From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Judaism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Religion (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.


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 (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)

Suggestion to Merge Following in Existing Article[edit]

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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Kohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Kohen < - > Rabbi[edit]

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