Why do we use Hebrew words

last SG · 2006-07-30T12:32:08+00:00

Then Chinese cannot call him Ye1 Su1? Koreans cannot call him Yasumin?

breytonhartge SG

Hi CE,

Did a search on wikis.. here is what I found, if we take the traditional or conservative Jewish perspective according to Jewish law, then yes, religion follows the mother.

Traditional (Halakhic) perspective
According to the traditional Rabbinic view, which is maintained by all branches of Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism today, only Halakha ("Jewish law" ) can define who is or is not a Jew when a question of Jewish identity, lineage, or parentage arises about any person seeking to define themselves or claim that they are a "Jew" or "Jewish".

Therefore, Halakha defines a "Jew" as someone, male or female, who is:

Either

(1) The child of a Jewish mother, known in English as "matrilineal descent". This tradition is derived from Deuteronomy 7:4.[1] [2]
or

(2) A person who converts, meaning, formally converted to Judaism under the auspices of a halakhically constituted and recognized Beth Din ("Court [of Jewish-Torah Law]" ) consisting preferably of three learned rabbis acting as Dayanim ("judges" ), but also possibly two learned and respected lay members of the community along with a rabbi who then issue a Shtar geirut ("Certificate of Conversion" ).
Who the first Jews were is a matter of some controversy. Some maintain that it was those who were present, bodily, at the revelation of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai; others maintain that Abraham and Sarah were the first Jews.

This standard for conversion is mandated by a long series of codes of law and texts, including the Talmud, through the Shulkhan Arukh, and subsequent interpretations that are held as authoritative by Orthodox Judaism and Conservative Judaism.

As a result, mere belief in the principles of Judaism does not make one a Jew. Similarly, non-adherence by a Jew to the Jewish principles of faith, or even formal conversion to another faith, does not make one lose one's Jewish status. Thus the immediate descendants of all female Jews (even apostates) are still considered to be Jews, as are those of all her female descendants. Even those descendants who are not aware they are Jews, or practice a faith other than Judaism, are technically still Jews, as long as they come from an unbroken female line of descent. As a corollary, the children of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother are not considered to be Jews by Orthodoxy or Conservatism unless they formally convert, even if raised practising Judaism.

Those not born to a Jewish mother may become accepted as Jews by the Orthodox and Conservative movements through a formal and usually difficult process of conversion to Judaism in order to become "true converts" (Geirei tzedek in Hebrew), and they are then accepted as Jews by the movement doing the conversion. In addition, Halakha requires that the new convert commits himself to observance of its tenets; this is called Kabbalat Ol Mitzvot, "Acceptance [of the] Yoke [of the] Commandments", the most important being the observance of Shabbat (the Jewish Sabbath), Kashrut (the dietary laws), Niddah (husband and wife abstaining from sexual contact during menstruation).

Conversion is still relatively rare, and typically discouraged. Orthodoxy does not accept the validity of non-Orthodox conversions; it recognises only those conversions in which the new convert accepts and undertakes to observe Halakha as interpreted by the teachings of Orthodox Judaism. Non-Orthodox rabbis do not require that converts make this commitment, and therefore do not perform conversions accepted under Orthodoxy. Additionally, because of the constant internal differences within all groups, it is not unusual for rabbis to be suspicious of conversions performed by their colleagues.

Conservative Judaism may accept the validity of some Reform and Reconstructionist conversions, but only if they include immersion in a ritual bath (mikvah), appearance before a rabbinical court (beit din) and, for men, circumcision (brit milah) or a symbolic circumcision for those already circumcised (hatfah dam brit).

Taken from WhoisaJew?

Yaffa SG

[quote]Originally posted by Chin Eng:

Interesting.... the children follow the faith of their mother? then why in the entire Bible, it's always God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac.... and not God of Sarah etc etc. Since when has the Hebrew faith been matriachy.... it has always be patriachy.... where the emphasis is on the male side of the family... You've got to better than that.... Yaffa.

It is common knowledge that the Jewish faith follows the line of the mother, ask any Jew! Only the tribal lineage is traced patriachally.

quote:

Neither is there any mention that Ishmael did not....

Had Ishmael turned out to be a follower of the God of Israel, he would have been mentioned and commended as a man of faith in the Torah. Yet not a single word was made mention of him that he was a faithful follower of the God of his father. And in your own words, God is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, not of Abraham, Ishmael and so on.

Chin Eng SG

Nonetheless it is interesting that the entire Torah has taken a patriachy flavour.

... and brey.... wikipedia? has an entire page on patriachy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarchs_%28Bible%29 and a short paragraphy on matriachy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchs_%28Bible%29...

breytonhartge SG

for fast reference, but still it is common knowledge that a person is considered jewish or not by the mother and not the father. The lineage always follows the mother, its the little naunces that are also important. Disregard this if you want to, up to you.

breytonhartge SG

CE you might want to look at this page.

Who is a Jew?

breytonhartge SG

CE you may also want to look here:

Who is a Jew?

breytonhartge SG

and an exerpt from another webpage not wiki...

Who is a Jew according to Halacha (Jewish Law)?
According to Jewish law, a child born to a Jewish mother or an adult who has converted to Judaism is considered a Jew; one does not have to reaffirm their Jewishness or practice any of the laws of the Torah to be Jewish. According to Reform Judaism, a person is a Jew if they were born to either a Jewish mother or a Jewish father. Also, Reform Judaism stresses the importance of being raised Jewish; if a child is born to Jewish parents and was not raised Jewish then the child is not considered Jewish. According to the Orthodox movement, the fathers religion and whether the person practices is immaterial. No affirmation or upbringing is needed, as long as the mother was Jewish.

Besides for differing opinions on patrilineal descent, the various streams also have different conversion practices. Conversion done under the auspices of an Orthodox rabbi, entails Jewish study, brit milah (for men), mikvah (for both men and women) and a stated commitment to follow the laws of the Torah. Conservative conversions use the same requirements as the Orthodox do; however, conversions by the Reform movement and other streams do not have the same requirements. Since the conversion practices are not uniform, many Orthodox Jews do not recognize Reform or Conservative conversions as valid and, hence, do not consider the converts Jews. Once a person has converted to Judaism, he is not referred to by any special term; he is as much a Jew as anyone born Jewish.

About Matrilineal Descent
Many people have asked why traditional Judaism uses matrilineal descent to determine Jewish status, when in all other things (tribal affiliation, priestly status, royalty, etc.) patrilineal descent is used.

The Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal descent should be used; however, there are several passages in the Torah where it is understood that the child of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man is a Jew, and several other passages where it is understood that the child of a non-Jewish woman and a Jewish man is not a Jew.

In Deuteronomy 7:1-5, in expressing the prohibition against intermarriage, G-d says "he [ie, the non-Jewish male spouse] will cause your child to turn away from Me and they will worship the gods of others." No such concern is expressed about the child of a non-Jewish female spouse. From this, we infer that the child of a non-Jewish male spouse is Jewish (and can therefore be turned away from Judaism), but the child of a non-Jewish female spouse is not Jewish (and therefore turning away is not an issue).

Leviticus 24:10 speaks of the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian man as being "among the community of Israel" (i.e., a Jew).

On the other hand, in Ezra 10:2-3, the Jews returning to Israel vowed to put aside their non-Jewish wives and the children born to those wives. They could not have put aside those children if those children were Jews.

by Rebecca Weiner Jewish Virtual Library

Chin Eng SG

Just wondering..... why did the Israelites recognise Ephraim and Manasseh, afterall, these two boys were born to the daughter of the a priest of On.... decidedly Egyptians in race.....

breytonhartge SG

See Genesis 48:1-7

Here is an exerpt from About Torah

Breisheet 48:5 states, And now thy two sons, Ephraim and Manasseh, which were born unto thee in the land of Egypt before I came unto thee into Egypt, are mine; as Reuben and Simeon, they shall be mine. The passage makes it clear that Yaakov intended to adopt Ephraim and Manasseh as his own. The reason Yaakov gives for choosing Ephraim and Manasseh is because they were the sons born to Yosef before his father and brothers came to Egypt. HaShem is rewarding Yosef's sons through adopting them into Yisrael. Therefore, HaShems reward for Yosefs steadfast faith is the grafting-in of Ephraim and Manasseh. In other words, because Yosef remained faithful during the separation from his family, HaShems reward to Yosef is an equal portion in the land HaShem promised Avrahams descendents. In fact, Breisheet 41:50 states Ephraim and Manasseh were born to Asenath the daughter of Potipherah priest of On. We can see that HaShem is making Yosefs non-Hebrew sons part of the commonwealth of Yisrael. Yaakov even places the blessings of three generations on the heads of Ephraim and Manasseh, as Breisheet 48:16 states The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth. Yaakov retroactively brought them into the covenant by placing the names of Yitzak and Avraham on their heads. HaShem completely replaced their Egyptian ancestry with Hebrew ancestry. Therefore, Ephraim and Manasseh become a symbol of the concern HaShem has for all nations. Breisheet 48:20 states In you shall Yisrael bless, saying, God make thee as Ephraim and as Manasseh. It is clear that one form of encouragement HaShem gives to His servants is a reward for their faithfulness.

See also:

Ephraim and Manasseh

breytonhartge SG

Here is another longer exerpt from a different commentary...

Here is an exerpt of one of the commentaries on this.

The Adoption of Manasseh and Ephraim
(48:1-7)

The last days of Jacobs earthly sojourn drew to a close. Sensing this, Joseph was summoned to his fathers side where Jacob pronounced a unique blessing upon him. The death of which Jacob had so frequently spoken and, at one time, desired was now soon to visit him. Joseph took his two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim, along with him to see their grandfather one final time and to bid him farewell. Gathering up his strength, Jacob sat up in bed in order to speak words of vital significance to Joseph. While Jacobs words were reminiscent of the past, this was no muddled musing as one might expect of an aged man nearing his final hour. Instead, Jacob focused Josephs attention upon the two most important events of his life as an explanation for what he was about to do.

Now it came about after these things that Joseph was told, Behold, your father is sick. So he took his two sons Manasseh and Ephraim with him. When it was told to Jacob, Behold, your son Joseph has come to you, Israel collected his strength and sat up in the bed. Then Jacob said to Joseph, God Almighty appeared to me at Luz in the land of Canaan and blessed me, and He said to me, Behold, I will make you fruitful and numerous, and I will make you a company of peoples, and will give this land to your descendants after you for an everlasting possession. And now your two sons, who were born to you in the land of Egypt before I came to you in Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine, as Reuben and Simeon are. But your offspring that have been born after them shall be yours; they shall be called by the names of their brothers in their inheritance (Genesis 48:1-6).

Twice God had appeared to Jacob at Luz (Bethel, 28:10-17; 35:9-12), and in both appearances God had blessed him, promising him that he would become a great nation and that he would possess the land of Canaan. While it was nowhere recorded that God specifically promised Jacob that the land would be an everlasting possession (verse 4), it was told Abram in 17:7. This was probably orally passed on through Isaac.

Josephs sons, Manasseh and Ephraim,102 were born in the land of Egypt. As sons of Joseph their future in Egypt may have seemed very bright. Perhaps they might fill the shoes of their father, taking places of power and influence in Pharaohs administration. But their greatest hope lay in a land they had not yet seen, for they were destined to be a part of the company of peoples (verse 4) that God had promised Jacob.

Reuben, due to his sin of laying with Bilhah, Jacobs concubine (35:22), would be stripped of his birthright (cf. 49:4). This privilege was conveyed upon Joseph, but in an unusual way. No doubt the normal course would have been to give the birthright to the next son, Simeon, or to the next after him, Levi, but both of these sons were guilty of the mass murder of the Shechemites (34:25ff.). It was Joseph instead who was to receive the rights of the firstborn:

Now the sons of Reuben the firstborn of Israel (for he was the firstborn, but because he defiled his fathers bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph the son of Israel; so that he is not enrolled in the genealogy according to the birthright. Though Judah prevailed over his brothers, and from him came the leader, yet the birthright belonged to Joseph) (I Chronicles 5:1-2).

Jacob achieved his purpose by adopting both of Josephs sons as his own, on a par with Reuben and Simeon (verse 5). Now each of them would receive one portion, but in so doing Joseph received a double portion:

And I give you one portion more than your brothers, which I took from the hand of the Amorite with my sword and my bow (Genesis 48:22).

The effect, as noted by the chronicler, was to give the birthright to Joseph. Any other sons which might be born to Joseph (but dont seem to have been) would receive their inheritance as though they were the sons of either Ephraim or Manasseh (verse 6).

The twin appearances of God to Jacob at Bethel (once before he departed from Canaan to seek a wife in Haran (28:10-17) and once after he returned to Canaan from Paddan-aram (35:9-15)) were even more significant in the light of the partial fulfillment of Gods promises to him in these appearances. God had promised Jacob that he would be with him to guide, protect, and provide, and that He would bring him safely back to Canaan. This God had done, in spite of the dangers he had faced and the obstacles that were in his path. Since Gods word had been fulfilled in the short-term promises, surely His more distant promises were assured also.

The primary focus of Jacob in his report to Joseph was the promise of the land of Canaan and the assurance that Jacob would become a numerous people, a company of peoples (verse 4). If God had assured Jacob of becoming a great and numerous people, then surely he was justified in adopting two more sons who would contribute to this proliferation of people.

If the justification for Jacobs adoption of Josephs sons is found in the promise God had made at Bethel, the reason seems to be reported in verse 7:

Now as for me, when I came from Paddan, Rachel died, to my sorrow, in the land of Canaan on the Journey, when there was still some distance to go to Ephrath; and I buried her there on the way to Ephrath (that is, Bethlehem) (Genesis 48:7).

Joseph was the son of Rachel, Jacobs chosen wife. His partiality to Joseph significantly contributed to Josephs rejection by his brothers and his journey to Egypt (cf. 37:4). A major factor in his preference for Joseph was the fact that he was the first-born of Rachel, his bride by choice. (Leah was his wife by chance, Bilhah and Zilpah by competition.)

While Rachel was the younger of his wives, she died prematurely on the way to Ephrath (Bethlehem). By inference, had she not died so early in life she would have presented Jacob with many other sons. The adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh provided Jacob with two more sons, technically through Rachel. The promise of God at Bethel in combination with the preference of Jacob for Rachel provides the backdrop for the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh. In addition to this must be mentioned the faithfulness of Joseph to the God of his fathers, even while in a foreign land and in adverse circumstances. He, as the savior of his people, surely was worthy of the favor his father bestowed upon him.

To read the full article, go here The View From the Graveyard

Chin Eng SG

so the hebrews followed the faith of the mothers, except in this unusual situation where a pronouncement by Jacob made it the exception to the rule? isn't this rather convenient?

There is no where in scripture is it stated that the hebrew culture is matriachy in nature.

back to my question:

and yaffa's reply

Genesis 21:14 Early the next morning Abraham took some food and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. He set them on her shoulders and then sent her off with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the desert of Beersheba.

15 When the water in the skin was gone, she put the boy under one of the bushes. 16 Then she went off and sat down nearby, about a bowshot away, for she thought, "I cannot watch the boy die." And as she sat there nearby, she began to sob.

17 God heard the boy crying, and the angel of God called to Hagar from heaven and said to her, "What is the matter, Hagar? Do not be afraid; God has heard the boy crying as he lies there. 18 Lift the boy up and take him by the hand, for I will make him into a great nation."

19 Then God opened her eyes and she saw a well of water. So she went and filled the skin with water and gave the boy a drink.

20 God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the desert and became an archer. 21 While he was living in the Desert of Paran, his mother got a wife for him from Egypt.

Would God have taken care of Ishamel, if Jehovah is not the God of Ishamel?

I am guessing that the answer is: well, because God had already given Abraham a promise, therefore God has to keep it. Unfortunately, I don't see why He needs to keep it because Ishmael was a result of a disobedience and disbelief of Sarah. There is really no reason for God to continue to bless Hagar and Ishmael.

breytonhartge SG

Originally posted by Chin Eng:
so the hebrews followed the faith of the mothers, except in this unusual situation where a pronouncement by Jacob made it the exception to the rule? isn't this rather convenient?

Take that one up with Yahweh. It is already stated that they were accepted as part of the 12 tribes, it would also then seem that if they were adopted, they would have done so properly and would have been raised in the tradition of Yahweh, otherwise, why would Yahweh sanction such a move? Still if you ask any Jew, the faith follows the mother. That has always been and will always be. So why are you arguing the point here?

I am sure Yahweh has good reason for allowing Jacob to adopt Ephraim and Manasseh.

breytonhartge SG

There is no reason, but while Hagar and the youth were in the desert, the angel of Yahweh visited them and said that ishamel would be a great too... hence we have the arab nations today.

You may not see why Yahweh needed to keep the promise, but I am sure that He had very good reason. or do you presume to know more than Yahweh?? Confused

Like Yaffa said, there is no mention in the Torah that Ishmael ever sought Yahweh.

breytonhartge SG

Originally posted by Chin Eng:

There is no where in scripture is it stated that the hebrew culture is matriachy in nature.

[/b]

Please go an read the articles that I posted. There are inferences to the fact, plus you want to argue with the history of the Jewish people and their laws? It is purely stated for all to see, my wife confirms it as well, as a Jew are you saying she does not know her own culture??

I think that you are confused here. The distinction is this, whether one is considered a Jew or not is determined by the mother, but as to which tribe one belongs to is determined by the father.

Chin Eng SG

On one hand, whether one is Jewish or not is determined by the mother, on the other in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, Jacob say it's ok, it's ok.... double standard. Sure you can quote a multitude of reasons from a multitude of websites. Yet every single one of them is in conflict with the first premise: the one about it's the mother that determines where one is a Jew or not - the one that states that Ephraim and Manasseh is NOT Jewish!

A cultural practice does not make it a biblical practice. Nowhere is it stated in the Bible that the race is following the mother, so what if practice does that. If the practice is such and there is no teaching in the Bible, then the practice is in conflict with the Bible.

The entire Bible (Torah, if you will) is extremely patriachy in tone and practice. Sure the Hebrew mom's got influence... so do Chinese moms. So what!

Again, why is the God of Abraham, Jacob and Isaac and NOT God of Sarah, Rachel and Leah.....????? There is nothing tribal in this statement. It is a declaration of faith on Yehovah! It is NOT God of Judah, Reuben, Gad etc etc!

The Ishmael thing.... I am not asking if he is Jewish, I am asking if the God of Ishmael at that time is also the God of Jacob. The fact that his mother is Egyptian has nothing to do with anthing.
Neither am I saying that the Muslims are right NOW! I am only asking if the God that attended to Ishmael is the same God, and that this God followed Ishmael (an Egyptian) throughout his life.
Is it so difficult to say: Yes?

brey, I have said it before.... don't know, say don't know. Don't give me this "ask God" or "take it with God" thing.

breytonhartge SG

In Judiasm, the status of whether a person is Jewish or not is considered to be "inherited" through the mother. This Halacha has been around since the origins of Judaism as a culture, at least as far back as when the Torah was received by Moses on Mt. Sinai. Many claims, however, have attempted to place the inauguration of this "Custom" significantly more recently than the correct date.

Without discussing Individual claims for when it was that this "Custom" originated, I will explore the documentary evidence that this law was well known at the destruction of the second temple. Since many will contend that direct evidence from the Old Testament was posiibly more recently modified, the oldest documents extant are from just before, during, and after the destruction of the temple.

In any case, The Mishna, which was a compilation of sayings from the Tannaic period (from approximately 50 B.C.E. - 200 C.E.) about the law as they understood it, seems to take the fact that matrilineal descent for granted. According to one opinion listed, a woman who has a baby from a non-jewish man is considered to be a "Mamzer," (Leviticus 20, Deuteronomy 23, verse 3) According to the other opinion, which is listed as the one we follow, there is no legal distinction between this child and one born from both Jewish parents, except that he cannot claim membership in a tribe, as this is a status inherited from the father. (This means that the child is non a Levite, but otherwise has no practically different rules than a member of the other 11 tribes. However, it has been contended that the Mishna may not be the same text as that which originally existed, though at the least, it is the same manuscript as was in use in 600 C.E.

If someone were to reject the Mishna as a source, due to the fact that it cannot be verified far enough back, there are sources form the Midrash, a set of collections of Tannaic literature explaining scripture, some of which, it is clear, dates to well before the destruction of the second temple, we see that this understanding of Matrilineal descent is taken for granted as well. The example I remember most clearly is from when Joseph marries an "Egyptian" woman, (Genesis 41, 50) the Midrash explains how the children, Ephraim and Menashe, are jewish. The reason given is that the girl Joseph marries is the daughter of Dina, who was raped by Shechem, (Genesis 34) (And the daughter of this union is assumed to be Jewish.) Contrast this with the casual liason that Yehuda (Judah) had with Tamar, (Genesis 38 ) when he thought that she was not a jewess (and it is clear from midrashic sources that he is not concerned with any offspring that may have resulted, seeing as the child would clearly not be Jewish.)

There are those who feel, however, that since the Midrash was not widely distributed, and many textual discrepancies exist, therefore, though there is no specific evidence, large sections of it could have been altered in the intervening 2000 years, and a more reputable source, such as the Talmud, is needed, since it is clear from documentary evidence that it was not changed significantly since it was written, 1500 years ago. In Tractate Avodah Zarah, which discusses business and personal relationships between Jews and those non-Jews who practice Idol Worship, it is clear in several places that a relationship between a jewess and a non-jew is Jewish, especially in cases involving capture by a non-jewish army, where we say that a child born to the woman through rape, is a Mamzer, since it is a forbidden relationship since the woman is married. A proof that children of jewish men with non-jewish women is from the discussion in the Talmud of the payment for rape (50 peices of silver, in Deuteronomy 22, verse 28 ) where it says that a non-jewish woman is not entitled to this specific payment, and is instead entitled to a seperate type of damages claim, which a jewish woman (according to most opions, including the one that is followed) is not.

It is possible, given all of these sources, still to doubt that the rule was given more than 3000 years ago to moses, but to claim that it originated after the holocaust is patently ridiculous, and claiming it originates during the 2000 yeaars of exile since the destruction of the Second Temple is a only somewhat less difficult to support claim

breytonhartge SG

Religious identity is due to matrilineal descent, meaning the Mommy determines the childs religionJewish or not.

Though both parents contribute to the genetic make-up of a child, the fathers involvement in conceiving the child is fleeting compared to the pregnancy and birth that the mother experiences. Clearly the mothers involvement in the childs formation is incomparably greater than the fathers. Furthermore, much has been scientifically demonstrated that aside from genetic make-up, a baby is greatly influenced by the conditions of the womb, and these factors have long-term effects on that person. So even before birth, a babys life-long being is deeply bound with that of his or her mother. All this considered, it is no surprise then that the very essence of the child who he or she will be is determined by the mother. Whether a child is Jewish or not is not a minor detail of the childs composition, it is a question of his or her very identitythanks to Mom.

Whether a child is Jewish or not is not a minor detail of the childs composition, it is a question of his or her very identitythanks to MomOn the other hand, tribal association is via paterilineal descent, so the Dad determines if his offspring are Kohanim, Levites or Israelites (and specifically which Israelite tribe).

All three tribal divisions have the common essential factor of being Jewish, as determined by the mother. The difference in these three is their function their Jewish job-description. A Kohain, Levite and Israelite each have his (or her) unique spiritual profession, whether it be in the Temple or in the office. Each one is educated towards a specialized tribal roleas taught by the father.

The Torah obligation for continued education of children is actually only the fathers (though a mother is duly credited for her educating, albeit her non-compulsory prerogative). Thus the child follows the spiritual path he learns from his father. For example, a Kohain-in-training learns about his (or her) G-dly vocation from his father, and not his motherso too with Levites and Israelites. The father is a living example of how conduct oneself as a professional Kohain/Levite/Israelite.

Additionally, many of the laws of Kohanim and Levites are only practiced by males (such as the prohibition for a kohain to purposely become ritually impure, or laws pertaining to the Temple service), thus it is logical for these laws to be transmitted paterilineally from father to son.

[In the case of a person born of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, the tribe association is irrelevant since he/she is not Jewish. In the reverse situationJewish mother and non-Jewish fatherthe child is Jewish and a (tribe-less) Israelite.]

Chin Eng SG

"The example I remember most clearly is from when Joseph marries an "Egyptian" woman, (Genesis 41, 50) the Midrash explains how the children, Ephraim and Menashe, are jewish. The reason given is that the girl Joseph marries is the daughter of Dina, who was raped by Shechem, (Genesis 34) (And the daughter of this union is assumed to be Jewish.) Contrast this with the casual liason that Yehuda (Judah) had with Tamar, (Genesis 3 when he thought that she was not a jewess (and it is clear from midrashic sources that he is not concerned with any offspring that may have resulted, seeing as the child would clearly not be Jewish.) "

Please explain: How did Dinah marry a priest of On that resulted into her daughter that married Joseph... Genesis 34 did not say what happened to her. Everything stated here is extra-Biblical in nature. If it is not stated in the Bible, we can assume anything we want.... midrash or not!

...so.... is the God that tended to Ishmael all his life the same God of the Hebrews...? Or are you continuing to ignore this question.

Another question: Is Rahab of Jericho a Jewish?

breytonhartge SG

In the time of the Patriarchs it appears that descent followed the father. However, the period of the Patriarchs was before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. It was only with the revelation on Sinai that the Jewish people received their legal system. Therefore it is impossible to bring Halachic, legal proofs from the Patriarchs. Our source for Halacha is the Written and Oral Torah.

The Mishna in Tractate Kiddushin 66b states that if a child's mother is not Jewish, then the child is not Jewish.

The Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 68b, derives this Halacha from a verse in Deuteronomy 7:1-5, which also contains the prohibition against intermarriage. "When the L-rd your G-d brings you to the land that you will inherit, many nations will fall away before you; the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Prizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites... And you shall not marry with them; do not give your daughters to his sons and do not take his daughters for your sons. For he will turn your son away from me and they will worship other gods...." The Talmud points out that the verse only seems to be concerned with the son of the Israelite woman being turned away, "for he (the gentile)" will turn your son away. It does not seem to be concerned that "she (the gentile) will turn your son away." The implication is that the son of the Jewish woman and gentile man is still considered "your (the Jewish grandfather in this case) son," but in the case of a gentile woman married to a Jewish man, the child is not considered "your son" and therefore there is no concern about his turning away. This follows Rashi and Tosfot Ri Hazaken in their explanation of the Gemara.

Tosfot (ad loc. "Amar krah" ) offers a number of different methods of derivation from the verse, but agrees with the conclusion. This law is also found in the Mishna in Yevamot (ch. 2, 21a): "He counts as a brother in every respect unless he was the son of a maidservant or of a gentile woman."

This halacha is codified in the Code of Jewish Law, Even HaEzer 8:5, and in Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, Laws of Forbidden Relationships, 15:4. Maimonides states: "This is the general rule: The status of an offspring from a gentile man or from a gentile woman is the same as his mother's; we disregard the father."

Another source in the Torah is the verse in Leviticus 24:10: "the son of an Israelite woman went out - and he was the son of an Egyptian man." This person is described as being "in the midst of the community of Israel" - in other words, Jewish.

Probably the most explicit verse against patrilineal descent is in the book of Ezra 10:2-3: Some of the Jews who had returned from the exile declare, "We have trespassed against our G-d and have taken foreign wives of the people of the land. Yet, there is hope in Israel concerning this thing. Therefore, let us make a covenant with our G-d to put away all the wives and such as are born to them, according to the counsel of the L-rd and of those who assemble at the commandment of G-d; let it be done according to the law."

Sources are also in Midrash Rabbah, Numbers, 19, and Jerusalem Talmud, Kiddushin 3:12.

Do we ignore the father completely? Certainly not. The father is the one who determines what tribe the child is from. That is: Kohen, Levi, Yisrael. Also, in determining royalty and other leadership roles among the Jewish people we go from father to son.

breytonhartge SG

If you do not take the midrash then there is nothing else to explain to you. There is more to Jewish culture than you choose to understand. Even John said in the bible that should all these things be written, there would not be books enough on the earth to record all the accounts.

There a many things extra-biblical in nature that are recorded and passed down via oral tradition, which can now be found in the Talmud, which is the Jewish account of their walk with Yahweh. These things are NOT ASSUMED, they are the RECORDS OF THE JEWS IN THEIR WALK WITH YAHWEH. A walk that many so called christians take very lightly.

Yahweh is the God who tended to Ishmael. In regards to your post as to you see no point in Yahweh keeping His promise, then you are sadly mistaken, this promise Yahweh made was to Avraham, if our Yahweh would be so changeable as you think He should be, then where lies the assurance and promise of our salvation because just as easily as Yahweh would have reneged on His promise to Avraham, He can reneg on our promise of salvation.

Rahab of Jerico was indeed considered Jewish, she converted.

Biblical Data:

A woman of Jericho who sheltered the spies sent by Joshua to search out the land. Having arrived at Jericho, the two spies remained at Rahab's house, situated in the wall of the city and having a window on the outside (Josh. ii. 1, 15). Rahab was ordered by the king, who had been informed of the arrival of the spies, to deliver them to him; she, however, hid them on the roof and declared that they had come and gone without her knowing who they were (ii. 3-6). In her conversation with the spies upon the roof, Rahab proved to have been well informed of the progress of the Israelites since they had crossed the Red Sea. She told them that she was certain of their final conquest of the land, and asked them to reward her by sparing herself and her whole familyher father, mother, brothers, and sisters, all of whom lived in the interior of the city (ii. 8-14). After she had let the spies down through the window of her house, they enjoined her to take her whole family into her house, which she should distinguish by placing a scarlet string or rope in the window through which they had made their escape (ii. 15-21). At the conquest of Jericho by the Israelites, Joshua ordered the two spies to rescue Rahab and her family, whose descendants thenceforward dwelt in Israel (vi. 22-23, 25).E. G. H. M. Sel.

In Rabbinical Literature:

Rahab was one of the most beautiful women in the world, the mere mention of her name exciting inordinate desire (Meg. l5a; Ta'an. 5b). Later Jewish commentators, Rashi among them, interpret , the Hebrew term for "harlot," as "one who sells food," basing their view on Targum Jonathan (to Josh. ii. 1), which renders it by (= "innkeeper"; comp., however, David Ḳimḥi ad loc.). In the Talmudic literature, however, it is accepted that Rahab was a harlot. She was ten years old when the Israelites came out of Egypt, and she pursued her immoral calling during the forty years that the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness. There was not a prince nor a ruler that had not had relations with her; and she was therefore well informed of what was going on outside Jericho (Mek., Yitro, 'Amalek, 1; Zeb. 116b). At the conquest of that city by the Israelites, Rahab became a sincere proselyte to the cult of Yhwh. She then married Joshua and became the ancestress of eight priests who were prophets as well, Jeremiah among them, and of the prophetess Huldah (Meg. 14b). Rahab was also one of the proselyte women styled "the pious" ("ḥasidot"; Midr. Tadshe, in Epstein, "Mi-Ḳadmoniyyot ha-Yehudim," Supplement, p. xliii.). The words "and the families of the house of them that wrought fine linen," etc. (I Chron. iv. 21), are considered by the Rabbis to refer to the house of Rahab (Ruth R. ii. 1).

The conversion of Rahab is regarded by the Rabbis as more complete than that of Jethro and Naaman; for while the latter two did not free themselves entirely from a belief in other gods, Rahab acknowledged that Yhwh was the only God both in heaven and on earth (Mek., l.c.; Deut. R. ii. 19). This acknowledgment of Rahab called forth the admiration of God Himself, who said: "On earth thou couldest see with thine eyes that there is no other God besides Me; but to acknowledge also that I am the only God in heaven needs special faith. I promise thee, therefore, that one of thy descendants [referring to Ezekiel] shall see what no prophet before him shall have seen" (comp. Ezek. i. 1); thus making Ezekiel also one of Rahab's descendants (Midr. Shemuel, in Yalḳ., Josh. 10). Rahab's reward was alluded to by Hezekiah in his prayer for recovery from his sickness (comp. II Kings xx. 2), when he said that as Rahab was greatly recompensed for the rescue of only two men, he who rescued so many from idolatry certainly deserved some reward (Eccl. R. v. 2).E. C. M. Sel.

« Previous Page Next Page »