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.

complete name change[edit]

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)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English)[edit]

The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources

In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If (as will happen occasionally) something else is demonstrably more common in reliable sources for English as a whole, and this is not a question of national varieties of English, use that instead

--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 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources In ictu oculi (talk) 00:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


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.

N Archived sources still need to be checked

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