Talk:Prohibition of Kohen defilement by the dead

Tzaddik

This article has a section called "Tzaddik" in which the connection with "tzaddikim" is not explained. Debresser (talk) 23:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

will get to it bez"h, thanks for corrections.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 21:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:EN+WP:IRS

What is the correct English term for this subject in RS - both in regards to priests in Ancient Israel and modern Judaism? It evidently won't be "defilement to the dead"? So what is it? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd consider merging this into Kohen, after determining to best English term. Debresser (talk) 07:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. However there appears to be support for a better name. Once one is decided on, either move the article or renominate. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Prohibition of Kohen defilement to the dead → priestly defilement by contact with dead bodies – no he.wikipedia source for this one but the "to the dead" gives away translation, and possibly Google Translate. Same editor again, difficult to locate the correct English term in WP:RS, but at least a better temporary placeholder than the current ungrammatical and non WP:EN title.... Think this is almost the last one. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppose. Previous title is better because 1. it includes the main point, which is that this is a biblical prohibition 2. it makes clear that it applies to kohanim, not to e.g. christian priest. Debresser (talk) 15:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually Marecheth's HoElohuth's title as it stands says "to the dead", grammatically it is the dead that would be defiled by contact with the priest. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Also oppose per pending Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#User:In_ictu_oculi.27s_edits. Debresser (talk) 11:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose and agree with Debresser. Otherwise it sounds totally wishy-washy. WP is not here to invent new things, it is here to name and explain things as they are. IZAK (talk) 18:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The current translation has it backwards. It implies that the dead are being defiled by the priest. "Kohen" should be translated as "priest". If you called it "defilement", prohibition is implied. I suggest, Priestly defilement by the dead. It loses some exactness compared to the proposed title, but it is less awkward. Kauffner (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Per Google Books

"defilement by the dead" 3,480 hits - most of them relevant

"defilement to the dead" 3 hits, - only 1 relevant.

In ictu oculi (talk) 13:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing "to" to "by". But strongly oppose changing "Kohen" to "priest", and also oppose removing the word "prohibition". Debresser (talk) 13:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I also have no problem changing "the dead" to "dead bodies". After all, the prohibition includes not only human bodies, but cadavers of animals as well. Debresser (talk) 13:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Priest is too broad a term that can also apply to other religions. This article specifically discusses Kohanim. --PiMaster3 ^talk 20:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title could possibly do with improvement, but we should definitely retain kohen rather than priest as this is a specifically Jewish concept. PatGallacher (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Here are 15 translations of the relevant verse in parallel, and here is a lexicon entry. Pretty much everyone is translating כֹּהֵן/kohen as "priest". Kauffner (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

While that is technically the literal translation, in common usage you very rarely hear people use the term 'priest' when referring to Kohanim. Using the term priest would cause unnecessary confusion where some people might think the article would be referring to a rabbi or a Catholic priest or some other situation that has nothing to do with the article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 02:14, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Joseph's father-in-law was an Egyptian kohen (Genesis 41:45). You can also be a kohen of Baal (2 Kings 11:18). So the Biblical meaning of the word is simply "priest". Who are the descendants of Aaron? There are 204 post-1990 Google Book results that say "kohen", 3,150 that give them as "priests". Even in a Jewish context, usage is split down the middle. For most English-language writers on this subject, this is the Old Testament. Catholics aren't confused. Catholic Encyclopedia says Ezekiel was a "priest." There is no mention of "kohen" in his article. Kauffner (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

In English, the term Kohen is always used to refer to the Jewish priestly group that is descended from Aaron. --PiMaster3 ^talk 04:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Completely correct. Debresser (talk) 06:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PiMaster3 that "kohain" is an icon name for the jewish priest. Other uses for the term in the Torah are minor and outnumbered.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

This site has over 30 translations. Only two use 'kohen'. Someone mentioned possible confusion with a Catholic priest, so here is Douay-Rheims: Let not a priest incur an uncleanness at the death of his citizens. Kauffner (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• REname but not as nom. The nom does not indicate that this is a Jewish issue. Suggest Defilement of Jewish priests by contact with the dead or Defilement of the Kohanim by contact with the dead. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Based on In Ictu's poor presentation (cherry picking?) of sources supporting his attempted move of B'rov am hadrat melech (see the move request on the discussion page), I recommend that his presentation of sources here be taken with a grain of salt until someone else has had the time to check the sources independently with Google Book Search. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current page name is far better than proposed suggested name change.--Marecheth Ho'eElohuth (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Post-RM discussion

This title is just nonsense the way it is. Surely it needs to be moved somewhere. Prohibition of kohen contact with the dead, or perhaps Commandment against priestly contact with the dead ? Kauffner (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I boldly changed "to" to "by", because all seem to agree at least on that change. I propose to change "the dead" to "dead bodies". Are all in agreement that that would be a slight improvement? Debresser (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. It would be a clearer title so people would know it has to do with dead bodies and not something else such as ghosts. --PiMaster3 ^talk 01:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

ohel picture

Image depiction of minimal four tefach requirement at pathway entry to ohel

Debressor removed some of my recent edits on basis of "this seems to be a factual disagreement" and what I've written "unlikely to be true". where is the disagreement on the four tefach requirement? what is not true about what I've written? to say, lets quote yoreh deah 371:5

It is ossur (for a kohen) to come within four amot of a dead (person) or a kever, when does this apply? when the kever is not quarantined with partitions high 10 tefachim. But, if it is quarantined with partitions (that are) high ten tefachim..there is no need to distance from it (the dead person or kever) only four tefachim.

— shulchan aruch yoreh deah

--HappyEyes90 (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

My disagreement is with your claim that this requirement is not met when going to the ohel. This was not the opinion of the text before your change, and I find it hard to believe that it would not be true. So unless you were to show me a source, or a picture showing it not to be true, I will have to restore the previous text as de facto consensus. Debresser (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

This information was in the prior versions of the [ohel article], changes where done by Yoninah who then moved the paragraph here. In any case, these measurement are simply not ample, a kohen cannot visit the ohel w/o defying the shulchan aruch measurements based on this logic; assuming the breadth of a kohen adult at 26 inches (at his hands when walking normally -and this is a conservative measurement) and the halacha requiring 13+ inches (again a conservative figure) on either side, we need 53+ inches between tombstones along the entire fenced walkway (and a lot more where there isn't fencing) -are you telling us these measurements are there? --HappyEyes90 (talk) 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me that this was in the text previously. Btw, please note that on Wikipedia it is considered bad taste to re-revert to your own edit until the discussion has ended, see wp:brd. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

measurement

At least from going out of the ohel house (where information desk is located), it really does look to be too narrow to fit those measurements of 53+ in. but its hard to tell, s/o should go out there and get exact measurement for the kohanim at the narrowest point from tombstone to tombstone along that pathway

pathway measurement less than adequate for kohen to pass

— Preceding unsigned comment added by FrenkelP42 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Original Research

Regardless of factuality, the fact that the Chabad Ohel might fall afoul of Halacha needs to be suggested *elsewhere* before quoting it here. You can perhaps use http://www.hebrewbooks.org/48424 p 230 onwards; but the picture still constitutes original research. Cockneyite (talk) 23:23, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Chabad Ohel

The whole section should probably be removed. The references are to generic halachot, and it seems that someone is prosecuting a personal polemic on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cockneyite (talk • contribs) 23:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Why would you say that, "personal polemic"? And why would you call it a polemic? Debresser (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Tefachim vs. Tefahim

@Debresser:, shalom. Depending on which article, I do not normally have any problems or difficulties with English transliterations of Hebrew words, whether a Hebrew word like טפחים (which means "handbreadths") is spelled "tefachim" or "ṭefaḥim". Both are correct, as far as English is concerned. We ought to remember too that the subject matter here is not something that pertains strictly to the Ashkenazi Jewish community, or to the Yemenite and Sephardic community, but to all Jewish communities. That said, I have noticed a trend in academic writings where they make use of the newer phonetic system for transliteration used in Semitic languages, that of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (German Oriental Society), where they make use of š for ש, and ḥ for ח, and ṭ for ט, and ṣ for צ, and which same letters have their equivalents in Arabic writings. Of course, these letters are used for more technical writings. The advantage of using this system is that the phonetic sounds of the letters are universally recognized for what they are, and do not lend to confusion in pronunciation. In this article, however, either way is fine. Davidbena (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Indeed, as you say, this is not the place for such writing. By the way, according to WP:HEBREW it should probably be "tefakhim". Debresser (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, since טפחים is written with a "ḥet" it should not be written as "tefakhim," since "kh" is reserved for the Hebrew "kaf" / "khaf" (כ). This is clear from WP:HEBREW. The proper use for the Hebrew ח is either "ch" or "ḥ", as stated earlier. In fact, there would be nothing wrong with using the "ḥ" in some cases here on Wikipedia, just as we find its use in the Soncino edition of the Hebrew-English edition of the Babylonian Talmud, translated by Dr. H. Freedman under the editorship of Dr. I. Epstein, and just as it is used extensively in Encyclopaedia Judaica. Just to show you a few examples, you may wish to see Tractate Shabbath (in the Soncino edition), where "R. Ḥisda" is written with "Ḥ" (100b), just as we find there "Naḥman" (not "Nachman"), and R. Ḥiyya (98a) and R. Joḥanan (100a), and R. Aḥa (instead of R. "Acha"), as well as many, many more names spelt in this way. It would be too time-consuming to show you how the Encyclopaedia Judaica (published by Keter Publishing House, Jerusalem 1971) also makes use of this spelling system (e.g. "Minḥat kena'ot"), on p. 146 in vol. 2, under the entry Abraham ben Isaac of Montpellier, or ḥaṭṭaʾt, the transliteration of the Hebrew word חטאת (= "sin-offering") (see p. 766 in vol. 2, s.v. Altar). Shabbat shalom. Davidbena (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed my mistake. Debresser (talk) 16:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

The modern Kohen is challenged by US airline regulations

It is a bit awkward to use "challenged" in this context. It is not good English under any interpretation; I surmise this was written by a non-native speaker who assumed that when X faces challenging condition in Y, then Y must be "challenging" X. Not so; these are in fact different senses of the word. Moreover, the present phrasing suggests that airlines are deliberately defying or provoking conflict with Jewish law. It is doubtful that this is the case. Airlines permit late boarding of corpses because needs must and the bereaved deserve a little compassion (even in the eyes of the Lord, who we are asked to imagine to be more worried about the prospect of an unsuspecting Kohen boarding the same aerial conveyance). It would be a bit different in the case of El Al, which one imagines to be run by good folk quite alive to the myriad challenges faced by Kohens and their overriding concern for their own non-defilement. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:517B:E2B9:C6C4:DBB7 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)