In doing family research trying to locate someone who was
adopted in 1960's or 1970's are those records public information?
Is it too recent?

thanks
Jacqueline Lerner-Aderman
Tigard, OR

MODERATOR NOTE: The variety of adoption laws has been discussed many
times. A search for "adoption" and related terms should bring some
threads up in the archives at
http://data.jewishgen.org/ViewMate/ALL/index.asp
and the most recent messages may be had by sending an e-mail to
listserv@lyris.jewishgen.org
with a message body reading:
get jewishgen 20050518-20050602
or whatever other date range you think is appropriate.

In doing family research trying to locate someone who was
adopted in 1960's or 1970's are those records public information?
Is it too recent?

thanks
Jacqueline Lerner-Aderman
Tigard, OR

MODERATOR NOTE: The variety of adoption laws has been discussed many
times. A search for "adoption" and related terms should bring some
threads up in the archives at
http://data.jewishgen.org/ViewMate/ALL/index.asp
and the most recent messages may be had by sending an e-mail to
listserv@lyris.jewishgen.org
with a message body reading:
get jewishgen 20050518-20050602
or whatever other date range you think is appropriate.

Hello To All Researchers:

I have posted 2 photos, front and back but only three show up. The
numbers are VM6214-16. I am seeking english translation of all the
writing on the back of each photo. I also would love any information on
the photo Vm6215. I would love to know where and when it was taken. The
photos' are >from my grandfathers side of the family. They are most
likely his siblings.

His family name is Fajkes/Faikes. I believe they all migrated from
poland to argentina sometime between the 1920's-1930's. My grandfather
Milton/Michal Faikes, his mother reva and sister rose were the only
ones who came to america as far as I know. Any and all information is
greatly appreciated.

Sarah Greenberg
sacredsisters3@aol.com

MODERATOR NOTE: The photos are posted at
http://data.jewishgen.org/ViewMate/ALL/index.asp

Hello To All Researchers:

I have posted 2 photos, front and back but only three show up. The
numbers are VM6214-16. I am seeking english translation of all the
writing on the back of each photo. I also would love any information on
the photo Vm6215. I would love to know where and when it was taken. The
photos' are >from my grandfathers side of the family. They are most
likely his siblings.

His family name is Fajkes/Faikes. I believe they all migrated from
poland to argentina sometime between the 1920's-1930's. My grandfather
Milton/Michal Faikes, his mother reva and sister rose were the only
ones who came to america as far as I know. Any and all information is
greatly appreciated.

Sarah Greenberg
sacredsisters3@aol.com

MODERATOR NOTE: The photos are posted at
http://data.jewishgen.org/ViewMate/ALL/index.asp

I received an OA-C790 >from the SSA, stating this was the only record
available. It's not a very good copy and I'm hopeful someone can tell me
what the data blocks are and maybe even some of the codes:

District Office: New York 27 NY
Code: 117
??: 03/21/66
Type ??: Ret
?? Number: L 19226C
Account Number: --un--
Name of A/N Holder: Jacobowitz, Ida
Sex: F
Date of Birth: 00 00 93
??: Blank
Date of Application: 03 07 66
Type Claim: L
Remarks: MI Y MRN PROJECT 2
Identifying information--account number unknown
??: Louis Jacobowitz ??: Rachel Houtman
??: Russia

Many thanks in advance,
Ann Jacobs
Kailua, Hawaii
Searching GREENWALD/GRINWALD/GRUNWALD etc, Falticeni, Romania
GELINSON, Minsk, Belarus
BABUSHKIN, Pinsk, Gomel, Belarus
JACOBOWITZ, Lomza, Rutka, Poland
ZETEKOFF, Lithuania

I received an OA-C790 >from the SSA, stating this was the only record
available. It's not a very good copy and I'm hopeful someone can tell me
what the data blocks are and maybe even some of the codes:

District Office: New York 27 NY
Code: 117
??: 03/21/66
Type ??: Ret
?? Number: L 19226C
Account Number: --un--
Name of A/N Holder: Jacobowitz, Ida
Sex: F
Date of Birth: 00 00 93
??: Blank
Date of Application: 03 07 66
Type Claim: L
Remarks: MI Y MRN PROJECT 2
Identifying information--account number unknown
??: Louis Jacobowitz ??: Rachel Houtman
??: Russia

Many thanks in advance,
Ann Jacobs
Kailua, Hawaii
Searching GREENWALD/GRINWALD/GRUNWALD etc, Falticeni, Romania
GELINSON, Minsk, Belarus
BABUSHKIN, Pinsk, Gomel, Belarus
JACOBOWITZ, Lomza, Rutka, Poland
ZETEKOFF, Lithuania

There was a Rabbi Reines who as a rabbi in Lida, Lithuania who was a founder
of the Mizrachi movement.
--
Cyndee Meystel

"elana eisenstein" <elanafay@earthlink.net> wrote in message

There was a Rabbi Reines who as a rabbi in Lida, Lithuania who was a founder
of the Mizrachi movement.
--
Cyndee Meystel

"elana eisenstein" <elanafay@earthlink.net> wrote in message

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:10:01 UTC, tomchatt@earthlink.net (Tom Chatt) opined:

This had never occurred to me before, but does being a Cohen or a Levite

only pass through male lines? That seems a bit odd, since doesn't being
Jewish at all technically come >from the mother and not the father? (Couldn't
you theoretically end up with a Cohen having non-Cohen grandsons through his
daughter who married a non-Cohen, and also having non-Jewish Cohen grandsons
through his son who married a non-Jew?)

Yes, belonging to the tribe of Levi is tranmitted through the male line. The
same is true of membership in the priestly clan (the kohanim), which is part
of Levi.

It isn't clear what you find surprising about the "theoretical" possibility
you posit. The sons of the above daughter, being the sons of a "non-kohen",
are not kohanim. The sons of the above son, being the sons of a non-Jewish
mother, are not Jews, and consequently are not kohanim either, inasmuch as
kohanim are by definition Jews.

If one's ancestor is a Cohen or Levi, and you find other people with the
same surname >from the same area who are also Cohen (or Levi), does that
increase the likelihood of their being related?

All kohanim are descendants of a single progenitor, Aharon, the High Priest,
the brother of Moshe, so they are all related on that level.

If two people >from the same area are both kohanim (or leviim)m it does not
take a deep knowledge of statistics to understand that they are more likely
to be closely related than e.g. a kohen and a non-kohen. The same statement
remains true if you substitute, for example, the name "Goldberg" for
"kohen".

--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Searching:
NEACHOWICZ/NOACHOWICZ, NEJMAN/NAJMAN, SURALSKI: >from Lomza Gubernia
ISMACH: >from Lomza Gubernia, Galicia, and Ukraina
HERTANU, ABRAMOVICI, LAUER: >from Dorohoi District, Romania
GRISARU, VATARU: >from Iasi, Dorohoi, and Mileanca, Romania

See my interactive family tree (requires Java 1.1.6 or better). the URL is:
http://www.hashkedim.com

For reasons connected with anti-spam/junk security, the return address is
not valid. To communicate with me, please visit my website (see the URL
above -- no Java required for this purpose) and fill in the email form
there.

Tom Chatt asked:

This had never occurred to me before, but does being a Cohen or a Levite
only pass through male lines? That seems a bit odd, since doesn't being
Jewish at all technically come >from the mother and not the father? (Couldn't
you theoretically end up with a Cohen having non-Cohen grandsons through his
daughter who married a non-Cohen, and also having non-Jewish Cohen grandsons
through his son who married a non-Jew?)

Dear Tom,

The question you raise is both interesting and important, and
reflects the fact that most people never notice the obvious
discrepancy within the Mishnah itself between the so-called
matrilineal rule for inheriting Jewish ethnicity and the patrilineal
rule that defines a Kohen, Levi, or Yisra'el. However, there was
originally no discrepancy, because the mishnaic system, in common
with the biblical Israelite system and for that matter all
patriarchal systems of antiquity, did NOT intend to (nor did it)
introduce a "matrilineal rule" applying to marriages between Jewish
women and gentile men.

Most people never disvover , because the complicated subject is not
addressed properly in Jewish educational institutions) that the
"matrilineal rule" which defines a child's ethnicity or caste by
reference to that of the inferior-caste parent (as defined in
Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12) boils down to only two types of case:

(1) the Mishnah made a new ruling about children of unions between
Jewish men and women of assorted castes (which included not only the
three castes of Kohen, Levi and Yisra'el familiar to most Jgenners,
but also some other, even lower categories (which we never even hear
of unless we study this particular Mishnah and need not worry about
for present purposes!) In all cases, by virtue of M. Qiddushin 3:12,
the child's identity would henceforth be that of the lower-caste
parent (which in real life was almost always the mother, because it
was not customary for fathers to marry off their daughters to lower
caste men - and back then fathers called the shots -- whereas by
contrast men quite often chose to marry lower caste women, as was
permissible in Jewish law).

(2) (and this is the case that concerns us here) the Mishnah made a
new ruling about children of unions between Jewish men and gentile
women. In the Misnnah, non-Jewishness is consistently treated in
effect as being the lowest possible "caste" status. This of course
was typical of ancient cultures, because each ethnic group thought
it was the highest form of life, and every other group was deemed
inferior; this is known as "chosen people syndrome" and has never
been limited to Jews -- but that's a whole other story, not for
today!).

Anyhow, getting back to case (2) (unions between Jews and gentiles)
it is important to note that as a matter of obvious historical fact,
the mishnaic sages who framed M. Qid. 3:12 were contemplating ONLY
marriages between Jewish men and gentile women and NOT the other way
around. That's because it would never even have crossed their minds
that a Jewish father would so much as think of marrying his daughter
off to a (by definition lower-caste) gentile man! But in real life
in mishnaic and talmudic times most Jews were living in the
Diaspora, and the sages had no effective way to control the marriage
choices of Jewish men, who could (and often did) freely choose to
marry according to the laws of the land where they resided -- and it
seems they often selected gentile women. (So, what else is new?)

So the sages decided to make a rule to control (or at least
influence) the marriage choices of Jewish men, specifically a rule
that would make it more advantageous for them to select Jewish
brides. That's why M. Qiddushin 3:12 enacted that the child of a
Jewish man and a gentile woman would henceforth no longer be
routinely considered a Jew, as had previously been more or less
routine. (One has only has to read the Bible carefully to realize
that -- but it is amazing how few people read the Bible carefully
enough! )

But (as all scholars agree) the mishnaic sages who made these rules
were an academic community who were in essence talking to each other,
and everyone in their "club" knew there was no such thing as a
marriage between a Jewish girl and a gentile man (because it was
unimaginable that any Jewish father would ever permit such a
union!). So they didn't even bother to spell out the "obvious" fact
that they were considering only the two real-life possibilities:
(a) marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman, in which case
there was no problem -- so they didn't need to discuss it; and (b)
marriage between a Jewish man and a gentile woman -- in which case
the mishnaic rule aimed to reverse the existing situation (in which
Jews, like all other patriarchal societies before and since, had
followed a patrilineal system). Before M. Qiddushin 3:12, the
child of a Jewish man and gentile woman was automatically deemed a
Jew by everybody -- Jews and gentiles alike.(That's how patriarchy
worked then and in general still works now.)

The new rule, in effect, warned Jewish men that if they insisted on
going ahead and marrying a gentile woman (by definition a person of
inferior caste), henceforth their children would follow the inferior
caste, i.e. the children would not "count" as Jews but as gentiles.

No one knows exactly when the new rule began to be enforced (possibly
not until late or post talmudic times) -- and in particular no one
knows when the rule was first actually (albeit erroneously)
applied to marriages between Jewish females and gentile males.
Obviously it did not happen until such marriages actually began to
occur frequently in real life. And when this new interpretation
began to be applied, this became known as the "matrilineal" rule.
But the "matrilineal rule" clearly contradicted the manifestly
patrilineal system of the mishnaic sages themselves -- which shows up
most clearly in the rules that caste status among Jews descends in
the male line.

So, if you're still with me, Tom, that's the answer to your very
important question. Sorry it took so long to expound! Shabbat
Shalom to one and all!

Judith Romney Wegner
jrw@brown.edu

On Fri, 3 Jun 2005 18:10:01 UTC, tomchatt@earthlink.net (Tom Chatt) opined:

This had never occurred to me before, but does being a Cohen or a Levite

only pass through male lines? That seems a bit odd, since doesn't being
Jewish at all technically come >from the mother and not the father? (Couldn't
you theoretically end up with a Cohen having non-Cohen grandsons through his
daughter who married a non-Cohen, and also having non-Jewish Cohen grandsons
through his son who married a non-Jew?)

Yes, belonging to the tribe of Levi is tranmitted through the male line. The
same is true of membership in the priestly clan (the kohanim), which is part
of Levi.

It isn't clear what you find surprising about the "theoretical" possibility
you posit. The sons of the above daughter, being the sons of a "non-kohen",
are not kohanim. The sons of the above son, being the sons of a non-Jewish
mother, are not Jews, and consequently are not kohanim either, inasmuch as
kohanim are by definition Jews.

If one's ancestor is a Cohen or Levi, and you find other people with the
same surname >from the same area who are also Cohen (or Levi), does that
increase the likelihood of their being related?

All kohanim are descendants of a single progenitor, Aharon, the High Priest,
the brother of Moshe, so they are all related on that level.

If two people >from the same area are both kohanim (or leviim)m it does not
take a deep knowledge of statistics to understand that they are more likely
to be closely related than e.g. a kohen and a non-kohen. The same statement
remains true if you substitute, for example, the name "Goldberg" for
"kohen".

--
Stan Goodman, Qiryat Tiv'on, Israel

Searching:
NEACHOWICZ/NOACHOWICZ, NEJMAN/NAJMAN, SURALSKI: >from Lomza Gubernia
ISMACH: >from Lomza Gubernia, Galicia, and Ukraina
HERTANU, ABRAMOVICI, LAUER: >from Dorohoi District, Romania
GRISARU, VATARU: >from Iasi, Dorohoi, and Mileanca, Romania

See my interactive family tree (requires Java 1.1.6 or better). the URL is:
http://www.hashkedim.com

For reasons connected with anti-spam/junk security, the return address is
not valid. To communicate with me, please visit my website (see the URL
above -- no Java required for this purpose) and fill in the email form
there.

Tom Chatt asked:

This had never occurred to me before, but does being a Cohen or a Levite
only pass through male lines? That seems a bit odd, since doesn't being
Jewish at all technically come >from the mother and not the father? (Couldn't
you theoretically end up with a Cohen having non-Cohen grandsons through his
daughter who married a non-Cohen, and also having non-Jewish Cohen grandsons
through his son who married a non-Jew?)

Dear Tom,

The question you raise is both interesting and important, and
reflects the fact that most people never notice the obvious
discrepancy within the Mishnah itself between the so-called
matrilineal rule for inheriting Jewish ethnicity and the patrilineal
rule that defines a Kohen, Levi, or Yisra'el. However, there was
originally no discrepancy, because the mishnaic system, in common
with the biblical Israelite system and for that matter all
patriarchal systems of antiquity, did NOT intend to (nor did it)
introduce a "matrilineal rule" applying to marriages between Jewish
women and gentile men.

Most people never disvover , because the complicated subject is not
addressed properly in Jewish educational institutions) that the
"matrilineal rule" which defines a child's ethnicity or caste by
reference to that of the inferior-caste parent (as defined in
Mishnah Qiddushin 3:12) boils down to only two types of case:

(1) the Mishnah made a new ruling about children of unions between
Jewish men and women of assorted castes (which included not only the
three castes of Kohen, Levi and Yisra'el familiar to most Jgenners,
but also some other, even lower categories (which we never even hear
of unless we study this particular Mishnah and need not worry about
for present purposes!) In all cases, by virtue of M. Qiddushin 3:12,
the child's identity would henceforth be that of the lower-caste
parent (which in real life was almost always the mother, because it
was not customary for fathers to marry off their daughters to lower
caste men - and back then fathers called the shots -- whereas by
contrast men quite often chose to marry lower caste women, as was
permissible in Jewish law).

(2) (and this is the case that concerns us here) the Mishnah made a
new ruling about children of unions between Jewish men and gentile
women. In the Misnnah, non-Jewishness is consistently treated in
effect as being the lowest possible "caste" status. This of course
was typical of ancient cultures, because each ethnic group thought
it was the highest form of life, and every other group was deemed
inferior; this is known as "chosen people syndrome" and has never
been limited to Jews -- but that's a whole other story, not for
today!).

Anyhow, getting back to case (2) (unions between Jews and gentiles)
it is important to note that as a matter of obvious historical fact,
the mishnaic sages who framed M. Qid. 3:12 were contemplating ONLY
marriages between Jewish men and gentile women and NOT the other way
around. That's because it would never even have crossed their minds
that a Jewish father would so much as think of marrying his daughter
off to a (by definition lower-caste) gentile man! But in real life
in mishnaic and talmudic times most Jews were living in the
Diaspora, and the sages had no effective way to control the marriage
choices of Jewish men, who could (and often did) freely choose to
marry according to the laws of the land where they resided -- and it
seems they often selected gentile women. (So, what else is new?)

So the sages decided to make a rule to control (or at least
influence) the marriage choices of Jewish men, specifically a rule
that would make it more advantageous for them to select Jewish
brides. That's why M. Qiddushin 3:12 enacted that the child of a
Jewish man and a gentile woman would henceforth no longer be
routinely considered a Jew, as had previously been more or less
routine. (One has only has to read the Bible carefully to realize
that -- but it is amazing how few people read the Bible carefully
enough! )

But (as all scholars agree) the mishnaic sages who made these rules
were an academic community who were in essence talking to each other,
and everyone in their "club" knew there was no such thing as a
marriage between a Jewish girl and a gentile man (because it was
unimaginable that any Jewish father would ever permit such a
union!). So they didn't even bother to spell out the "obvious" fact
that they were considering only the two real-life possibilities:
(a) marriage between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman, in which case
there was no problem -- so they didn't need to discuss it; and (b)
marriage between a Jewish man and a gentile woman -- in which case
the mishnaic rule aimed to reverse the existing situation (in which
Jews, like all other patriarchal societies before and since, had
followed a patrilineal system). Before M. Qiddushin 3:12, the
child of a Jewish man and gentile woman was automatically deemed a
Jew by everybody -- Jews and gentiles alike.(That's how patriarchy
worked then and in general still works now.)

The new rule, in effect, warned Jewish men that if they insisted on
going ahead and marrying a gentile woman (by definition a person of
inferior caste), henceforth their children would follow the inferior
caste, i.e. the children would not "count" as Jews but as gentiles.

No one knows exactly when the new rule began to be enforced (possibly
not until late or post talmudic times) -- and in particular no one
knows when the rule was first actually (albeit erroneously)
applied to marriages between Jewish females and gentile males.
Obviously it did not happen until such marriages actually began to
occur frequently in real life. And when this new interpretation
began to be applied, this became known as the "matrilineal" rule.
But the "matrilineal rule" clearly contradicted the manifestly
patrilineal system of the mishnaic sages themselves -- which shows up
most clearly in the rules that caste status among Jews descends in
the male line.

So, if you're still with me, Tom, that's the answer to your very
important question. Sorry it took so long to expound! Shabbat
Shalom to one and all!

Judith Romney Wegner
jrw@brown.edu

In a message dated 6/3/2005 2:06:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tomchatt@earthlink.net writes:

< . . . does being a Cohen or a Levite only pass through male lines? >

==correct

< That seems a bit odd, since doesn't being Jewish at all technically come

from the mother and not the father? >

==Parental descent dates back to the beginning of Judaism and is related to
property considerations, and family privileges

==Maternal descent for the establishment of the status of a Jewish child is
much more recent and is the necessary response to a common "sport" over the
ages, that of raping Jewish women.

< Couldn't you theoretically end up with a Cohen having non-Cohen grandsons
through his daughter who married a non-Cohen,

==absolutely, very common. Very few daughter of Kohanim happen to marry a
Kohen

< and also having non-Jewish Cohen grandsons through his son who married a
non-Jew?

==Is that like having a Chasidic Pope? If you're not Jewish, you're not a
Kohen. And a Kohen loses his status if he marries a gentile or a convert.

< If one's ancestor is a Cohen or Levi, and you find other people with the
same surname >from the same area who are also Cohen (or Levi), does that
increase the likelihood of their being related?

==That, essentially, is why we discuss them in genealogy. Knowing someone
is a Kohen makes it easier to trace an ancestral line up and down through
synagogue records, tombstones and other documents.

==There is an excellent database available on Jgen that lists surnames with
towns and with Kohen/Levi/Israel status

Michael Bernet, New York

In a message dated 6/3/2005 2:06:16 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
tomchatt@earthlink.net writes:

< . . . does being a Cohen or a Levite only pass through male lines? >

==correct

< That seems a bit odd, since doesn't being Jewish at all technically come

from the mother and not the father? >

==Parental descent dates back to the beginning of Judaism and is related to
property considerations, and family privileges

==Maternal descent for the establishment of the status of a Jewish child is
much more recent and is the necessary response to a common "sport" over the
ages, that of raping Jewish women.

< Couldn't you theoretically end up with a Cohen having non-Cohen grandsons
through his daughter who married a non-Cohen,

==absolutely, very common. Very few daughter of Kohanim happen to marry a
Kohen

< and also having non-Jewish Cohen grandsons through his son who married a
non-Jew?

==Is that like having a Chasidic Pope? If you're not Jewish, you're not a
Kohen. And a Kohen loses his status if he marries a gentile or a convert.

< If one's ancestor is a Cohen or Levi, and you find other people with the
same surname >from the same area who are also Cohen (or Levi), does that
increase the likelihood of their being related?

==That, essentially, is why we discuss them in genealogy. Knowing someone
is a Kohen makes it easier to trace an ancestral line up and down through
synagogue records, tombstones and other documents.

==There is an excellent database available on Jgen that lists surnames with
towns and with Kohen/Levi/Israel status

Michael Bernet, New York

I have just obtained some vital record copies >from PSA. Some of them
were written in old Russian. I would very much appreciate having this on=
e
translated - It is the marriage record of my Grand-Greatparents
Hirsch-David and Chaja.

Thank you in advance.

ViewMate address:
http://data.jewishgen.org/viewmate/ALL/viewmateview.asp?key=6156

Please reply privately. With many thanks!

Tamar Amit
ISRAEL
Tamar.Amit@gmail.com

I have just obtained some vital record copies >from PSA. Some of them
were written in old Russian. I would very much appreciate having this on=
e
translated - It is the marriage record of my Grand-Greatparents
Hirsch-David and Chaja.

Thank you in advance.

ViewMate address:
http://data.jewishgen.org/viewmate/ALL/viewmateview.asp?key=6156

Please reply privately. With many thanks!

Tamar Amit
ISRAEL
Tamar.Amit@gmail.com

In a message dated 6/3/2005 1:03:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lazer@sandiego.edu writes:

"Someone wrote:"

<though it is surprising that, in 300 CE this young lady had reached
the age of 22 without being married off!>

Jewish marriage customs have varied considerably over time
and place. In 1850 in Russia or 1950 in America, this would be
surprising. In 1900 in Russia or 2000 in America, it would not be
surprising. One needs to know much more about the customs
of the time and place to form a judgment about how unusual such
a personal decision might be.

==True, in very general terms.

==It so happens that scholars of Judaism, Jewish history, archaeologists and
others have amassed a great deal of information about Jewish customs 1700
years ago, >from the Talmud for instances, and >from burial grounds such as Bet
She`arim discussed in the relevant posting. The person who had expressed
surprise at this late age of being unmarried has a fine reputation as scholar
and genealogist.

Michael Bernet, New York

In a message dated 6/3/2005 1:03:30 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
lazer@sandiego.edu writes:

"Someone wrote:"

<though it is surprising that, in 300 CE this young lady had reached
the age of 22 without being married off!>

Jewish marriage customs have varied considerably over time
and place. In 1850 in Russia or 1950 in America, this would be
surprising. In 1900 in Russia or 2000 in America, it would not be
surprising. One needs to know much more about the customs
of the time and place to form a judgment about how unusual such
a personal decision might be.

==True, in very general terms.

==It so happens that scholars of Judaism, Jewish history, archaeologists and
others have amassed a great deal of information about Jewish customs 1700
years ago, >from the Talmud for instances, and >from burial grounds such as Bet
She`arim discussed in the relevant posting. The person who had expressed
surprise at this late age of being unmarried has a fine reputation as scholar
and genealogist.

Michael Bernet, New York

In a message dated 6/3/2005 1:04:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
israel@math.ubc.ca writes:

< The "Cohen modal haplotype" is more common among Cohanim than
non-Cohanim, but neither its presence nor its absence constitutes proof of
one's status. Since no definitive proof is available, all anyone can go on
is family tradition. >

==Better yet than tradition, synagogue records, ketubot, imprimaturs on
books, tombstones and specific location of burial.

Michael Bernet, New York

In a message dated 6/3/2005 1:04:28 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
israel@math.ubc.ca writes:

< The "Cohen modal haplotype" is more common among Cohanim than
non-Cohanim, but neither its presence nor its absence constitutes proof of
one's status. Since no definitive proof is available, all anyone can go on
is family tradition. >

==Better yet than tradition, synagogue records, ketubot, imprimaturs on
books, tombstones and specific location of burial.

Michael Bernet, New York