irrelevant here.
2. https://www.23andme.com/ is not a reliable source, and the link merely points to the website's homepage anyway.
3. 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'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. <ref>"Divrei Yatziv" by R' Y. Halberstam, E.H. 6</ref><ref>; "Divrei Yatziv" by R' Y. Halberstam, E.H. 6</ref>. 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<ref>Igrot Moshe Even Haezer 4 siman 39</ref> 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|Rappaport family]] is said to be a family of [[Ashkenazim]] who are Kohanim Meyuchasim{{Citation needed|date=August 2010}}. 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<ref>http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/735643/Rabbi_Michael_Taubes/_Parshas_Korah_Yichus_of_Kohanim_Today</ref> 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:

• "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.

Can anything be saved from this mess? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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)