≡ Menu

Speed dating for kohanim

Just got a facebook spam message for a speed dating event for kohanim and eligible women. Here are some sample dates.

Date 1

Girl: Hi, I just wanted to tell you that I’m one of the few BT’s who has been certified kohen eligible by the star-K.

Kohen: How can you be a BT if you’re kohen eligible? It’s impossible, everyone knows that, especially if you went to public school.

Girl: I take offense to that, just because I wasn’t always frum doesn’t mean I had sex with non-Jews.

Kohen: Wait a second, the promoters told me that everyone here was not a zona.

Date 2

Kohan: Are you a virgin?

Girl: Isn’t that a bit untznius?

Kohen: This entire event is untznius, I bet you there are non-kohen’s here just looking for fresh goods, many frum guys don;t want sloppy seconds and having a publicly defined kohen eligible event implies that all girls in attendance are clean and have never touched another man.

Girl: I thought the law stated that you couldn’t sleep with a non-Jew, the biblical commandment states nothing about shomer negiah.

Kohen: NEXT!

Date 3

Kohen: How are you?

Girl: Good, but I don’t talk to boys.

Kohen: Wanna get married?

Girl: Nods yes!

{ 73 comments… add one }
  • Just Saying December 7, 2010, 10:13 AM

    I don’t know who to pity more : the Kohen or the BT.

    Everyone seems to be obsessed with a woman’s purity that no one will question the man’s reputation. Suppose if it were the other way around. What if the Kohen were a BT and had slept with his non jewish girlfriend in the past? What becomes of his status?

    • Rivka December 7, 2010, 10:34 AM

      @Just Saying, nothing, a man can have more than one wife, no halachic problem.

      • Geoff December 7, 2010, 10:46 AM

        Not a non-jewish wife. But either way, there is no worry of any eishes ish, and so there would be no halachic consequence, yes.

        • A. Nuran December 7, 2010, 12:35 PM

          How about nice fresh captive right after you rape her and murder her family?

          • Geoff December 7, 2010, 12:45 PM

            Pretty much the same, as far as the man’s future marriage eligibility is concerned, I believe, which is to say that he will have no problems.

            I presume your point is that the entire system does not seem ethically grounded in the first place. While I know at least one position of the apologetics on this particular halacha I’ll spare you and just admit that your point is very difficult to rebut in a completely satisfactory way.

            • Mahla December 7, 2010, 1:25 PM

              Geoff, please explain the position of apologetics on this! I’m curious. :^)

              • Geoff December 7, 2010, 1:36 PM

                I think it’s something I heard from the venerable Rabbi A. Scroll, shlit”a. The idea is that war, taking of captives, and so on was inevitable, and even in some cases commanded, and that the captors would be unable to avoid taking advantage of those who were captured. This was the status quo before the giving of the Torah. The Torah regulated such situations for the protection of the captive, and these are the halachos to which A. Nuran was referring. The captor is limited in how often and how soon he may the captive, how he must allow her to mourn, he is eventually required either to marry her or set her free, and she has the right to refuse marriage. Thus the Torah represented a refining of values that was sufficiently close to the status quo that it would be accepted and put into practice. Israel then proceeded over the centuries to end various practices of this sort voluntarily, thereby earning even greater merit, yadda, yadda and they all lived happily ever after.

                • A. Nuran December 7, 2010, 4:04 PM

                  I understand and appreciate your explanation. Thank you for it. Personal experience with rape crisis work, abuse victim extractions and traumatized friends makes it difficult to accept.

                  • Geoff December 7, 2010, 4:18 PM

                    Glad I could help(?) I’m not suggesting that you, or anyone else, SHOULD accept this explanation, I’m just noting that it’s been made.

                    You’ve reminded me of how Levi and Shimon reacted to Shechem, and I think their attitude is probably is a lot easier to understand, even if similarly disturbing. The two situations (massacre at Shechem vs. shifchah charufah) seem eerily similar, excepting that the roles are reversed. If there is a lesson there, perhaps the lesson was, the Torah will allow you to have this captive, but if you do, just remember that someone might be more likely to come and try to massacre your village later.

                    • Geoff December 7, 2010, 4:38 PM

                      Oops, brainfreeze. Obviously I meant yefet toar (beautiful captive), not shifchah charufah (betrothed slavewoman).

                    • Yankel December 7, 2010, 5:46 PM

                      By the way, the meforshim tell us that during war-time, the non-Jewish women would dress themselves up and try to attract the enemy soldiers, hoping to engage them and live.

                      Rape? I never saw any source which allows this. It is forbidden for one to have relations with his own wife if she does not consent. It may not be considered “Adultery” per se, but that doesn’t make it permitted.

                      The section of “Yifas Toar” simply states that a soldier is permitted to marry a woman who he finds in battle.

                    • Geoff December 7, 2010, 6:00 PM

                      I was certain that the meforshim (at least some of the main ones) interpreted the verse to mean that the captor was permitted to force himself onto the captive woman precisely once, and then there was the 30-day period of mourning for her family, etc., but she didn’t get to refuse, at least not in the early stages. (Still haven’t found the source, sorry.)

                    • Yankel December 7, 2010, 6:14 PM

                      I never heard of “Force”.

                      I am aware of the first initial relations, which we have every reason to believe is with her consent.

                      We see clearly that the moment he chooses to have any relationship with her, her status rises from “captive” to “woman”. Following the relations, he can no longer take her as a slave.

                      It is therefore probable, that the laws of how he must treat her are somewhat similar to those of a regular wife.

                      Hence – no raping.

                    • A. Nuran December 7, 2010, 9:49 PM

                      Yankel, if you believe that one tell me the one about Goldilocks and the Three Bears. You’ve obviously never been in a real fight. And neither had the spinmasters who came up with that.

                    • Yankel December 8, 2010, 12:40 AM


                      The Torah doesn’t say anything about rape or relations when he first finds her. From the words of the Torah itself one would actually think relations are forbidden until she comes home with him, and goes through the 30 day mourning period.

                      The way we know the details of these laws, is through the Talmud and it’s commentators. They tell us about the laws of the initial relations, about her status, about how he is obligated to treat her, about what wartime was like, the way these soldiers were received, and the likely consequences of marrying such a woman.

                      I find it very interesting how you pick and choose what to believe of what they said, based on your drive to denounce G-d’s Torah. I just hope you realize how this looks from the outside.

                      I can’t figure out what in the world would give a Jew such irrational bias against his own G-d and people.

                    • Daniel December 8, 2010, 1:19 PM

                      You notice the torah allows marrying a yefas toar, which you find abhorrent, assuming it means rape.
                      When someone suggests it does not mean rape, you say that’s not what happens in battles.

                      That doesn’t add up. Are you basing your criticism on what the torah says, or are you assuming the torah was violated and then just criticizing based on speculation?

                • Yoreh K'chetz (aka Phil) December 7, 2010, 4:18 PM


                  I hardly call Israel’s situation today living “happily ever after”.

                  Just maybe, if they decided to get the politically correct stupidity out of their heads that are up their @sses and treat their enemies the way they would treat us if they had the upper hand, they would gain the respect/fear of the neighboring countries and the rest of the world.

                  I’m not advocating the Israeli army going out on a rape campaign, but some seek and destroy would be nice.

                  • Yankel December 7, 2010, 5:49 PM

                    I don’t think it’s political correctness. That’s mainly the US’s craziness. For Israel it’s more of a “We don’t want to piss off the world and get a war started, because we might all get killed” – mentality.

                    • anon December 9, 2010, 6:58 AM

                      Disagree. In Israel people genuinely care about the other side’s civilians.

                • Mahla December 7, 2010, 4:41 PM

                  Geoff, thank you much for explaining that.

          • \epsilon \neq T December 8, 2010, 1:20 AM

            I don’t understand your problem A. Nuran.

            In all wars soldiers rape and pillage. Jews are no different, in war they rape and pillage. Jews are just like non-Jews, just like the king of Sparta said to the delegates of the Peloponnesian League – all people are the same. But, the Torah, with this idea of yefat toar, is trying to deter a Jewish soldier from rape by giving in a little. Let me explain.

            If the Torah would say rape is absolutely forbidden in war, the soldiers would disregard the Torah in the desire of the moment and commit rape. But if the Torah says that the rape is allowed, provided that you wait a little bit and follow some rituals, the soldiers would be more inclined to listen and wait. Hopefully, the soldier would loose interest by then.

            So the intention of the Bible is to delay the act in an effort to completely prevent it. I believe this is the opinion of the rabbis when they say ‘the Torah was speaking to a man’s material desires’ -‘lo dibbrah Torah ella ke’neged yetzer harah’

            Also, if you read the rabbis works and Bible commentators in the next sections of the Bible, specifically the parts about inheritance and the wayward son, you will understand that they did not look favourably on soldiers who took a yefat toar.

    • Yoreh K'chetz (aka Phil) December 7, 2010, 11:25 AM

      Just Saying,

      If a kohen does a non Jewish woman, I believe he get’s demoted to Chalal status or something like that.

      • Geoff December 7, 2010, 11:35 AM

        I don’t think that’s correct. No time to look it up properly right now, but see, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohanic_disqualifications
        which notes that a Kohen temporarily loses status upon MARRYING someone forbidden (ed. note: arayos don’t count in some cases because kiddushin is impossible), but regains status upon leaving the prohibited marriage.

        IIRC, challalim can result as the offspring of such a marriage (see some random mishnah in the back of Gittin), but not from a non Jewish woman (offspring not Jewish, and if offspring convert they are pure Israel. Neat trick–forbidden, of course, but effective–for removing mamzerus, btw).

        • Meir December 7, 2010, 3:12 PM

          I believe the correct terminology used by the Star-K for such BTs is “acceptable for Cohanim”;

          In order to be “certified Cohen-eligible”, you have to have been supervised by frum rabbonim through the entire process, which is obviously impossible for a BT.

          i.e., such a BT is in the same category as a Miller Light; acceptable, but not certified (and I specifically chose Miller Light because it’s also not desirable)

      • Dr. Shrink December 7, 2010, 1:14 PM

        I believe you mean that the child, if born from such a union, looses kohain status

        • Dr. Shrink December 7, 2010, 1:16 PM

          Otherwise, how do kohain bt’s still get the kohain Aliyah? I know of a few and never heard of such an issue.

        • Geoff December 7, 2010, 1:17 PM

          Hm. Looks like my comment to this was caught by a filter. Not sure why. However I did say that marrying someone can cause a temporary loss of status to the Kohen, which may be regained on divorce, and that these rules would not apply with a non-jew because halachic marriage does not take effect.

  • Just Saying December 7, 2010, 12:18 PM

    Thanks for the clarifications y’all.

    So let me get this straight. A Kohen can marry a non vrigin as long as her previous lover was Jewish,no? If that’s the case, then why can’t he marry a divorcee?

    • Leftover Cholent December 7, 2010, 12:30 PM

      I’m no poseik, but I think the reason is because the Kohen cannot be tainted, just as the karbonos (sacrifices) that he offers to Hashem must be untainted. So to maintain the purity of his lineage Kohanim are kept to stricter marriage standards than other Jews. This even pertains to his own wife once he has divorced her.

      • Yankel December 8, 2010, 12:45 AM

        A kohein cannot simply marry anyone who ‘didn’t have relations with a non-Jew’. Even relations with a Jew can be problematic.

        The reason a kohein can’t marry a divorcee is because it is a straight out law in the Torah.

        We can attempt to find nice explanations, but the true reasons for the mitzvos will never be known to us.

    • Geoff December 7, 2010, 12:33 PM

      I think that’s right, and assuming so, that’s an excellent question. I don’t have the exact answer, but the two cases definitely are distinguishable under halacha. In the one case the woman committed a forbidden act, namely premarital relations, from which sure presumably has repented (i.e., BT). In the other case, she is a divorcee, and has the halachic status of a gerusha, one who was “sent away.” Because it is not a sin to be given a bill of divorce, she cannot “repent” from this status, and it will stay with her. That doesn’t answer the question as to why the difference if the previous man was jewish or not. I would have thought that the jew would be more problematic, because they could have meant to become married by force of their act, in which case she would need a get, which could not be true with a non-jew.

      • Synapse December 7, 2010, 12:40 PM

        Relations don’t automatically create a marriage alone, although it is possible to do it that way so they’re not necessarily the same thing.

    • Synapse December 7, 2010, 12:38 PM

      A Kohen is ruled in the Torah to not be able to marry a divorcee. Pick your reason, but I assume, like LC mentioned, that a divorcee has a halachic blemish that would be problematic for the Kohen. A Kohen can marry a widow, so her being married before is not necessarily the issue. It doesn’t give a reason in the Torah so it’s all just guesswork. A Jewish girl who has relations with a non-Jew is halachically considered in the category of Zonah, which the Kohen is forbidden to marry.

    • Anonymous December 8, 2010, 12:44 AM

      They 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.
      -Leviticus 21,7
      (JPS translation)
      Note that it says ‘woman put away from her husband’ which is the JPS translation for divorced

    • Daniel December 8, 2010, 1:26 PM

      Because the pasuk says, “v’isha grush mei’ishah lo yikachu”.
      “And a woman who is divorced from her husband they may not take.”

      (We learn our from the words “from her husband”, that even if he gives her a get which says you are divorced from me and not permitted to anyone- which is not a valid get- she is already assur to a kohen.
      The alternative drasha which is rejected is that she is not assur if a man who is not her husband hands her a get. While it is true that does not make her assur, the first drasha is the better one.)

  • Leftover Cholent December 7, 2010, 12:19 PM

    The Kohens shouldn’t complain… what a charmed life they will lead. Single girls should be begging to be rhed a guy with Kohen status.

    • Heshy Fried December 7, 2010, 1:19 PM

      Not really considering all the Kohanim I know are pimps – it’s a biblical double standard

      • Leftover Cholent December 7, 2010, 2:24 PM

        Too true. I never said that they don’t have their cake and eat it too.

  • Mahla December 7, 2010, 12:54 PM

    :^O !!! Every time I think I’ve read it all on Frum Satire, I am proven wrong.

    • Mahla December 7, 2010, 12:56 PM

      Also, the Facebook link is not working, which is a pity, as I was dying to take a look at this spam, LOL.

  • anon December 7, 2010, 2:35 PM

    Isn’t part of the reason a kohen can’t marry a divorcee or a widow is because he may desire a married woman and when he is doing the avoda he may pray for the death of her husband. This is a bit sketchy, but it’s something along these lines.

    • Geoff December 7, 2010, 2:41 PM

      I’m sure I’ve heard something like that, but as was pointed out above, a kohen CAN marry a widow, so it sounds sketchy.

      • Geoff December 7, 2010, 2:42 PM

        Maybe that argument only applies to the Kohen Gadol, who cannot marry a widow.

    • \epsilon \neq T December 8, 2010, 12:57 AM

      Have any of you people ever read the Bible?

      The Bible says that a kohen can’t marry a divorcee (Leviticus 21,7- I quoted the JPS translation above). So a kohen can’t marry a divorcee because it says so. The Bible doesn’t give a reason, it rarely gives reasons. And if you take it to be the word of God it doesn’t need to give reasons. On the other hand, if you don’t think it is the word of God why bother?

      In general, it is commendable to try to understand the message that God means to convey. So that is why Jews search for reasons for mitzvoth. But if your reason is some crap that you heard from your local mendy, just say the reason is unknown to us mortals.

      Please stop this mutilation of the Bible, Anon!!!

      • Geoff December 8, 2010, 7:46 AM

        Lifted from torah.org, probably what anon was remembering:

        On Yom Kippur, the Kohen Gadol mentions the (normally) unmentionable Holy Name of G-d while standing in the Kodesh HaKodoshim [Holy of Holies]. If, during one of the ten times that the Kohen Gadol mentions the explicit Name of G-d on Yom Kippur, he has in mind a certain individual that he does not like, then that person will die during the coming year.

        The Daas Zekeinim is suggesting that at this spiritually charged time, when the Kohen Gadol mentions the Holy Name of G-d on behalf of the entire Jewish nation, he might have in mind that he wants to marry a certain (already) married woman. Implicitly, he would be hoping that her (current) husband will die so that he might marry her.

  • Tevy December 7, 2010, 4:31 PM

    This post would make such an awesome Xtranormal video.
    (btw those videos are too funny!)

    • Heshy Fried December 8, 2010, 3:24 AM

      I’m sick of em

      • Yankel December 8, 2010, 5:21 PM

        No way man, you can’t be!
        You said it would be 25 videos before you got bored!

  • OfftheDwannaB December 7, 2010, 10:26 PM

    Number 3 ftw!

  • Tamar S December 7, 2010, 10:58 PM

    Totally off topic, but just so you know there is an ad for Papa John’s Double Bacon Six Cheese Pizza showing up on my ads for this page. (A large is only $11!) Somehow I think this is the wrong target audience…. 😉

    • Yankel December 8, 2010, 12:49 AM

      You’d be surprised. Hesh says the majority on frumsatire is not frum.

      • Heshy Fried December 8, 2010, 3:26 AM

        Actually the majority claim to be orthodox, but the non-orthodox population seems to be right around 35%

    • Heshy Fried December 8, 2010, 3:25 AM

      That’s awesome!!!!

  • Daniel December 8, 2010, 1:37 PM

    I don’t know why G-d said they can’t marry a divorcee (or prostitute.)

    In any event though, here is a thought.
    The gemara in chullin says that for everything which is prohibited to us, there is a permitted substitute.

    It list that the substitute for pig is some fish called shibuta.
    The substitute for milk and meat is eating the udders.
    The substitute for eating blood is eating liver.

    The substitute for having a married woman is having a divorcee. Now, that means that there is a desire besides for the regular desire for women, to specifically have someone else’s wife!
    And, that the desire is in some way met by having a divorcee.
    It could be this is what the torah does not want a kohen to have.

    I should add that the substitute for a brother’s wife is that you can marry her if he dies with no kids, and the substitute for a wife’s sister is you can marry her after your wife dies.
    Apparently, there is a desire for a brother’s wife and a wife’s sister.

Leave a Comment