When I travel to New York City from my home (outside of Washington DC), I normally take the Vamoose bus. This past summer my older brother decided to go visit one of his college friends, who lives in the city and wanted to know about my experiences with this particular company. I told him about the cleanliness, the leg room, the low cost, and its timeliness. In addition, I went on and on about the people who ran the company. I noted that they appeared to be Amish or something. He gave me a perplexed look with the follow-up statement: “Christy, the Amish aren’t allowed to operate machinery.” Well if they weren’t Amish what were they? On the first day of Jewish Experience I saw the exact same clothing and haircut! They were Hasidic Jews with the long ringlets! But what exactly did that mean?

From the first class, I have wanted to ask about the significance of the long ringlets, but I figured sooner or later the topic of “costume” would come up, and it did, but naturally after I read the section in Lowenstein’s The Jewish Cultural Tapestry about “how Jewish men should wear their hair and beards” (p. 152) and then came across the section, “Anti-Jewish Legislation,” I had another set of questions that I wanted to ask. The section about government forcing Jews to adorn certain clothing or hairstyles does not sit well with me. “For example, eighteenth century laws in various German-speaking countries required married Jewish men to wear beards. In Yemen, men were required to wear long, visible sidelocks. In both cases, Jews were made to look different at first glance” (p. 159). I have never been able to understand the purpose of forcing someone to wear something to look different. I mean what if young Jewish men are unable to grow beards? My twenty-three year-old brother struggles to grow facial hair. What then? Would he face consequences with the government? Are Jews that much of a “threat” that the government needed to create laws to help people distinguish them? There are enough factors in the world separating one group of people from another without legislation.

On the other hand, the section about banning certain customs to reduce the level of separation also left a mark in my memory. I may be misinterpreting this section, but the paragraph describing “the Czarist Russian government in 1850 forbidding Jewish men to wear sidelocks” (p. 169) and other “traditional Eastern Europe Jewish costume” (p. 170) reminds me of the incident in France in 2004 when the government banned religious clothing in school. In an attempt to reduce the threat of Islamic extremism, the French government fought to keep religion out of schools. However, not only did their plan create extreme controversies, many young girls were expelled for their continued wear of the religious scarves forcing them to be homeschooled. As a result, they mostly interacted with only Muslims. In a PBS article, it stated, the “law might inflame passions among Muslims in France and around the world.” Similar to the Muslims’ reactions in France in 2004, the “Hasidic sect… refused to accept the decree [of the Czar] and fought it with every means at their disposal” (p. 170).

It is hard for me to imagine being forced to or even being banned from wearing a certain type of clothing. Today I believe clothing is part of your identity. I feel as though clothing should be an expression of who you are without consequences. Regardless of the color or the actual clothing article, people should be able to wear something and not worry about being segregated from others. I look back to the days of elementary school and middle school, when I tried so hard to fit in with everyone else. I cannot imagine what it would be like being forced to wear a cross because I’m Christian or not being able to wear my hair down while studying abroad in Spain because I am an American. There are enough problems in the world. Why inflict more through clothing?

PBS Article: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june04/scarves_3-08.html

     During the course of our class discussion about what “being Jewish” means, someone put for the traditional thought that someone is only technically Jewish by matrilineal descent. Within this dialogue, it was mentioned that a “Cohen gene” existed, and that a Cohen could actually be identified by genetic testing as long as his or her father is a Cohen. As a Cohen, and the daughter of my Cohen father, this idea fascinated me. I decided to do some research on my own, so I read the section about Appearance and Ancestry in Lowenstein’s book and turned to the internet for more imformation.
     According to Lowenstein, the status of Cohen (Jewish priest) can only be acquired via patrilineal descent. In a study of Y-chromosome DNA, a group of scientist discovered a statistically significant difference between Jewish males who claim the status of Cohen and those who do not. This study revealed that only 1 out of 68 priests, compared to 22 out of 120 non-Cohen Israelites, have a positive YAP gene on the Y-chromosome, which holds true for both Ashkenazic and non-Ashkenazic Jews. Lowenstein asserts that, “If these results are confirmed, they provide graphic confirmation of the validity of traditional family claims to priestly status” (220). After reading this short paragraph on the subject, I wanted to know more. (After flipping to one of the title pages of the book I realized there had to be more information available on the “Cohen gene” since Lowenstein published his book in 2000, almost a decade ago.)
     So many questions began to run through my mind. Could scientists, through genetic testing, really establish that all Cohens are actually the ancestors of Aaron? Could this line really have been maintained since the days at Sinai? If so, exactly how many years has this line continued virtually uninterrupted? How many people self-identify as a member of the Cohanim, but are not actually descendents of Aaron? In order to obtain some answers, I turned to the always trusty Google.
     My internet research provided me with answers to some of my questions. Apparently, with the help of mathematical models, scientists estimate that this last common ancestor of the Cohanim lived between 2,100 and 4,280 years ago! Even more interesting, I came across a relatively recent study conducted by Michael F. Hammer, a population geneticist in the Arizona Research Laboratory’s Division of Biotechnology at the University of Arizona. In their July 2009 edition, Human Genetics released his findings in an article entitled “Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood”. The results of his research indicates that the Cohanim was established by several unrelated male lines rather than a single male lineage dating to ancient Hebrew times. While the thought of all Cohanim sharing one common ancestor is incredible, it is difficult for me to wrap my head around some 2,000-4,000 years later. Despite their anticlimactic nature, Hammer’s findings seem much more plausible.