Author Topic: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?  (Read 12716 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« on: September 21, 2009, 05:59:33 PM »
So I been talking with someone who calls themselves a Karaite Jew, i'm not too familiar with them but they are telling me that someone can be Jewish via both the mothers line and fathers line and they showed me "evidence" of this from Tanakh. Can anyone validate?

"There are instances in the Hebrew Bible of Israelite men marrying non-Hebrew women, and the children, without question, are Israelites. Often there is no indication the women converted to Judaism, some even coming from pagan priestly families. Examples include, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher whose mothers were Bilhah, and Zipah, non-Hebrew concubines. Ephraim and Manasseh, whose mother was Asenath, an Egyptian and the daughter of a pagan priest. Judah's sons, Er, Onan and Shelah whose mother was Shua, a Canaanite woman. Gershom and Eliezer, the sons of Moses, whose mother was the Midianite Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro the priest of Midian (Moses then also married a Kushite woman, Tharbis). Obed, the grandfather of King David, whose mother was Ruth the Moabite, who had joined herself the people of Israel. Absalom, a son of David who almost assumed the throne, was the son of Maacah, the daughter of King Talmai of Geshur. The first King of Judah under the divided kingdom was Rehoboam, whose mother was Naamah, an Ammonite woman.

All of the aforementioned offspring of mixed marriages involving Israelite men and gentile women were considered Israelites, including the founders of six tribes of Israel, and Rehoboam who rose to become the first King of Judah. The Children of Israel are the direct descendants of Jacob, regardless of whether their mothers were or were not Israelites. This is evidenced by the patrilineal genealogies given in the Tanakh, and statements from the Torah such as "...in order to establish you today as a people for Himself, and He Himself be your God, as He has spoken to you, and as He has sworn to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob". Furthermore, in instances where a person is the offspring of a Hebrew mother and an non-Israelite man, they are not called one of the Children of Israel, as the children of mixed marriages involving an Israelite father are, but are referred to as someone whose "mother is an Israelite, and whose father is a ____". Implying that children whose whose father is descendant from Jacob are counted as Children of Israel; and those with gentile fathers are not counted as such. However it should be noted the People of Israel are made of both native born Children of Israel, and foreigners who have joined themselves to them, there being no distinction made between the native born and the stranger, and one Torah applying equally to both.

Examples of non-Israelites with an Israelite mother and gentile father include the son of the Egyptian man and Israelite woman who blasphemed the name, and Hiram who helped construct the first Temple, whose mother was a widow from the tribe of Naphtali and whose father was a Phoenician from Tyre."

Ezekiel 47, 17

וְחִלַּקְתֶּם אֶת-הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, לָכֶם—לְשִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְהָיָה, תַּפִּלוּ אוֹתָהּ בְּנַחֲלָה, לָכֶם וּלְהַגֵּרִים הַגָּרִים בְּתוֹכְכֶם, אֲשֶׁר-הוֹלִדוּ בָנִים בְּתוֹכְכֶם; וְהָיוּ לָכֶם, כְּאֶזְרָח בִּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל—אִתְּכֶם יִפְּלוּ בְנַחֲלָה, בְּתוֹךְ שִׁבְטֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל.

So shall you divide this land unto you according to the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that you divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who sojourn in your midst and who bear children among you. And they shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel – with you they have an inheritance in the midst of the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger sojourns, there you give him his inheritance,” declares the Master Hashem.


From my understanding, I thought all Jews are Israelites? What is Karaite Judaism?

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #1 on: September 21, 2009, 06:01:31 PM »
This topic has been discussed extensively in the Torah and Jewish ideas section...

It is complex and I am not prepared to repeat what I had written before...


You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Moshe92

  • Guest
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #2 on: September 21, 2009, 06:02:21 PM »
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #3 on: September 21, 2009, 06:03:08 PM »
The only thing I can see is that the father determines the tribe, but I've asked a rabbi about this and there was a verse that mentioned a non Jewish mother turns away the child from Judaism which is why they are not considered Jewish? I see a lot of people with only Jewish fathers claiming to be Jewish.

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #4 on: September 21, 2009, 06:03:43 PM »
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Why do they reject Talmud?

Moshe92

  • Guest
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #5 on: September 21, 2009, 06:23:02 PM »
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Why do they reject Talmud?

They just don't believe that the oral law is divine. That contradicts one of the most basic ideas of Judaism, and some rabbis consider them to be mamzerim.

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2009, 06:25:38 PM »
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Why do they reject Talmud?

They just don't believe that the oral law is divine. That contradicts one of the most basic ideas of Judaism, and some rabbis consider them to be mamzerim.

Right, but what are their arguments for it? When did Talmud come into effect? Do they reject oral law because of Rabbinical law?

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2009, 06:59:54 PM »
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Why do they reject Talmud?

They just don't believe that the oral law is divine. That contradicts one of the most basic ideas of Judaism, and some rabbis consider them to be mamzerim.

Right, but what are their arguments for it? When did Talmud come into effect? Do they reject oral law because of Rabbinical law?

Jewish belief is that Torah was given at mount sinai to the Israelite slaves who left Egypt after the 10 Plagues... The Torah consists of two parts, the written law, and the Oral law... Without the Oral law the Written law doesn't make sense. The reason it was kept oral is so that heretical cults {such as these karaites} would only get the Written law which isn't complete without the oral law. There are many examples of commands which, when read from the 5 books of Moses, don't really make any sense. Such as Mezzuzah, Tzit-Tzit, Shema, Shabbat and Tefillin. The Torah talks about them, but doesnt expressly explain how to carry out the command. Oral law explains what the written Torah says...

Without Oral law, Torah is meaningless..

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #8 on: September 21, 2009, 07:02:58 PM »
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm



 Oral Torah: The Talmud



In addition to the written scriptures we have an "Oral Torah," a tradition explaining what the above scriptures mean and how to interpret them and apply the Laws. Orthodox Jews believe G-d taught the Oral Torah to Moses, and he taught it to others, down to the present day. This tradition was maintained only in oral form until about the 2d century C.E., when the oral law was compiled and written down in a document called the Mishnah.

Over the next few centuries, additional commentaries elaborating on the Mishnah were written down in Jerusalem and Babylon. These additional commentaries are known as the Gemara. The Gemara and the Mishnah together are known as the Talmud. This was completed in the 5th century C.E.

There are actually two Talmuds: the Jerusalem Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud. The Babylonian Talmud is more comprehensive, and is the one most people mean if they just say "the Talmud" without specifying which one.

There have been additional commentaries on the Talmud by such noted Jewish scholars as Rashi and Rambam. Adin Steinsaltz is currently preparing a new edition of the Talmud, with his own commentary supplementing the Mishnah, Gemara, and Rashi commentaries.

The Talmud is not easy to read. It reminds me of someone else's class notes for a college lecture you never attended. There are often gaps in the reasoning where it is assumed that you already know what they are talking about, and concepts are often expressed in a sort of shorthand. Biblical verses that support a teaching are often referenced by only two or three words. The Talmud preserves a variety of views on every issue, and does not always clearly identify which view is the accepted one.

The Mishnah is divided into six sections called sedarim (in English, orders). Each seder contains one or more divisions called masekhtot (in English, tractates). There are 63 masekhtot in the Mishnah. Approximately half of these masekhtot have been addressed in the Talmud. Although these divisions seem to indicate subject matter, it is important to note that the Mishnah and the Talmud engage in quite a bit of free-association, thus widely diverse subjects may be discussed in a seder or masekhtah. Below is the division of the Mishnah into sedarim and masekhtot:
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline White Israelite

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4535
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #9 on: September 21, 2009, 07:11:48 PM »
Right, but in the examples I listed, many of those people including some of the tribes were Israelites and followed Torah but today would not be considered Jewish because their mothers were not Jews. I don't understand that.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2009, 07:18:18 PM »
Right, but in the examples I listed, many of those people including some of the tribes were Israelites and followed Torah but today would not be considered Jewish because their mothers were not Jews. I don't understand that.

There is the belief that since Torah was given at Sinai, what happened before the Receiving of Torah {Kabbalat Torah} was not prohibited... So by this logic the fact that Moshe married Tzipporah who was a midianite, it was not a violation of the law... Because the law had not been given yet, and there was no curse against the Midianites as there was against the Canaanites {which is why Abraham prohibited marriage between Yitzak and the slave Eliezers daughter}. In the case of King Davids grandmother Ruth she was a true convert, and the book of Ruth explains how sincere her conversion to Judaism was.

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2009, 07:23:48 PM »
Read this:


http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/kingdavidjew.html



Was King David Jewish?

Believe it or not, I keep hearing from people who insist that according to Jewish Law, King David was not Jewish. They offer no proof of their statement, but they serve this up as "evidence" that Jewish Law has changed over the centuries.

I've already dealt with the second issue, and I have shown that Jewish Law has not changed, in my article, "Has Judaism Changed?"

I cannot imagine why people believe that King David would not be Jewish as defined by Jewish Law, as they have never offered me any logic to prove it. They simply make the statement and refuse to back it up with anything. For the most part, people simply tell me "Read the Bible, and you'll see." As if I've never studied the Bible before!

So it makes it a bit difficult for me to focus on any specific point. However, I will demonstrate that King David was indeed Jewish. If anyone has any questions involving a specific point in this subject matter, I would welcome it being sent to me so I can refute it as well and add it to this (or a new) article.

Okay, so let's begin by defining the word "Jew," as understood now, and as understood in ancient times. Jewish Law defines a Jew as one of three things:

    * Someone who is matrilineally descended from Jacob (AKA Israel) and any of his wives,
    * Someone who has properly converted
    * Someone who is matrilineally descended from a proper convert.

Was this always true? Ever since the Tor "Who is a Jew?" for my discussion of that subject, and the proof that this is from the Torah.) What about before Hashem gave us the Torah? Was it different? After all, before the Torah was given there was no such thing as a Jew. Many Jewish Laws were different before we received the Torah at Mount Sinai, so that cannot count.

Which brings up another question: Were the Patriarchs Jewish? And did the Matriarchs convert to Judaism before marrying the Patriarchs?

Let's see what the Torah says about it. We find that when Hashem told Abram (before Hashem changed his name to Abraham) to leave his birthplace Haran, the Torah tells us: "Abram took Sarai his wife, and his nephew Lot, all their belongings, and all the souls they had made in Haran; they left to go to the land Canaan, and they arrived at Canaan" (Genesis 12:5).

What are those "souls they had made in Haran?" Were they in the soul manufacturing business? They had no children yet, so it can't mean that. Three chapters later, in Genesis 15:3, Abraham says to Hashem, "You have given me no children yet...."

So who were those souls? It means, the Talmud tells us, the people they had converted to Judaism. Since Abraham and Sarah -- the verse says the souls they had made in Haran -- had brought them into Judaism, the Torah considers them to have "made" them.

Perhaps Judaism was not yet family based, but Hashem had just promised Abraham that "I will make you into a great nation, and I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing" (ibid., verse 2). And in Genesis 17:7, Hashem tells Abraham, "I will establish My covenant between Me and you, and your children afterwards, for all generations, an eternal covenant, to be your Power (G-d), and the Power of your descendants after you...." There are other examples of this, but this will do for now.

So, we see that Hashem promised Abraham that his descendants would be the Chosen People.

Why Abraham? "For I will bless you, and increase your descendants like the stars of the sky... Because you obeyed Me" (Genesis 22:18). More importantly, "Abraham will be a great and mighty nation...For I know that he will command his children and his household after him to obey the Way of Hashem, that they will do charity and justice..." (ibid., 18:18-19).

So, Abraham made sure the religion was maintained, and that his children and all the members of his household, the "souls they had made in Haran," would keep the Commandments that G-d had given him.

Which Commandments? Well, Hashem told Isaac, the son of Abraham, "And I will increase your descendants until they are as many as the stars of the sky, and I will give your descendants all these lands, and all the nations of the land will be blessed through your descendants. Because Abraham obeyed Me, and he kept My Decrees, My Commandments, My Regulations, and My Torahs" (ibid. 26:5-6). That's quite a lot. It doesn't seem to mean one or two little rules. In fact, the Talmud teaches us that Abraham fulfilled all of the Torah, including the Oral Torah, and even the decrees of the later Rabbis. This is alluded to by the fact that the Torah says that Abraham kept Hashem's "Torahs," in plural. This refers to both the Written Torah and the Oral Torah (Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 28b).

Abraham was quite obedient. He kept all of the Torah! And he commanded his children after him to do the same.

Which is not to say that Abraham and all our Patrairchs and Matriarchs were "Jewish" per se. His exact status, and the status of all his family and descendants until the Torah was given to us, is not too clear. (In fact, the Rabbis teach us that this question was hotly disputed between the twelve sons of Jacob.) One thing is certain: the Rabbis teach us that when we stood at Mount Sinai and accepted the Torah, we all became Jews, so to speak (though the term "Jew" did not come into use until at least six hundred or so years later). Our lineage is important, but that's not all that makes us Jews. A gentile who fully and properly converts to Judaism is also called a descendant of Abraham and Sarah, and one of Israel, without question.

Some people have asked me, "How can it have been possible for Abraham to know what the Torah says before it was given?"

They forget that Abraham was a prophet also, and that Hashem spoke to him often. The Torah was not created by Moses, but by Hashem. The Talmud (Nedarim 39b) teaches us that Hashem created the Torah before creating the world. King Solomon, in Proverbs (8:22-27), tells us this, when he speaks of the Torah:

    Hashem created me at the beginning of Creation, long before His other deeds. I ruled from the earliest times, before the earliest things on earth. Before there were deep seas, I was created...before the mountains were set, before the hills, I was created....Before the earth was made...when the sky was prepared, I was already there...

Therefore, we see that the Torah existed in the time of Abraham as well, and that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob kept the Torah.

So, did the Matriarchs convert before the Patriarchs married them?

Since we know that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, all kept Hashem's Commandment, it seems rather unlikely that the Patriarchs married unconverted Gentile women. The Torah says that all their households kept the Way of Hashem. It seems more likely that all their wives also converted and observed whatever Commandments Hashem had given Abraham. At any rate, the Matriarchs were no more or less Jewish than the Patrairchs were.

Moreover, we find that Sarah was on a higher level than Abraham was. When Sarah said that Hagar and Ishmael were destroying Isaac, and should therefore be sent away, Abraham did not want to do it. However, Hashem told Abraham, "Whatever Sarah your wife tells you, obey her voice..." (Genesis 21:12) The Talmud teaches us that "her voice" (when it should have said "obey her" -- see the Sifsei Chachamim on Rashi, Genesis 21:12, s.v. "Obey Her Voice") means the voice of Hashem that speaks through her (Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 69b). This means, says the Midrash, that Sarah had a greater level of prophecy than Abraham did (Midrash Tanchumah Exodus 1:1).

Obviously, Sarah was fully "Jewish," or whatever passed for that in those days. She was a very holy person, and was even a greater prophet than Abraham! (Prophecy does not come easy. Only people on a very high spiritual level can become prophets.)

So before the Torah was given, it doesn't really matter, pragmatically speaking, whether being Jewish was passed along via the mother or the father. In all cases, the fathers and mothers were as Jewish as anyone could be at the time, and they were fully obedient to Hashem's Torah. Being "Jewish" was passed down by both parents.

For we have to consider, what made Abraham Jewish? Even if you believe that Jewishness was passed along patrilineally, you would still have to ask "how did Abraham become Jewish in the first place?" Whatever that process was, it was the same for Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, and Leah, the Matriarchs. However it was that Abraham became "Jewish," that's how Sarah became Jewish. Thus, Jewishness could just have easily passed down by matrilineal descent, even then. It is really a moot point, since we have seen that the Matriarchs were considered as Jewish as the Patriarchs, no more, no less.

Let's get a little closer to King David himself. King David was a descendant of Judah, the son of Jacob, on his father's side. (Otherwise, he could not have been the king that started the royal dynasty. King Saul was a temporary king, and not the head of the royal dynasty.) Was King David Jewish? After all, he had Gentile ancestors. King David was a descendant of Ruth, who was born a Gentile, and married a Jew.

Let's review the history. As the beginning of the Book of Ruth tells us, A Jewish man named Elimelech took his wife Naomi and their two sons from the land of Israel to the land of Moab. There, in Moab, the two sons married Moabite women, Ruth and Orpah. Before long, Elimelech and his two sons died.

Ruth and Naomi went to the Land of Israel. There, Ruth met Boaz, and they got married. They had a son named Oved. Oved had a son named Jesse, and Jesse had a son named David. That David later became the King David. So, King David was also descended from Gentiles. Was King David Jewish?

Some people argue that if Ruth was not Jewish, neither were her children, and therefore King David was not Jewish.

The first and obvious problem with that argument is that Ruth was not King David's mother. She was his great-grandmother. Let's assume for now that she did not convert to Judaism. If her son Oved married a Jewish woman, then his son Jesse was Jewish anyway. Even if Oved married a Gentile woman, if their son Jesse married a Jewish woman then their son David was still Jewish!

So even if Ruth did not convert, you still have to prove that King David's mother was not Jewish. So far, no one has furnished me with any proof of this at all. It does not matter at all whether Ruth converted, if King David's mother was Jewish.

But let us consider: did Ruth convert? Well, first of all, it's pretty logical to assume that she did, since the Torah explicitly forbids us to marry Gentiles who have not converted. In Deuteronomy 7:3 the Torah tells us, "Do not marry with them; your daughter you may not give to a Gentile's son, and you may not take a Gentile's daughter for your son." Why? Because, says the Torah, "For he will take your son away from Me, and they will worship the gods of others..." (ibid., verse 4). (See my article, "Judaism: Race, Religion, or Ethnicity?" for further explanation of this Commandment.)

Note, by the way, that the Torah's prohibition against marrying a Gentile applies to both a Jewish man marrying a Gentile woman, and a Jewish woman marrying a Gentile man. Both are forbidden.

So we have no reason to assume that Ruth didn't convert. Boaz, the leader of his generation, would not have married a Gentile woman who had not converted. Remember, Ruth went to Boaz because he was the next closest relative to her dead husband, and therefore it was his obligation to marry her to give her the children her dead husband never gave her (Ruth 2:20; 3:3; 3:12; and Chapter 4). But if she had not been Jewish, Boaz would not have had such an obligation at all!

However, since there are people who, for no clear reason, still insist that Ruth did not convert, I will demonstrate from the Book of Ruth itself that Ruth did convert.

In Ruth 4:11, it says:

    And all the people at the gate as well as the Elders were witnesses, and they said, May Hashem let this woman who is joining your household be like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built the House of Israel, and may you do great things in Efras, and be considered significant in Bethlehem. And may your home be like the home of Peretz son of Judah and Tamar, from the offspring that Hashem will give you from this young woman.

Note that the Elders of Israel were among the witnesses. They witnessed and approved of this marriage. Moreover, they obviously expected that Hashem will favor that marriage. Would they have felt that way if Ruth had not converted to Judaism? If Boaz was transgressing the Torah's Commandment against marrying a Gentile woman, would they have blessed the marriage? Would they have blessed her to become as great as the Matriarchs Rachel and Leah? It seems rather clear that Ruth converted to Judaism. Therefore, any children she had were Jewish.

Some argue that "there was no conversion process back then." I must wonder how they know this. They simply mean to say that they do not believe that the Laws of Judaism existed back then, and therefore it was okay to marry Gentile women. This entails ignoring the Torah's Commandment not to marry Gentiles.

Not only that, but the great people of Jewish history certainly did not consider it permitted to marry unconverted Gentiles.

Let's take Moses, for example. Moses was married to an Ethiopian woman, Zipporah. Yet when the soldiers brought back Gentile women from Midian, Moses got angry at them (Numbers 31:14-15). What was the difference? The difference is that Zipporah converted to Judaism.

How do we know that Zipporah converted? Because we know that she kept the Commandments. When Moses failed to circumcise his son because he was afraid that the traveling would kill him, what did Zipporah do? "Zipporah took a (sharp) rock and cut off the foreskin of her son..." (Exodus 4:25). Evidently, Zipporah was an observant Jew.

Intermarriage is also mentioned in 1 Kings, Chapter 11:

    King Solomon loved many Gentile women, such as the daughter of Pharaoh, Moabite, Amonite, Edomite, Sidonite, and Hittite women. They are Gentiles, about whom Hashem told the Children of Israel "Do not intermarry with them and do not let them intermarry with you, for they will surely influence you towards their religions." Those are the people that Solomon clung to in love. He had seven hundred queen-wives, and three hundred concubines, and these women influenced him.

    When Solomon grew old, his wives influenced him towards their gods, and thus his heart was not complete in his service of Hashem, as his father David's was....

    Hashem said to Solomon, Since this is the way you are, and you have not fully obeyed My covenant and My Laws that I commanded you, I shall tear part of the kingdom from you, and I will give it to one of your subjects. I shall not do this in your lifetime, for the sake of your father David. I shall tear it away from your son.

We see here that the prophets considered what King Solomon did, in marrying Gentile women, to be a sin. Had they fully and properly converted, they would not have influenced him away from Hashem. (Bear in mind that the Talmud says that King Solomon never actually worshipped any idols, but since he did not stop his wives from doing so when he could have, Hashem considered it as if it were King Solomon's own sin.)

Even back then, evidently, there was a process of conversion. I think, then, that we have amply proven that Ruth was a convert, just like Sarah, Rebecca, Leah, Rachel, Bilha, and Zilpah. And as I said above, in any case the nationality of Ruth would not have thrown into question the Jewishness of King David, who was her great-grandson.

I think I have exhausted all the arguments I can think of concerning the Jewishness of King David. If you know of any others, please email me with them.
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2009, 07:45:58 PM »
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.

Why do they reject Talmud?

They just don't believe that the oral law is divine. That contradicts one of the most basic ideas of Judaism, and some rabbis consider them to be mamzerim.

Right, but what are their arguments for it? When did Talmud come into effect? Do they reject oral law because of Rabbinical law?

The real question is when did "Karaitism" come into effect, not when did Talmud come into effect.   There is ample evidence that Talmudic scholarship and authority of such scholarship in deciding matters of Jewish law dates back to the time when these writings were first officially recorded in writing (previously oral tradition of rulings of Sanhedrins and greatest sages on various issues).   Jews always looked to the rabbis to decide on matters of Jewish law that were complicated and difficult for the average Jew.  The precedent for this is ALL OVER written Torah.   Assign judges, tells what qualities they should have, elders, etc.    All very obvious.     There was a "Sadducee" sect in Talmudic era that basically said "we will accept to keep written Torah, but not oral Torah because that's not divine" -

They wanted to remove the authority of Rabbis/sages to decide Jewish law.   But who else other than those most learned and wise in Torah should decide it?   So centuries of legal precedent, including BINDING decisions of the Sanhedrin's that were assembled, they wished to discard in the trash bin.     The Sadduccees were likely helenized Jews who took on this approach after the successful Macabee revolution, as a concession so as not to be slaughtered in their refusal to keep Judaism at all.  As you well know, the Maccabees exacted ample revenge on the hellenists and assimilated traitors after they took power, at the beginning.   Well this powerful influential group needed some way to cover their behinds without fully agreeing to take on Judaism since they never believed it anyway.   So I do not believe the traditional refrain that Sadduccees actually sincerely believed in Written Torah, but whatever.

Karaites came way later, when Jews had already adopted (and been living by) the rulings of Talmudic sages and the rabbinic interpreters who came later that led the various diaspora communities with their piety and scholarship, and knowledge of these sources.   The karaites rebelled against the system and claimed that they were ideological descendents of the Saducees, not quite an honest claim.  Ironically they invented some of their own traditions based on their rejection of already existing ones, on the faulty basis that they are "not divine" - Yet, neither would any of their own traditions, understandings, or rulings be binding since they readily admit they have no divine authority either.   It became just another set of rabbis and a set of followers with a new Judaism.   

Rambam speaks extensively about how the whole Jewish people, including the ancestors of the karaites of his day, had accepted Talmudic rulings upon sealing of the Talmud (chasimas hashas), had lived by Talmud law because of its authenticity (connection to prior Sanhedrin rulings and sages) and considered it binding.    He stressed that karaites were breaking from the traditions/Judaism of their true -preKaraite- forefathers, and he stressed also that those born into it in his day were not to be held accountable because they were like captives, born into something errant, and they didn't know better.   He advised kindly doing kiruv with such people and teaching them proper Judaism, since they are not the original defectors who broke off, they can be reached.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2009, 07:47:29 PM »
Right, but in the examples I listed, many of those people including some of the tribes

The tribes?  As in the sons of Yaakov?  That was before giving of the Torah.  With the national experience at Mt. Sinai, everything changed.   (well, not everything, but you get what I mean.  That was a watershed event - to say the least!)

Offline The One and Only Mo

  • Ultimate JTFer
  • *******
  • Posts: 4963
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #14 on: September 22, 2009, 12:42:33 PM »
And the argument continues.

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #15 on: September 22, 2009, 01:21:25 PM »
And the argument continues.

Yeah I know right?  I've gotten pretty tired of this.   It would be nice if people could just search the archives here instead of drawing up the same arguments again and needing everything explained from A to Z.   I tried to take a somewhat different approach this time as the question is somewhat different (more karaite oriented rather than Jewish descent so much).   

On the matrilineal descent thing, Jews today act like they just invented the wheel overnight and no one else knows the truth about how they're constructed.   Anyone with Jewish grandparents, they can ask their grandparents (and they know), a person born to a non-Jewish woman is not Jewish.   Even people who intermarried would readily admit this and knew this going into it, only 1 or 2 generations ago.     Only in recent times did Jews suddenly think they can reinvent Judaism and then claim their own version is accurate while everyone else is wrong.

Offline Christian Zionist

  • Master JTFer
  • ******
  • Posts: 1515
  • homosexuality is an abomination to God-Lev.18:22
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2009, 10:52:00 PM »
Muman, I don't believe that the Tanach teaches that Jewishness is determined by mother's line...

What about Athalia, the queen of Judah?.  She was the daughter of Ahab and Jezebel.  She was obviously not Jewish. She worshiped idols and being a daughter of the most wicked queen Jezebel Athalia never converted to Judaism. 

Athaliah was Queen of Judah. She was the daughter of King Ahab and Queen Jezebel of the northern kingdom of Israel. She also was the wife of King Jehoram of Judah, and the mother of King Ahaziah.

Following Ahaziah's death at the hands of Jehu, Athaliah seized power and killed all members of the royal family who were possible rivals for the throne, except for Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, who had been rescued by his Aunt Jehosheba.

When Joash was seven years old, Jehoiada the priest conspired to have the young boy crowned in the Temple as king. When Queen Athaliah heard the commotion, she rushed to the Temple to see what was going on, and found the new king surrounded by army officers and people from all over the land rejoicing and blowing trumpets.


If Jewishness is determined by the lineage of the mother then it would mean Ahaziah was not Jewish since Ataliah was not Jewish then the rest of the Kings who followed were not Jewish either including the good Kings Hezekiah and Josiah!!!  Imagine the Kingdom of Judah being ruled by non-Jewish Kings who were descendants of Athaliah?

Let me give you one more example from Torah:



Leviticus  24:10

   Now the son of an Israelite mother and an Egyptian father went out among the Israelites, and a fight broke out in the camp between him and an Israelite.

Leviticus  24:11

   The son of the Israelite woman blasphemed the Name with a curse; so they brought him to Moses. (His mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri the Danite.)


The man who blasphemed the name of the Lord G-d of Israel was NOT identified as Jewish even though the mother was identified as Jewish.   In verse 10 it is stated " a fight broke out in the camp between HIM and an ISRAELITE".  In other words the fight was between a gentile (whose mother was Jewish and the father was an Egyptian) and an Israelite.  "HIM and an ISRAELITE" clearly implies that "a gentile and an Israelite"...

Isaiah 62:1 -  For Zion's sake I am not silent, And for Jerusalem's sake I do not rest, Till her righteousness go out as brightness, And her salvation, as a torch that burns.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #17 on: September 24, 2009, 12:01:38 AM »
Regarding your second point, the Blashphemer the following may be informative:

http://www.aish.com/tp/i/moha/48943476.html


The Story Behind the Story
by Rabbi Ari Kahn


Parshat Emor primarily teaches law. It primarily concerns itself with laws regarding the Kohanim and the various festivals, but at the end, it returns to narrative:

    And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. And the Israelite woman's son blasphemed the name of the Lord, and cursed. And they brought him to Moses; and his mother's name was Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan. And they put him in custody, that the mind of the Lord might be shown to them. And the Lord spoke to Moses, saying: "Bring forth him who has cursed outside the camp; and let all who heard him lay their hands upon his head, and let all the congregation stone him. And you shall speak to the People of Israel, saying, 'Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin.' And he who blasphemes 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 who is born in the land, when he blasphemes the name of the Lord, shall be put to death ... You shall have one kind of law for the stranger, as for one of your own country; for I am the Lord your God." And Moses spoke to the People of Israel, that they should bring forth him who had cursed out of the camp, and stone him with stones. And the People of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses. (Leviticus 24:10-23)

While the law of the "blasphemer" is certainly important, it seems strange that the law is told in the form of a narrative, rather than recorded in dispassionate legalistic form as are so many other laws in this Torah portion and elsewhere in the Torah.

    Why is this story told here?

Regarding the narrative itself a number of questions arise: Why is this story told here? Why is the person's identity revealed?1 Why was it necessary for Moses to seek consultation with God in order to clarify the law?

In order to understand the sequence and discern why the story is told at this juncture we must first resolve the other questions raised.

* * *

THE BLASPHEMER

The man who blasphemes is described as the son of an Egyptian man and an Israelite woman. By making this identification the Torah seems to be pointing out that the severity of this crime – cursing God - is not something which a Jew would be suspected of: The origin of this curse is his Egyptian ancestry.2

Echoes of Paroh's impudent question, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, nor will I let Israel go." (Exodus 5:3) can be heard in this curse. While his Egyptian identity is crucial to the understanding of the text, and especially the emphasis in the ensuing stricture "as well as the stranger who is born in your land," the rabbis go one step farther, and identify the specific Egyptian who was the father of the blasphemer.

    Our Rabbis and Rabbi Levi differ on the interpretation. Our Rabbis say: "Although there were no bastards among them at that time, he was [like] a bastard." Rabbi Levi says: "He was definitely a bastard." How is this to be understood?

    The taskmasters were Egyptians and the officers were Israelites. One taskmaster was in charge of ten officers and one officer was in charge of ten men. Thus a taskmaster had charge of a hundred men. On one occasion a taskmaster paid an early visit to an officer and said to him: "Go and assemble me your group." When he came in the other's wife smiled at him. Thought he: "She is mine!" So he went out and hid behind a ladder. No sooner had her husband gone out than he entered and misconducted himself with her. The other turned round and saw him coming out of the house.

    When the taskmaster realized that he had seen him, he went to him and kept beating him all that day, saying to him: "Work hard, work hard!" The reason was that he wanted to kill him. Thereupon the Holy Spirit began to stir in Moses; hence it is written, And he looked this way and that (Exodus 2: 12).

    What is the significance of the expression "this way and that"? That he saw what the taskmaster had done to the officer in the house and in the field. He thought: Not enough that he has misconducted himself with his wife but he must seek to kill him! Instantly, When he saw that there was no man, he smote the Egyptian (ib.). (Midrash Rabbah - Leviticus 32:4)

* * *

THE BACKGROUND

The father of this man was none other than the abusive taskmaster whom Moses saw beating the Jewish slave.3 According to the Midrash, the Egyptian first abused the wife and then attempted to kill the husband. In the course of the abuse of the wife a child was conceived. This child joined the Jewish people and left Egypt with his mother. Now, he has an altercation with another man, and curses God.

Even this officer is seen by Moses as a brother.

It is interesting that the husband is described as an officer of his fellow slaves; given his abusive position, it is unlikely that he was beloved by his people. Nonetheless, even this officer is seen by Moses as a brother, and he proceeds to save him by killing the Egyptian. Later, when Moses again intercedes to try to stop an altercation between two Jews, his previous meritorious action is thrown in his face:

    And when he went out the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews struggled together; and he said to the one who did the wrong, "Why do you strike your fellow?" And he said, "Who made you a prince and a judge over us? Do you intend to kill me, as you killed the Egyptian?" And Moses feared, and said, "Certainly this thing is known." (Exodus 2:13-14)

According to the Midrash, the two who were fighting on the second day were Datan and Aviram, two provocateurs known primarily for their activities in the desert.

    And he went out the second day, and behold, two men of the Hebrews struggled together. This refers to Datan and Aviram ... on account of their subsequent record. For it was they who said this thing; it was they who left over of the manna; they it was who said: Let us make a captain and return to Egypt (Numbers 14: 4). It was they who rebelled at the Red Sea. (Midrash Rabba 1:29)

At almost every turn in the desert, whenever trouble brewed, Datan was not far behind. Perhaps the old "Kapo" had a difficult time following Moses and the Torah. This resentment is especially ironic, if we consider the debt which Datan owed Moses – his very life. According to the Midrash, the reason Datan knew of Moses having killed the Egyptian in order to save a Jew was because Datan was that Jew. The Midrash explains that Datan was the husband of Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri.

When Moses saw this, he knew by means of the Holy Spirit what had happened in the house and what the Egyptian was about to do in the field; so he said: "This man certainly deserves his death, as it is written: And he that smites any man mortally shall surely be put to death. Moreover, since he cohabited with the wife of Datan he deserves slaying, as it is said: Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death."

Hence does it say: And he looked this way and that way; namely, he saw what he did to him [Datan] in the house and what he intended to do to him in the field. (Shmot Rabba 1:28)

One day Datan struggles with the Egyptian taskmaster who wished to kill him; the next day he struggles with another Jew. On both occasions, Moses intercedes and saves him. Datan, though, is ungrateful.

It is unclear if Datan returns to his wife. The various Midrashim accord different degrees of responsibility on her part. The Midrash cited above notes her flirtatious behavior: "When he came in the other's wife smiled at him. Thought he: 'She is mine!'" Furthermore, certain commentators see something ominous in her name: Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri. Shlomit is derived from Shalom – she would say hello to all- and Dibri – she was too talkative and outgoing.4

On the other hand, other sources seem to indicate that what transpired was completely without her knowledge!

    Once an Egyptian taskmaster went to a Jewish officer and set eyes upon his wife who was beautiful without blemish. He waited for daybreak, when he dragged the officer out of his house and then returned to lie down with the woman, who thought that it was her husband, with the result that she became pregnant from him. When her husband returned, he discovered the Egyptian emerging from his house. He then asked her: "Did he touch you?" She replied: "Yes, for I thought it was you." (Shmot Rabba 1:28)

* * *

ONE EXCEPTION

But even this source is introduced by a more damning statement: Tradition tells us that the Jews remained chaste during the duration of their enslavement. There was one exception:

    Whence do we know that they were not suspect of adultery? Because there was only one immoral woman and the Bible published her name, as it is said: "And his mother's name was Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri." 5 (Shmot Rabba 1:28)

Although the Midrash tells us that the Egyptian violated her without her knowledge, and ostensibly against her will, the prefacing remarks concerning her immorality belie a less-than flattering attitude toward her.

Perhaps both Midrashim need to be seen as complimenting one another, and indeed the "inviting smile" of the other Midrash should be read into this second Midrash as well. Furthermore, the logic Moses employs when deciding to kill the Egyptian is based on a verse concerning adultery, not rape: Both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Not all the Jews were so confident that their spouses had remained pure. The Zohar explains the enigmatic passage in the Torah which describes the bitter water encountered in Marah.

Rabbi Eleazar adduced here the verse: And when they came to Marah, they could not drink the waters of Marah, for they were bitter.... There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them (Exodus 15:23-25). "I wonder," he said, "how it is that people take so little trouble to understand the words of the Torah. Here, for example, one should really inquire what is the point of the words There he made for them... and there he proved them. But the inward significance of the water mentioned here is this: The Egyptians claimed to be the parents of the children of Israel, and many among the Israelites suspected their wives in the matter. So the Holy One, blessed be He, brought them to that place, where He desired to put them to the test. Thus when Moses cried to the Lord he was told: 'Write down the Divine Name, cast it into the water, and let all of them, women and men, be tested, so that no evil report should remain in regard to My children; and until they all be probed I will not cause My Name to rest upon them.' Straightway the Lord showed him a tree, and he cast it into the waters, the tree being thus identical with the Divine Name the priest has to write for the testing of the wife of an Israelite. Thus There he made for them a statute and an ordinance, and there he proved them. Now it may be asked: This was properly done for the women, but why include the men? But, indeed, the men also had to be probed to show that they had not contaminated themselves with Egyptian women, in the same way as the women had to be probed to show that they had kept themselves uncontaminated by Egyptian men, all the time they were among them. And all, male and female, were proved to be pure, were found to be the seed of Israel, holy and pure. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, caused His Name to dwell among them." (Zohar, Bamidbar 124b)

The prerequisite for the Divine Presence to dwell amongst the people was the drinking of bitter water which contained the Divine Name. There was one woman, though, who had the forbidden fruit of her tryst in tow, Shlomit bat Dibri. We may surmise that she alone was not tested, and not found guilty, because her husband Datan had already separated from her.

* * *

STRANGE NARRATIVE

The various characters in our short but strange narrative are beginning to come into focus -- Datan and Shlomit, a worthy match; her son by her Egyptian paramour, and an unidentified individual with whom he becomes embroiled in strife and fisticuffs.

    And the son of an Israelite woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the people of Israel; and this son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel struggled together in the camp. (Exodus 24:10)

What was the root of the controversy?

Rabbi Hiyya taught: "He went out as a result of the section regarding pedigrees. For he came with the intention of pitching his tent in the camp of Dan, so they said to him: 'What right have you to pitch your tent in the camp of Dan?' Said he to them: 'I am descended from the daughters of Dan.' It is written, they told him, By their fathers' houses; every man with his own standard, according to the ensigns (Numbers 2: 2) -- fathers' but not mothers' houses. He appealed to the court of Moses and lost his case, so he rose and reviled God.

This indeed explains the source of his discontent but not the reason for his altercation with the Israelite. The Zohar explains the reason for the fight and the identity of his antagonist:

Up to this point his mother's name was concealed, but now that he had uttered blasphemy his mother's name is mentioned. Said Rabbi Abba: "Were it not that the Sacred Lamp is still alive, I would not reveal this, since it is not meant to be revealed save to those who are among the reapers of the field: a curse on those who want to reveal to those who should not know! The Israelite man mentioned here was the son of another woman, and his father was the husband of Shlomit. When an Egyptian came to her in the middle of the night and he returned home and became aware of it, he separated from her and took another wife. Hence one is called the Israelite man and the other the son of the Israelite woman.

Now if they quarreled, how came the Holy Name to be involved? The reason was that the Israelite man reviled the other's mother, and the latter took the He from the Holy Name and cursed with it to defend his mother; hence the word nakav (lit. 'hollowed') is used, to show that he separated the letters of the Holy Name. But all this is only for the reapers of the field." (Zohar, Leviticus, Page 106a)

While certain elements of the above quotation from the Zohar are clearly too obscure to explain, there are some points that we can decipher. These men who fought had something in common. Their parents were once married. Their fathers once fought. And both seemed to have inherited contentious constitutions from their respective fathers.

When the son of Shlomit is denied the right to dwell with the tribe of Dan, the son of Datan provokes him. Perhaps possessing the tact of his father he calls the formers' mother a "whore." He tells him how his mother cheated on her husband with a hated Egyptian. He tells him that Moses himself intervened and killed his father.6

Now perhaps this man suspects that he knows why he lost his case, assuming that Moses would never rule in his favor because of his background. So he curses. He uses the great and awesome name of God to vent his anger, sadness and frustration.

* * *

WHY CURSE GOD?

But why curse with the name of God? Why utter the ineffable, the unspeakable? The Midrash provides the explanation:

    And Moses looked this way and that and saw there was no man, and he smote the Egyptian... (Exodus 2:12).

    Rabbi Nehemiah says: "He saw that there was none who would mention over him God's name and slay him."

    The Sages said: "He saw that there was no hope that righteous persons would arise from him or his offspring until the end of generations. When Moses saw this, he took counsel with the angels and said to them: 'This man deserves death.' They agreed; hence it says: And when he saw that there was no man to say a good word for him, and he smote the Egyptian."

    With what did he slay him? ... The Rabbis say that he pronounced God's name against him and thus slew him, for it is said: Do you say to kill me? (Exodus 2:14). (Midrash Rabba Exodus 1:29)

The method of execution of the Egyptian was by uttering the Divine Name. Now, when the son of the Egyptian utters the Divine Name he is placed in detention, awaiting a Divine directive. Moses's silence is not due to lack of knowledge. A similar phenomenon is discerned in the case of Zimri and Cozbi. Moses had married a woman from Midian; why couldn't Zimri do the same? Of course Moses knew the response; he sensed, though, that it would be unseemly if it was meted out directly by himself without Divine instruction.7

But where did the man learn the ineffable name? The sages say he heard it at Sinai. When God said "I am the Lord..." the ineffable name was articulated. Therefore we see that this man, born of a forbidden union and raised as one of the Jews, a man who witnessed the plagues and the splitting of the sea, who stood at Mount Sinai and saw the heavens open, also saw and heard the voice of God. Yet he was only able to distill from these experiences the ability to curse. That was his failure.

It is true that he was most likely livid with rage, emotionally ravaged, utterly humiliated. Nonetheless, his response indicates a complete breakdown, a total moral failure.

    His response indicates a complete breakdown, a total moral failure.

The use he makes of the Divine Name is so different from that of Moses. Moses uses the name of God to achieve peace. His use of the Divine Name is similar to the use of the Divine Name in the waters of the Sotah. There, too, God's Name is utilized in order to create peace. The son of the Egyptian did not seem to understand this, nor did not wish to understand this. His action is as different as Moses's marriage was from Zimri's affair.

At Sinai, the greatest event in the history of the world, all witnesses should have been transformed, elevated. This man concluded the wrong lesson from Sinai: Instead of truth, understanding and holiness, he walked away with venom.

Perhaps now we also understand why this narrative is taught at this juncture. The next section Parshat Behar tells us what Moses learned at Sinai:

    And the Lord spoke to Moses in Mount Sinai, saying... (Leviticus 25:1)

This section stands in stark contrast to the lesson learned by the son of the Egyptian at Sinai. Instead of beauty, he saw emptiness. He missed the mountain, as it were; perhaps that is why he was stoned.



With Hashems will I will address some of the other concerns you have tomorrow....

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Maccabi

  • Pro JTFer
  • *****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #18 on: September 24, 2009, 03:38:01 AM »
Moses killed the Egyptian with a 'lion strike', a hebrew fighting arts palm strike which caved in the Egyptians skull (I think it may have even sent his brains flying out of his head but I'm not sure)

Some rabbis these days try to explain stuff like 'yeah...David spilled blood of his enemies, but only metaphorically speaking' blah blah blah...it was all metaphorical, you've got to understand the blood, it was metaphorical....'

The fighting system of the ancient Israelites is very deadly...

I think it would probably be better if rabbis knew and explained these types of things and maybe encourage this type of training by Jews...




Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2009, 10:10:36 AM »
Moses killed the Egyptian with a 'lion strike', a hebrew fighting arts palm strike which caved in the Egyptians skull (I think it may have even sent his brains flying out of his head but I'm not sure)

Some rabbis these days try to explain stuff like 'yeah...David spilled blood of his enemies, but only metaphorically speaking' blah blah blah...it was all metaphorical, you've got to understand the blood, it was metaphorical....'

The fighting system of the ancient Israelites is very deadly...

I think it would probably be better if rabbis knew and explained these types of things and maybe encourage this type of training by Jews...





Ummm... Where are your sources for this? There are many sources which explain how Moshe killed the Egyptian... All of them indicate that he used the ineffable name... I have never seen a single source which says what you said... Please provide sources for your claim or else it will be just your opinion...

ps: We are talking about Moses and not David here... David obviously went to war against his enemies and killed them... Moses absolutely used the ineffable name {according to Midrash which is authentic Torah source for Jews}.

ps: this explanation is not from Rabbis of 'today' it is over 2000 years old...

http://www.njop.org/html/EMOR5764-2004.html

See Rashis explanation {Rashi is one of the most trusted Tanakh commentators} at

http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading.asp?AID=15559&p=3&showrashi=true

« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 10:51:24 AM by muman613 »
You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2009, 11:04:46 AM »
Moses killed the Egyptian with a 'lion strike', a hebrew fighting arts palm strike which caved in the Egyptians skull (I think it may have even sent his brains flying out of his head but I'm not sure)

Some rabbis these days try to explain stuff like 'yeah...David spilled blood of his enemies, but only metaphorically speaking' blah blah blah...it was all metaphorical, you've got to understand the blood, it was metaphorical....'

The fighting system of the ancient Israelites is very deadly...

I think it would probably be better if rabbis knew and explained these types of things and maybe encourage this type of training by Jews...



Of course we were skilled warriors.    There is a group of people that claims the Yemenites preserved the ancient Israelite fighting technique, called "Abir," or "Qesheth."    I don't know how far back the tradition really goes, but they do make good arguments for it, and it looks pretty cool.   Rabbi Michael Shelomo Bar-Ron of the Yemenite community is convinced of its authenticity.   Here is his article about it:

http://www.torathmoshe.com/projects/help-restore-the-abir-warrior-arts-to-the-entire-jewish-nation/



Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2009, 11:05:58 AM »


The fighting system of the ancient Israelites is very deadly...

I think it would probably be better if rabbis knew and explained these types of things and maybe encourage this type of training by Jews...


Rabbi Bar Ron also explains about this elsewhere, chayas.com site:

"14)  Since no one can serve HaShem properly with a sick body, it is a fundamental Torah value to keep the body in good physical condition.  Similarly, in every generation there are Jews who cannot live— much less practice the Commandments freely—without constant fear.  A weak Jewish People that does not invest in Jewish warrior training for its army certainly cannot fulfill HaShem's Commandments to the nation.  Therefore it is fundamental principle of Torah that Jews be trained in warfare—on the individual, communal, and national level.  The RMb"M teaches us that our kingdom was lost, our Holy Temple destroyed, and our exile prolonged for this very reason: that we did not involve ourselves in the study of warfare and conquest of lands. (Epistle to the Sages of Marseilles)

 

Many fall into the error that modern warfare has done away with the need for comprehensive martial arts training.  However, recent wars have proven an already universally-recognized principle of warfare: it is well-trained foot soldiers that secure victory in battle—not merely bombs and missiles.  Except for the residents of border towns, the main terror threat being faced daily in Israel is by unarmed citizens being accosted by attackers on foot—armed and unarmed.  In many—if not most of these cases—the police are unable to respond in time.  Even worse, we are seeing more and more that it is the police whose training is inadequate to handle serious incidents. 

 

All the Commandments, including the establishment of kingdom and Temple, were given by HaShem to be fulfilled in a hostile world that is often hateful towards Him, His Torah and His Chosen nation of priests.  Fittingly, the nation's forefathers bequeathed their descendants with a unique art of warriorship, according to the twelve tribes of Israel, referred to as Qesheth in the Bible and Aggadah. 

 

(From the works of Josephus, the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, down to the writings of Rash"i, RMb"M, Malbim, and Rav Ovadiah ben Avraham of Bartenura; references to this unique martial tradition in antiquity is running theme throughout post-biblical literature— both rabbinical and secular.  Hints to its continuation in the communities of the Diaspora are also found in the writings of RMb"M, HaRav Shmuel HaNaggid, and travelers to Yemen.  The memory of the special fighting prowess of the Habbani, Kafkazi, Kurdish and Benei Yisraeli (Indian) Jews up until the recent past is preserved in the stories of their elders. 

 

For over two thousand years, Qesheth (also known as "Abir") was continuously and rigorously maintained by the Habbani Jews of the Hadramaut region (including Yemen), until two generations ago, particularly in the Bin Awel-Sofer/Maatuf-DoH clan.  Over a period of over twenty-five years, the chief of this clan and his son ensured that this tradition was passed down in its entirety to the grandsons, Yehoshua Sofer and his brother.  As scion and elder of his warrior clan, Mori Yehoshua Sofer adapted Abir/Qesheth to the modern age on every level: from the individual up to the largest military groupings.  This was done partly under the auspices of the Israeli Defense Forces, and even includes techniques against suicide bombers and airplane hijackers.  Today, Abir/Qesheth is a living tradition available for Jews in Israel to learn, and as relevant as it ever was in the past.)

 

Training in foreign martial arts is not the fulfillment of this Torah principle:  The Bible is replete with negative examples of kings and armies who were defeated due to their fighting in the G-dless manner of gentiles:  They trusted in pure military strength alone, with the corrupt belief in "my strength and the might of my hand." (Deut. 8:17) Ultimately it is by the blessing of HaShem that  wars are won; not physical might.  Sadly, today's widely-marketed martial arts are all taught in this same G-dless mindset, and/or they are the customs of idolatry, or even idolatry in and of themselves.  Besides the legal and spiritual implications, they are taught as sport or past-time: they cannot provide the deadly effectiveness and comprehensive scope of the authentic Hebrew warrior tradition, together with its unique, ancient Torah wisdom and proper spiritual focus.  That is aside from the special health and exercise benefits for young and old that are unique to Abir/Qesheth.
         

It is for these reasons and more that warrior training in Abir/Qesheth is no less than a fundamental principal of our Torah tradition, as King David exhorted the tribe of Judah:  "(The principle) to teach the sons of Judah Qesheth; behold it is written in The Book of Yashar."  (Shmuel II, 1:18)  "

That was taken from:    http://chayas.com/princip.htm
And it was listed under Rabbi Bar-Ron's 14th fundamental principle of Torah Tradition.  (He lists 14 there, all very good information!)

Offline Kahane-Was-Right BT

  • Honorable Winged Member
  • Gold Star JTF Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12581
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2009, 11:08:31 AM »
Ummm... Where are your sources for this? There are many sources which explain how Moshe killed the Egyptian... All of them indicate that he used the ineffable name... I have never seen a single source which says what you said... Please provide sources for your claim or else it will be just your opinion...

ALL?   I highly doubt that muman.  The pshat of that verse is that he actually killed the guy with physical force.   I remember learning there was a drash on it saying he used God's name, but not that that was the only opinion!  I'll have to look it up now and make sure.

Quote
Moses absolutely used the ineffable name {according to Midrash which is authentic Torah source for Jews}.

Well, no one is going to claim that midrash is not authentic, Muman.   But often there is more than one midrash, and the midrashic explanation of a verse is not the only understanding and no one is bound to accept it as absolutely literal.

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2009, 11:26:36 AM »
Ummm... Where are your sources for this? There are many sources which explain how Moshe killed the Egyptian... All of them indicate that he used the ineffable name... I have never seen a single source which says what you said... Please provide sources for your claim or else it will be just your opinion...

ALL?   I highly doubt that muman.  The pshat of that verse is that he actually killed the guy with physical force.   I remember learning there was a drash on it saying he used G-d's name, but not that that was the only opinion!  I'll have to look it up now and make sure.

Quote
Moses absolutely used the ineffable name {according to Midrash which is authentic Torah source for Jews}.

Well, no one is going to claim that midrash is not authentic, Muman.   But often there is more than one midrash, and the midrashic explanation of a verse is not the only understanding and no one is bound to accept it as absolutely literal.

I have been looking into this question for most of this morning. I have not found a midrash which goes against this... Did you see the Rashi I linked to? I will quote it here... He mentions the midrash which explains this idea:

Quote

Exodus Chapter 2
13. He went out on the second day, and behold, two Hebrew men were quarreling, and he said to the wicked one, "Why are you going to strike your friend?"

two Hebrew men were quarreling: Dathan and Abiram. They were the ones who saved some of the manna [when they had been forbidden to leave it overnight, as in Exod. 16:19, 20]. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:29]

quarreling: Heb. נִצִּים, fighting.

Why are you going to strike: Although he had not struck him, he is called wicked for [merely] raising his hand [to strike him]. [From Sanh. 58b]

your friend: A wicked man like you. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:29]

14. And he retorted, "Who made you a man, a prince, and a judge over us? Do you plan to slay me as you have slain the Egyptian?" Moses became frightened and said, "Indeed, the matter has become known!"

Who made you a man: You are still a youth. [From Tanchuma, Shemoth 10]

Do you plan to slay me: lit., Do you say to slay me. From here we learn that he slew him with the ineffable Name. [From Tanchuma, Shemoth 10]

Moses became frightened: [To be explained] according to its simple meaning [that Moses was afraid Pharaoh would kill him]. Midrashically, it is interpreted to mean that he was worried because he saw in Israel wicked men [i.e.,] informers. He said, Since this is so, perhaps they [the Israelites] do not deserve to be redeemed [from slavery]. [From Tanchuma, Shemoth 10]

Indeed, the matter has become known: [To be interpreted] according to its apparent meaning [that it was known that he had slain the Egyptian]. Its midrashic interpretation, however, is: the matter I was wondering about, [i.e.,] why the Israelites are considered more sinful than all the seventy nations [of the world], to be subjugated with back-breaking labor, has become known to me. Indeed, I see that they deserve it. [From Exod. Rabbah 1:30]

I am certainly not arguing against having a strong military but this topic has krept quite far from the original topic... I am aware of the Jewish martial arts and think it is important to teach this to the fighting men of Israel.

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14

Offline muman613

  • Platinum JTF Member
  • **********
  • Posts: 29958
  • All souls praise Hashem, Hallelukah!
    • muman613 Torah Wisdom
Re: Jewish by the mothers line but not the fathers? Why?
« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2009, 11:32:55 AM »
KWRBT,

I also agree that nobody is bound to believe 100% what one midrash says... But I believe it is widely accepted that this is the way which Moshe slew the Egyptian. There are other stories which rely on this...

You shall make yourself the Festival of Sukkoth for seven days, when you gather in [the produce] from your threshing floor and your vat.And you shall rejoice in your Festival-you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the widow, who are within your cities
Duet 16:13-14