Radak's (Rabbi David Kimchi) comments on Isaiah 53.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Eliyosef,



I can see this conversation is going no where. We will have to agree to disagree. Final thoughts:

That does not prove your point are you completely blind. I just quoted a section that says that they had to marry within the tribe of their father to avoid the property that their father owned from passing out of the tribe at hand to that of another tribe. This has already been explained numerous times. The Hebrew is very precise. Property transference only.

Why do you think they had to marry within their father's tribe? Think with your brain Eliyosef. The text clearly says they had to do so to preserve his clan name. The property transfer is incidental. The claim to property rights is another way of validating their claim to their father's clan name.

Wrong again...as I explained in a previous post with hebrew definition and everything the word for "possession" here is the word meaning "property". They are wanting the rights to his property since he had no sons. straight and simple. Your argument was defeated before it got off the ground.

Eliyosef I'm well familiar with your highly biased, personal interpretations and "Hebrew definitions"! Ofcourse you're going to define things the way you see them.

Problem's:

1) Psalm 2:7 is about King david and is metaphorical. Much like Israel being called G-d's son in Exodus 4:22

2) The two verses are totally unrelated.

No problem, Psalm 2:7 is Messianic. And who says Jesus was literally God's Son? Are you mad? Metaphorically yes.

The problem arises in that that is not what Daliel 9 says. It says an anointed one will be "Kareit" period. There is no " well he was cut off from such and such religion and that is all." That Baloney and a Lame excuse. Kareit implies "a spiritual disconnection" or being "cut off spiritually from G-d." If I were Kareit from G-d I would no longer be a part of the covenant with G-d and thus Kareit from G-d. if you are arguing that Jesus was Kareit then you are saying he was cut off from G-d ...no way around that.

Again you're defining terms the way you like them. Jesus was cut off from the Judaism of his time, not cut off from God. He's life was also cut off.

There is a big difference between being unlcean for a period and being Kareit. Being unclean, all the priest has to do is wait an alotted number of days(If necessary), Immerse himself in a Mikvah, Sacrifice a red Heffer and presto hes back in especially when you are trying to reference Leviticus 16:26. being Kareit there is no such process. except for becoming what is called a Ba'ali teshuvah which would involve a return to traditional Judaism Which is a bit more complicated..

Jesus was only unclean for a period of time. God raised him up and as Jesus told the high priest in Matthew 26:64 , he satat the right hand of God.

"Yes it is as you say", Jesus replied(to the high priest), "But I say to all of you: In future you will see the son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of Heaven."

She would not be my Daughter-in-law if she was not married to any of my sons. being formerly married to two and not being married to any of them now would make her my former Daughter-in-law. Even though I would still consider her as such since she married one or two of my sons.

That's disgusting, and not held by honourable Rabbis and the Jewish law, I'm sure. In anycase the text clearly says Shelah was betrothed to Tamar.The text continuously refers to her as Judah's daughter-in-law in the present tense. -- good luck.

The problem here is that Shelah is not mentioned. Its a Derash on the subject. The actual text says Judah wanted her burned.

The Jewish link says Shelah wanted Tamar burnt! You can't pick and choose from it Eliyosef. Even if we take your point of view, and only Judah wanted her burnt ,we must ask why? Reason being Judah considered Tamar to be his daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law who prostitutes deserves death.
Otherwise why would he want her burnt?

In this the Gentiles are more strict. For instance, in India even today they burn women who elope (let alone those prostitute themselves!) just as they did in ancient Europe. Among certain Rajput(warrior) and Brahmin "higher castes" of Northern India, the women jump into their husband's funeral pyres. These are ancient Aryan customs.

But when He finds out that she had done no wrong he asks for her aquittal.

When he finds out he himself was the whoremonger he acquited her to save his skin, sin under Jewish lae a father-in-law who defiles his son's wife must also be put to death.

Yes more than likely to save his own hide.

Thank You.

But the point is that she was acquitted because she did no wrong.

Eliyosef, she did a big wrong by prostituting herself to her own father-in-law.

Verse 14

Genesis 38:14. And she took off her widow’s garments, and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him for his wife.

The text clearly states she was betrothed to Shelah .The text continuously refers to her as Judah's daughter-in-law.

(a) Why was she staying in Judah's house if she was not his daughter-in-law?
(b) Why did Judah want to burn her after he found out she had prostituted herself?

Not before the giving of the Torah on Sinai. The link even says that.

That's a lame excuse. The laws of the Torah are eternal. You could excuse almost anything using such selective logic.

the problem with your assessment is that the Hebrew disagrees with you on the "consumation part" in fact it tells us literally that "she was not given to him as a wife." The betrothal is no more once he came of age and she was not given to him as a wife. The Link says that, Rashi says that and every commentator we have will say the same thing. Nice try but your getting nowhere.

I have absolutely no faith in your personal hebrew translations. Besides no where does the text say say in the text the betrothel is no more once she came of age? Infact quite the contrary.

Problem with that is she did no wrong in wanting to bear the descendants of Judah.

She did a great wrong by comiting incest and it is just to call her sons Mamzers. Yuo show no moral fiber at all.

which is what she would have done anyway even if She was actually married to Shelah.

She was betrothed to shelah, v.11.

She did not prostitute herself. Judah though she was one, She played along to bear his children. She did no wrong. if anyone did anything wrong it was Judah.

She clearly prostituted herself. Read the text. I'm tired of repeating.

Actually she doesnt have to do anything. The process of Chalitzah must be done by the brother-in-law according to halacha. And the problem with that is the Torah was not given yet until Sinai. So the argument dead ends there.

The laws of the Torah are eternal. The Chalitzah was not done, Tamar was Shelah's betrothed.

However for the sake of argument, listen carefully so you do not misuse or mangle what I actually said, I will say: "That according to the gospels, assuming their account is correct, he is not that Father of jesus since he(jesus) was born supposedly born of a "virgin

Therefore if you go by the gosepel account, our blessed Messiah had no earthly father.

best wishes and be well,

[Pythagoras]

P.S. The following deserves extra comment:

Verse 14

Genesis 38:14. And she took off her widow’s garments, and covered herself with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given to him for his wife.

As Eliyosef well knows the Kidussin (betrothal) is legally binding. So he has no point. Judah acts illegally by not allowing the Nisuin (marriage) to take place. Judah admits as much in Gen. 38:26.

The following link, aptly titled Judaism 101, describes what betrothal means in the Jewish context...
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm

The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin





"The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage)…. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation….Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce…However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete.

The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together. "


That's why the bible continuously refers to Tamar as Judah's daughter-in-law, and to Judah as Tamar's father-in-law , because th kiddusin is legally binding.

Gen 38:13

"When Tamar was told, "Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep, she took off her widow's clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself...."

Gen. 38:15

"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you...."

Gen 38:24

"About three months later Judah was told,"Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result is now pregnant...."

Gen 38:25

"As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law...."


best,

[Pythagoras]

Additional note on Gen 38:14, for it is important:

"For she saw that, though Shelah had grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife."

What does this mean? Simple-- She(Tamar) saw that even though she was Kiddushin ( betrothed) to Shelah, her father-in-law Judah had not allowed the Nisuin (full-fledged marriage) to take place.

However according to Jewish law, the Kiddusin is legally binding and the couple are considered as though married. That's why the Torah continuously refers to Tamar as Juda's daughter-in-law in the present tense even though Judah prevents the full fledged marriage from taking place.

Poor Tamar was not allowed to be Shelah's wife even though she was betrothed to him. That's why she took matters into her own hands .

And this is the plain understanding of the text.

best,

[Menachem]

P.S. The following deserves extra comment:








As Eliyosef well knows the Kidussin (betrothal) is legally binding. So he has no point. Judah acts illegally by not allowing the Nisuin (marriage) to take place. Judah admits as much in Gen. 38:26.

The following link, aptly titled Judaism 101, describes what betrothal means in the Jewish context...
http://www.jewfaq.org/marriage.htm

The Process of Marriage: Kiddushin and Nisuin





"The process of marriage occurs in two distinct stages: kiddushin (commonly translated as betrothal) and nisuin (full-fledged marriage)…. The word "kiddushin" comes from the root Qof-Dalet-Shin, meaning "sanctified." It reflects the sanctity of the marital relation….Kiddushin is far more binding than an engagement as we understand the term in modern English; in fact, Rambam speaks of a period of engagement before the kiddushin. Once kiddushin is complete, the woman is legally the wife of the man. The relationship created by kiddushin can only be dissolved by death or divorce…However, the spouses do not live together at the time of the kiddushin, and the mutual obligations created by the marital relationship do not take effect until the nisuin is complete.

The nisuin (from a word meaning "elevation") completes the process of marriage. The husband brings the wife into his home and they begin their married life together. "


That's why the bible continuously refers to Tamar as Judah's daughter-in-law, and to Judah as Tamar's father-in-law , because th kiddusin is legally binding.

Gen 38:13

"When Tamar was told, "Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep, she took off her widow's clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself...."

Gen. 38:15

"When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, "Come now, let me sleep with you...."

Gen 38:24

"About three months later Judah was told,"Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result is now pregnant...."

Gen 38:25

"As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law...."


best,

Problem: Torah Law was not fully in effect until after Sinai.
Kiddushim is legally binding While under the Torah. But beforehand Not binding at least not in full.

[Menachem]

Additional note on Gen 38:14, for it is important:

"For she saw that, though Shelah had grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife."

What does this mean? Simple-- She(Tamar) saw that even though she was Kiddushin ( betrothed) to Shelah, her father-in-law Judah had not allowed the Nisuin (full-fledged marriage) to take place.

However according to Jewish law, the Kiddusin is legally binding and the couple are considered as though married. That's why the Torah continuously refers to Tamar as Juda's daughter-in-law in the present tense even though Judah prevents the full fledged marriage from taking place.

Poor Tamar was not allowed to be Shelah's wife even though she was betrothed to him. That's why she took matters into her own hands .

And this is the plain understanding of the text.

best,

Plain understanding of the text....She was not given to him as a Wife....straight simple and to the point.

Problem: Torah Law was not in effect fully until Sinai.

[Menachem]

Hi Eliyosef,



I can see this conversation is going no where. We will have to agree to disagree. Final thoughts:

Fine with me.

Why do you think they had to marry within their father's tribe? Think with your brain Eliyosef. The text clearly says they had to do so to preserve his clan name. The property transfer is incidental. The claim to property rights is another way of validating their claim to their father's clan name.

LOL...the whole chapter is about property transfer or did you completely miss the entire post on the Hebrew words involved and the dictionary definitions as well as the application of such throughtou the Tanakh.


It is quite plain and easy to see that it is not a case of lineage transfer but a simple property transfer..They ahd to marry within the tribe to prevent everything theri Father had form apssing to another tribe should they have married with another. Give it up pythagoras the Hebrew defeats you, practicality defeats your claim as well as the simple reading of the chapter.

Eliyosef I'm well familiar with your highly biased, personal interpretations and "Hebrew definitions"! Ofcourse you're going to define things the way you see them.

LOL...except I am only giving Dictionary definitions I cited where they could be found and on what page....the only thing you have done is make excuses for not knowing what you are tlaking about and not being able to keep up with the program...If anyone thinks a dictionary is biased then we should throw out every singel one of the worlds dictionaries and start anew becasue pythagoras has a problem with them....get real!

No problem, Psalm 2:7 is Messianic. And who says Jesus was literally God's Son? Are you mad? Metaphorically yes.

Ahem...Psalm 2:7 is not Messianic and who cares..

is that your best defense...Calling me mad metaphorically...LOL..sounds to me like you are just dodging the issue by hurling insults...Go ahead you only make yourself look bad.

Again you're defining terms the way you like them. Jesus was cut off from the Judaism of his time, not cut off from God. He's life was also cut off.

Nope sorry....sounds like a another lame excuse for not knowing what you are talking about.....Pythagoras' excuse whine and cry becasue he cant read a simple Hebrew term...boo hoo!

Jesus was only unclean for a period of time. God raised him up and as Jesus told the high priest in Matthew 26:64 , he satat the right hand of God.

"Yes it is as you say", Jesus replied(to the high priest), "But I say to all of you: In future you will see the son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of Heaven."

Except the priest in Leviticus was never Kareit. You are saying Jesus was this person in daniel that was Kareit making him spiritually cut off.

That's disgusting, and not held by honourable Rabbis and the Jewish law, I'm sure. In anycase the text clearly says Shelah was betrothed to Tamar.The text continuously refers to her as Judah's daughter-in-law in the present tense. -- good luck.

Disgusting...lol Is this your best defense. The text calls her his Daughter-in0Law only becasue of her former marriages nothing more. Regardless of tense.

The Jewish link says Shelah wanted Tamar burnt! You can't pick and choose from it Eliyosef. Even if we take your point of view, and only Judah wanted her burnt ,we must ask why? Reason being Judah considered Tamar to be his daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law who prostitutes deserves death.
Otherwise why would he want her burnt?

LOL pythagoras are you serious...lol The link stated it is a Midrash...It can say it allday long all I have to do is look at the text and it says Judah did it. Besides Pythagoras...you are already picking and choosing from the link so it doesnt really matter.

To save his own hide...When the truth comes out with Tamar having his signet nd other items he admits she did no wrong. Easily explained...got any more brain busters...lol

In this the Gentiles are more strict. For instance, in India even today they burn women who elope (let alone those prostitute themselves!) just as they did in ancient Europe. Among certain Rajput(warrior) and Brahmin "higher castes" of Northern India, the women jump into their husband's funeral pyres. These are ancient Aryan customs.

And I care...when?

When he finds out he himself was the whoremonger he acquited her to save his skin, sin under Jewish lae a father-in-law who defiles his son's wife must also be put to death.

He does it to save his own skin but not for that reason. First she wasnt Shelah's wife. Judah admits it in verse 26 and we are told that in verse 14. He was more concerned with his own image and how she had done what is right but he had done what is wrong.

Eliyosef, she did a big wrong by prostituting herself to her own father-in-law.

She didnt prostitute herslef. He thought she was a prostitute or do you not read the text. She played along got pregnant and had his children..no wrong there since she wasnt married.

The text clearly states she was betrothed to Shelah .The text continuously refers to her as Judah's daughter-in-law.

(a) Why was she staying in Judah's house if she was not his daughter-in-law?
(b) Why did Judah want to burn her after he found out she had prostituted herself?

Actually betrothal is implied...never said..

A) She was to stay at her father's house not at Judah's

B) To save his own hide. He lied to protect his image but when he was exposed as the baby's father he let her live.

That's a lame excuse. The laws of the Torah are eternal. You could excuse almost anything using such selective logic.

Yeah they are eternal...now after Sinai had happened. If you can point to one verse...Just one tiny verse that is before Sinai that says what you are asserting I will accept that....There are many examples in Genesis where it is shown that the Torha is not in effect then.

I have absolutely no faith in your personal hebrew translations. Besides no where does the text say say in the text the betrothel is no more once she came of age? Infact quite the contrary.

No where in the etxt is the word for betrothal so there you go.. Besides I no faith in anything you say let alone any conversation you might strike. I give definition straight out of the dictionary and cite where they can be found...all you do is sit there and cry and whine that you cant read it so your not allowed to tell me what it means...boo hoo! I would put My hebrew translation to any Hebrew scholar and let them tell you ...yes! it can easily be read this way. especially if it is what the word means...so go ahead email a hebrew scholar and ask him. I dare you!

She did a great wrong by comiting incest and it is just to call her sons Mamzers. Yuo show no moral fiber at all.

No Incest...no Mamzers...She was nto married to Shelah...any betrothal was broken by verse 14...No argument you can present that would take away what verse 14 and 26 says about her Marital status.

She was betrothed to shelah, v.11.

Broken in verse 14 and affirmed later in verse 26.

She clearly prostituted herself. Read the text. I'm tired of repeating.

So why do you repeat a point that had no weight on it. This was tkane care of a few posts back but you still continue...Im starting to see a broken record on the screen becasue of it.

The laws of the Torah are eternal. The Chalitzah was not done, Tamar was Shelah's betrothed.

If you want to get technical the word for Betrothal is not there in the text...it is assumed by the wording that she is. And the Torah is not in effect at this time try back later when Sinai happens. Even the link you provided said thisd ...or are you picking and choosing from the sites and you accused me of earlier. Lame Pythagoras...very Lame.

Therefore if you go by the gosepel account, our blessed Messiah had no earthly father.

best wishes and be well,

Now since when was he the messiah? I never said that. Misrepresenting me some more arent you even though I spelled out loud and clear that you would..


Here's a curved and a sudden strike for ya! If he ash no earthly Father he has no lineage to declare. Thus making him not the messiah since the messiah must be of the Line of King David and Solomon Paternally as all pedigrees are declared.

the torah specifically states:

Numbers 1:17-18 - (17) Then Moses and Aaron took these men, who were indicated by [their] names, 18. and they assembled all the congregation on the first day of the second month, and they declared their pedigrees according to their families according to their fathers' houses; according to the number of names, a head count of every male from twenty years old and upward.

Similarly, the Aaronic Priesthood can only be transmitted from a father to his biological sons (Exodus 40:15; Numbers 25:12-13).

plus G-d said this of David as well:

2 Samuel 7:12-16 – (12) When your days are fulfilled, and you shall lie with your forefathers, then I will raise up YOUR SEED THAT SHALL ISSUE FROM YOUR BODY after you, and I will establish his kingdom. (13) He shall build a house for My Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. (14) I will be to him a father, and he shall be to Me a son; so that when he goes astray I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with afflictions of human beings. (15) And My mercy shall not depart from him; in the manner in which I withdrew it from Saul, whom I removed from before you. (16) And your house and your kingdom shall be established forever before you; your throne shall be established forever.

Even in the case of this one the Hebrew noun Zer'a (Seed/descendants) seems to indicate biological descendants....odd how that is. So no mortal father...No line to king David as the Torah and the Prophets say....sorry.

If you want to discuss this last part furhter I would sugest starting another thread based on this.

[Pythagoras]

Greetings Eliyosef,

Problem: Torah Law was not fully in effect until after Sinai.
Kiddushim is legally binding While under the Torah. But beforehand Not binding at least not in full.

Not true. The traditional Jewish view is that Jacob (together with Abraham and Isaac) kept all the commandments of the Torah despite the fact that God had not yet given them to Israel—out of a combination of personal zealousness and a prophetic knowledge of what the law would be—. Rashi seems to offer no explanation of the difficulties, specifically of how Jacob could marry two sisters, and the Rebbe considers a number of possible solutions,yet not being able to logically reconciling the contradiction. The same , infact far worse problem faces you with regard to Judah and Tamar, and even bigger pitfall with refrence to the Moabite woman for then the Torah was already given.. Eliyosef, David's genealogy is very problametic . The apparent difficulty associated with Jesus's Messianic claim through the Davidic line because he had no earthly father pales in comparison. Before you point fingers at Jesus , look at the more pressing problems you have with king David in terms of his paternity -- ,-- Ruth, Tamar, Rahab ...

Here's a curved and a sudden strike for ya! If he ash no earthly Father he has no lineage to declare. Thus making him not the messiah since the messiah must be of the Line of King David and Solomon Paternally as all pedigrees are declared.

Simple. Num.27-4, "Why should our father's name disappear from his clan because he had no son?" solves the problem. The Targum also states that these daughters "wished to be reckoned as sons" !

best wishes,

[alam]

Greetings Pythagoras,

Sorry for the delay! I have been busy the last week, but wanted to respond to this :

Could you explain what that means? Alam, I've always considered the Karaites to be "purer" Jews since they follow the Jewish version of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura (Protestant like), not considering Talmud as sacred writ. I liken Orthodox Jews to the Catholics who mix the words of the torah with religious traditions.

Your analogy to Protestantism is a good one, and could tell us much about the strengths and shortcomings of Karaism. Except where they end up adhering to traditions of their own, my experience with Karaites is that they have trouble agreeing on basic matters of belief and practice, such as the pretexts for divorce, whether wine is allowed during the feast of unleavened bread, whether the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels is literal or symbolic, and whether someone can be considered Jewish only patrilineally, or both patrilineally and matrilineally. In some ways they are purer Jews, but, since the Talmud is not all bad, getting rid of it can be a mixed blessing.

I think the link is saying Jewishness comes from the mother, i.e. , if a man is a Jew from the tribe of Judah, but his wife is not Jewish, nor a convert or someone who's forbiddent from ever becoming Jewish(like a moabite) then the children are not Jews.

You are right, this is the received (Rabbinic) opinion. However, on reading the link more closely I found myself in agreement with the Karaite :

It is possible that this prohibition only applied to males, since these were patriarchal societies where religion, nationality, and social order were determined by the males. Females never had any say, and their tribal affiliation was meaningless once they married. The same norm prevails among Moslems today, and there is more than enough evidence from the Tanach to suggest the ancient Hebrews followed the same custom. This is in similar vein to a woman 'belonging' to her husband's family after marriage.

© source where applicable

It probably won't matter to Eliyosef or the other Rabbinic Jews you debate here, but matrilineal descent is not used by the Samaritans or the Ethiopic Jews, and not historically by Karaites :


http://members.tripod.com/~osher_2/h...arrigeprob.htm


The Septuagint translates Deut. 23:2 in this way:


Ouk eiseleusetai ek pornēs eis ekklēsian kuriou.

"One born of a harlot shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord" (Brenton)


You have clearly researched Rabbinic Judaism to some depth Pythagoras, and except for Jewish contributors themselves, you seem to be the most competent person in it here, Kol hakkavod!


God bless

[Pythagoras]

Greetings alam,

Sorry for the delay! I have been busy the last week,

No problem.

my experience with Karaites is that they have trouble agreeing on basic matters of belief and practice, such as the pretexts for divorce, whether wine is allowed during the feast of unleavened bread, whether the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels is literal or symbolic, and whether someone can be considered Jewish only patrilineally, or both patrilineally and matrilineally. In some ways they are purer Jews, but, since the Talmud is not all bad, getting rid of it can be a mixed blessing.

Alam, I used to think the Talmud was all bad, not anymore . Like you, I now think it's "not all bad." The problem I have with the Talmud is that the Rabbis usually end up taking all positions all at once, so one rarely knows for sure where the Talmud stands on any one particular issue. And Eliyosef has a tendency to dismiss Talmud when it disagrees with his point of view by simply saying, "irrelivent, it's just allegory", but he has no problem accepting it when it supports him.

You are right, this is the received (Rabbinic) opinion. However, on reading the link more closely I found myself in agreement with the Karaite :


"...It is possible that this prohibition only applied to males, since these were patriarchal societies where religion, nationality, and social order were determined by the males. Females never had any say, and their tribal affiliation was meaningless once they married. The same norm prevails among Moslems today, and there is more than enough evidence from the Tanach to suggest the ancient Hebrews followed the same custom. This is in similar vein to a woman 'belonging' to her husband's family after marriage. ..."

The problem with the above is that women had "a big say" in traditional Judaism which uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) they use patrilineal descent. So Judaism is not strictly speaking a "patriarchal society" as such. The woman's social order, and status was paramount to determining whether someone was even Jewish, let alone tribal affiliation , so their status was far from "meaningless". It is all but certain that the Lord, when He pronounced against the Moabites spoke against both their males and females (as the context of the text clearly suggests) , since God was dealing with them from Israel's standpoint which of always factors the mother's social order in determining Jewish status.

Ouk eiseleusetai ek pornēs eis ekklēsian kuriou.

"One born of a harlot shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord" (Brenton)

This is a severe problem for David as per Tamar and Rahab, read Matthew 1:3 and 1:5.

God bless you,

[Pythagoras]

P.S. Eliyosef,

My question: "(b) Why did Judah want to burn her after he found out she had prostituted herself?"

Your answer: "B) To save his own hide. He lied to protect his image but when he was exposed as the baby's father he let her live."

"To save his own hide"? ... How so? When Judah said "Bring her out and have her burned to death" he didn't even know at that time he himself was the whoremonger?

So your answer makes absolutely no sense at all. Try again.


best wishes,

[alam]

Hello Pythagoras,

The problem with the above is that women had "a big say" in traditional Judaism which uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) they use patrilineal descent.

The Samaritans and Ethiopic Jews are traditional and don't accept this AFAIK.


To be a Yehudi or Jew was originally a tribal status, describing a member of the tribe of Judah. So even by Rabbinic standards it was transmitted from the father. When did being Jewish become a religious status that is passed down from the mother?

So Judaism is not strictly speaking a "patriarchal society" as such. The woman's social order, and status was paramount to determining whether someone was even Jewish, let alone tribal affiliation , so their status was far from "meaningless".

He probably overstated his point, but he did have one.. What evidence is there besides Rabbinic literature that someone's Jewish status in Old Testament times was a religious identity inherited from the mother as well as a tribal identity inherited from the father?

It is all but certain that the Lord, when He pronounced against the Moabites spoke against both their males and females (as the context of the text clearly suggests) , since God was dealing with them from Israel's standpoint which of always factors the mother's social order in determining Jewish status.

In terms of the Tanach, and the Pentateuch in particular, is there a Jewish status other than the status of belonging to the tribe of Judah?

This is a severe problem for David as per Tamar and Rahab, read Matthew 1:3 and 1:5.

God bless you,

Pythagoras, what confuses me about this exchange is how we would stand to benefit if you are right about David. Up to a point it seems to work as a 'comeback' for countermissionaries, but after that point we would just be undermining the Tanach, wouldn't we? Why do you think David was allowed to enter the Kahal?


God bless

[Pythagoras]

Greetings Alam,

And God bless you.

When did being Jewish become a religious status that is passed down from the mother?..What evidence is there besides Rabbinic literature that someone's Jewish status in Old Testament times was a religious identity inherited from the mother as well as a tribal identity inherited from the father?

The Torah states in a few places why and how matrilineal descent is used to determine Jewish status. For example Lev. 24:10 , Ezra10:2-3 in addition to Deut. 7:1-5.

To be a Yehudi or Jew was originally a tribal status, describing a member of the tribe of Judah. So even by Rabbinic standards it was transmitted from the father.

However if the mother is a prostitute, an adultress ,a Moabite, an Amorite or engaged in any kind of incestuous relationship prohibited in the Torah then the children of such unions have a different status(outcaste) than normal Jews. This is how the mother determines status in Jewish society.

In terms of the Tanach, and the Pentateuch in particular, is there a Jewish status other than the status of belonging to the tribe of Judah?

The status of those who are not allowed into the "congregation of the Lord".

Pythagoras, what confuses me about this exchange is how we would stand to benefit if you are right about David. Up to a point it seems to work as a 'comeback' for countermissionaries, but after that point we would just be undermining the Tanach, wouldn't we?

I don't think we should look at this exchange as "undermining the Torah" in any way , shape or form, far from it. I like probing the difficult questions, just like Eliyosef. For example, Eliyosef's favourite question is , "How could Jesus have been the Son of David without an earthly Father". Is he trying to undermine the NT ? I hope not. In the same way one of my favourite questions is, "How could David enter the congregation of the Lord being that there are irregularities in his genealogy"? So far I've not been satisfied by Eliyosef's responses. Just as Eliyosef has his own theories(and we have seen some here on this thread) to show how David could enter the congregation, I've got some theories to suggest how Jesus could be the Son of David without an earthly father.

Alam, how could Jesus be Messiah Son of David if he has no earthly father?

Why do you think David was allowed to enter the Kahal?

Some suggest David was the 10th, not 9th generation from the bastard Perez and as such the first to enter the congregation.The theory seems fesible. Quotes like the following ,"I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord"(Psalm 122:1) are furnished to further strengthen the case that David was the first to enter the congregation from his family in 10 generations...But it's just one theory. Only God knows for sure.


God bless,

[alam]

Blessings Pythagoras,

The Torah states in a few places why and how matrilineal descent is used to determine Jewish status. For example Lev. 24:10 , Ezra10:2-3 in addition to Deut. 7:1-5.

Those are the alleged examples I have seen.


The case in Leviticus 24 seems to cut the other direction though. Notice how this "son of the Israelitish woman" is distinguished from the "man of Israel" in the verse. The passage stresses,

Leviticus 24:16

And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death.

Leviticus 24:22

Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.

I believe that this "son of the Israelitish woman" (Exodus 12:38) was one of the "mixed multitude" who followed the children of Israel out of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 7:3-4

Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.

This is a symmetrical injunction against mixed marriage. Some people go as far as to suggest that verse 4 should have said "for she will turn away thy son," because the verb there, [HEBREW]יָסִיר[/HEBREW], is masculine and its natural subject is the daughters' fathers who would initiate the sons into polytheism.


Ezra 9:12 and Nehemiah 13:25 repeat the symmetrical injunction against Israelite daughters marrying Gentile sons and Gentile daughters marrying Israelite sons. A likely reason that the account does not mention the Israelite women divorcing Gentile men would be that under the Torah itself, or under the Gentile laws of their husbands, they did not have the right of divorce, and were already lost to Israel.

However if the mother is a prostitute, an adultress ,a Moabite, an Amorite or engaged in any kind of incestuous relationship prohibited in the Torah then the children of such unions have a different status(outcaste) than normal Jews. This is how the mother determines status in Jewish society.

Your knowledge of Talmudic laws is admirable, but in this case I am not sure that it reflects Biblical Judaism. In a society that reckons things patrilineally, the evident problem with being born of a harlot is that the father probably can't be known, and thus the person's lineage and even tribal status comes into question.

I don't think we should look at this exchange as "undermining the Torah" in any way , shape or form, far from it. I like probing the difficult questions, just like Eliyosef. For example, Eliyosef's favourite question is , "How could Jesus have been the Son of David without an earthly Father". Is he trying to undermine the NT ? I hope not. In the same way one of my favourite questions is, "How could David enter the congregation of the Lord being that there are irregularities in his genealogy"? So far I've not been satisfied by Eliyosef's responses. Just as Eliyosef has his own theories(and we have seen some here on this thread) to show how David could enter the congregation, I've got some theories to suggest how Jesus could be the Son of David without an earthly father.

Understood. :-)

Alam, how could Jesus be Messiah Son of David if he has no earthly father?

Mary was an only child and a daughter of David according to tradition. In accordance with Numbers 27 and 36 she would have married within the tribe of Judah (to Joseph) and passed along the inheritance to Christ her son, making him the legal and biological son of David. On the other hand, if the father's line of descent overrules the mother's even in this provision, leaving only the inheritance to be passed down from the mother, and if Joseph is to be reckoned as the father of Christ, then Christ is still the son of David, via Joseph, albeit the fruit of David's body (Psa. 132:11) via Mary.

Some suggest David was the 10th, not 9th generation from the bastard Perez and as such the first to enter the congregation.The theory seems fesible. Quotes like the following ,"I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the Lord"(Psalm 122:1) are furnished to further strengthen the case that David was the first to enter the congregation from his family in 10 generations...But it's just one theory. Only God knows for sure.

Very interesting!


God bless,

[Pythagoras]

God bless Alam, May He lead us into all truth;

Those are the alleged examples I have seen.
The case in Leviticus 24 seems to cut the other direction though. Notice how this "son of the Israelitish woman" is distinguished from the "man of Israel" in the verse. The passage stresses,... etc. etc

Following is the opinion of Orthodox Judaism; check under the heading of "Matrilineal Descent":

http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm



Unfortunately alam, I tend to agree with this Orthodox Judaism link (and Eliyosef !!) on this score.

In a society that reckons things patrilineally, the evident problem with being born of a harlot is that the father probably can't be known, and thus the person's lineage and even tribal status comes into question.

With respect alam, the children of a prostitute are debarred from the "congregation of the Lord" not because their father's tribal lineage can't be known but because they are fruits of "forbidden unions" . These stipulations were drawn out to minimize sexual deviancy by extracting a very high price among Israelites, 10 generations, for israel is to be a "holy nation" unto God. Alam, you're not suggesting the status of the progeny of a convert to Judaism who marries a Jewish women is questionable since the man has no tribal identity, are you? ..


..The Septuagint translates Deut. 23:2 in this way:Ouk eiseleusetai ek pornēs eis ekklēsian kuriou...

Mary was an only child and a daughter of David according to tradition. In accordance with Numbers 27 and 36 she would have married within the tribe of Judah (to Joseph) and passed along the inheritance to Christ her son, making him the legal and biological son of David.

I agree 100%, but Eliyosef will counter that the hebrew word used here for possession has to do only with "property transfer" and not "lineage transfer". How would you counter him?

On the other hand, if the father's line of descent overrules the mother's even in this provision, leaving only the inheritance to be passed down from the mother, and if Joseph is to be reckoned as the father of Christ, then Christ is still the son of David, via Joseph, albeit the fruit of David's body (Psa. 132:11) via Mary.

Eliyosef would counter that there's no such thing as adoption of clan name in Judaism, it can only be biologically inherited. Christ is not literally the fruit of David's body even if adopted by Joseph and therefore cannot be Messiah since God's word expressly states Messiah would be David's biological son.


On another note, the Talmud in the Mishnaic tractate Kiddushin, which deals with betrothals says something very interesting. Chapter 4 of Kiddushin discusses the question of who may contract a betrothal with whom.Kiddushin 4:1 states that a man and wife who live together are presumed to produce legitimate children without the necessity of proof of parentage. Since Joseph and Mary were legally married at the time of Jesus's birth his status is sound .

[Pythagoras]

P.S. Alam,

The rabbis have always speculated whether King David was fit to enter the "congregation of the Lord". The following is quite telling:


Yevamot 76b


"'Instead of entertaining whether he is fit to be king or not, enquire rather whether he is permitted to enter the assembly or not'! 'What is the reason'?'Because he is descended from Ruth the Moabitess'. Avner said to him,'We learned: An Ammonite, but not an Ammonitess; A Moabite, but not a Moabitess!"


Since King David was a type of Messiah King of Israel, we would expect his life to mirror in some respects the life experiences of the actual Messiah . It is not surprising in the least therefore that Jesus , like King David before him was suspected of being born of a "forbidden union" by the rabbis. Thus they say to him in John 8:41,"We be not born of fornication" , and in John 8:19, "Where is your father?" In Mark 6:3 they presume illegitimacy by refering to him as Mary's son, "Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Arent' his sisters here with us? And they took offense at him."



The explanation given by the rabbis in Yevamot 76b to prove David's fitness to enter the "congregation of the Lord" is insufficient, the reasons already furnished in my preceding posts. Even this Jewish link agrees:



http://www.amhaaretz.org/draft/ruth_david_and_lineage.html