This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Judaism Mid‑importance 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It's wrong that [...]as an evidence of the exclusive right to the priesthood of the tribe of Levi[...]. only the sons of Aaron had the right to be priests. The Levi were their helpers and also fullfiled some kind of "rabbi"-functionc in the land of israel --Baruch ben Alexander ✉✍ 13:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This text is straight out of the Jewish Encyclopedia. You are, of course, welcome to correct as you see fit. Grika Ⓣ 14:32, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Kane's staff was that of Moses per Footfalls Within. Marvel Tales#19.

Any evidence that Aaron's Rod is related to the legends of Rod of Asclepius and Caduceus in that the Hebrew legend resurfaced in Greek and Roman mythologies? --Kvasir 05:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reference to the biological/botanical use of the term. Goldenrod and mullein are frequently referred to as 'Aaron's Rod'

In Hebrew Aaron's rod turns into an alligator not a snake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.232.141 (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think without citation the sub-title "In Islam" is very vague and the article would do better without it. Moreover plenty of citations for the Moses' rod could be found in Quran so there is no need for Aaron's rod context and that too is a funny one!

Agreed - I replaced the quote, however there is material in all sections of the article that relate more to Moses's staffs than to Aaron's.- WMHS--WMHS 05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some older carvings of Jesus on sarcophogi depict Jesus performing miracles with a rod in his hand (if not a scroll). Could this be another connection to the staff of Moses or Aaron?

Yes, that would be Aaron's Rod. Christ is reffered to as the New Covenant, and the Covenant was inside of the Ark of the Covenant. Aaron's rod was one of the items inside the Ark. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article used to say, "The length of the rod can be determined by the size of the ark of the covenant as stated in Exodus 37:1. The length of the staff would be from 3.75 FT (2.5 cubits) to 4.65 FT because the ark had a length of 3.75 FT (2.5 cuts), a depth of 2.75 FT (1.5 cubits), and a height of 2.5 FT (1.5 cubits). Therefore, the largest length would be the hypotenuse length of 4.65 FT."

However, this puts the length and depth at different numbers of feet (2.75 v 2.5) even though they are the same number of cubits (1.5). I started looking into what the correct lengths were and it provided an interesting diversion which led me to rewrite that part of the paragraph as follows (explanation to follow), "The length of the rod can be determined by the size of the ark of the covenant as stated in Exodus 37:1 or a length of 2.5 cubits, a depth of 1.5 cubits, and a height of 1.5 cubits. Thus, presuming an ark with two-dimensional walls of zero thickness, in which a staff's length can fit within the confines of an interior corner, the maximum staff length would be the hypotenuse of the hypotenuses of length v depth and depth v height, or cubits. The cubit was not defined in either SI or Imperial units. However, the average of the two lengths given by Rav Avraham Chaim Naeh or Chazon Ish would put a cubit at roughly 1.7 feet, putting the maximum length of the staff at 6.1' (6'1.2" or 1.9m)."

First, the staff doesn't have to lay flat on the floor of the ark. It can be leaned against an interior wall or corner, meaning the hypotenuse we want to calculate is not the hypotenuse of the base of the ark but the 3D hypotenuse from one corner to the far opposite corner in all dimensions. Second, as I mention in the rewritten section, the length of the cubit appears to be closer to 1.7' than 1.5' as mentioned at [Biblical and Talmudic units of measurement].

Banaticus (talk) 04:43, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]