JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: White Israelite 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?
-
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...
-
Karaites are Jews who do not believe in the Talmud. They are heretics. I wouldn't take anything they say seriously.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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..
-
http://www.jewfaq.org/torah.htm
Oral Torah: The Talmud
(http://www.jewfaq.org/graphics/talmud.gif)
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!)
-
And the argument continues.
-
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.
-
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"...
-
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....
-
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...
-
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
-
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/
-
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!)
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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:
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.
-
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...
-
Yes I have learned Rashi on the verse. But there is more than just Rashi.
In any case, I can't see why a person can't go by pashut pshat on that verse. There isn't reason to be "corrected" or to have to go along with drash instead. Am I wrong?
-
:crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy:
-
Yes I have learned Rashi on the verse. But there is more than just Rashi.
In any case, I can't see why a person can't go by pashut pshat on that verse. There isn't reason to be "corrected" or to have to go along with drash instead. Am I wrong?
Let us just ask our own Rabbis what is meant by this story concerning Moses and the Egyptian Taskmaster. I will not argue with KWRBT because what he says is true. There is no requirement to believe this interpretation. I think it is good to investigate what the sages said concerning this incident because it reflects on some of Moshes finer character traits.
-
Thanks Muman and others. Very interesting to read.
However the Aish article does not imply that the blasphemer was a Jew because he was born to a Jewish tribe of Dan.
The following sentence in the same article also identifies the blasphemer as an "Egyptian" ...
"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".
Did anyone find explanations about Athalia? The full story is told in 2 Kings 11.
-
Thanks Muman and others. Very interesting to read.
However the Aish article does not imply that the blasphemer was a Jew because he was born to a Jewish tribe of Dan.
The following sentence in the same article also identifies the blasphemer as an "Egyptian" ...
"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".
Did anyone find explanations about Athalia? The full story is told in 2 Kings 11.
I have been looking at the story and am trying to better understand the issues...
-
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.)
Muman, I don't know where in Talmud it is stated that King Solomon never actually worshiped any idols. Since I have not done enough research about Talmud, I am unable to pull up the corresponding verse(s)
The following verses from the Tanach unambiguously prove that King Solomon indeed worshiped idols...
1 Kings 11:4
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his G-d, as the heart of David his father had been.
1 Kings 11:5
He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable G-d of the Ammonites.
1 Kings 11:6
So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.
1 Kings 11:7
On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable G-d of Moab, and for Molech the detestable G-d of the Ammonites.
1 Kings 11:33
I (HaShem) will do this because they have forsaken me and worshiped Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, Chemosh the G-d of the Moabites, and Molech the G-d of the Ammonites, and have not walked in my ways, nor done what is right in my eyes, nor kept my statutes and laws as David, Solomon's father, did.
Even if we assume that Solomon did not directly worship the idols the details about the wife of Solomon and the queen mother of Solomon's successor raises questions!
Also Solomon's wife and the mother of Solomon's successor King Rehoboam was an Ammonite woman called Naamah... Since Solomon worshiped the detestable goddess of Ammon and built alter for that idol I would assume Naamah played a role in leading Solomon astray! Solomon gave importance to Naamah, the Ammonite queen which resulted in her son becoming Solomon's successor. Naamah never converted to Judaism so King Rehoboam was also not Jewish!!! Again imagine a non-Jewish king succeeding Solomon!!!
It would also mean King David's grandson who ascended to his throne was NOT Jewish?!?! Unbelievable!
2 Chronicles 12:13 (also in 1 Kings 14:21)
King Rehoboam established himself firmly in Jerusalem and continued as king. He was forty-one years old when he became king, and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem, the city the LORD had chosen out of all the tribes of Israel in which to put his Name. His mother's name was Naamah; she was an Ammonite.
Surprisingly Namaah was the only one of Solomon's wives to be mentioned, within the Tanakh, as having borne a child.
-
Hi CZ,
I don't know what your point is here. It seems you are trying to disprove the Torah...
All one needs to do is study the sages and you learn that there is much background material which is not provided in Tanakh, the midrash and other writings explain the missing pieces.
Lets see what Chabad says about King Solomon:
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/463983/jewish/King-Solomon.htm
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/463986/jewish/Solomons-Spiritual-Influence.htm
Solomon's Spiritual Influence
End of Solomon's Reign
In his old age, Solomon fell victim to some sins. He took many wives, and they turned his heart away from G-d. He permitted idol worship and brought upon himself G-d's wrath. However, for the sake of his father David, G-d told him he would he spared sorrow in his lifetime, but that his son would see his kingdom over all Israel torn from him. Only the tribe of Judah would remain loyal to the House of David.
Solomon began to be troubled in his kingdom. He was threatened and perpetually attacked by Hadad, the Edomite prince, who was eager to avenge the disastrous defeat which the Edomite army had sustained in the time of David. At the same time, Solomon was made uneasy by the serious rebellion of Jeroboam, one of his own officers, who had evidently relied on influential support. Jeroboam, the son of Nevat, an outstanding young man of the tribe of Ephraim, had been met by the prophet Ahijah and was promised the kingdom over the ten northern tribes of Israel. The ambitious Jeroboam, encouraged by the prophecy of Ahijah, soon found an occasion to rebel against Solomon. David had left breaches in the wall surrounding Jerusalem so that people coming there would find easy entrance. Solomon now decided to fortify the city by having these openings sealed. Thereupon, Jeroboam came out strongly against the step, maintaining that Solomon did this against David's wishes. Jeroboam used the occasion to plot Solomon's overthrow. Solomon learned of the conspiracy and sought to apprehend Jeroboam. The latter fled to Egypt where he stayed till Solomon's death.
Solomon's Spiritual Influence
Solomon was not only a great king and ruler; he was also a Divinely inspired writer and philosopher. As the disciple of the prophet Nathan, Solomon wrote with prophetic wisdom the books of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes, all three of which form part of our holy Bible. The knowledge and study of the Torah attained a high level during the lifetime of King Solomon, Solomon's last words with which he concludes his book of Ecclesiastes, "Fear G-d and keep His commandments for this is the whole purpose of man" truly reflect his great wisdom and personality.
King Solomon's reign extended over a period of forty years (2924-2964). After his death his son Rehabeam ascended the throne.
If you read about King Solomons life you realize that he relapsed into idol worship towards the end of his rule...
Also according to Rashi it appears where it says that he built a altar to this idol, he actually built it for his wives...
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/15895/showrashi/true
7. Then did Solomon build a high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab on the mountain that is before Jerusalem and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon.
Then did Solomon build a high place: Our Rabbis said, Since he did not protest against his wives, it is referred to on his name.
on the mountain that is before Jerusalem: The Mount of Olives.
From:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/articles/a/king_solomon/
So how did King Solomon marry foreign women? The answer is that an exception was made for the future wives of the king and a special court was set up to handle their conversions. Since many of these weddings were arranged for political reasons it is certain that some of the conversion were not entirely sincere nor did all Solomon’s wives completely abandon their idolatrous practices.
As with Moses and David, we again see the incredible level of accountability that these great leaders are held to. For a wife of King Solomon, prophet, wisest of all men, King of Israel, to worship idols is an inexcusable mistake that Solomon is held directly accountable for.
In his old age, his wives turned away Solomon’s heart after other gods. (1 Kings 11:4-5).
This, of course, does not mean that King Solomon became an idolater, but the Bible uses these harsh words because he did not prevent his wives from carrying on their idolatrous practices. As a king, he is held responsible for the actions of those under his influence.
One of the greatest leaders of the Jewish people, a man on his spiritual level—who wrote the Song of Songs, the Book of Ecclesiastes, and the Book of Proverbs—must be suffering eternal pain in heaven knowing what has been written about him in the Bible.4
Not only is criticism of Solomon harsh, but as with other great Jewish leaders, so are the consequences of his mistakes. The Bible ends Solomon’s story relating that G-d was angry with him and told him:
“Since you are guilty of this, and you have not kept My covenant and My laws ... I will tear the kingdom away from you ... But I will not do this in your time, for the sake of your father David. Instead, I will tear it away from your son ... I will give your son one tribe for the sake of My servant David, and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen.” (1 Kings 11:9-13)
It is clear from this how much G-d loved King David and how completely He had forgiven him for his faults. It is also clear that hard times are coming for the Jewish people as the kingdom of Israel is about to be torn in half.
Torah is a very difficult topic and our sages have investigated every angle. I doubt that you have found something which they have not foreseen...
I am still looking for a good explanation of Athalia for you...
See also:
http://www.aish.com/jl/h/48937462.html
-
Hi CZ,
I don't know what your point is here. It seems you are trying to disprove the Torah...
My point is Naamah, the Ammonite wife of Solomon and the mother of his successor King Rehoboam did not convert to Judaism. Therefore could we assume that King Rehoboam who was the son of Naamah, the Ammonite was not Jewish king either?!?!
You said "It seems you are trying to disprove the Torah..."
Not at all. God forbid, if I even think about doing that... I take Torah literally, I believe every word in the Torah was indeed inspired by Ruah HaKodesh.
You also said "Torah is a very difficult topic and our sages have investigated every angle. I doubt that you have found something which they have not foreseen..."
Of course not!!! But I would be interested to know what the scholarly sages had said about Naamah, the Ammonite wife of Solomon.
-
Yes I have learned Rashi on the verse. But there is more than just Rashi.
In any case, I can't see why a person can't go by pashut pshat on that verse. There isn't reason to be "corrected" or to have to go along with drash instead. Am I wrong?
Let us just ask our own Rabbis what is meant by this story concerning Moses and the Egyptian Taskmaster. I will not argue with KWRBT because what he says is true. There is no requirement to believe this interpretation. I think it is good to investigate what the sages said concerning this incident because it reflects on some of Moshes finer character traits.
Good advice. In truth, I searched using the internet and I was not able to find alternative opinion on this verse. My skills are of course quite limited. But if this is so, then it may be that you're right that no one argues on that midrash! That being said, you rightly drew a distinction between this one case of Moshe, and the many times when David went into battle, which as we know is very different. Anyway, good discussion.
-
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.)
Muman, I don't know where in Talmud it is stated that King Solomon never actually worshiped any idols. Since I have not done enough research about Talmud, I am unable to pull up the corresponding verse(s)
The following verses from the Tanach unambiguously prove that King Solomon indeed worshiped idols...
1 Kings 11:4
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his G-d, as the heart of David his father had been.
[/quote]
No, this refers to when King Shlomo married a daughter of the Egyptian pharaoh, and she brought with her articles of egyptian idol worship with her to Israel. By letting this happen, (it is really HER doing and spreading the idol worship, not Shlomo), but by not stopping it, he was straying in his heart. It appears he was overtaken by her feminine charms.
He also violated another commandment which said not to acquire excessive horses so as not to return the nation to Egypt (egypt was the major place horses were imported from).
-
http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeline/5758/shoftim.html
Lifeline
Shoftim
by Rabbi Yaakov Menken
"And he should not acquire too many wives, that his heart not go astray, and he should not acquire great sums of silver and gold." [17:17]
The Torah tells us that a king may be tempted to acquire a large number of wives -- a harem, as it were. This can arise from base motivations, as we see in our own time. But Shlomo HaMelech, King Solomon, married a large number of wives for a commendable reason. He felt that by creating bonds of marriage with surrounding kingdoms, he would insure peace and prosperity for Israel. But in either case, the Torah tells us that having too many wives will distract the king from his responsibilities to G-d, and this is surely true if any of the wives is herself a bad influence. King Solomon's wives from the surrounding kingdoms came from idolatrous homes.
Our Sages say that Shlomo HaMelech was caught by his own wisdom. He believed that he would be able to avoid the problems described in this verse. He felt that because he knew the underlying reason behind the mitzvah, he could achieve the same goal without following the mitzvah itself. Yet there is no substitute for observing G-d's word. As we see in Kings I 11:5, the Prophet is very critical and implies that Solomon served idols in his later years. In the Talmud, our Sages explain that since the previous verse merely says that his service of G-d was not as complete as his father David's, it cannot be true that he actually served idols. Rather, he is blamed for failing to prevent his wives from doing so.
This is commonly explained as follows: by converting these women and then marrying them, Solomon became responsible for their actions, and his level of responsibility was only magnified by his own piety and closeness to G-d. Thus when his wives returned to their idol-worship, he was blamed by the prophet as if he himself had participated.
Rabbi Shamshon Raphael Hirsch leads us to a still deeper insight. The verse in the Torah, he notes, does not say "that they will not lead his heart astray," but rather "that his heart not go astray." They need not be directly involved in distracting the king from his Divine Service. Rather, the very presence of too many bad influences is itself a distraction.
Perhaps we can connect this explanation with the error of Shlomo HaMelech. King Solomon believed that he could avoid their bad influence. He knew that they would not be able to lead his own heart astray, and therefore thought that he was safe. However, the verse itself explains that their presence alone is a problem -- and this, we see, Shlomo HaMelech could not control. He could not prevent them from serving idols, and thus from _existing_ as a bad influence. Their conscious impact, he could avoid; the sin was in their mere presence, distracting from the Service of G-d.
Today we live in environment where a host of influences work to drag us away from higher thoughts and closeness to G-d. It is not enough to shelter oneself from the conscious influences, to be wary of only their impact upon oneself. Rather, their very presence is a problem, when we are responsible for them. Let us try to keep those bad influences out of our homes, and away from our children. If neighborhoods around schools can be posted as "drug-free zones" (as if this meant drugs were acceptable in other areas), then no matter what influences we find in the streets, let us at least keep them away from our homes and our own areas of responsibility!
-
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.)
Muman, I don't know where in Talmud it is stated that King Solomon never actually worshiped any idols. Since I have not done enough research about Talmud, I am unable to pull up the corresponding verse(s)
The following verses from the Tanach unambiguously prove that King Solomon indeed worshiped idols...
1 Kings 11:4
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his G-d, as the heart of David his father had been.
[/quote]
I disagree...
1 Kings 11:4
As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods...
Notice "wives" in plural. It means more than one wife induced Solomon to follow idols including Pharaoh's daughter. It was not restricted only to Pharaoh's daughter. However I do agree with you on your point about acquiring excessive horses.
1 Kings 11:5 reads:
He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable "god" of the Ammonites
Verse 5 was not about Pharoh's daughter because Molech was the native "god" of the Ammonites and that idol was worshiped by queen Naamah, the mother of Solomon's successor King Rehoboam.
-
Muman, regarding Solomon's idol worship, let us assume that he did not directly worship idols.
However while finding an explanation about Athalia please include Namaah too.
-
http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeline/5758/shoftim.html
Also, the Torah says the King should not acquire too many horses lest he bring the nation back to Egypt. Shlomo also thought since he knew the reason for this, he'll get lots of horses but he just won't bring the nation back to egypt. He erred here too. So the one you quoted about too many wives, and the too many horses are the two places where Shlomo knew the reason for the mitzvot and then sinned because of it thinking the reason doesn't apply in his case so he can disobey the commandment. The Talmud in Sanhedrin teaches that this is why we are not provided with the reasons for all the other commandments, because in these two that did have reasons attached, one of the greatest of all men went astray because of it. All the moreso the rest of us would mess up.
This is an interesting insight for those people who insist that the prohibition against pork is due to trichinosis, in order to protect us from that (or other) health ailment. Even if that WAS so (which it seems obvious it isn't true), in that case a person cannot say 'the reason doesn't apply' (since there's no longer a risk of trichinosis) and choose not to keep the mitzvah. We see that it would be a sin to do so.
-
http://www.torah.org/learning/lifeline/5758/shoftim.html
Also, the Torah says the King should not acquire too many horses lest he bring the nation back to Egypt. Shlomo also thought since he knew the reason for this, he'll get lots of horses but he just won't bring the nation back to egypt. He erred here too. So the one you quoted about too many wives, and the too many horses are the two places where Shlomo knew the reason for the mitzvot and then sinned because of it thinking the reason doesn't apply in his case so he can disobey the commandment. The Talmud in Sanhedrin teaches that this is why we are not provided with the reasons for all the other commandments, because in these two that did have reasons attached, one of the greatest of all men went astray because of it. All the moreso the rest of us would mess up.
This is an interesting insight for those people who insist that the prohibition against pork is due to trichinosis, in order to protect us from that (or other) health ailment. Even if that WAS so (which it seems obvious it isn't true), in that case a person cannot say 'the reason doesn't apply' (since there's no longer a risk of trichinosis) and choose not to keep the mitzvah. We see that it would be a sin to do so.
Very true... I agree concerning the 'reason for a mitzvah'...
-
Deuteronomy 17:16
"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."
-
Deuteronomy 17:16
"The king, moreover, must not acquire great numbers of horses for himself or make the people return to Egypt to get more of them, for the LORD has told you, "You are not to go back that way again."
And a Jewish King must always carry two Torah scrolls on his person...
http://www.torah.org/learning/livinglaw/5766/shoftim.html
Parshas Shoftim
Melech: The King and I
The Mitzvah:
Once the Jewish people entered the Holy Land there was the mitzvah of appointing a Melech, king. Chosen from among his brethren, the Jewish monarch was to be accorded the utmost respect by his subjects and any rebellion against him was punishable by death. He himself was subject to several specific laws such as writing an additional Torah scroll, and prohibited from amassing an excessive amount of wives, of gold and horses (Deuteronomy 17:14-20)
What lies behind the figurehead of a king? And what is to be the relationship between a Jewish sovereign and that of his subjects the Jewish people?
A king summons up the concept of “fear”. The personification of authority, his word is the law of the land: Dina d’malchusa dina, the law of the kingdom is the law [to be upheld] (Gittin 10b). The king is unyielding. His honor – accorded by the position not his personality – cannot be waived or compromised. “If a king renounced his honor, his honor is not renounced” (Kesuvos 17a). Insubordination towards the monarch, of any kind, is not tolerated.
His importance can be understood based on the principle that there is always a parallel between the spiritual and physical worlds. Here, the concept of human kingship is a metaphor to the Kingship of G-d. “The royalty on earth reflects the royalty of Heaven” (Berachos 58a).
In general, the underlying relationship between G-d and this world is as its All-Powerful Ruler; he is melech malchei hamelachim, “the King of all kings”. But to the chosen nation, He is also a Father who typically displays “love and compassion” onto his children. Therefore, in their prayers, the Jewish people incorporate both aspects of their divine worship. They view G-d as Ovinu Malkeinu, “Our Father and Our King”.
In the Jewish nation’s divine worship, the first step is obedience “out of fear”. He does not want to flaunt any one of the King’s 613 commandments dreading the possible consequences. This corresponds to yiras Hashem, divine reverence. Fear of punishment and retribution from the mighty king, albeit the category of sheloy lishma, “not for the sake of His Name” is nevertheless the springboard through which to progress onto the higher dimension – namely that of serving G-d lishma, ”for the sake of His Name”. This elevated category bespeaks ahavas Hashem, serving G-d “out of love”.
The respect, awe and authority of a human king were the means to instill fear into his subjects. All his grandeur, affluence and influence cannot be for his self-glorification. Rather, it was as a means to come onto fear of G-d, the King of all kings.
A Jewish king had to constantly focus on his mission. His destiny requires that he impose his stamp and mark upon his people. The anointed leader of his people, he was divinely entrusted to supervise his subjects and to faithfully live by the dictates of the Torah. That a Torah scroll always accompanies the king, acts as a constant and powerful reminder how both he and his subjects are inextricably bound to the laws of G-d. The king was similarly instructed not to pursue wealth, women and military strength because this would distract him from his role.
It would have been ideal had the Jewish people risen to the higher level of ahavas Hashem, serving G-d out of love without ever requiring the presence of a human king to impose and implement the concept of yiras Hashem, “divine service out of fear”. This explains why this mitzvah is seemingly phrased as “optional” rather than obligatory. Only if the people ask for a monarch, something which they historically requested in the time of the prophet Shmuel, should the necessary steps by taken.
The king is there because he is the one who is entrusted to redirect all the fear he garners from his subjects onto the King of kings. The Jewish sovereign is the Torah leader of his people constantly concerned for their physical and spiritual welfare. In this respect, Jewish rabbinic leaders are similarly described as royalty (Gittin 62a).
The Jewish nation anxiously waits for the day when G-d will be universally heralded as Master of the Universe and crowned King by the entire world.
-
That's one of the best parshas IMO.
-
That's one of the best Parashat IMO.
It is hard for me to name my 'favorite' Parasha... I love so many of them... Yisro, Mishpatim, Shemos, oh I can't even begin to list them.
-
CZ,
The argument you are bringing up here is a common argument used by Christian Missionaries... I have found an anti-missionary site which explains this 'apparent paradox'...
http://www.messiahtruth.com/genealogyb.html
2. Was Rehoboam A Jew via Father or Mother?
This issue has been raised by missionaries as a challenge to the notion that, in Judaism, a person's Jewish identity is determined either by having a Jewish mother or by formal ritual conversion to Judaism. Putting aside, for now, the option of formal ritual conversion, the missionaries charge that, if a person's mother has to be Jewish to make that person Jewish, then Rehoboam was not Jewish, since his mother was allegedly not Jewish:
I Kings 14:21 - And Rehoboam the son of Solomon reigned in Judah; forty-one years old was Rehoboam when he became king, and seventeen years he reigned in Jerusalem, the city that the L-rd has chosen to place His Name there out of all the tribes of Israel; and his mother’s name was Naamah the Ammonitess.
And, allegedly according to Torah, Ammonites and Moabites were not allowed to convert to Judaism:
Deuteronomy 23:4 - An Ammonite (ammoni in Hebrew) and a Moabite (mo'avi in Hebrew) shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd; even their tenth generation shall not enter into the congregation of the L-rd forever;
But the Torah requires a king of Israel to be Jewish:
Deuteronomy 17:15 - You shall surely set over yourself a king whom the L-rd, your G-d, shall choose; from among your brethren shall you set king over yourself; you may not place over yourself a foreign man, one who is not your brother.
And therefore, the missionary argument continues, since G-d would not place a man who was not a Jew on the throne of David, Rehoboam had to be Jewish, not by his mother, Naamah the Ammonitess, but by his father, Solomon.
On the surface, this challenge may appear to be a "slam-dunk" for the missionaries (and, hence, for Christian theology). On the one hand, if their claim that Jewish identity is passed by the father were to hold up, they would have demonstrated that the requirement of having a Jewish mother is a later addition to Jewish Law. On the other hand, if that challenge is defeated, the missionaries may come back and then claim that Rehoboam was not a Jew, since his mother was not allowed to convert to Judaism, thus he would be disqualified from having the Jewish Messiah come from his lineage. And since he was the only son of Solomon listed in the Hebrew Bible, that would imply that Judaism faces an insurmountable problem with the origin of its Messiah.
Let us go beyond the surface and take a closer look at the missionary claim. The Torah says the following concerning intermarriage with several nations the Israelites will face upon entering the Promised Land:
Deuteronomy 7:3-4 – (3) And you shall not intermarry with them; your daughter you shall not give to his son, and his daughter you shall not take for your son. (4) For he will cause your son to turn away from following Me, and they will serve other gods; then the wrath of the L-rd will be kindled against you, and He will soon destroy you.
The (Hebrew) wording and the knowledge of Torah are crucial in understanding what these two verses actually say. The Torah teaches two important concepts here. On the one hand, with the understanding that the 'he' in v. 4 refers to the Gentile father-in-law, we interpret 'your son' as the son of the Israelite father, who is marrying the daughter of the Gentile father, clearly the verse indicates that the Israelite son will 'follow other gods', which means that children of this marriage will be Gentiles, following the race and faith of the Gentile mother.
On the other hand, with the understanding that the 'he' in v. 4 refers to the Gentile the daughter of an Israelite marries, then, as is not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible, 'son' is interpretted to mean grandson (e.g., Zechariah the 'son' of Iddo [Ezra 5:1]; Zerubbabel the 'son' of Shealtiel [Hag 1:1]). So that, by calling the son of an Israelite (Jewish) mother and Gentile father the 'son' of the Israelite (Jewish) grandfather in v. 4, it may be deduced that this child was to be regarded as being of the same race and faith as the mother. In either case, and according to Jewish Law, the child of a Jewish father and a Gentile mother follows the religious status of the mother.
Are there examples from Scripture that support this deduction? Indeed there are. Here is one such example:
Exodus 21:4 - If his [the Israelite servant's] master has given him a wife, and she has born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he [the Israelite servant] shall go out by himself.
This refers to a Gentile bondmaid given as wife to a Hebrew slave. The children remain slaves when their father is freed, showing that they bear their mother's status. According to Torah, an Israelite master may not give an Israelite bondmaid as a wife to someone other than his own son, or take her as a wife for himself (Exod 21:8-9).
In the next example, the son of a Jewish mother and a Gentile father is subjected to the Jewish Law as stated in Torah.:
Leviticus 24:10-16 – (10) 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 fought in the camp; (11) And the Israelite woman’s son blasphemed the Name of the L-rd, and cursed. And they brought him to Moses; and his mother’s name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan; (12) And they put him in custody, that the will of the L-rd might be shown to them. (13) And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying, (14) "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. (15) And you shall speak to the people of Israel, saying, 'Whoever curses his G-d shall bear his sin. (16) And he who blasphemes the Name of the L-rd, 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 L-rd, shall be put to death'."
While the above example applies to both Jews and Gentiles, the following example, clearly demonstrates that the children of the Jewish fathers and Gentile mothers were to be cast out along with their Gentile mothers, to "… be done according to the Torah.":
Ezra 10:2-3 – (2) And Shechaniah the son of Jehiel, one of the sons of Elam, answered and said to Ezra, "We have trespassed against our G-d, and have taken foreign wives from the peoples of the land; yet now there is hope in Israel concerning this matter. (3) And now, let us make a covenant with our G-d to cast out all such women,and those born of them, according to the counsel of the L-rd, and of those who hasten [to perform] the commandment of our G-d; and let it be done according to the Torah.
These examples demonstrate the fact that Jewish identity is determined by the mother, not by the father. Moreover, recent research in genetics has isolated a genetic marker that identifies female Jewish ancestry. This marker resides in the female's mitochondrial DNA, which scientifically confirms the provisions of Jewish Law. Namely, that this genetic marker is passed exclusively from a Jewish mother to her daughters, thereby making the female the one who determines Jewish identity.
Y Conclusion: The Hebrew Bible proves the missionary claim, that Jewish Law was changed by the Rabbis from the father determining Jewish identity to the mother determining Jewish identity, is bogus!
Now that it has been demonstrated that, according to Torah, the mother determines the Jewish identity of the children, let us check the other side of the missionary argument - Rehoboam was not a Jew, since his mother was not allowed to convert to Judaism, thus he would be disqualified from having the Jewish Messiah come from his lineage.
There are two very strong arguments to counter this claim. First, of course, is the above-stated Torah requirement that a king of Israel must be a Jew (Deut 17:15) and, as we read in I Kgs 11:13, G-d approved Rehoboam to reign as king. Surely G-d would not break His own rule. So it may safely be concluded that Rehoboam was indeed a Jew. How he acquired his Jewish identity is not spelled out in the Hebrew Bible, but there are only two options available here – either his mother, Naamah converted to Judaism before she bore him, or he himself converted to Judaism.
Second, recall the prohibition in Deut 23:4 about an Ammonite and a Moabite not being allowed to convert to Judaism. In the Hebrew text, the terms ammoni and mo'avi are used, which translate as Ammonite male and Moabite male – the respective Hebrew terms for a female are ammonit and mo'avit. Nehemiah states the reason for this:
Nehemiah 13:1-2 – (1) On that day they read from the Book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and was found written in it that the Ammonite and the Moabite should never come into the congregation of G-d; (2) Because they did not meet the people of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, that he should curse them; but our G-d turned the curse into a blessing.
Now recall that Ruth was a Moabitess. According to the missionary claim, she could not have converted to Judaism per Deut 23:4. Given, as demonstrated, that the mother determines Jewish identity, how could Ruth have become the ancestor of David, the greatest king of the Jewish people? Clearly, she converted to Judaism, and she indicates her intentions to Naomi, her mother-in-law, when she says to her, “…For where you go, I will go; where you lodge, I will lodge; your people are my people, and your G-d is my G-d;…” (Ruth 1:16-17) The Sages of the Talmud (Tractate Ketubot, 7b) explain the reason why only Ammonite and Moabite males may not convert to Judaism. It is because only the man was expected to leave his house and bring food and drink to the traveler – a woman was not expected to do that for obvious reasons. Accordingly, the interpretation of the law (Deut 23:4), which had to be rendered by ten elders, is that the prohibition to enter into the assembly of the L-rd, i.e., to be admitted into the community of Israel, applied only to Ammonite and Moabite males, not to females.
Y Conclusion: The missionary claim that Rehoboam's mother, Naamah the Ammonitess, could not convert to Judaism per Deut 23:4 is bogus! Naamah the Ammonitess was able to convert to Judaism just as Ruth the Moabitess, David's great-grandmother, was able to do it several generations earlier.
-
Muman,
To be honest with you I did not find my points in any missionary sources. I've never heard of a missionary using Rehoboam/Naamah example. I did my own research. I also believe that Ruth indeed converted to Judaism.
The MT website makes assumptions that King Rehoboam or Naamah converted to Judaism but it is not stated in the Tanach that they did.
2 Chronicles 12:1
After Rehoboam's position as king was established and he had become strong, he and all Israel with him abandoned the law of the LORD.
The following verses from Tanach do not give an indication that Rehoboam coverted to Judaism.
2 Chronicles 12:2
Because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam.
2 Chronicles 12:14
He did evil because he had not set his heart on seeking the LORD.
Also making assumptions that Ataliah and her son King Ahaziah converted to Judaism would contradict the following scriptures. Even if we give the benefit of the doubt to Rehoboam the case against King Ahaziah (son of Athaliah) is too strong!
2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem one year. His mother's name was Athaliah, a granddaughter of Omri.
2 Chronicles 22:3
He too walked in the ways of the house of Ahab, for his mother encouraged him in doing wrong.
2 Chronicles 22:4
He did evil in the eyes of the LORD, as the house of Ahab had done, for after his father's death they became his advisers, to his undoing.
Regarding the MT website using the book of Ezra...
Ezra 2:59 Now these are those who came up from Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Cherub, Addan and Immer, but they were not able to give evidence of their fathers' households and their descendants, whether they were of Israel:
(why not mothers' households?)
Numbers 1:18
and they assembled all the congregation together on the first of the second month. Then they registered by ancestry in their families, by their fathers' households, according to the number of names, from twenty years old and upward, head by head,
-
Muman,
To be honest with you I did not find my points in any missionary sources. I've never heard of a missionary using Rehoboam/Naamah example. I did my own research.
Perhaps they just came to a similar (or the same) conclusion. I would go through Muman's answer but my eyes are getting too tired tonight. Goodnight guys.
-
Regarding numbers 1:18 is an easy explanation...
I have heard this explained... Hashem did several censuses on the Jewish people, this is why the book of Exodus is called Shemos {Names} and the book of Bamidbar is called Numbers... Each time Hashem was counting his children using different methods...
Let me find a reference to this concept:
http://www.chabad.org/parshah/torahreading_cdo/aid/36466/showrashi/true
According to Rashi this census was to determine which tribe each Jew was from... Tribal affiliation is only through the father, not the mother... So this census was not to determine if they were Jewish or not, they all were Jewish at this point due to their experience at Sinai... Only the males 20 and older...
This has nothing to do with determining Jewish descent...
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. יח. וְאֵת כָּל הָעֵדָה הִקְהִילוּ בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וַיִּתְיַלְדוּ עַל מִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם:
and they declared their pedigrees according to their families: They brought the records of their pedigrees and witnesses of their birth claims, so that each one should trace his genealogy to a tribe.
-
Rashi Studies (Advanced)
Why Another Census?
Adapted by Chaim Miller; From the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
Classic Questions
Why did G-d instruct Moshe to take a census of the Jewish people? (v. 1:1)
Rashi: Because they are precious to Him, He counts them all the time:
1. When they left Egypt, He counted them;1
2. When they sinned with the Calf, He counted them to know the number of the survivors;2 and
3. When He rested His Presence among them, He counted them—on the first of Nisan the Tabernacle was erected, and on the first of Iyar [when this verse was said], He counted them.
Midrash: The Jewish people were counted on ten occasions:
1. Once when they went down to Egypt;3
2. Once when they departed from Egypt;4
3. Once in [the beginning of the] Book of Numbers;
4. Once in connection with the Spies;
5. Once in the days of Yehoshua, when the Land was divided;
6. Twice in the days of Sha'ul;5
7. Once in the days of David;6
8. Once in the days of Ezra;7 and
9. Once in the future to come.8
The Rebbe's Teachings
He Counts Them All the Time" (Rashi, v. 1)
Rashi's comments on verse 1 appear to be self-contradictory. First he writes that since the Jewish people are precious to G-d, "He counts them all the time." But then Rashi continues that G-d only counted the Jewish people on special occasions ("when they left Egypt... when they sinned with the calf... when He rested His Presence among them"), and not "all the time."
Furthermore, Rashi was surely familiar with the teaching of the Midrash that the Jewish people will only be counted ten times throughout history. So how could Rashi state that G-d "counts them all the time"?
The Explanation
G-d's affection is extended towards the Jewish people at all times. And since counting is a direct result of this affection, Rashi writes, "Because they are precious to Him (which is all the time), He counts them all the time."
In order to prove this point, Rashi continues, "When they left Egypt, He counted them." This refers to the verse in Parshas Bo, which states: "The children of Israel journeyed from Ramses to Sukos, about six hundred thousand men."9 Since the Torah does not mention that any census took place, we can only assume that this number ("about six hundred thousand men") was counted by G-d Himself. This supports Rashi's assertion that "He counts them all the time," i.e., even when no actual census is taking place, G-d counts the Jewish people.
But how do we know that G-d's affection is extended to the Jewish people all the time, even when they do not act favorably in G-d's eyes? Rashi explains, "When they sinned with the Calf, He counted them." Clearly, if "they are [still] precious to Him" at such a difficult time, then G-d's affection evidently extends to the Jewish people "all the time."
However, this leaves us with a question: If G-d counts the Jewish people "all the time" in any case, why was an actual census required here in our parshah? Rashi explains, "When He rested His Presence among them, He counted them," i.e., our parshah speaks of a time when G-d openly and visibly expressed His affection for the Jewish people by causing His Presence to rest among them. Therefore, it was appropriate that, likewise, the Jewish people should be counted openly and visibly.
And similarly, all the ten countings enumerated in the Midrash were associated with special events, which necessitated a special counting.10
FOOTNOTES
1. Shemos 12:37
2. Shemos 32:28
3. Devarim 10:22
4. Shemos 12:37
5. Sam. I 15:4; ibid. 11:8
6. ibid. II 24:9
7. Ezra 2:64
8. see Jer. 33:13; Tanchuma, Ki Sisa 9
9. Shemos 12:37
10. Based on Sichas Shabbos Parshas Bamidbar 5745
-
........................................................ :o :o :o
-
........................................................ :o :o :o
Meaning?
-
........................................................ :o :o :o
Meaning?
It was explained, what more is there to say on this topic.
-
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
Did Moses even know the innefable name at this point in time?
Moses killing the guy before he fled Egypt, and before the episode with the burning bush.
At the burning bush, he asks G-d 'what is your name' (or what are you called by) so as far as I know, the innefable name was unknown to Moses before the time.
Maybe I'm overlooking something...I can find other sources if need be and can try to look up where I heard it the first time.
-
What you say is only your interpretation, you have not quoted any sources.
The fact is that from birth Moshe had a special connection to Hashem, as I have quoted in other threads on this forum, when Moshe was born he had a special light. He was asking Hashem what the name he should use in order for the Jewish people to accept him as their leader. Hashem had told the name to the patriarchs and one of the only ways for them to accept him was to utter this particular four-letter name {which we do not pronounce}. The Yud-Kay-Vav-Key name is only one of the many names which Hashem is known by. I will not enumerate all the names...
I have heard the explanation to your question and it is because Moshe wanted to know the name which the people would accept as a sign that he was the leader of the Jewish people, the promised redeemer.
-
I am correct in my assesment, according to Rashi:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9864/showrashi/true
12. And He said, "For I will be with you, and this is the sign for you that it was I Who sent you. When you take the people out of Egypt, you will worship G-d on this mountain."
13. And Moses said to G-d, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
14. G-d said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'
15. And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
-
What you say is only your interpretation, you have not quoted any sources.
I thought he made a good point, Muman. It WAS before the burning bush incident, and that's basically citing the Chumash. You seem a little bit hostile about this?
Yes Rashi did write that (and countless others agree with him, I'm pretty sure), but MackaB raises a good kashiya, no? Perhaps it will lead us to a deeper understanding of what was meant.
-
What you say is only your interpretation, you have not quoted any sources.
I thought he made a good point, Muman. It WAS before the burning bush incident, and that's basically citing the Chumash. You seem a little bit hostile about this?
Yes Rashi did write that (and countless others agree with him, I'm pretty sure), but MackaB raises a good kashiya, no? Perhaps it will lead us to a deeper understanding of what was meant.
KWRBT,
Haven't you heard the interpretation I am explaining, that the reason Moshe asked the name was to know what to tell the people of Israel, not because he didn't know Hashem. Obviously he had ruach hakodesh before the incident at the burning bush.
The simple interpretation of the verse he brings indicates that Moshe was asking "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
I am not hostile to this opinion but I just have not ever heard it. I have heard much in Talmud about Moshes special relationship, from when he was a baby, and his sister Miriams nevuah {prophecy}.
-
What you say is only your interpretation, you have not quoted any sources.
I thought he made a good point, Muman. It WAS before the burning bush incident, and that's basically citing the Chumash. You seem a little bit hostile about this?
Yes Rashi did write that (and countless others agree with him, I'm pretty sure), but MackaB raises a good kashiya, no? Perhaps it will lead us to a deeper understanding of what was meant.
KWRBT,
Haven't you heard the interpretation I am explaining, that the reason Moshe asked the name was to know what to tell the people of Israel, not because he didn't know Hashem. Obviously he had ruach hakodesh before the incident at the burning bush.
The simple interpretation of the verse he brings indicates that Moshe was asking "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The G-d of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
I am not hostile to this opinion but I just have not ever heard it. I have heard much in Talmud about Moshes special relationship, from when he was a baby, and his sister Miriams nevuah {prophecy}.
Yes but he was asking for the name. Even if he knew Hashem prior to that point, he may not have known His "name" but I guess that's the answer.
-
also, what did the two other hebrews witness him doing?
did the see him utter something under his breath as he walked away, and then the dude just fell over or something?
also the thing about wanting to know the name of G-d so the Israelites would accept him is not mutually exclusive from wanting to know because he did not already know.
-
also, what did the two other hebrews witness him doing?
did the see him utter something under his breath as he walked away, and then the dude just fell over or something?
also the thing about wanting to know the name of G-d so the Israelites would accept him is not mutually exclusive from wanting to know because he did not already know.
MakaB,
Can you bring a single Sage who found the meaning you are saying. There is much to back up what I am saying... All the stories about Moses as a baby and his prophetic abilities precede the event at the burning bush.
The whole story about the two hebrews who witnessed this is very well known... I have quoted this before, maybe even in this thread, that these were Dasan and Aviram, the two who ended up caught up in Korachs wicked plan. They witnessed him burying the dead egyptian in the dirt.
http://www.torah.org/learning/perceptions/5761/korach.html
SEUDAH SHLISHI:
Moshe called for Dasan and Aviram, sons of Eliav, but they told him, "We will not come to you. Does it mean nothing that you have brought out of the land flowing with milk and honey, to kill us in the desert, just to make yourself prince over us?" (Bamidbar 16:12-13)
Does chutzpah know no bounds? Not when it came to Dasan and Aviram, who went back a long way with Moshe Rabbeinu.
In fact, remember this:
After some time, when Moshe was grown, he went out to his brothers and saw their burdens. He saw an Egyptian beating a Jew, one of his brothers. He looked both ways, and when he saw that no one was around, he killed the Egyptian, and buried him in the sand. The next day when he went out, he saw two Jews fighting with each an-other, and said to the evil one, "Why do you hit your fellow?" He answered, "Who made you a noble, an officer, or a judge over us? Do you in-tend to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?" (Shemos 2:11-14)
The 'evil one' was none other than Dasan, who was trying to hit his brother-in-law, Aviram (Devarim Rabbah 2:12), with whom he had been quarreling. And yet, it was just yesterday that the young Moshe had saved Dasan's life, who had been in the process of being beaten to death by the Egyptian taskmaster Moshe had killed in Dasan's defense. That's gratitude for you!
And what had Dasan and Aviram been arguing about? Dasan's wife, and Aviram's sister, Shlomis bas Divri (mentioned later in Vayikra 24:11)-- whom had been defiled by the Egyptian who had been trying to kill Dasan the day before, and whom Moshe had killed instead. Dasan, knowing the facts, wanted to divorce his wife, while Aviram, knowing that she had not been violated willingly, insisted that they remain married.
Moshe had walked in just as Dasan was about to express his will in physical terms, and this time, saved Aviram from blows.
What was their response to Moshe's interference? BOTH of them turned on Moshe together, and even reported to Paroah that he had killed the Egyptian (Yalkut Shimoni 1:167), forcing him to flee Egypt. Nice guys, this Dasan and Aviram, no?
Then of course there was the episode of the manna. Moshe Rabbeinu had taught the Jewish nation what G-d had told him:
Moshe said, "Eat [the remainder] today, because today is G-d's [day]; today you will not find it in the field. Six days you will collect it, but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, there will be none." However, some of the people tried on the sev-enth day to collect some, but found none. (Shemos 16:25)
So what did Dasan and Aviram do? In advance of Shabbos, they even went out and spread some manna over the ground to make sure those lacking faith could find some the next day, and make Moshe look like a liar! That's why G-d sent the birds in to eat it all up, leaving the manna in THEIR mouths and the egg on Dasan's and Aviram's faces.
However, before we shake our heads in disgust at Dasan and Aviram, we should recall the warning of the Talmud:
Had the Torah not been given to Israel, no nation or people could stand before them, and this is like what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Three are brazen: Israel amongst the nations, a dog amongst wild animals, and, a rooster amongst the birds ... (Beitzah 25b)
What a group to be numbered amongst! However, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish wasn't simply heaping a burning insult onto his own people, but offering a warning to the Jews of history: Without Torah, there is a Dasan and Aviram in just about all of us. This week's parshah completes the warning, reminding us of the final fate of two of the greatest of instigators the Jewish people have ever produced.
More Info:
http://www.ou.org/torah/frankel/5760/shemot60.htm
I am not going to continue arguing about this... I guess everyone is entitled to interpret things as they wish but I am one who studies what the sages and the Rabbis of the generations have said about the Torah... I believe their abilities, and the abilities of my forefathers, are greater than my own and I shape my interpretation based on the scripture and teachings of the Jewish sages.
PS: Moshe was powerful because of his power of speech... This is one reason that Bilaam, the evil prophet of the other nations was a gifted speaker... They believed that Moses power came from his ability to speak. There is much written about this too...
http://www.613.org/smiles/sources/pdf/151-%20TazriaMetzora%20The%20Power%20of%20%20Speech.pdf
http://www.aish.com/tp/b/app/48944531.html
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/137089/jewish/Pei-Communication.htm