Torah and Jewish Idea > Torah and Jewish Idea
Intermarriage
muman613:
--- Quote from: MuslimSlayer90 on July 27, 2009, 12:55:53 PM ---Didn't King David have women from other nations though?
--- End quote ---
No... Look into the story of Bathsheba... Although David made a mistake by falling for her and taking her in an apparently wrong way, he was not guilty of a sin.
I will quote this Aish.com article:
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48936837.html
DAVID AND BATHSHEBA
The story of David's relationship with Bathsheba (II Samuel Chap. 11) is one of the most misread stories in the Bible, and we have to be careful in reading it as if it were some kind of soap opera. In summary, however, this is what happens.
Restless one night, David is pacing the roof of his palace from where he has a view of the homes and gardens in the city below(3). And there he spies a beautiful woman bathing. She is the wife of one of his generals, Uriah, the Hittite, who is away at war.
David sends for Bathsheba and spends the night with her. When she becomes pregnant, he commands that Uriah be placed on the front lines, where he dies in battle. David then marries Bathsheba.
At this point, the prophet Nathan is sent by G-d to reprove David. (See 2 Samuel 12.) He says that he has come to inform the king of a great injustice in the land. A rich man with many sheep, stole the one beloved sheep of a poor man, and had it slaughtered for a feast.
Furious at what he hears, King David, declares, "As G-d lives, the one who has done this deserves death."
Responds the prophet, "You are that man!"
David is humbled. "I have sinned before G-d," he says.
This is an enormously complex story and there is much more here than meets the eye. Technically, Bathsheba was not a married woman since David's troops always gave their wives conditional divorces, lest a soldier be missing in action leaving his wife unable to remarry.(4) However, the Bible states clearly that David acted improperly, and the Sages explain that while David did not commit adultery in the literal sense, he violated the spirit of the law(5).
As noted in earlier installments, the Bible takes a hyper-critical position of Jewish leaders. It never whitewashes anyone's past, and in that it stands alone among the records of ancient peoples which usually describe kings as descendants of gods without faults.
David's greatness shines in both his ability to take responsibility for his actions and the humility of his admission and the repentance that follows. This is part of the reason that the ultimate redeemer of the Jewish people and the world will descend from David's line -- he will be "Messiah son of David."
Shortly thereafter, Bathsheba gives birth, but the child becomes deathly ill as the prophet Nathan had predicted. David goes into a period of prayer and fasting, but the child dies nevertheless. David realizes that the death of the baby and later the revolt of his beloved son, Absalom (II Samuel 15-19), were divine punishment and also served as atonement for his actions. David "pays his dues," repents for many years and is ultimately forgiven by G-d.
Before long Bathsheba is pregnant again. And this time, she bears a healthy child -- who is named Solomon, and who will be the golden child, gifted with unusual wisdom.
http://www.jewishamerica.com/ja/TimeLine/david.cfm
muman613:
Maybe you meant King Solomon had relations with gentile women... I found this:
http://www.beingjewish.com/identity/kingdavidjew.html
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.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Dan ben Noah on April 09, 2009, 08:46:25 PM ---I highly doubt that Esther was married to Mordechai. Mordechai was her uncle who had adopted her as his daughter. But if the king wanted her to be his wife, there wasn't really much she could do about it. If it was her choice she probably would have married a Jewish man.
--- End quote ---
I never understand why people insist upon the interpretation that Esther and Mordecai were married. Probably because the Bavli clearly takes that position. It's unclear to me why, though.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Dan ben Noah on April 10, 2009, 12:18:31 PM ---No, the Talmud is not part of the Jewish Tanach. Tanach is an abbreviation, which means Torah, Nevi'im, and Ktuvim--
--- End quote ---
;D
--- Quote ---The Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, referring to the books of the Hebrew Bible. Rabbis saying something in the Talmud doesn't make it true, and the Tanach trumps the rabbis.
--- End quote ---
Not necessarily. I mean it does in a way, but at the same time often the rabbis are coming to interpret the Tanach with an authentic tradition on it (Oral Torah). Granted you are right that the interpretations vary, there are issues of drash vs pshat etc, but basically the Talmud is the foundation of Jewish law. So often it will seem to trump Tanach if a ruling is brought down in Talmud.
--- Quote --- If you want proof of this, look at how many rabbis make contradictory rulings where we have to choose to follow one or the other.
--- End quote ---
And the Talmud Yerushalmi is at times quite different than Talmud Bavli. I wonder what Yerushalmi has to say about Esther, if anything.
Kahane-Was-Right BT:
--- Quote from: Adrian Wainer on April 10, 2009, 01:06:46 PM ---
Is the concept of cardinal sins Jewish? In so so far as I know, promiscuity and idolatry are trumped by the requirement to preserve life,
--- End quote ---
No this is not true. It's actually the opposite. One is required to give up his life rather than commit any of the 3 worst of sins (idolatry, murder, incest). So if guy A puts a gun to Guy B's head and says Kill Guy C or I shoot you in the head and kill you, Guy B would choose to be shot rather than shoot the other guy (guy C). Of course if he can wrestle the gun away and kill the guy trying to force him (kill Guy A), that's ideal. But in a case where that is impossible he chooses to get killed rather than murder Guy C.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version