You're 100% mistaken. He is not referring to European yeshivos! He was referring to the street - of which 80% had joined the haskallah and other deviant sects.
He's talking about the blessing of the haftarah, where they call bialik a Novi. Same bialik who was close to the Rogatchover. So this was either in the yeshiva or a shul. In any case, he's still a teenager when he wrote this. The hareidi outlook is the opposite of the Torah, which lehavdil tells us to engage with the outside world, the opposite sex, the military, the world of agriculture and technology.
It means in Torah times, it was lefi ha Av, what might be patrilineal today. Since realhalachik is matrilineal, we cannot understand the Torah concept of tribalism anymore.
KA says “It means in Torah times, it was lefi ha Av, what might be patrilineal today. Since realhalachik is matrilineal, we cannot understand the Torah concept of tribalism anymore.” No. The 12 sons of Jacob may have married Canaanite ladies, presumably who converted to Judaism. This makes all Jacob’s grandchildren Jewish. These grandchildren firmly followed ancestral houses with no intermarrying between tribes. It was nationalism each tribe. Not until, later in the Book of Numbers... Nationalism = identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. "their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union" UK has a problem with Scottish and Ireland nationalism and Brexit. Follow, KA? I like Boris Johnson, but I don’t think people in Scotland and Ireland will agree to Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson was a great mayor of London. Hertz Chumash on “Then, midway between the divisions, the Tent of Meeting, the division of the Levites, shall move. As they camp, so they shall march, each in position, by their standards לדגליהם” (Numbers 2:17): “The repeated emphasis on discipline is noteworthy. Israel---God’s army---however great in numbers, is nothing, unless order and discipline reign in the midst thereof.” Beautiful. We were a disciplined nation.
Yehudi means patriline all the way to yehuda, follow? He also took Canaanite woman. Ramban says Israel-ness is from the father, but Jewish_ness from the mother. Logic vs.realhalakha.
Torah times are always and forever. According to Torah law, Jewish "tribal" membership is determined by patrilineal lineage from each of Jacob’s twelve sons.
While it's true, that due to the trials and tribulations of the various exiles through the millenia, the vast majority of Jews have lost their tribal identity (with the exception of the tribe of Levi), the concept of tribalism is still relevant, and will be applied in the Messianic era.
KA: "Yehudi means patriline all the way to Yehuda"
IR: At some point, probably near the time of the Babylonian exile, the descendants of the Children of Israel, started to be referred to as "Yehudim" (Judah-im) (Jews). This is indicated in the Book of Esther, which is replete with the term.
This can’t possibly mean that all of the Israelites suddenly became registered members of the tribe of Judah. This is impossible, since tribal affiliation is not "fluid". It is a genealogical reality, exclusively dependent on patrilinear descent.
It would also be pure sophistry to suggest that the Book of Esther is merely about the tribe of Judah, which was endangered by the evil decree of Ahasuerus and Haman, while all the other tribes of Israel were unaffected by the decree. [This is indicated in the verse (Esther 3:6) "And it was contemptible in his eyes to lay his hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai's nationality" (not tribe)].
R' Gifter specifically mentions that he was speaking in a "beis medrash". וכל בית במדרש קם במהומה
R' Gifter was NOT "talking about the blessing of the haftarah". He was referring to a speech he gave, based on the words of the Haftarah (Parshas Massei) which begins with the words of the prophet Jeremiah (2:4) שמעו דבר ה' בית יעקב
KA says “Yehudi means patriline all the way to yehuda, follow? He also took Canaanite woman. Ramban says Israel-ness is from the father, but Jewish_ness from the mother. Logic vs.realhalakha.” No. Midrash Rabbah - Numbers I:9 “Another exposition: “On the first day of the second month, in the second year following the exodus from the land of Egypt, the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, saying” (Numbers 1:1). He said to him: “Take a census שאו את ראש of the whole Israelite community by the clans of its ancestral houses [i.e., of its tribes], listing the names במספר שמות, every male, head by head.” (Numbers 1:2). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, I have never loved any created being more than you. I have, therefore, conferred on you exaltation and have likened you unto Me, for as I Myself am exalted above all mankind-as it is said, “Yours, Lord, are greatness, might, splendor, triumph, and majesty—yes, all that is in heaven and on earth; to You, Lord, belong kingship and preeminence above all.” (Chronicles 1 29:11). So have I done unto you, that you may have exaltation. It is, therefore, stated, שאו את ראש; in confirmation of what is said, “He has exalted the horn of His people for the glory of all His faithful ones, Israel, the people close to Him. Hallelujah.” (Psalms 148:14). Likewise it is stated, “Now, if you obey the Lord your God, to observe faithfully all His commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 28:1).” במדבר פרק א פסוק ב שְׂאוּ אֶת רֹאשׁ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת כָּל זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם רש"י במדבר פרשת במדבר פרק א פסוק ב למשפחתם - דע מנין כלד שבט ושבט: לבית אבתם - מי שאביו משבט אחד ואמו משבט אחר יקוםה על שבט אביו: לגלגלתם - על ידי שקליםו בקע לגלגולת: Rashi says that if the father is from one tribe and the mother from another tribe, the family is listed to the father’s tribe. God showed considerable honor to the Jewish people with the listing by names. The Gamara in Nedarim gives a false name, Kalba Savuah, to Rabbi Akiva’s father-in-law. Why? For he was wicked though rich as Korach. He made his living collecting in behalf the Caesar... Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students were righteous and treated each other with respect, see me here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23868 When Jacob came to Egypt Job was born. Job lived 210 years. The Jews all had names. “Then Elihu spoke once more. Wait a little and let me hold forth; There is still more to say for God. I will make my opinions widely known אשא דעי למרחוק ; I will justify my Maker לפעלי אתן צדק . In truth, my words are not false; A man of sound opinions is before you.” (Job 36:1-4). We debated and disagreed but we showed respect one to another, follow, KA?
So you are saying the terminology for Yehudi is corrupted? Even accepting that it has changed, even if you say it means Yisrael, there is still a logical problem. If lineage is matrilineal, the first yisrael would need to be a woman. But it was a man. And he had wives and concubines. So there is no direct matrilineal line, or the tribes and nation would be named after the wives and concubines.
"even if you say it means Yisrael, there is still a logical problem. If lineage is matrilineal, the first yisrael would need to be a woman. But it was a man. And he had wives and concubines. So there is no direct matrilineal line, or the tribes and nation would be named after the wives and concubines." Additionally, the bris is with the male not the female. The Torah specifies a Bris to enter the people of Israel, but not for a female converting.
In most of the Tanach, the Hebrews are referred to as Israel, or the Children of Israel (not Hebrews).
At some point, probably near the time of the Babylonian exile, All Israelites started to be referred to as "Yehudim" (Judah-im) (Jews), despite the fact that not all Yehudim were descendants of the tribe of Judah.
There is no logical problem. Lineage is PAtrilineal. Bamidbar 1:2 Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses. Ibid. 1:18 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. Ezra 2:59 but they could not tell their fathers' houses and their children, if they were from Israel.
The first "Yisrael", was our forefather Yaakov-Yisrael.
Indeed. So the question is how one squares the patrilineal lineage of the Tanach, with the matrilineal lineage of the oral Law. If by "Jewish", we mean yisrael, then who was the first Jewish/yisrael foremother? If it was Sarah or Leah/Rachel, then there is no judaism . To put it another way, according to today's Halacha, neither Avraham, yitzhak or, Yaakov had anything to do with Judaism. If chas shalom the imahot had orelim, nochri husbands, the offspring would still be 100% Jewish.
You're confusing "lineage" with "Jewishness". Jewish "lineage" is patrilinear. "Jewishness" is matrilinear. Having a Jewish mother makes you a "Jew". Having a Jewish father too, gives you Tribal lineage (if he had any).
For example, a convert to Judaism does not have Tribal lineage. He therefore counts himself as a generic "Yisrael", but without specific tribal affiliation. His children, born from a Jewish woman, are "Jewish", but have no particular Tribal affiliation.
Possibly, the Patriarchs "converted" the Matriarchs, before marrying them.
Alternatively, all Jews were considered to have converted, in a three part process, which included circumcision, in Egypt, immersion and sacrifice, in the desert. This is spelled out by the Rambam (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah, 13): (א) בשלושה דברים נכנסו ישראל לברית: במילה וטבילה וקרבן. (ב) מילה היתה במצרים, כשנאמר: "כל ערל לא יאכל בו" (שמות יב מח). מל אותם משה רבנו, שכולם ביטלו ברית מילה במצרים חוץ משבט לוי. ועל זה נאמר: "ובריתך ינצרו" (דברים לג ט). (ג) וטבילה היתה במדבר קודם מתן תורה, כשנאמר: "וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלתם" (שמות יט י). וקרבן כשנאמר: "וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עלת" (שמות כד ה) – על ידי כל ישראל הקריבום.
(ד) וכן לדורות, כשירצה הגוי להכנס לברית ולהסתופף תחת כנפי השכינה, ויקבל עליו עול תורה, צריך מילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן. ואם נקבה היא טבילה וקרבן, שנאמר: "ככם כגר" (במדבר טו טו) – מה אתם במילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן, אף הגר לדורות במילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן. (ה) ומה הוא קרבן הגר? עולת בהמה, או שתי תורים או שני בני יונה; ושניהם עולה. ובזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן – צריך מילה וטבילה. וכשיבנה המקדש יביא קרבנו.
They were already Bnei Yisrael at the time - milah was already a hiyyuv from the time of Avraham avinu. Just like today, if kashrus ia chiyyuv, but some don't keep it, they are still Jews, and when they start keeping it, that is not giur. The Patriarchs took the Matriarchs because they were the most (IMHO) righteous of the generation. It is interesting, as we are coming up with varying definitions of Jewishness - it is lineage in the sense of Bamidbar. it is Brit with Hashem, which is the most obvious Brit Milah, plus immersion/ and sacrifice.
The Rambam, of all people, would allow"me" to bring a logical argument against his position. At least this is what he teaches in his introduction to the commentary on the mishnah.
In Parashat Lech Lecha (Bereshit 17), Hashem commands Avraham and his descendants to observe the commandment of the circumcision. However this commandment is repeated in the beginning of Parashat Tazria (Vayikra 12:3), and our current obligation is derived from that short verse.
This is explained by the Rambam (commentary to Mishnah Chulin 7:6) that the commandments to the people of Israel derive only from the revelation at Mount Sinai. As an example of this rule, he mentions the commandment of circumcision: “We do not circumcise ourselves because Abraham circumcised himself and his family, rather because Hashem commanded us, via Moshe, to circumcise ourselves as Avraham did.
"אין אנו מלים מפני שאברהם מל עצמו ואנשי ביתו, אלא מפני שהקב"ה ציוה אותנו על ידי משה רבינו שנימול כמו שמל אברהם אבינו עליו השלום".
When the issue is logic based, then your logic might be acceptable. However in this case, the Rambam is basing himself on sources in Jewish canon. That being the case, the Rambam would posit that your "logic" is pretty much worthless.
Did you even bother to find out what the Rambam's sources are?
Rambam saying my logic is worthless is fine. The issue is not about me winning, it's about Rambam saying that hachamim sometimes accepted a minority argument because the argumentation was so clear. Nothing wrong in asking a question. Disagreeing and bringing a counter argument are not the same thing.
He is not saying Israel converted to Judaism. He is saying that Israel entered the Brit of matan Torah. The goy must emulate these steps to join the Brit.
BTW, the Gra said more or less the same thing to Rav Chaim volozhiner, that a student must not accept his teachers words if he sees a deficiency in them but must argue his point to get to the truth. The principle here is what is important, not the old chestnut about "how dare you disagree with the Rav".
The deficiency here is the presumptuousness of attempting to argue on the Rambam, without even having seen the sources that he based himself on, or even bothering to study the commentaries on his work.
Presumably you don't consider the book of Joshua to be part of the Jewish canon, since he tells us that the generation of the wilderness did not have milah, and they did it in eretz Israel. Hence, the tevilah and conversion at Sinai, before milah, would not have been a valid conversion.
"For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not circumcised."
This can be referring to the generation of the wilderness that was born after Sinai.
Straw man. "Arguing" also has rules. If you try to argue with a Rambam out of ignorance of his sources, you are incompetent to weigh in on the subject.
"attempting to argue on the Rambam" This is the whole problem of the yeshiva world, and why they are producing robots not iluim. We are on the one hand told how learning in yeshiva is the highest intellectual activity, that all questions are welcomed, etc etc. When people actually do ask questions, they are accused of being apikorsim. what joke.
This Rambam is very interesting - but from it we conclude the opposite of what you do:
"Circumcision took place in Egypt, [before the Paschal sacrifice, of which Exodus 12:48] says: "No uncircumcised person shall partake of it." Moses our teacher circumcised [the people]. For with the exception of the tribe of Levi, the entire [people] neglected the covenant of circumcision in Egypt.2 Regarding this, [Deuteronomy 33:9 praises the Levites,] saying: "They upheld Your covenant.""
It says that apart from Shevet Levi, the rest of Israel did not circumcise before the Korban Pesach. SO immersion or not, according to what you are presenting, the rest of Bnei Yisrael were still goyim. So what happened, if they still did not circumcise in the desert, does that mean they never converted? Or does it mean, they were Jews but just secular ones?, more so than secular Israelis who by and large still keep Bris Milah.
Not a problem of being an "apikorus". Just lacking in intellectualism and intellectual integrity.
Questions may be asked in a reasonable manner. However you didn't merely ask questions, you stepped over that line by categorically deciding that he's wrong, without even having examined the sources that he based himself on, or even bothering to study any of the commentaries on his work. That's not a sign of an intellectual. It's the mark of a boor...
You misread the Rambam. The tribe of Levi had always practiced circumcision, all during the sojourn in Egypt. The problem was the rest of the nation, who had neglected to circumcise themselves. They all did so prior to eating the Korban Pesach.
Also, reread Joshua (5:5) "For all the people that came out were circumcised".
It's not a straw man. It is just that you are of the view that you will only accept questions if I sign on the dotted line which says I will always accept your answers. Again, what applies to the Rambam also applies to his sources, which is the Gemara. R' David b Hayyim says he was taught in yeshiva to ask questions like an "apikores" ie ask questions about anything that doesn't make sense to you. But it could well be that this a drush not a pshat, i.e. they are learning from Korban pesach how a nochri should convert. You are saying that logic doesn't apply to the Gemara? How do you know that?
Where did I say Rambam is wrong? I produced counter arguments, which you showed me are based on faulty assumptions. As I said already , producing a counter argument does not mean I've decided he is wrong. You miss the distinction. It simply means that my argument which leads me to different conclusions has not yet been resolved.
You don't have to accept my answers, but for intellectual honesty you would have to cogently explain why my answer is wrong, if it were so.
So maybe you finally got to the Gemara that the Rambam is based on.
Now, invoking the Talmud is classified as an "argument from authority", which is when writers or speakers claim that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. This type of argument can be rejected by someone who denies the authority of the source that was quoted. The Rambam believe that his Talmudic source was enough of a basis for his codification.
What would be the basis of your rejection of the Rambam's position? Do you deny the authority of the Rambam's source? Do you have proof that the Rambam misunderstood the source?
Let me put it another way - if all of Bnei Yisrael wer circumcised, and they all took part in Korban Pesach, as well as Matan Torah at Sinai, then there is no possible case of Bnei Yisrael who didn't do the above - 100% of them did , and are what we call "Jews". But there is no difference between the Jews and Bnei Yisrael. even the Avot had various Brits , in addition to the Bris MIlah. So it is the same Bnei Yisrael, but they have reached the final giving of the Torah, beyond which there is no addition.
SO I need to see a distinction between the people before Matan Torah (or Korban pesach) and after. It is the same people - does the bris suddenly switch the Patrilineal to the matrilineal?
I am just writing my thought process on a screen. If something doesn't make sense to me, i try to see why it doesn't make sense. I havent rejected Rambam's position, I am trying to make sense of it, and see if my reservations are real contradictions or not. I accepted your points because they showed some of my assumptions were factually incorrect, based on Torah sources. I didn't accept them because of pressure not to ask questions regarding Rambam's position. I am still trying to narrow down what i am not fully clear about - presumably the same process will follow .
The way I read the rambam , he is saying Israel entered the Brit by doing x, y and z. This didn't make them Israelites or Jews, it just cemented their acceptance of the Brit. They were already Israelites .
For converts, they have to mimic the same x,y and z, to enter the brit. In Biblical times, they might still be known as their old nationality, eg Doeg HaEdomi, Uriah ha Hitti, etc. They keep their surnames, in modern parlor, mr Smith and Mr Wilkins etc. Perhaps they were not not called Israelites, but ger or something else in those days, whereas today we call them fully fledged Jews. I am not convinced that Rambam is actually saying that Israel were "goyim" or nochrim until they "converted". That doesnt mean I am saying he is wrong, it means I'm not [yet] persuaded that your reading is correct.
You night want to consider researching the relevant subject before putting your thought processes on a screen. Personally, I find that it helps prevent what is known as "egg-on-face syndrome". http://www.mooncap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/egg.jpg
Not in this discussion, because i would bring counter -examples, then you would do another Holy Inquisition about whether I accept the sources (Gemara) which says it is matrilineal. A more important point is to prove that there is a significant distinction between Israelite lineage and "Jewishness". The Israelites , say the 12 sons and their tribes, kept what was the Torah of their day, which might be a 100 or 200 or even 613 mitzvot. if it was less than 613, then a goy would need to do milah in order to join with us, and then keep say 233 mitzvot for example. So whatever Jewishness we have today, we also had back then. the difference is the formal Brit of matan Torah.
I'm quite happy to have that, it is part of the learning process. if I don't ask questions, then my understanding will be more superficial. Also, once I have a collection of omelettes, it will serve as feedback to choose my words more carefully.
"Now, invoking the Talmud is classified as an "argument from authority", which is when writers or speakers claim that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. This type of argument can be rejected by someone who denies the authority of the source that was quoted. The Rambam believe that his Talmudic source was enough of a basis for his codification."
For me, I better understand something by engaging it than trying to learn something rote. It seems to me the Talmud is not just an authority, but is a process of learning something. Obviously there are many opinions on what it is actually saying, but just memorizing a blatt without understanding the argumentation is not the best way to do it. What to me is even more inspiring is the presence of the Yerushalmi Talmud - which from the little I know, is sometimes at odds with the Bavli. R' Bar Hayim makes this point, and argues for a return to the type of learning of the Yerushalmi or of Eretz Yisrael.
"What would be the basis of your rejection of the Rambam's position?" There is no basis for rejection of any of his positions, there is the possibility to go with the Raavad or the Ramban for example, where they differ. For example, I used to be very rationalist and follow him regarding nichush, that it is all false and assur. Ramban sees it differently, that sometimes there may be true information in such "omens" and we are permitted to take heed of them. Now i have more experience, i am more inclined towards the Ramban's view.
here's a teaser you might want to think about: If you are saying that at least from the time of Yetziat Mitzrayim/Matan Torah, Jewishness was matrilineal, and tribal lineage was patrilineal, but essentially being a kasher Jew had little to do with the father and everything to do with the mother. If so, at one point (post golden calf) , G-d tells Moshe that He will wipe out the stiffnecked people and create a new nation from Moshe. This was because of his Tzidkus. had that taken place, then the new nation would be a nation by virtue of their righteous father, Moshe , who is essentially the 4th of the Avot. We know his wives were Midianite and possibly Cushite. Now how does matrilineal play in here? Judaism is defined by having a Midianite or Cushite foremother? Why is none of this narrative said explicitly in the Torah?
For accuracy, we should drop the terminology of Jewishness. The Torah itself only speaks of bnei Israel. Thus there is no independent category of being Jewish, outside of the Torah.
I'm going to throw another one at you, of course it is to clarify where my misunderstanding of the Rambam lies: Brit and Jewishness is encapsulated in bris milah. The following 2 cases appear to be anomalies. 1). A Jewish woman, even if married to a Jew, conceives a child with another man, who is both arel, and nochri. Her child is a boy, but not circumsized. The child is Jewish, not a mamzer, and 100% kosher. 2) an Israelite man has a nochrit concubine, they conceive a child, who is a boy, and is circumcized on the 8th day. In this case, the child is considered a goy, and is not even a member of his father's tribe.
These 2 cases only appear to be anomalies because you assume that Brit and Jewishness is encapsulated in bris milah. Evidently, there exists a different criteria of what makes a child Jewish.
I think the Halacha that the Rambam brings is most likely an asmakhta. The bris was nothing new, and purification at Sinai, yes there's an element of giur, but it was purification for the experience of kedusha, like in the temple. Asmakhta is when chazal use a text to hang a Halacha on when there is not an explicit source. Pardes should be PardesA, since asmakhta is the 5th method.
Yisraelness is transmitted paternally. I have seen no proof that Jewishness is anything other than yisraelness. Hence I still do not understand cognitively what the chiddush of Jewishness is, and why it's maternal.
An "arel", without a bris milah is considered an Israelite. A non-Israelite who got snipped, is still a non-Jew. So obviously Bris milah is NOT an integral part of the formula of makes someone a Yehudi.
It seems that you are saying that tribal lineage has no religious relevance at all. As far as you are concerned it's like social security number or zip code. Except there are some vestigial remnants of the old biblical order, eg a kohen or Levi is still paternal.
It's important to be terminologically consistent. We just read in the Rambam you cited that bris is part of the 3 step process. OK, you can say that's a one off. The 2 extreme cases were to illustrate that for late 2nd temple Judaism, patrilineal means nothing, whereas matrilineal means everything. But in bamidbar , it say nothing about matrilineal.
I have another theory. There is a d'oraita shiur for mitzvot, and a derabbanan shiur. Eg waiting after meat , to eat chalavi is 6 hours derabbanan, but zero d'oraita.
Now I'm saying these cases might be the same. Yisrael and patriline are oraita. Jewish and matriline are derabbanan. Same with giur.
Given that the vast majority of Jews have lost their tribal identity, it should be obvious that tribal lineage has little religious relevance today, aside from Kohen and Levi.
An exception is the list mentioned in the Mishnah (Kiddushin 4:10) (69a), which delineates a hierarchy of 10 different lineages among the Jewish people. This concept appears mainly regarding marriage, but also in the internal political-social hierarchy.
Are you Sephardi? if so, I could call this the Spanish Inquisition. I am well aware of what the Shulchan Aruch says on this matter. I am awaiting a proof that Jewishness and Israelness are separate concepts. Interestingly, in Siman 8 uses the term "Yisrael" and not Yehudi. regarding Karaites, or better Sadducees, there is a Mishnah somewhere whcih says for oraita matters we agree with them, for Rabbanan we don't. But I cannot give the exact reference offhand, are you familiar with that?
very good question - I'd say he doesn't yet belong to any tribe. Perhaps his daughters will marry Israelite men then be part of that tribe. the Bible gives names to many presumable geirim, like mentioned, eg Uriah the Hittite. He presumably was not yet a tribesman, since he is still called the Hittite.
Did I suggest that "Jewishness" and "Israelness" are separate concepts? (Please provide link to such an alleged comment). I would use both terms interchangeably. I merely differentiate between Jewishness and Tribal affiliation.
Sorry for coming across harsh, but I seek to engage in a Torah discussion from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. Unfortunately, your comment here http://disq.us/p/223groh smacked of Karaism, and implied a dissonance with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (EH 8:5), both of which I have zero tolerance for.
Well, I will try to explain both issues: I equate Tribal lineage with Israelness or specific branch of Isralness. But I am trying to understand what distinguishes these 3 concepts (J, I, and Tribalness).
Regarding Orthodox Judaism, it seems your approach is starting with the S.A. and then working backwards, i.e. any understanding of the earlier sources that don't fit into the S.A. are non orthodox. My approach seems to be the reverse, what the Torah itself says, and then how it is understood through the generations. If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah, Chazal allowed the Sadducees to vote in the sanhedrin, on D'oraita questions but not on D'rabbanan, or discarded their opinions on the latter. That means some of their opinions were valid even according to Chazal.
Well, we've lost the Temple too, and it also has less relevance today than it did when we had it. that doesn't mean one cannot learn about the various Korbanot and tumot etc.
he becomes attached to Israel and bound by the same laws. But they don't , for example get tribal land . The Lubavitcher rebbe or Alter rebbe (in the intro to their Tehillat H' Siddur) says that there was something like a 13th tribe , which didn't have a tribal affiliation, and this is their nusach. Nice story, i don't know if it is factually true, but it's the kind of story i'd like to be true.
Tribal , patrilineal descent is of supreme religious significance: The Book of Bamidbar is taking head counts of the father's line for all practical matters. But for the levites, this means service in the Mikdash. that is supreme religious significance, rather than just what flag they have in the camp. It is a complex argument, as I'm not sure if this part is in the Shulchan Aruch.
Actually, the Shulchan Aruch you mentioned is very interesting. The preceding halacha 4 says
כל הנישאת באיסור הולד הולך אחר הפגום שבשניהם השאם אחד מהם מפסולי כהונה הולד פסול לכהונה ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל הולד אסור לבא בקהל:
Anyone who marries someone who is forbidden to them, the child retains that status of the one who has a defect. If one of them is invalid to a Cohen then the offspring (of their union) will be invalid to a Cohen. If one of them is invalid to the community of Israel (ex. a Mamzer), their offspring will be invalid to the community of Israel.
Now, I was thinking this to be problematic, since it is equally assur for a man to intermarry as it is for a woman. The above principle would logically mean that the Jewish woman who intermarries, has non Jewish children!
I then checked the commentaries, and that is what the Biur HaGra says:
שאם אחד מהם כו'. לא קאי אאם נשאת באיסור דבזכר לא משכחת אלא אסיפא:
More on the Book of Ruth and Numbers: The 3 wealthy brothers: Tov, Elimelech and Salmah (father of Boaz). Elimelech fled with wife Noami and with his 2 sons: Machlon and Chilion to Moab. Elimelech and his 2 sons, Machlon and Chilion die in Moab. Who gets the property of Elimelech? Salmah (father of Boaz) is also dead. So Tov is first choice. Actually, Noami, wife of Elimelech and mother of Machlon and Chilion, owns the property of Elimelech and Ruth owns the property of Machlion. “Meanwhile, Boaz had gone to the gate and sat down there. And now the redeemer [Tov] whom Boaz had mentioned passed by. He called, Come over and sit down here, So-and-so [Tov]! And he came over and sat down. Then [Boaz] took ten elders of the town and said, Be seated here; and they sat down. He said to the redeemer [Tov], Naomi [Tov’s sister-in-law], now returned from the country of Moab, must sell the piece of land which belonged to our kinsman Elimelech [Tov’s brother and Boaz’s uncle]. I thought I should disclose the matter to you and say: Acquire it in the presence of those seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you are willing to redeem it, redeem! But if you will not redeem ואם לא יגאל, tell me, that I may know. For there is no one to redeem but you, and I come after you. I am willing to redeem it, he replied. Boaz continued, When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased קניתה להקים שם המת על נחלתו, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate. The redeemer [Tov] replied, Then I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own estate פן אשחית את נחלתי [i.e., by expending capital for property]. You take over my right of redemption, for I am unable to exercise it. Now this was formerly done in Israel in cases of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would take off his sandal and hand it to the other. Such was the practiced in Israel. So when the redeemer [Tov] said to Boaz, Acquire for yourself, he drew off his sandal. And Boaz said to the elders and to the rest of the people, You are witnesses today that I am acquiring from Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. I am also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate, that the name of the deceased may not disappear from among his kinsmen and from the gate of his home town. You are witnesses today.” (Ruth 4:1-10). Boaz was rich and so could buy out Noami and Ruth’s claims. The women had full property rights. Noami and Ruth gladly gave up their rights to Boaz. Beautiful. My theory is that the ancestral house בית אבות in Numbers is for purposes of property divisions in Israel. “And Jacob called his sons and said, Come together that I may tell you what is to befall you in days to come.” (Genesis 49:1). My theory is that the princes of the Tribes were truly descendants of the 12 brothers, but not necessarily all the 46,500 of Reuven, 59,300 of Simeon, 45,650 of Gad, 74,600 of Judah, 54,400 of Issachar, 57,400 of Zebulun, 40,500 of Ephraim, 32,200 of Menasseh, 35,400 of Benjamin, 62,700 of Dan, 41,500 of Asher, and 53,400 of Naphtali recorded in Numbers 1.
Correct !" naamti" al haftorarah vamarti A Speech where I spoke on the Haftorah and I stated that is a GreatBizoyon Shame! to call Nachman BialiK a Prophet! He was no Prophet for the Jews and not even good Prophet for the Baal! And "I was then attacked by a Sheretz"! A "Rat or Mouse"critter writer Newspaper there was uproar And so I stated the towns people of Shadoveh are nor ready to hear The true Torah word and I will end My speech ! I stepped down They then begged me to continue but I refused !
I was happy with this story and I discussed this with My Rebbe the great Rav R"m ?_______ and he thanked me and said we need more speeches like such !...Mordechai2
May I continue? So Naomi was actually the owner of all of Elimelech’s vast properties. Naomi knew was important in life (marriage and children) and what was not important (money). “But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, Turn back, each of you to her mother’s house. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me! May the Lord grant that each of you find security in the house of a husband! And she kissed them farewell. They broke into weeping “ (Ruth 1:8-9). “Turn back, my daughters, for I am too old to be married. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I were married tonight and I also bore sons, should you wait for them to grow up? Should you on their account debar yourselves from marriage? Oh no, my daughters! My lot is far more bitter than yours, for the hand of the Lord has struck out against me.” (Ruth 1:12-13). “and the two went on until they reached Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole city buzzed with excitement over them. The women said, Can this be Naomi? Do not call me Naomi [i.e. Pleasantness], she replied. Call me Mara [i.e. Bitterness], for Shaddaie has made my lot very bitter. I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty. How can you call me Naomi, when the Lord has dealt harshly with me ענה בי [Others testified against], when Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me!” (Ruth 1:19-21). Naomi considered herself “empty” since her husband and children died. Naomi, at the end, had intense delight with Ruth’s baby: “Naomi took the child and held it to her bosom. She became its foster mother” (Ruth 4:16). We could all learn from Naomi...
Allow me to comment on the KA IR debate here. “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by the clans of its ancestral houses לבית אבתם, listing the names, every male, head by head.” (Numbers 1:2). This is not a sexist matter. There is no denying rights to women. Listing of names of men is the man’s name son of father’s name. The Gabbai in shul calls up men for the blessings for Torah readings calling out name son of father XX. Bad would be giving the man’s name as son of father XX and son of mother YY. That would be a burden to the congregation, lengthening the service for no good reason. True, we are more certain of the mother of a person than who is the father. That’s how God created us. No argument in a question if a person is Jewish or not---if his mother is Jewish---he’s Jewish. Interesting, a question if a person is a true bastard, the court must know both the mother and father...
It seems there are any number of interpretations. The Shulchan Aruch says that if an Israelite marries someone they are forbidden to, whatever the deficiency is, will passed on to the child, eg posul Kohen, mamzer etc. So logically speaking, since either parent is forbidden to intermarry, the status of nochri will be passed on to the child.
The Shulchan Aruch is a benchmark for Orthodox Judaism, and includes the earlier sources and codifiers that it's based on. Departure from following SA, was the first departure of any sect of Judaism, which is why we consider it a red line.
The most explicit source for Sadducee members of the Sanhedrin, is a Xtian book (Acts 23:6-8).
You will first need to provide a Jewish source that the Sadducees were allowed to be members of the Sanhedrin.
Then you will need to provide a Jewish source that the Sadducees were allowed to vote on D'oraita questions, and how this worked in practice.
I agree that studyining about Korbanot is important, as is studying every single part of the Torah. However the Laws of Korbanot have very little practical application today, which is why they were not included in the Shulchan Aruch.
The same is about the laws of Tribal lineage. It's important that we study them, but Tribal lineage per se, has limited relevance today.
I learned it in a mishnah, but I can't pinpoint the source. Will try to do some Chazara.
I quoted the SA , the previous Halacha tot eh one you quoted - it is very interesting and relevant to our discussion.
"Departure from following SA, was the first departure of any sect of Judaism" - no, the Yemenites never accepted it, and they stuck with the Rambam. The Maharal and others also opposed it, and said it's better to learn directly from the gemara.
In any case, in Even HaEzer 8:4, the previous halacha to what you cited it says:
כל הנישאת באיסור הולד הולך אחר הפגום שבשניהם השאם אחד מהם מפסולי כהונה הולד פסול לכהונה ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל הולד אסור לבא בקהל:
Anyone
who marries someone who is forbidden to them, the child retains that status of the one who has a defect. If one of them is invalid to a Cohen then the offspring (of their union) will be invalid to a Cohen. If one of them is invalid to the community of Israel (ex. a Mamzer), their offspring will be invalid to the community of Israel.
Sa says only that a man intermarried to a nochrit has non Jewish offspring. https://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/8/Q1/ Where does it say that a Jewish woman gets a free pass to intermarry, no sanctions on her children and collects $200?
"a Jewish woman gets a free pass to intermarry" Huh? Devarim 7:3 You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son.
"no sanctions on her children" Rashi (v. 4) ...This teaches us that your daughter’s son, born of a heathen man, is called “your son,” but your son’s son, born of a heathen woman, is not called “your son,” but “her son.”... [See Yevamos (23a), Kiddushim 68b)]
You're apparent reading challenged. I explicitly wrote: "The Shulchan Aruch is used as a benchmark for Orthodox Judaism, and includes the earlier sources and codifiers that it's based on. That sentence includes Gemara and Rambam.
You have provided no sources for your arguments, ironically, precisely when seeking to argue with the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch.
will turn your son away The subject of the sentence is “his son” mentioned above [: 3] — his son to whom you should not give your daughter in marriage or The subject of the sentence is your foreign neighbor, whose daughter you should not take for your son in marriage, as mentioned above
And when you take wives from among their daughters for your sons, their daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust after their gods. _______
If the linguistic interpretation is pshat, then it should also apply to this verse, but it doesn't. In this case, your sons would refer to the offspring of their daughters. No Rashi or any other major Rishonim comment on this
Firstly, a question raised by Temani writer, is why only 3 sources? Perhaps there were other rishonim as well who had written halacha? Second, He bases his system on 3 sources, the 3rd being the Rambam - who did write all halacha.
Seeking to argue with... isn't that what people are supposed to do in yeshiva? Argumentation. I brought the halacha from the SA, which now you ignore, ergo you must reject the SA (IR logic of course).
It's absolutely a free pass - I have heard it from a few Jewish women I knew when I was single and dating - they have no disincentive not to intermarry, because they know their kids will be Jewish. On the other hand, men have a great disincentive to not intermarry, because their kids will be vadai goyim, and they have to go through the whole giur process. It is not theoretical, I know people, even traditional Jews who had no problem marrying out, because they knew their kids would be Jewish regardless.
If the Torah forbids a woman from intermarrying, then the above SA E.H. 8:4 states that the child will be non jewish, as the moom is passed on from the husband.
Kalonymus Anonymus says “If the Torah forbids a woman from intermarrying, then the above SA E.H. 8:4 states that the child will be non jewish, as the moom is passed on from the husband.” No. KA, the Torah does not forbid the woman from inter-marrying. Didn’t Ruth marry Machlon? שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן ח בכל ספק הולד הולך אחר הזכר, ובו ה' סעיפים. סעיף א כהנים, לוים וישראלים מותרים לבא זה בזה, והולד הולך אחר הזכר. סעיף ב לוים וישראלים וחללים, מותרים לבא זה בזה, והולד הולך אחר הזכר. סעיף ג לוים, ישראלים וחללים, גרים ועבדים משוחררים, מותרים לבא זה בזה. והגר והמשוחרר שנשא לויה או ישראלית או חללה, הרי הבן ישראלי. וישראלי או לוי או חלל שנשא גיורת או משוחררת, הולד הולך אחר הזכר. סעיף ד כל הנישאת באיסור, הולד הולך אחר הפגום שבשניהם, שאם אחד מהם מפסולי כהונה, הולד פסול לכהונה; ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל, הולד אסור לבא בקהל. סעיף ה ולד שפחה ונכרית, כמותן. בין שנתעברו מכשר, בין שנתעברו מפסול. Simple. Born of a non-Jewish mother, the offspring is like the mother. Born of a Jewish mother the offspring is Jewish. The mother is always certain. The farther is always a doubt. The offspring of a Jewish mother and a father who is a doubt---maybe not Jewish, maybe a bastard, maybe a convert, etc---the offspring is Jewish but a doubt remains, alas. Such doubts impact only very choosy men. Anyone could marry an offspring with a doubt... I think the Gamara recognizes that no bet din court could ever convict a man for cursing his father, since there’s always doubt on who his father is...
Kalonymus Anonymus “Sorry professor Aranoff, you have not understood the shulchan Aruch. Halacha #4 refutes what you claim.” No. שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן ח בכל ספק הולד הולך אחר הזכר, ובו ה' סעיפים. Doubt refers to the father. Why? Certain (no doubt) is only with the mother. The rule on the mother, a gentile or a Canaanite slave girl: ולד שפחה ונכרית, כמותן. The rule on the father is that there is a doubt. A doubtful bastard is very different from a certain bastard, etc. The child is a certain Jewish (having a Jewish mother), yet a doubt on matters such as bastard, suitable for Cohen due to the doubt of the father. Follow KA? Back to the Book of Ruth. I ask, how did Elimelech dare flea to Moab with Naomi and Machlon and Chilion, knowing the historic anti-Semitism in Moab? I heard that they had a tradition that this would be the way to bring the messiah. We read: “David went from there to Mizpeh of Moab, and he said to the king of Moab, Let my father and mother come [and stay] with you, until I know what God will do for me. So he led them וינחם את פני [Targum and Syriac read left them with] to the king of Moab, and they stayed with him as long as David remained in the stronghold במצודה. But the prophet Gad said to David, Do not stay in the stronghold במצודה; go at once to the territory of Judah. So David left and went to the forest of Hereth.” (1 Samuel 22:3-5). King David also thought it safe to flea with his family to Moab to seek refuge from King Saul. Horrible. Big mistake. The result was that the King of Moab killed King David’s father and brothers for no reason, just anti-Semitism. Likewise. Big mistake for Elimelech to flea to Moab with his wife Naomi and his two sons, not yet married, Machlon and Chilion. Opinion has it that they had a tradition that this would be the way for the messiah...
Sorry Gerry, but not only have you misunderstood what that verse is saying, you have also ignored halacha 4.
In Hal. 1 it says: If there is a safek in a permitted marriage (see Be'er Heteyv) the lineage goes according to the father.
halacha 4 deals with forbidden unions - this includes either a man or woman who intermarry.
Anyone who marries someone who is forbidden to them, the child retains that status of the one who has a defect. If one of them is invalid to a Cohen then the offspring (of their union) will be invalid to a Cohen. If one of them is invalid to the community of Israel (ex. a Mamzer), their offspring will be invalid to the community of Israel.
Since the nochri male is forbidden to Israel, then the defective status is passed on to the child. I am only quoting the SA, these are not my own words. Find me a counter example, where it says the woman's child remains Jewish.
When a Jew engages in relations with a woman from other nations, [taking her] as his wife or a Jewess engages in relations with a non-Jew as his wife, they are punished by lashes, according to Scriptural Law.1 As [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: "You shall not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son."
This prohibition applies equally to [individuals from] the seven [Canaanite] nations and all other gentiles.2 This was explicitly stated in Ezra3 [Nechemiah 10:31]: "That we will not give our daughters to the gentiles in the land and that we will not take their daughters for our sons.".
Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the
seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as
reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam,
explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited
context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam's opinion has a
source in the Sheiltot D'Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol)
The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the
verse cited by the Rambam: "For he shall sway your son away." Kiddushin
68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the
verse and thus including all those who might sway a person's heart.
Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this
1. When I said "the Sanhedrin", I was referring to the "Great Sanhedrin", "Sanhedrin Gedola", of 71 members, which sat in Yerushalayim, and were the Torah leaders of the generation. 2. The death penalty can be meted out by a "Minor Sanhedrin", "Sanhedrin Ketana", of 23 members. Such Sanhedrins were located in every city that had 120 [or 230 residents]. 3. There is no indication that the Sanhedrin described in Sanhedrin 52a was the "Sanhedrin Gedola", nor does it even indicate an alleged joint/mixed Sanhedrin, one that had both Pharisee and Sadducee members. It could have been a rebel Sanhedrin, which was founded by the Sadducees, without Pharisee approval, and without any Pharisee members.
What do you mean by "matrilineal descent"? Did you read and understand the implication of Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer, Siman 8:5? ולד שפחה ונכרית כמותן בין שנתעברו מכשר בין שנתעברו מפסול
Kalonymus Anonymus cites “Issurei Biah of the Rambam: Ch12” Machlon and Chilion sinned by having sex with Ruth and Orpah, gentile ladies that did not convert. There is no marriage with gentile ladies. “Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left with her two sons. They married וישאו להם נשים Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth, and they lived there about ten years. Then those two—Mahlon and Chilion—also died; so the woman was left without her two sons and without her husband.” (Ruth 1:3-5). The Malbim says that Torah uses the word ויקח for marriage and וישאו for just sex. מלבי"ם רות פרק א פסוק ד וישאו. והנה הבנים הוסיפו לחטוא במה שנשאו נשים מואביות שלא גיירו אותן כמ"ש במדרש ועז"א שם האחת ערפה, כי בגירותן היו משנים את שם הקודם והם נשארו בשמם [והגם שרות לא שנו שמה גם אחר שנתגיירה עז"א בברכות (דף ט') מאי רות שיצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להקב"ה בשירות ותשבחות שהקושיא מאי רות היינו למה לא שנו שם גיותה] וגם זה מבואר מלשון וישאו, שעל לקיחה בקדושין כדת בא לשון לקיחה ולשון וישאו בא לרוב בנשואין של נשים נכריות בכל ספר עזרא ונחמיה ועל אשה שהיתה טפלה כמ"ש ברחבעם (דה"ב י"א) נשים שמונה עשרה נשא ופילגשים ששים, שרק שתים היו עקריים שאמר עליהם ויקח, Rehoboam married ויקח לו Mahalath daughter of Jerimoth son of David, and Abihail daughter of Eliab son of Jesse. She bore him sons: Jeush, Shemariah, and Zaham. He then took לקח Maacah daughter of Absalom; she bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza, and Shelomith. Rehoboam loved Maacah daughter of Absalom more than his other wives and concubines—for he took נשא eighteen wives and sixty concubines; he begot twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.” (2 Chronicles 11:18-21). Offspring from gentile ladies are gentiles. Simple and clear in the Schulcan Aruch. ולד שפחה ונכרית, כמותן. Offspring from Jewish ladies are Jewish. Is there a problem?
"Offspring from Jewish ladies are Jewish. Is there a problem?" Yes, because the Shulchan Aruch's view in Even H. 8.4 rejects this view. he says offspring follow the lowest common denominator, hence a gentile parent will pass on their religion tot he child, regardless of whether they are the father or mother.
The notion of a Jewish woman being given a free pass to have children with a non Jewish partner, and have the children to be accepted as 100% Jewish by the Beth Din.
The mechaber in 8.4 says that either parent who has an issur, will pass that down to the child. the fact that in 8.5 he gives the case of a non jewish woman or shifcha etc. does not mean that a Jewish woman has a free pass.
I see no disagreement. 8.4 follows 8.1-3, all of which refer to cases when BOTH parents are Jewish, and there is a disparity between their lineages. 8.5 is the only one that refers to offspring from a mixed relationship, where the MOTHER is a "shifcha" or "nochris", i.e. not Jewish.
You are falling into the trap of self -serving mistranslation:
He says in 8.4 כל הנישאת באיסור
Let's assume for the sake of argument that all nochrim are assur (not just the 7 Nations). Thus, whoever marries into an issur... A nochri is just as assur as a mamzer etc.
I think that YOU are the one falling into the trap of self -serving mistranslation. 1. Context is key. 8.1-4 are all about Jewish people. 2. 8.4 gives explicit examples. A. פסולי כהונה B. פסולי קהל
You strangely ignore the next words, where he gives explicit examples: A. פסולי כהונה B. פסולי קהל
As far as I'm concerned, I consider the case closed, and don't plan to respond anymore on this point. For your own benefit, I advise you to find a local talmid chacham, who will be able to enlighten you on the subject, and how to read the Shulchan Aruch. Have an informative Shabbos. IR
A lot of halacha d'rabbanan is aimed at a) adding fences to prevent sin, b) adding fear to prevent sin. In fact Rabbi Rackman ztl wrote a piece called "A Functional Approach to halacha". In the sense that the matrilineal descent puts to barriers against intermarriage for Jewish women - no conversion required for their Jewish born kids - it provides them a free pass rather than a deterrent.
free pass is sociological , but people make calculations about consequences. Intermarriage is quite a big phenomenon - perhaps this is a double edged sword - it ensures that at least 50% of intermarriages have Jewish offspring, but it also encourages intermarriage, because the lapsed or secular , who are most likely to marry out, see that at least in this world, they won't be punished.
I need a reference _ do you know the mishnah where it says the Tzedukim could vote on doraisa matters in the Sanhedrin, but not drabbanan? Thanks in advance and a gutten Shabbes.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23486 “My theory is that among Jews at that time observed well the command “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute קדשה, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute קדש.” (Deuteronomy 23:18). The Jews kept records of family trees.
The rabbinic view is that the Torah attests that the census/enrollment records were true.
God created men with יצר הרע
God created Jewish men to have a huge יצר הרע for the women of the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. In Egypt, even the saintly Joseph, in the midrash, had a huge יצר הרע for the wife of Potifar. This is how God created mankind.
Rabbis decry Jewish men to have sex with non-Jewish women
Megilah 25a
“IF ONE SAYS, AND THOU SHALT NOT GIVE ANY OF THY SEED TO SET THEM APART etc. In the school of R. Ishmael it was stated: The text speaks of an Israelite who has intercourse with a Cuthean woman and begets from her a son for idolatry.”
Wow Rabbi Ishmael says that אשר יתן לזרעו למלך refers to a Jew who has sex with a non-Jewess and begets from her a son.”
It is effectively a "free pass", because she has Jewish children who are not pesulim in any way whatsoever. I know people like this, they have "Jewish" children, but are married to goyim.
Kalonymus Anonymus says “It is effectively a "free pass", because she has Jewish children who are not pesulim in any way whatsoever. I know people like this, they have "Jewish" children, but are married to goyim.” Thanks KA. For her to have Jewish children, it must be that she is Jewish. Of course her children may have pesulim, e.g. bastards etc. People like this because then their Jewish children are married to goyim. Then these Jewish children married to goyim are like Machlon and Chilion married to Ruth and Orpah. Bad, because married to goyim violates: “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” (Deuteronomy 7:3) and “join with their noble brothers, and take an oath with sanctions to follow the Teaching of God, given through Moses the servant of God, and to observe carefully all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, His rules and laws. Namely: We will not give our daughters in marriage to the peoples of the land, or take their daughters for our sons.” (Nehemia 10:30-31). BTW, the Schulchan Aruch is adamant that her say-so alone that her offspring is a true bastard is nothing. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein famously announced at a wedding he was performing---she’s not believed, to a woman telling him that her offspring is illegitimate. What’s your opinion of slander and lies in the K-G heter --- tricks angry women/feminists do when they don’t get their way in the bet din? What’s your opinion of my case SCOTUS 18-9390?
KA says “Whereas an adulteress has to balance the cost of having mamzerim, a regular cross-marrier has a free pass.” Obviously, you KA, give a free pass to the K-G heter and Tamar staying with her lover and to Susan in SCOTUS 18-9390. You give ladies a free pass saying “a regular cross-marrier has a free pass.” You admit that an adulteress has a problem as adultery is in the 10 commandments. Obviously, you KA don’t view Tamar as an adulteress. Obviously you support Rabbi Rackman and everything on Susan’s Agunah International. KA, I found a way in SCOTUS 18-9390 to make my case a simple “All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like You? You save the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and needy from his despoiler.” (Psalms 35:10). Thank you, God, for making me the attorney of record in SCOTUS 18-9390 – a true miracle. I’m not a lawyer. SCOTUS accepts all me papers, with no fees, no notarion, etc. Wow.
Mamzerus is a this worldly cost, since we have no Sanhedrin or sekilah. There is no this worldly cost for the matrilineal woman, since her offspring are still kosher. Follow?
Kalonymus Anonymus “Mamzerus is a this worldly cost, since we have no Sanhedrin or sekilah. There is no this worldly cost for the matrilineal woman, since her offspring are still kosher. Follow?” We have no Sanhedrin and no skilah, thus the adulteress has a pass in this world. No cost in this world to the adulteress. A Jewish adulteress has offspring, yes, 100% certain Jewish. No cost to the offspring of the adulteress, except for feeble attempts of mamzer alerts etc. Why are you, KA, saying this ??? Obviously, you take, for example, the Muslim treatment in Pakistan of an alleged adulteress as similar to what our Sanhedrin would do with skilah. Obviously, you don’t like the adamant Schulchan Aruch view that only women have to be checked and verified that they are Jewish, that the man is given a free pass. Am I reading you right, dear friend KA whoever you are? Tell me if you can see my petition papers on SCOTUS 18-9390. Just tell me, on your common sense, if I have a good case. You’re all the way in the UK, yes?
I only reported the the halacha of the SA, E.H 8:4, which suggests that all imperfections of one parent or other are passed on to the child, in matters of Kohanim, or those who are forbidden to enter into the Klal.
I actually emailed you a while back, using my real name :) So you might know who I am , haha.
Having read your SCOTUS 18-9390, I presume you wrote this without legal representation? Whether they will take kindly to your attack on Judge Prus, I don't know. The case might have merits based on common sense, but not necessarily in legal speak. Rabbi Rackman ztl was also a member of the Bar, and he could argue his case in American courts. He was in the US army as a chaplain, but he was a victim of McCarthyism, and they punished him by removing his security clearance and giving him a discharge. He decided to go to Military court and represent himself. His case was so well put, that they returned his security clearance, and gave him a promotion. Then he was given an honorable discharge. I think in NY divorce courts you would need a very good (and expensive) lawyer to stand a chance of getting your motion accepted.
See Horayot 1:3, Kehati brings the gemara where a Bd is liable only where the sadducees dispute it is forbidden. The reason is that on explicit statements of the Torah, the sadducees are correct. I agree this doesn't mean they sat together, but my argument was that not all Karaite /sadducee rulings or opinions are rejected by the mishnah.
Parameters of the halacha regarding sticking a knife into the ground 10x to kosher it: Shulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/121.7 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch/Yoreh_Deah/121
I knew that source from Horiyos, and it's totally irrelevant to our discussion, unless you shift the goalposts. http://disq.us/p/224c50l "If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah, Chazal allowed the Sadducees to vote in the Sanhedrin, on D'oraita questions but not on D'rabbanan, or discarded their opinions on the latter."
You alleged that Sadducees were allowed to be joint members of the regular Sanhedrin. There is NO authentic Jewish source for such an assertion.
You're now singing a different tune. "I agree this doesn't mean they sat together, but my argument was that not all Karaite /Sadducee rulings or opinions are rejected by the Mishnah."
You give too much credence to the Saducee opinions.
Horiyos (4a) אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: והוא שטעה בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו, אבל טעה בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו, זיל קרי בי רב הוא
What do we care about what the Sadducees think? In addition to the effort to clarify the opinion of the sages, we will now have to touch and clarify the opinion of the Sadducees?
Rashi explains: זיל קרי בי רב הוא. דכיון דאפשר לו ללמוד ולידע לא הוי שוגג מעליא וקרוב למזיד הוי:
This doesn't mean that we consider Saducee opinions. It just means that if Saducees agree on it, then it's such a no-brainer that this doesn't qualify as an "erroneous ruling" on the part of BD, rather it's a case of gross negligence (or malicious intent), for which the Torah did not provide for a sacrifice.
It means sadducee on doraita Is a benchmark for certain halachas. The fact that an orthodox bet din might be corrected by a sadducee one proves my point. It started when you said my views were karaite on patrilineal.
Anyway. It's good to get correct reference and understanding, thank you.
I am not changing any goalposts, I said, and you just quoted me "
"If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah".I didn't make categorical claim, and now change my goalposts.
Also, the translation I get from Sefaria is different from yours:
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין ב"ד חייבין עד שיורו בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו אבל בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו פטורין מאי טעמא זיל קרי בי רב הוא
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A court is not liable to bring an offering unless it issues an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees do not agree. The Sadducees do not accept the Oral Torah, and they interpret the Written Torah literally. The court is liable only for a matter that is not explicitly written in the Torah or that does not clearly stem from that which is written in the Torah. But with regard to an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees agree, the judges are exempt. What is the reasoning for this exemption? It is a topic that you could go learn in a children’s school. Since the matter the judges ruled upon is so obvious, their ruling simply exhibits ignorance, and is not deemed a ruling
The gemara itself pays heed to what the Sadducees think, so why shouldn't i? It is not justifying Sadducee ideology, just setting the parameters where they differ from Chazal.
A further question arises from this - in that not every Sadducee interpretation of the Written Law is in agreement with Chazal's or the oral law's. Perfect example is the sefirat haomer. So what was this strand of argumentation referring to?
You quoted me as saying "If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah"- and I didn't remember its exact stipulation, but I did remember the principle that there is a principal that the Sadducees' view on d'oraita has halachic signficance, even tot he point of whether a BD brings a sacrifice or not. That is what was said, and it was Kehati's reference to the Gemara on the Mishna. So don't put words in my mouth.
The discussion was what the Torah says about lineage, and you agreed it is patrilineal. The further questions were: what is the distinction between between "Jewishness" and Israelite/Tribalness? That remains undefined. Then there was the halacha 8.4 in E.H. that a pgam goes either way to disqualify the child, whether from the mother of father, even in cases of entering the Klal Yisrael.
I had a discussion with one of my local Rabbis, and he pointed me to the Gra.
The point I am yet to be persuaded on, is whether the loshon of that halacha applies to matrilineal or not.
The Rabbis, who are traditionally seen as the descendants of the Pharisees, describe the similarities and differences between the two sects in Mishnah Yadaim. The Mishnah explains that the Sadducees state, "So too, regarding the Holy Scriptures, their impurity is according to (our) love for them. But the books of Homer, which are not beloved, do not defile the hands."[27] A passage from the book of Acts suggests that both Pharisees and Sadducees collaborated in the Sanhedrin, the high Jewish court.[28]
I take no responsibility for what anybody else writes, allegedly hareidi, or not.
Responsibility aside, an anonymous comment, without any supporting sources, is pretty much worthless.
Factually, it also does not follow from the Sages' remarks, that the halakhah of matrilineal descent underwent alteration in the course of history. Nor is there any hint of this in the book of Ezra.
Can you provide a source from Chazal, that the halakhah of matrilineal descent underwent alteration in the course of history? Note, there is no hint of this in the book of Ezra.
😁 in Yannai's time, he sided with the sadducees, but that is not lechatchila. It's not grasping at straws, I've heard on several occasions there were tsedukim in the Sanhedrin of his time. That's why Shimon b. Shrtach
Don't believe everything that you hear. Ask people for their sources, and take the trouble to look them up!
The alleged source about R' Shimon b. Shetach, is found in Megillas Taanis (28 Teves), ans effectively supports my argument, that there is no source from Chazal that the Sadducees were allowed to be joint members of the regular Sanhedrin.
This alleged "mixed Sanhedrin" in the times of Shimon ben Shatach, was not "mixed". It was fundamentally a breakaway Tzeduki Sanhedrin, as is indicated in the language of the Megillas Taanis שכשהיו הצדוקין יושבין בסנהדרין שלהם, "their Sanhedrin", indicating a different Sanhedrin, one that was separate from the mainstream Sanhedrin.
However R. Shimon b. Shetach managed to infiltrate this particular rebel Sanhedrin, and eventually replaced all their members with Torah loyal rabbis. This is a far cry from a "mixed Sanhedrin".
We have already established that this was not the preferred Sanhedrin, and that the Gemara does not say that. It was a forced Sanhedrin, whether the proper one or not.
"At times during his reign, the Sanhedrin consisted almost entirely of Sadducees, Simeon being the only Pharisee among them (v. Meg. Ta'anith 10). This fact might be traced also from this incident [V. Hyman, A., Toledoth, III, 124. A similar story is related by Josephus. (Ant. XIV, 9, 4) of Herod who, as ‘servant’ of Hyrcanus was charged with murder. The identification of the incident related here with that reported by Josephus, involving a confusion of names on the part of the Talmud, as suggested by Krauss, Sanhedrin-Makkot, 103, is quite unwarranted.]"
The language of the Megillas Taanis שכשהיו הצדוקין יושבין בסנהדרין שלהם, "their Sanhedrin", clearly indicates a different Sanhedrin, one that was separate from the mainstream Sanhedrin.
I take no responsibility for other people's misreading and misquoting Megillas Taanis.
It doesn't mean it was separate from the regular one, it means the sadducees controlled it. Like, lehavdil, the Knesset. If UTJ took over, then the originals would call it Knesset shelhem.
Perhaps the Sadducees didn't dare to raise their heads to make a breakaway BD, since the Pharisees had the upper hand, and the populace was with the Pharisees. It was only when Yannai took power, and persecuted and murdered Torah sages, that the Sadducees felt strong enough to do so.
a) Sadducee opinion serving as a benchmark for halacha.
b) existence of sadducee BD, this time carrying out executions (not mixed).
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 33b
BUT NOT FOR CONDEMNATION. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: Proving that he erred in a matter which the Sadducees do not admit. But if he erred in a matter which even they admit, let him go back to school and learn it.
Talmud - Mas. Sanhedrin 52b
R. ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID, IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER COMMITTED ADULTERY, etc. R. Joseph said: It was a Sadducee6 Beth din that did this. Now, is this what R. Eleazar b. Zadok
said, and did the sages answer him so? Has it not been taught: R. Eleazar b. Zadok said, ‘I remember when I was a child riding on my father's shoulder that a priest's adulterous daughter was brought [to the place of execution], surrounded by faggots, and burnt.’ The Sages answered him: ‘You were then a minor, whose testimony is inadmissible’?7 — There were two such incidents.8 Now which incident did he first relate to them? Shall we say that he first told them of the incident first mentioned here [which happened in his majority]: but if he told them what happened in his majority, and they paid
no attention to him, surely he would not proceed to tell them what occurred in his minority? — But
he must have related this one [of the Baraitha] first, to which they replied: ‘You were a minor.’ Then
he told them of the case that occurred in his majority, and they replied, ‘That was done because the Beth din at that time was not learned in the law.
(Because the Beth din at that time (amplified by R. Joseph as meaning a Beth din of the Sadducees) were not well learned in the law’, shews that their ruling was in the first instance not based on the principle of literal interpretation, but the result of ignorance, it was only subsequently that such ruling crystallized into definite principles. J. Derenbourg (Essai, p. 251, n. 2) suggests that the burning of the priest's adulterous daughter, described by R. Eleazar b. Zadok, took place during the short interval between the death of Festus, the Roman
Procurator, (in 62 C.E.) and the coming of Albinus (63 C.E.). during the High-Priesthood of Hanan b. Hanan (a Boethusian mentioned in Tosef. Yoma i). Cp. also ibid p. 262)
hahaha If it's a subject in the talmud, then analyzing it rationally doesn't make one a tseduki. Unless you believe that "rational" analysis is Tsedukism.
Here ar 2 points:
1) In many cases, the word "Tseduki" is used but it refers to avodah zarah. So it was changed to mask atatcks on other sects who were persecuting the Jews.
2) Many or most frum Jews today believe in gilgul neshamos. Just listen to Rabbi Mizrachi. But where did this all start? The first historical mention of Gilgul was by none other than Anan ben David - the would be gan who started a sect, which was either the karaites or the pre-karaites. And guess who was the biggest authority who opposed the idea of Gilgul? It was none other than Saadia Gaon, the greatest of all the Gaonim, perhaps one of the first philosophers, and staunch fighter of the karaites.
So there we have a new problem: If you are modeh on Gilgul, are you a Tzeduki, and rejecting Saadia? If one is kofer on Gilgul is he with Saadia Gaon, or a Tzeduki? One can be a frummer according to Saadia, and Tseduki according to Arizal.
Where are the zedokim today? According to Rav Miller at the Churban they joined with the Roman Invaders and intermarried with them and became Romans!! Rav Miller has a ton of research on them They were interested in being like the Roman invaders or occupiers
You got the wrong end of the stick. The gemara in avodah Zarah says that the tzedukim viewpoint on doraita was basically true, and that this is used as a benchmark for whether a Sanhedrin brings a korban or not. See also my post about Saadia Gaon on gilgul. He says it is rubbish. Does that mean you hate Saadia Gaon too?
Dayan Sherman alleges that the bd of Rav Nachum Rabinovich is not Gedolim but low level. But Sherman is a dwarf. Rav Nahum shlita is a Gaon, producing s commentary on the Yad chazakah of the Rambam, much deeper than what Rav Shach wrote. When Rav Shach met him, was very impressed by his gadlus and scholarship.
Sanhedrin, also spelled sanhedrim, any of several official Jewish councils in Palestine under Roman rule, to which various political, religious, and judicial functions have been attributed. Taken from the Greek word for council (synedrion), the term was apparently applied to various bodies but became especially the designation for the supreme Jewish legislative and judicial court—the Great Sanhedrin, or simply the Sanhedrin, in Jerusalem. There were also local or provincial sanhedrins of lesser jurisdiction and authority. A council of elders, or senate, called the gerousia, which existed under Persian and Syrian rule (333–165 BC), is considered by some scholars the forerunner of the Great Sanhedrin.
Although eminent sources—the Hellenistic-Jewish historian Josephus, the New Testament, and the Talmud—have mentioned the Sanhedrin, their accounts are fragmentary, apparently contradictory, and often obscure. Hence, its exact nature, composition, and function remain a subject of scholarly investigation and controversy. In the writings of Josephus and the Gospels, for example, the Sanhedrin is presented as a political and judicial council headed by the high priest (in his role as civil ruler); in the Talmud it is described as primarily a religious legislative body headed by sages, though with certain political and judicial functions. Some scholars have accepted the first view as authentic, others the second, while a third school holds that there were two Sanhedrins, one a purely political council, the other a religious court and legislature. Moreover, some scholars attest that the Sanhedrin was a single body, combining political, religious, and judicial functions in a community where these aspects were inseparable.
According to the Talmudic sources, including the tractate Sanhedrin, the Great Sanhedrin was a court of 71 sages that met on fixed occasions in the Lishkat La-Gazit (“Chamber of the Hewn Stones”) in the Jerusalem Temple and that was presided over by two officials (zugot, or “pair”), the nasi and the av bet din. It was a religious legislative body “whence the law [Halakha] goes out to all Israel.” Politically, it could appoint the king and the high priest, declare war, and expand the territory of Jerusalem and the Temple. Judicially, it could try a high priest, a false prophet, a rebellious elder, or an errant tribe. Religiously, it supervised certain rituals, including the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) liturgy. The Great Sanhedrin also supervised the smaller, local sanhedrins and was the court of last resort. Again, however, there is a scholarly dispute as to whether the aforementioned specifications are merely an ideal or an actual description. Also, according to one interpretation, the Talmudic sources seem to ascribe to the past a state of affairs that existed only after the fall of the Temple (AD 70).
YOU follow kabbalah, yes? Saadia Gaon said that it's rubbish. So what is your reaction to him? I'm not a player in this, Saadia Gaon was a giant, he knew everything.
was he ever happy?
ReplyDeleteYou're 100% mistaken. He is not referring to European yeshivos! He was referring to the street - of which 80% had joined the haskallah and other deviant sects.
ReplyDeleteHe's talking about the blessing of the haftarah, where they call bialik a Novi. Same bialik who was close to the Rogatchover. So this was either in the yeshiva or a shul.
ReplyDeleteIn any case, he's still a teenager when he wrote this. The hareidi outlook is the opposite of the Torah, which lehavdil tells us to engage with the outside world, the opposite sex, the military, the world of agriculture and technology.
good try at being politically correct but you are wrong
ReplyDeleteIt means in Torah times, it was lefi ha Av, what might be patrilineal today. Since realhalachik is matrilineal, we cannot understand the Torah concept of tribalism anymore.
ReplyDeleteKA says “It means in Torah times, it was lefi ha Av, what might be patrilineal today. Since realhalachik is matrilineal, we cannot understand the Torah concept of tribalism anymore.”
ReplyDeleteNo. The 12 sons of Jacob may have married Canaanite ladies, presumably who converted to Judaism. This makes all Jacob’s grandchildren Jewish. These grandchildren firmly followed ancestral houses with no intermarrying between tribes. It was nationalism each tribe. Not until, later in the Book of Numbers...
Nationalism = identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. "their nationalism is tempered by a desire to join the European Union"
UK has a problem with Scottish and Ireland nationalism and Brexit. Follow, KA? I like Boris Johnson, but I don’t think people in Scotland and Ireland will agree to Boris Johnson. Boris Johnson was a great mayor of London. Hertz Chumash on “Then, midway between the divisions, the Tent of Meeting, the division of the Levites, shall move. As they camp, so they shall march, each in position, by their standards לדגליהם” (Numbers 2:17): “The repeated emphasis on discipline is noteworthy. Israel---God’s army---however great in numbers, is nothing, unless order and discipline reign in the midst thereof.” Beautiful. We were a disciplined nation.
Yehudi means patriline all the way to yehuda, follow? He also took Canaanite woman. Ramban says Israel-ness is from the father, but Jewish_ness from the mother. Logic vs.realhalakha.
ReplyDeleteTorah times are always and forever. According to Torah law, Jewish "tribal" membership is determined by patrilineal lineage from each of Jacob’s twelve sons.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's true, that due to the trials and tribulations of the various exiles through the millenia, the vast majority of Jews have lost their tribal identity (with the exception of the tribe of Levi), the concept of tribalism is still relevant, and will be applied in the Messianic era.
Biblical era is what I meant. Today is no biblical era. No neviim, no temple or shechina.
ReplyDeleteKA: "Yehudi means patriline all the way to Yehuda"
ReplyDeleteIR: At some point, probably near the time of the Babylonian exile, the descendants of the Children of Israel, started to be referred to as "Yehudim" (Judah-im) (Jews). This is indicated in the Book of Esther, which is replete with the term.
This can’t possibly mean that all of the Israelites suddenly became registered members of the tribe of Judah. This is impossible, since tribal affiliation is not "fluid". It is a genealogical reality, exclusively dependent on patrilinear descent.
It would also be pure sophistry to suggest that the Book of Esther is merely about the tribe of Judah, which was endangered by the evil decree of Ahasuerus and Haman, while all the other tribes of Israel were unaffected by the decree. [This is indicated in the verse (Esther 3:6) "And it was contemptible in his eyes to lay his hands on Mordecai alone, for they had told him Mordecai's nationality" (not tribe)].
KA: "Since realhalachik is matrilineal, we cannot understand the Torah concept of tribalism anymore."
ReplyDeleteIR: What is so difficult to understand about the concept of tribalism?
R' Gifter specifically mentions that he was speaking in a "beis medrash". וכל בית במדרש קם במהומה
ReplyDeleteR' Gifter was NOT "talking about the blessing of the haftarah".
He was referring to a speech he gave, based on the words of the Haftarah (Parshas Massei) which begins with the words of the prophet Jeremiah (2:4) שמעו דבר ה' בית יעקב
Patrilineal _ for example, being Yehudah would be patrilineal. But Yehudi is matrilineal.
ReplyDeleteYes, that is correct.
ReplyDeleteBut that is not what you stated elsewhere on this thread: "Yehudi means patriline all the way to Yehuda".
What is so difficult to understand about the concept of Torah based tribalism?
Correct !" naamti" al haftorarah vamarti
ReplyDeleteA Speech where I spoke on the Haftorah
and I stated that is a Great Bizoyon Shame to call Bialic a Prophet!
KA says “Yehudi means patriline all the way to yehuda, follow? He also took Canaanite woman. Ramban says Israel-ness is from the father, but Jewish_ness from the mother. Logic vs.realhalakha.”
ReplyDeleteNo.
Midrash Rabbah - Numbers I:9
“Another exposition: “On the first day of the second month, in the second year following the exodus from the land of Egypt, the Lord spoke to Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, in the Tent of Meeting, saying” (Numbers 1:1). He said to him: “Take a census שאו את ראש of the whole Israelite community by the clans of its ancestral houses [i.e., of its tribes], listing the names במספר שמות, every male, head by head.” (Numbers 1:2). The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Israel, I have never loved any created being more than you. I have, therefore, conferred on you exaltation and have likened you unto Me, for as I Myself am exalted above all mankind-as it is said, “Yours, Lord, are greatness, might, splendor, triumph, and majesty—yes, all that is in heaven and on earth; to You, Lord, belong kingship and preeminence above all.” (Chronicles 1 29:11). So have I done unto you, that you may have exaltation. It is, therefore, stated, שאו את ראש; in confirmation of what is said, “He has exalted the horn of His people for the glory of all His faithful ones, Israel, the people close to Him. Hallelujah.” (Psalms 148:14). Likewise it is stated, “Now, if you obey the Lord your God, to observe faithfully all His commandments which I enjoin upon you this day, the Lord your God will set you high above all the nations of the earth.” (Deuteronomy 28:1).”
במדבר פרק א פסוק ב
שְׂאוּ אֶת רֹאשׁ כָּל עֲדַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת כָּל זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם
רש"י במדבר פרשת במדבר פרק א פסוק ב
למשפחתם - דע מנין כלד שבט ושבט:
לבית אבתם - מי שאביו משבט אחד ואמו משבט אחר יקוםה על שבט אביו:
לגלגלתם - על ידי שקליםו בקע לגלגולת:
Rashi says that if the father is from one tribe and the mother from another tribe, the family is listed to the father’s tribe. God showed considerable honor to the Jewish people with the listing by names.
The Gamara in Nedarim gives a false name, Kalba Savuah, to Rabbi Akiva’s father-in-law. Why? For he was wicked though rich as Korach. He made his living collecting in behalf the Caesar... Rabbi Akiva’s 24,000 students were righteous and treated each other with respect, see me here http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23868
When Jacob came to Egypt Job was born. Job lived 210 years. The Jews all had names.
“Then Elihu spoke once more. Wait a little and let me hold forth; There is still more to say for God. I will make my opinions widely known אשא דעי למרחוק ; I will justify my Maker לפעלי אתן צדק . In truth, my words are not false; A man of sound opinions is before you.” (Job 36:1-4). We debated and disagreed but we showed respect one to another, follow, KA?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTB_NqghcS8
ReplyDeleteSeems like we are in agreement
ReplyDeleteSo you are saying the terminology for Yehudi is corrupted?
ReplyDeleteEven accepting that it has changed, even if you say it means Yisrael, there is still a logical problem. If lineage is matrilineal, the first yisrael would need to be a woman. But it was a man. And he had wives and concubines. So there is no direct matrilineal line, or the tribes and nation would be named after the wives and concubines.
Thank you
ReplyDeletefrom my comment above:
ReplyDelete"even if you say it means Yisrael, there is still a logical problem. If lineage is matrilineal, the first yisrael would need to be a woman. But it was a man. And he had wives and concubines. So there is no direct
matrilineal line, or the tribes and nation would be named after the wives and concubines."
Additionally, the bris is with the male not the female. The Torah specifies a Bris to enter the people of Israel, but not for a female converting.
In most of the Tanach, the Hebrews are referred to as Israel, or the Children of Israel (not Hebrews).
ReplyDeleteAt some point, probably near the time of the Babylonian exile, All Israelites started to be referred to as "Yehudim" (Judah-im) (Jews), despite the fact that not all Yehudim were descendants of the tribe of Judah.
There is no logical problem. Lineage is PAtrilineal.
Bamidbar 1:2
Take the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by families following their fathers' houses.
Ibid. 1:18
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.
Ezra 2:59
but they could not tell their fathers' houses and their children, if they were from Israel.
The first "Yisrael", was our forefather Yaakov-Yisrael.
Indeed. So the question is how one squares the patrilineal lineage of the Tanach, with the matrilineal lineage of the oral Law. If by "Jewish", we mean yisrael, then who was the first Jewish/yisrael foremother?
ReplyDeleteIf it was Sarah or Leah/Rachel, then there is no judaism .
To put it another way, according to today's Halacha, neither Avraham, yitzhak or, Yaakov had anything to do with Judaism. If chas shalom the imahot had orelim, nochri husbands, the offspring would still be 100% Jewish.
You're confusing "lineage" with "Jewishness".
ReplyDeleteJewish "lineage" is patrilinear.
"Jewishness" is matrilinear.
Having a Jewish mother makes you a "Jew".
Having a Jewish father too, gives you Tribal lineage (if he had any).
For example, a convert to Judaism does not have Tribal lineage. He therefore counts himself as a generic "Yisrael", but without specific tribal affiliation. His children, born from a Jewish woman, are "Jewish", but have no particular Tribal affiliation.
The point still stands. If Jewishness is matrilinear, who was the first Jew, and how was she awarded her Jewishness?
ReplyDeletePossibly, the Patriarchs "converted" the Matriarchs, before marrying them.
ReplyDeleteAlternatively, all Jews were considered to have converted, in a three part process, which included circumcision, in Egypt, immersion and sacrifice, in the desert. This is spelled out by the Rambam (Yad, Issurei Bi'ah, 13):
(א) בשלושה דברים נכנסו ישראל לברית: במילה וטבילה וקרבן. (ב) מילה היתה במצרים, כשנאמר: "כל ערל לא יאכל בו" (שמות יב מח). מל אותם משה רבנו, שכולם ביטלו ברית מילה במצרים חוץ משבט לוי. ועל זה נאמר: "ובריתך ינצרו" (דברים לג ט). (ג) וטבילה היתה במדבר קודם מתן תורה, כשנאמר: "וקדשתם היום ומחר וכבסו שמלתם" (שמות יט י). וקרבן כשנאמר: "וישלח את נערי בני ישראל ויעלו עלת" (שמות כד ה) – על ידי כל ישראל הקריבום.
(ד) וכן לדורות, כשירצה הגוי להכנס לברית ולהסתופף תחת כנפי השכינה, ויקבל עליו עול תורה, צריך מילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן. ואם נקבה היא טבילה וקרבן, שנאמר: "ככם כגר" (במדבר טו טו) – מה אתם במילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן, אף הגר לדורות במילה וטבילה והרצאת קרבן. (ה) ומה הוא קרבן הגר? עולת בהמה, או שתי תורים או שני בני יונה; ושניהם עולה. ובזמן הזה שאין שם קרבן – צריך מילה וטבילה. וכשיבנה המקדש יביא קרבנו.
They were already Bnei Yisrael at the time - milah was already a hiyyuv from the time of Avraham avinu. Just like today, if kashrus ia chiyyuv, but some don't keep it, they are still Jews, and when they start keeping it, that is not giur.
ReplyDeleteThe Patriarchs took the Matriarchs because they were the most (IMHO) righteous of the generation.
It is interesting, as we are coming up with varying definitions of Jewishness - it is lineage in the sense of Bamidbar. it is Brit with Hashem, which is the most obvious Brit Milah, plus immersion/ and sacrifice.
It is matrilinealness...
Of course they were already biologically Bnei Yisrael at the time. After all, they were descendants of Yaakov/Yisrael. But what made them "Jewish"?
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing with the Rambam, who presents the generation of the Exodus as a paradigm of "conversion"?
The Rambam, of all people, would allow"me" to bring a logical argument against his position. At least this is what he teaches in his introduction to the commentary on the mishnah.
ReplyDeleteIn Parashat Lech Lecha (Bereshit 17), Hashem commands Avraham and his descendants to observe the commandment of the circumcision. However this commandment is repeated in the beginning of Parashat Tazria (Vayikra 12:3), and our current obligation is derived from that short verse.
ReplyDeleteThis is explained by the Rambam (commentary to Mishnah Chulin 7:6) that the commandments to the people of Israel derive only from the revelation at Mount Sinai. As an example of this rule, he mentions the commandment of circumcision: “We do not circumcise ourselves because Abraham circumcised himself and his family, rather because Hashem commanded us, via Moshe, to circumcise ourselves as Avraham did.
"אין
אנו מלים מפני שאברהם מל עצמו ואנשי ביתו, אלא מפני שהקב"ה ציוה אותנו על ידי משה רבינו שנימול כמו שמל אברהם אבינו עליו השלום".
When the issue is logic based, then your logic might be acceptable. However in this case, the Rambam is basing himself on sources in Jewish canon. That being the case, the Rambam would posit that your "logic" is pretty much worthless.
ReplyDeleteDid you even bother to find out what the Rambam's sources are?
Rambam saying my logic is worthless is fine. The issue is not about me winning, it's about Rambam saying that hachamim sometimes accepted a minority argument because the argumentation was so clear. Nothing wrong in asking a question.
ReplyDeleteDisagreeing and bringing a counter argument are not the same thing.
He is not saying Israel converted to Judaism. He is saying that Israel entered the Brit of matan Torah. The goy must emulate these steps to join the Brit.
ReplyDeletePure semantics. What we call today "converting", the Rambam calls להכנס לברית.
ReplyDeleteBTW, the Gra said more or less the same thing to Rav Chaim volozhiner, that a student must not accept his teachers words if he sees a deficiency in them but must argue his point to get to the truth. The principle here is what is important, not the old chestnut about "how dare you disagree with the Rav".
ReplyDeleteGood point, I have to think about it.
ReplyDeleteThe deficiency here is the presumptuousness of attempting to argue on the Rambam, without even having seen the sources that he based himself on, or even bothering to study the commentaries on his work.
ReplyDeletePresumably you don't consider the book of Joshua to be part of the Jewish canon, since he tells us that the generation of the wilderness did not have milah, and they did it in eretz Israel. Hence, the tevilah and conversion at Sinai, before milah, would not have been a valid conversion.
ReplyDeleteThis idea that you cannot argue with a previous generation, is fallacious. The Torah itself tells us that.
ReplyDeleteEven ramchal says that an argument should be accepted because of its cogency and intellectual validity, not by who made the argument. 😄
ReplyDeleteYo would be well advised to reread Joshua (5:5):
ReplyDeleteכִּֽי־מֻלִ֣ים הָי֔וּ כָּל־הָעָ֖ם הַיֹּֽצְאִ֑ים וְכָל־הָ֠עָ֠ם הַיִּלֹּדִ֨ים בַּמִּדְבָּ֥ר בַּדֶּ֛רֶךְ בְּצֵאתָ֥ם מִמִּצְרַ֖יִם לֹא־מָֽלוּ:
"For all the people that came out were circumcised, but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way as they came forth out of Egypt, they had not circumcised."
This can be referring to the generation of the wilderness that was born after Sinai.
See also discussion in Yevamos(71b-72a).
Ramchal would agree, that an argument against the words of Chazal, has no cogency or intellectual validity.
ReplyDeleteStraw man.
ReplyDelete"Arguing" also has rules.
If you try to argue with a Rambam out of ignorance of his sources, you are incompetent to weigh in on the subject.
"attempting to argue on the Rambam"
ReplyDeleteThis is the whole problem of the yeshiva world, and why they are producing robots not iluim. We are on the one hand told how learning in yeshiva is the highest intellectual activity, that all questions are welcomed, etc etc. When people actually do ask questions, they are accused of being apikorsim. what joke.
This Rambam is very interesting - but from it we conclude the opposite of what you do:
ReplyDelete"Circumcision took place in Egypt, [before the Paschal sacrifice, of which Exodus 12:48] says: "No uncircumcised person shall partake of it." Moses our teacher circumcised [the people]. For with the exception of the tribe of Levi, the entire [people] neglected the covenant of circumcision in Egypt.2 Regarding this, [Deuteronomy 33:9 praises the Levites,] saying: "They upheld Your covenant.""
It says that apart from Shevet Levi, the rest of Israel did not circumcise before the Korban Pesach. SO immersion or not, according to what you are presenting, the rest of Bnei Yisrael were still goyim. So what happened, if they still did not circumcise in the desert, does that mean they never converted? Or does it mean, they were Jews but just secular ones?, more so than secular Israelis who by and large still keep Bris Milah.
Not a problem of being an "apikorus".
ReplyDeleteJust lacking in intellectualism and intellectual integrity.
Questions may be asked in a reasonable manner. However you didn't merely ask questions, you stepped over that line by categorically deciding that he's wrong, without even having examined the sources that he based himself on, or even bothering to study any of the commentaries on his work. That's not a sign of an intellectual. It's the mark of a boor...
You misread the Rambam.
ReplyDeleteThe tribe of Levi had always practiced circumcision, all during the sojourn in Egypt. The problem was the rest of the nation, who had neglected to circumcise themselves. They all did so prior to eating the Korban Pesach.
Also, reread Joshua (5:5) "For all the people that came out were circumcised".
It's not a straw man. It is just that you are of the view that you will only accept questions if I sign on the dotted line which says I will always accept your answers.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what applies to the Rambam also applies to his sources, which is the Gemara. R' David b Hayyim says he was taught in yeshiva to ask questions like an "apikores" ie ask questions about anything that doesn't make sense to you. But it could well be that this a drush not a pshat, i.e. they are learning from Korban pesach how a nochri should convert. You are saying that logic doesn't apply to the Gemara? How do you know that?
Thank you for correcting me!
ReplyDeletethank you, i will
ReplyDeleteWhere did I say Rambam is wrong? I produced counter arguments, which you showed me are based on faulty assumptions. As I said already , producing a counter argument does not mean I've decided he is wrong. You miss the distinction. It simply means that my argument which leads me to different conclusions has not yet been resolved.
ReplyDeleteYou don't have to accept my answers, but for intellectual honesty you would have to cogently explain why my answer is wrong, if it were so.
ReplyDeleteSo maybe you finally got to the Gemara that the Rambam is based on.
Now, invoking the Talmud is classified as an "argument from authority", which is when writers or speakers claim that something must be true because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the subject. This type of argument can be rejected by someone who denies the authority of the source that was quoted. The Rambam believe that his Talmudic source was enough of a basis for his codification.
What would be the basis of your rejection of the Rambam's position?
Do you deny the authority of the Rambam's source?
Do you have proof that the Rambam misunderstood the source?
Let me put it another way - if all of Bnei Yisrael wer circumcised, and they all took part in Korban Pesach, as well as Matan Torah at Sinai, then there is no possible case of Bnei Yisrael who didn't do the above - 100% of them did , and are what we call "Jews". But there is no difference between the Jews and Bnei Yisrael. even the Avot had various Brits , in addition to the Bris MIlah. So it is the same Bnei Yisrael, but they have reached the final giving of the Torah, beyond which there is no addition.
ReplyDeleteSO I need to see a distinction between the people before Matan Torah (or Korban pesach) and after. It is the same people - does the bris suddenly switch the Patrilineal to the matrilineal?
I am just writing my thought process on a screen. If something doesn't make sense to me, i try to see why it doesn't make sense. I havent rejected Rambam's position, I am trying to make sense of it, and see if my reservations are real contradictions or not.
ReplyDeleteI accepted your points because they showed some of my assumptions were factually incorrect, based on Torah sources. I didn't accept them because of pressure not to ask questions regarding Rambam's position. I am still trying to narrow down what i am not fully clear about - presumably the same process will follow .
I hope that you're not still confusing "lineage" with "Jewishness".
ReplyDeleteJewish "lineage" is patrilinear.
"Jewishness" is matrilinear.
I already provided Biblical verses that indicate that Tribal affiliation is patrilinear.
Are you looking for sources that indicate that "Jewishness" is matrilinear?
The way I read the rambam , he is saying Israel entered the Brit by doing x, y and z. This didn't make them Israelites or Jews, it just cemented their acceptance of the Brit. They were already Israelites .
ReplyDeleteFor converts, they have to mimic the same x,y and z, to enter the brit. In Biblical times, they might still be known as their old nationality, eg Doeg HaEdomi, Uriah ha Hitti, etc. They keep their surnames, in modern parlor, mr Smith and Mr Wilkins etc. Perhaps they were not not called Israelites, but ger or something else in those days, whereas today we call them fully fledged Jews. I am not convinced that Rambam is actually saying that Israel were "goyim" or nochrim until they "converted".
That doesnt mean I am saying he is wrong, it means I'm not [yet] persuaded that your reading is correct.
You night want to consider researching the relevant subject before putting your thought processes on a screen.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I find that it helps prevent what is known as "egg-on-face syndrome".
http://www.mooncap.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/egg.jpg
Not in this discussion, because i would bring counter -examples, then you would do another Holy Inquisition about whether I accept the sources (Gemara) which says it is matrilineal. A more important point is to prove that there is a significant distinction between Israelite lineage and "Jewishness". The Israelites , say the 12 sons and their tribes, kept what was the Torah of their day, which might be a 100 or 200 or even 613 mitzvot.
ReplyDeleteif it was less than 613, then a goy would need to do milah in order to join with us, and then keep say 233 mitzvot for example. So whatever Jewishness we have today, we also had back then. the difference is the formal Brit of matan Torah.
I'm quite happy to have that, it is part of the learning process. if I don't ask questions, then my understanding will be more superficial. Also, once I have a collection of omelettes, it will serve as feedback to choose my words more carefully.
ReplyDelete"Now, invoking the Talmud is classified as an "argument from authority",
ReplyDeletewhich is when writers or speakers claim that something must be true
because it is believed by someone who said to be an "authority" on the
subject. This type of argument can be rejected by someone who denies the
authority of the source that was quoted. The Rambam believe that his
Talmudic source was enough of a basis for his codification."
For me, I better understand something by engaging it than trying to learn something rote. It seems to me the Talmud is not just an authority, but is a process of learning something. Obviously there are many opinions on what it is actually saying, but just memorizing a blatt without understanding the argumentation is not the best way to do it.
What to me is even more inspiring is the presence of the Yerushalmi Talmud - which from the little I know, is sometimes at odds with the Bavli. R' Bar Hayim makes this point, and argues for a return to the type of learning of the Yerushalmi or of Eretz Yisrael.
"What would be the basis of your rejection of the Rambam's position?"
ReplyDeleteThere is no basis for rejection of any of his positions, there is the possibility to go with the Raavad or the Ramban for example, where they differ. For example, I used to be very rationalist and follow him regarding nichush, that it is all false and assur. Ramban sees it differently, that sometimes there may be true information in such "omens" and we are permitted to take heed of them. Now i have more experience, i am more inclined towards the Ramban's view.
here's a teaser you might want to think about:
ReplyDeleteIf you are saying that at least from the time of Yetziat Mitzrayim/Matan Torah, Jewishness was matrilineal, and tribal lineage was patrilineal, but essentially being a kasher Jew had little to do with the father and everything to do with the mother. If so, at one point (post golden calf) , G-d tells Moshe that He will wipe out the stiffnecked people and create a new nation from Moshe. This was because of his Tzidkus. had that taken place, then the new nation would be a nation by virtue of their righteous father, Moshe , who is essentially the 4th of the Avot. We know his wives were Midianite and possibly Cushite. Now how does matrilineal play in here? Judaism is defined by having a Midianite or Cushite foremother? Why is none of this narrative said explicitly in the Torah?
For accuracy, we should drop the terminology of Jewishness. The Torah itself only speaks of bnei Israel. Thus there is no independent category of being Jewish, outside of the Torah.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to throw another one at you, of course it is to clarify where my misunderstanding of the Rambam lies:
ReplyDeleteBrit and Jewishness is encapsulated in bris milah. The following 2 cases appear to be anomalies.
1). A Jewish woman, even if married to a Jew, conceives a child with another man, who is both arel, and nochri. Her child is a boy, but not circumsized. The child is Jewish, not a mamzer, and 100% kosher.
2) an Israelite man has a nochrit concubine, they conceive a child, who is a boy, and is circumcized on the 8th day. In this case, the child is considered a goy, and is not even a member of his father's tribe.
These 2 cases only appear to be anomalies because you assume that Brit and Jewishness is encapsulated in bris milah. Evidently, there exists a different criteria of what makes a child Jewish.
ReplyDeleteA "Ger", is considered Jewish, despite the fact that he has no Israelite lineage.
ReplyDeleteBris milah is part of the formula.
ReplyDeleteI think the Halacha that the Rambam brings is most likely an asmakhta. The bris was nothing new, and purification at Sinai, yes there's an element of giur, but it was purification for the experience of kedusha, like in the temple.
Asmakhta is when chazal use a text to hang a Halacha on when there is not an explicit source. Pardes should be PardesA, since asmakhta is the 5th method.
One law for you and for the ger.
ReplyDeleteTorah doesn't say Jewish, it says Israel. Ger is like Israel.
Semantics again. OK. He's considered an Israelite.
ReplyDeleteTo which Tribe does he belong?
Yisraelness is transmitted paternally. I have seen no proof that Jewishness is anything other than yisraelness. Hence I still do not understand cognitively what the chiddush of Jewishness is, and why it's maternal.
ReplyDeleteAn "arel", without a bris milah is considered an Israelite.
ReplyDeleteA non-Israelite who got snipped, is still a non-Jew.
So obviously Bris milah is NOT an integral part of the formula of makes someone a Yehudi.
Please read Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer, Siman 8:5
ReplyDeleteThe majority view in Karaite Judaism is that Jewish identity can only be transmitted by patrilineal descent. Do you subscribe to this view?
It seems that you are saying that tribal lineage has no religious relevance at all. As far as you are concerned it's like social security number or zip code.
ReplyDeleteExcept there are some vestigial remnants of the old biblical order, eg a kohen or Levi is still paternal.
It's important to be terminologically consistent.
ReplyDeleteWe just read in the Rambam you cited that bris is part of the 3 step process. OK, you can say that's a one off.
The 2 extreme cases were to illustrate that for late 2nd temple Judaism, patrilineal means nothing, whereas matrilineal means everything. But in bamidbar , it say nothing about matrilineal.
I have another theory. There is a d'oraita shiur for mitzvot, and a derabbanan shiur. Eg waiting after meat , to eat chalavi is 6 hours derabbanan, but zero d'oraita.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm saying these cases might be the same. Yisrael and patriline are oraita. Jewish and matriline are derabbanan. Same with giur.
Given that the vast majority of Jews have lost their tribal identity, it should be obvious that tribal lineage has little religious relevance today, aside from Kohen and Levi.
ReplyDeleteAn exception is the list mentioned in the Mishnah (Kiddushin 4:10) (69a), which delineates a hierarchy of 10 different lineages among the Jewish people. This concept appears mainly regarding marriage, but also in the internal political-social hierarchy.
Are you Sephardi? if so, I could call this the Spanish Inquisition.
ReplyDeleteI am well aware of what the Shulchan Aruch says on this matter. I am awaiting a proof that Jewishness and Israelness are separate concepts. Interestingly, in Siman 8 uses the term "Yisrael" and not Yehudi.
regarding Karaites, or better Sadducees, there is a Mishnah somewhere whcih says for oraita matters we agree with them, for Rabbanan we don't. But I cannot give the exact reference offhand, are you familiar with that?
very good question - I'd say he doesn't yet belong to any tribe. Perhaps his daughters will marry Israelite men then be part of that tribe. the Bible gives names to many presumable geirim, like mentioned, eg Uriah the Hittite. He presumably was not yet a tribesman, since he is still called the Hittite.
ReplyDeleteDid I suggest that "Jewishness" and "Israelness" are separate concepts?
ReplyDelete(Please provide link to such an alleged comment).
I would use both terms interchangeably.
I merely differentiate between Jewishness and Tribal affiliation.
Sorry for coming across harsh, but I seek to engage in a Torah discussion from an Orthodox Jewish perspective. Unfortunately, your comment here http://disq.us/p/223groh smacked of Karaism, and implied a dissonance with the ruling of the Shulchan Aruch (EH 8:5), both of which I have zero tolerance for.
So you agree that we can have someone be Jewish/ Yehudi/ Yisrael/ Israelite, despite the fact that he has no Tribal lineage.
ReplyDeleteWell, I will try to explain both issues:
ReplyDeleteI equate Tribal lineage with Israelness or specific branch of Isralness. But I am trying to understand what distinguishes these 3 concepts (J, I, and Tribalness).
Regarding Orthodox Judaism, it seems your approach is starting with the S.A. and then working backwards, i.e. any understanding of the earlier sources that don't fit into the S.A. are non orthodox. My approach seems to be the reverse, what the Torah itself says, and then how it is understood through the generations. If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah, Chazal allowed the Sadducees to vote in the sanhedrin, on D'oraita questions but not on D'rabbanan, or discarded their opinions on the latter. That means some of their opinions were valid even according to Chazal.
He is like one of us in all respects, except for lineage. At some stage his offspring will blend in. This was also the case with Avraham's family.
ReplyDeleteWell, we've lost the Temple too, and it also has less relevance today than it did when we had it. that doesn't mean one cannot learn about the various Korbanot and tumot etc.
ReplyDeletehe becomes attached to Israel and bound by the same laws. But they don't , for example get tribal land . The Lubavitcher rebbe or Alter rebbe (in the intro to their Tehillat H' Siddur) says that there was something like a 13th tribe , which didn't have a tribal affiliation, and this is their nusach. Nice story, i don't know if it is factually true, but it's the kind of story i'd like to be true.
ReplyDeleteTribal , patrilineal descent is of supreme religious significance: The Book of Bamidbar is taking head counts of the father's line for all practical matters. But for the levites, this means service in the Mikdash. that is supreme religious significance, rather than just what flag they have in the camp. It is a complex argument, as I'm not sure if this part is in the Shulchan Aruch.
ReplyDeleteActually, the Shulchan Aruch you mentioned is very interesting. The preceding halacha 4 says
ReplyDeleteכל הנישאת באיסור הולד הולך אחר הפגום שבשניהם השאם אחד מהם מפסולי כהונה הולד פסול לכהונה ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל הולד אסור לבא בקהל:
Anyone
who marries someone who is forbidden to them, the child retains that status of the one who has a defect. If one of them is invalid to a Cohen then the offspring (of their union) will be invalid to a Cohen. If one of them is invalid to the community of Israel (ex. a Mamzer), their offspring will be invalid to the community of Israel.
Now, I was thinking this to be problematic, since it is equally assur for a man to intermarry as it is for a woman. The above principle would logically mean that the Jewish woman who intermarries, has non Jewish children!
I then checked the commentaries, and that is what the Biur HaGra says:
שאם אחד מהם כו'. לא קאי אאם נשאת באיסור דבזכר לא משכחת אלא אסיפא:
More on the Book of Ruth and Numbers:
ReplyDeleteThe 3 wealthy brothers: Tov, Elimelech and Salmah (father of Boaz). Elimelech fled with wife Noami and with his 2 sons: Machlon and Chilion to Moab. Elimelech and his 2 sons, Machlon and Chilion die in Moab. Who gets the property of Elimelech? Salmah (father of Boaz) is also dead. So Tov is first choice.
Actually, Noami, wife of Elimelech and mother of Machlon and Chilion, owns the property of Elimelech and Ruth owns the property of Machlion.
“Meanwhile, Boaz had gone to the gate and sat down there. And now the redeemer [Tov] whom Boaz had mentioned passed by. He called, Come over and sit down here, So-and-so [Tov]! And he came over and sat down. Then [Boaz] took ten elders of the town and said, Be seated here; and they sat down. He said to the redeemer [Tov], Naomi [Tov’s sister-in-law], now returned from the country of Moab, must sell the piece of land which belonged to our kinsman Elimelech [Tov’s brother and Boaz’s uncle]. I thought I should disclose the matter to you and say: Acquire it in the presence of those seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you are willing to redeem it, redeem! But if you will not redeem ואם לא יגאל, tell me, that I may know. For there is no one to redeem but you, and I come after you. I am willing to redeem it, he replied. Boaz continued, When you acquire the property from Naomi and from Ruth the Moabite, you must also acquire the wife of the deceased קניתה להקים שם המת על נחלתו, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate. The redeemer [Tov] replied, Then I cannot redeem it for myself, lest I impair my own estate פן אשחית את נחלתי [i.e., by expending capital for property]. You take over my right of redemption, for I am unable to exercise it. Now this was formerly done in Israel in cases of redemption or exchange: to validate any transaction, one man would take off his sandal and hand it to the other. Such was the practiced in Israel. So when the redeemer [Tov] said to Boaz, Acquire for yourself, he drew off his sandal. And Boaz said to the elders and to the rest of the people, You are witnesses today that I am acquiring from Naomi all that belonged to Elimelech and all that belonged to Chilion and Mahlon. I am also acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of Mahlon, as my wife, so as to perpetuate the name of the deceased upon his estate, that the name of the deceased may not disappear from among his kinsmen and from the gate of his home town. You are witnesses today.” (Ruth 4:1-10).
Boaz was rich and so could buy out Noami and Ruth’s claims. The women had full property rights. Noami and Ruth gladly gave up their rights to Boaz. Beautiful. My theory is that the ancestral house בית אבות in Numbers is for purposes of property divisions in Israel. “And Jacob called his sons and said, Come together that I may tell you what is to befall you in days to come.” (Genesis 49:1). My theory is that the princes of the Tribes were truly descendants of the 12 brothers, but not necessarily all the 46,500 of Reuven, 59,300 of Simeon, 45,650 of Gad, 74,600 of Judah, 54,400 of Issachar, 57,400 of Zebulun, 40,500 of Ephraim, 32,200 of Menasseh, 35,400 of Benjamin, 62,700 of Dan, 41,500 of Asher, and 53,400 of Naphtali recorded in Numbers 1.
Correct !" naamti" al haftorarah vamarti
ReplyDeleteA Speech where I spoke on the Haftorah
and I stated that is a Great Bizoyon Shame! to call Nachman BialiK a Prophet! He was no Prophet for the Jews and not even good Prophet for the Baal!
And "I was then attacked by a Sheretz"! A "Rat or Mouse"critter writer Newspaper there was uproar
And so I stated the towns people of Shadoveh are nor ready to hear The true Torah word and I will end My speech ! I stepped down
They then begged me to continue but I refused !
I was happy with this story and
I discussed this with My Rebbe the great Rav R"m ?_______
and he thanked me and said we need more speeches like such !...Mordechai2
May I continue?
ReplyDeleteSo Naomi was actually the owner of all of Elimelech’s vast properties. Naomi knew was important in life (marriage and children) and what was not important (money).
“But Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, Turn back, each of you to her mother’s house. May the Lord deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead and with me! May the Lord grant that each of you find security in the house of a husband! And she kissed them farewell. They broke into weeping “ (Ruth 1:8-9).
“Turn back, my daughters, for I am too old to be married. Even if I thought there was hope for me, even if I were married tonight and I also bore sons, should you wait for them to grow up? Should you on their account debar yourselves from marriage? Oh no, my daughters! My lot is far more bitter than yours, for the hand of the Lord has struck out against me.” (Ruth 1:12-13).
“and the two went on until they reached Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole city buzzed with excitement over them. The women said, Can this be Naomi? Do not call me Naomi [i.e. Pleasantness], she replied. Call me Mara [i.e. Bitterness], for Shaddaie has made my lot very bitter. I went away full, and the Lord has brought me
back empty. How can you call me Naomi, when the Lord has dealt harshly with me ענה בי [Others testified against], when Shaddai has brought misfortune upon me!” (Ruth 1:19-21).
Naomi considered herself “empty” since her husband and children died. Naomi, at the end, had intense delight with Ruth’s baby: “Naomi took the child and held it to her bosom. She became its foster mother” (Ruth 4:16). We could all learn from Naomi...
Allow me to comment on the KA IR debate here. “Take a census of the whole Israelite community by the clans of its ancestral houses לבית אבתם, listing the names, every male, head by head.” (Numbers 1:2).
ReplyDeleteThis is not a sexist matter. There is no denying rights to women. Listing of names of men is the man’s name son of father’s name. The Gabbai in shul calls up men for the blessings for Torah readings calling out name son of father XX. Bad would be giving the man’s name as son of father XX and son of mother YY. That would be a burden to the congregation, lengthening the service for no good reason. True, we are more certain of the mother of a person than who is the father. That’s how God created us. No argument in a question if a person is Jewish or not---if his mother is Jewish---he’s Jewish. Interesting, a question if a person is a true bastard, the court must know both the mother and father...
It seems there are any number of interpretations. The Shulchan Aruch says that if an Israelite marries someone they are forbidden to, whatever the deficiency is, will passed on to the child, eg posul Kohen, mamzer etc. So logically speaking, since either parent is forbidden to intermarry, the status of nochri will be passed on to the child.
ReplyDeleteStraw man about the relevance of the Temple and Korbanot.
ReplyDeleteI specifically mentioned "relevance today".
"it should be obvious that tribal lineage has little religious relevance today".
Do you disagree with my statement? Just yes or no.
The Shulchan Aruch is a benchmark for Orthodox Judaism, and includes the earlier sources and codifiers that it's based on. Departure from following SA, was the first departure of any sect of Judaism, which is why we consider it a red line.
ReplyDeleteThe most explicit source for Sadducee members of the Sanhedrin, is a Xtian book (Acts 23:6-8).
You will first need to provide a Jewish source that the Sadducees were allowed to be members of the Sanhedrin.
Then you will need to provide a Jewish source that the Sadducees were allowed to vote on D'oraita questions, and how this worked in practice.
your statement is a straw man statement
ReplyDeletedo you disagree with my statement about the Korbanot?
not all questions are yes or no - some are loaded questions or silly questions
I agree that studyining about Korbanot is important, as is studying every single part of the Torah. However the Laws of Korbanot have very little practical application today, which is why they were not included in the Shulchan Aruch.
ReplyDeleteThe same is about the laws of Tribal lineage. It's important that we study them, but Tribal lineage per se, has limited relevance today.
I never said otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI learned it in a mishnah, but I can't pinpoint the source. Will try to do some Chazara.
ReplyDeleteI quoted the SA , the previous Halacha tot eh one you quoted - it is very interesting and relevant to our discussion.
"Departure from following SA, was the first departure of any sect of Judaism" - no, the Yemenites never accepted it, and they stuck with the Rambam. The Maharal and others also opposed it, and said it's better to learn directly from the gemara.
In any case, in Even HaEzer 8:4, the previous halacha to what you cited it says:
כל הנישאת באיסור הולד הולך אחר הפגום שבשניהם השאם אחד מהם מפסולי
כהונה הולד פסול לכהונה ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל הולד אסור לבא בקהל:
Anyone
who marries someone who is forbidden to them, the child retains that
status of the one who has a defect. If one of them is invalid to a Cohen
then the offspring (of their union) will be invalid to a Cohen. If one
of them is invalid to the community of Israel (ex. a Mamzer), their
offspring will be invalid to the community of Israel.
maybe they were not included in the SA because the author did not have the time or expertise to do so.
ReplyDeleteSa says only that a man intermarried to a nochrit has non Jewish offspring. https://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/8/Q1/
ReplyDeleteWhere does it say that a Jewish woman gets a free pass to intermarry, no sanctions on her children and collects $200?
"a Jewish woman gets a free pass to intermarry"
ReplyDeleteHuh?
Devarim 7:3
You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son.
"no sanctions on her children"
Rashi (v. 4) ...This teaches us that your daughter’s son, born of a heathen man, is called “your son,” but your son’s son, born of a heathen woman, is not called “your son,” but “her son.”...
[See Yevamos (23a), Kiddushim 68b)]
You're apparent reading challenged.
ReplyDeleteI explicitly wrote: "The Shulchan Aruch is used as a benchmark for Orthodox Judaism, and includes the earlier sources and codifiers that it's based on.
That sentence includes Gemara and Rambam.
You have provided no sources for your arguments, ironically, precisely when seeking to argue with the Rambam and the Shulchan Aruch.
So it's not in the SA?
ReplyDeleteRashi's reading has given her what i call a "free pass"
Silly response.
ReplyDeleteThe SA followed the order of the Tur, and the policy of the Rif, who both only codified the halachos that have relevance today.
Ibn Ezra reads it differently:
ReplyDeletewill turn your son away The subject of the sentence is “his
son” mentioned above [: 3] — his son to whom you should not give your
daughter in marriage or The subject of the sentence is your foreign
neighbor, whose daughter you should not take for your son in marriage,
as mentioned above
Did you know that the same issur is also in Shemot 34:16
ReplyDeleteוְלָקַחְתָּ֥ מִבְּנֹתָ֖יו לְבָנֶ֑יךָ וְזָנ֣וּ בְנֹתָ֗יו אַחֲרֵי֙ אֱלֹ֣הֵיהֶ֔ן וְהִזְנוּ֙ אֶת־בָּנֶ֔יךָ אַחֲרֵ֖י אֱלֹהֵיהֶֽן׃
And
when you take wives from among their daughters for your sons, their
daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust
after their gods.
_______
If the linguistic interpretation is pshat, then it should also apply to this verse, but it doesn't. In this case, your sons would refer to the offspring of their daughters.
No Rashi or any other major Rishonim comment on this
Firstly, a question raised by Temani writer, is why only 3 sources? Perhaps there were other rishonim as well who had written halacha?
ReplyDeleteSecond, He bases his system on 3 sources, the 3rd being the Rambam - who did write all halacha.
Seeking to argue with...
ReplyDeleteisn't that what people are supposed to do in yeshiva? Argumentation.
I brought the halacha from the SA, which now you ignore, ergo you must reject the SA (IR logic of course).
It's absolutely a free pass - I have heard it from a few Jewish women I knew when I was single and dating - they have no disincentive not to intermarry, because they know their kids will be Jewish. On the other hand, men have a great disincentive to not intermarry, because their kids will be vadai goyim, and they have to go through the whole giur process. It is not theoretical, I know people, even traditional Jews who had no problem marrying out, because they knew their kids would be Jewish regardless.
ReplyDeleteIf the Torah forbids a woman from intermarrying, then the above SA E.H. 8:4 states that the child will be non jewish, as the moom is passed on from the husband.
ReplyDeleteKalonymus Anonymus says “If the Torah forbids a woman from intermarrying, then the above SA E.H. 8:4 states that the child will be non jewish, as the moom is passed on from the husband.”
ReplyDeleteNo. KA, the Torah does not forbid the woman from inter-marrying. Didn’t Ruth marry Machlon?
שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן ח
בכל ספק הולד הולך אחר הזכר, ובו ה' סעיפים.
סעיף א
כהנים, לוים וישראלים מותרים לבא זה בזה, והולד הולך אחר הזכר.
סעיף ב
לוים וישראלים וחללים, מותרים לבא זה בזה, והולד הולך אחר הזכר.
סעיף ג
לוים, ישראלים וחללים, גרים ועבדים משוחררים, מותרים לבא זה בזה. והגר והמשוחרר שנשא לויה או ישראלית או חללה, הרי הבן ישראלי. וישראלי או לוי או חלל שנשא גיורת או משוחררת, הולד הולך אחר הזכר.
סעיף ד
כל הנישאת באיסור, הולד הולך אחר הפגום שבשניהם, שאם אחד מהם מפסולי כהונה, הולד פסול לכהונה; ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל, הולד אסור לבא בקהל.
סעיף ה
ולד שפחה ונכרית, כמותן. בין שנתעברו מכשר, בין שנתעברו מפסול.
Simple. Born of a non-Jewish mother, the offspring is like the mother. Born of a Jewish mother the offspring is Jewish. The mother is always certain. The farther is always a doubt. The offspring of a Jewish mother and a father who is a doubt---maybe not Jewish, maybe a bastard, maybe a convert, etc---the offspring is Jewish but a doubt remains, alas. Such doubts impact only very choosy men. Anyone could marry an offspring with a doubt...
I think the Gamara recognizes that no bet din court could ever convict a man for cursing his father, since there’s always doubt on who his father is...
Sorry professor Aranoff, you have not understood the sa. Halacha #4 refutes what you claim.
ReplyDeleteBerel, do you know all the Mishnayos be Al peh?
ReplyDeleteIR: You will first need to provide a Jewish source that the Sadducees were allowed to be members of the Sanhedrin.Rashi on Sanhedrin 52a
ReplyDelete52a:8
לא היה ב"ד של אותו שעה בקי - צדוקין היו שאין להם ג"ש אלא קרא כמשמעו:
Kalonymus Anonymus “Sorry professor Aranoff, you have not understood the shulchan Aruch. Halacha #4 refutes what you claim.”
ReplyDeleteNo.
שולחן ערוך אבן העזר הלכות אישות סימן ח
בכל ספק הולד הולך אחר הזכר, ובו ה' סעיפים.
Doubt refers to the father. Why? Certain (no doubt) is only with the mother. The rule on the mother, a gentile or a Canaanite slave girl:
ולד שפחה ונכרית, כמותן.
The rule on the father is that there is a doubt. A doubtful bastard is very different from a certain bastard, etc. The child is a certain Jewish (having a Jewish mother), yet a doubt on matters such as bastard, suitable for Cohen due to the doubt of the father. Follow KA?
Back to the Book of Ruth.
I ask, how did Elimelech dare flea to Moab with Naomi and Machlon and Chilion, knowing the historic anti-Semitism in Moab? I heard that they had a tradition that this would be the way to bring the messiah. We read:
“David went from there to Mizpeh of Moab, and he said to the king of Moab, Let my father and mother come [and stay] with you, until I know what God will do for me. So he led them וינחם את פני [Targum and Syriac read left them with] to the king of Moab, and they stayed with him as long as David remained in the stronghold במצודה. But the prophet Gad said to David, Do not stay in the stronghold במצודה; go at once to the territory of Judah. So David left and went to the forest of Hereth.” (1 Samuel 22:3-5).
King David also thought it safe to flea with his family to Moab to seek refuge from King Saul. Horrible. Big mistake.
The result was that the King of Moab killed King David’s father and brothers for no reason, just anti-Semitism.
Likewise. Big mistake for Elimelech to flea to Moab with his wife Naomi and his two sons, not yet married, Machlon and Chilion. Opinion has it that they had a tradition that this would be the way for the messiah...
Sorry Gerry, but not only have you misunderstood what that verse is saying, you have also ignored halacha 4.
ReplyDeleteIn Hal. 1 it says: If there is a safek in a permitted marriage (see Be'er Heteyv) the lineage goes according to the father.
halacha 4 deals with forbidden unions - this includes either a man or woman who intermarry.
Anyone who marries someone who is forbidden to them, the child
retains that status of the one who has a defect. If one of them is
invalid to a Cohen then the offspring (of their union) will be invalid
to a Cohen. If one of them is invalid to the community of Israel (ex. a
Mamzer), their offspring will be invalid to the community of Israel.
Since the nochri male is forbidden to Israel, then the defective status is passed on to the child. I am only quoting the SA, these are not my own words. Find me a counter example, where it says the woman's child remains Jewish.
Gerald, did you say you are a rabbi? Where did you learn, and get semicha from?
ReplyDeleteIssurei Biah of the Rambam: Ch12:
ReplyDeletewww.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/960660/jewish/Issurei-Biah-Chapter-Twelve.htm
1
When a Jew engages in relations with a woman from other nations,
[taking her] as his wife or a Jewess engages in relations with a non-Jew
as his wife, they are punished by lashes, according to Scriptural Law.1 As [Deuteronomy 7:3] states: "You shall not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your son."
This prohibition applies equally to [individuals from] the seven [Canaanite] nations and all other gentiles.2 This was explicitly stated in Ezra3 [Nechemiah 10:31]: "That we will not give our daughters to the gentiles in the land and that we will not take their daughters for our sons.".
Although the verse the Rambam cites as a prooftext refers to the
seven Canaanite nations, all other gentiles are also included as
reflected by the verse from Nechemiah.
The Tur (Even HaEzer 16) differs with the Rambam,
explaining that the verse should be understood within its limited
context, referring only to the seven nations. (The Rambam's opinion has a
source in the Sheiltot D'Rabbenu Achai Gaon, while that of the Tur is found in the Sefer Mitzvot Gadol)
The crux of the difference is the exegesis of the continuation of the
verse cited by the Rambam: "For he shall sway your son away." Kiddushin
68b quotes Rabbi Shimon as focusing on the motivating rationale for the
verse and thus including all those who might sway a person's heart.
Thus it refers to all gentiles. The Sages, however, do not accept this
perspective.
1. When I said "the Sanhedrin", I was referring to the "Great Sanhedrin", "Sanhedrin Gedola", of 71 members, which sat in Yerushalayim, and were the Torah leaders of the generation.
ReplyDelete2. The death penalty can be meted out by a "Minor Sanhedrin", "Sanhedrin Ketana", of 23 members. Such Sanhedrins were located in every city that had 120 [or 230 residents].
3. There is no indication that the Sanhedrin described in Sanhedrin 52a was the "Sanhedrin Gedola", nor does it even indicate an alleged joint/mixed Sanhedrin, one that had both Pharisee and Sadducee members. It could have been a rebel Sanhedrin, which was founded by the Sadducees, without Pharisee approval, and without any Pharisee members.
Meanwhile, where does the shulchan Aruch speak about matrilineal descent?
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by "matrilineal descent"?
ReplyDeleteDid you read and understand the implication of Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer, Siman 8:5?
ולד שפחה ונכרית כמותן בין שנתעברו מכשר בין שנתעברו מפסול
Read 8.4 first.
ReplyDeleteIt openly disagrees with the Rambam on matrilineal Jewishness.
Kalonymus Anonymus cites “Issurei Biah of the Rambam: Ch12”
ReplyDeleteMachlon and Chilion sinned by having sex with Ruth and Orpah, gentile ladies that did not convert. There is no marriage with gentile ladies.
“Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left with her two sons. They married וישאו להם נשים Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth, and they lived there about ten years. Then those two—Mahlon and Chilion—also died; so the woman was left without her two sons and without her husband.” (Ruth 1:3-5).
The Malbim says that Torah uses the word ויקח for marriage and וישאו for just sex.
מלבי"ם רות פרק א פסוק ד
וישאו. והנה הבנים הוסיפו לחטוא במה שנשאו נשים מואביות שלא גיירו אותן כמ"ש במדרש ועז"א שם האחת ערפה, כי בגירותן היו משנים את שם הקודם והם נשארו בשמם [והגם שרות לא שנו שמה גם אחר שנתגיירה עז"א בברכות (דף ט') מאי רות שיצא ממנה דוד שריוהו להקב"ה בשירות ותשבחות שהקושיא מאי רות היינו למה לא שנו שם גיותה] וגם זה מבואר מלשון וישאו, שעל לקיחה בקדושין כדת בא לשון לקיחה ולשון וישאו בא לרוב בנשואין של נשים נכריות בכל ספר עזרא ונחמיה ועל אשה שהיתה טפלה כמ"ש ברחבעם (דה"ב י"א) נשים שמונה עשרה נשא ופילגשים ששים, שרק שתים היו עקריים שאמר עליהם ויקח,
Rehoboam married ויקח לו Mahalath daughter of Jerimoth son of David, and Abihail daughter of Eliab son of Jesse. She bore him sons: Jeush, Shemariah, and Zaham. He then took לקח Maacah daughter of Absalom; she bore him Abijah, Attai, Ziza, and Shelomith. Rehoboam loved Maacah daughter of Absalom more than his other wives and concubines—for he took נשא eighteen wives and sixty concubines; he begot twenty-eight sons and sixty daughters.” (2 Chronicles 11:18-21).
Offspring from gentile ladies are gentiles. Simple and clear in the Schulcan Aruch. ולד שפחה ונכרית, כמותן. Offspring from Jewish ladies are Jewish. Is there a problem?
"Offspring from Jewish ladies are Jewish. Is there a problem?"
ReplyDeleteYes, because the Shulchan Aruch's view in Even H. 8.4 rejects this view. he says offspring follow the lowest common denominator, hence a gentile parent will pass on their religion tot he child, regardless of whether they are the father or mother.
IR: What do you mean by "matrilineal descent"
ReplyDeleteThe notion of a Jewish woman being given a free pass to have children with a non Jewish partner, and have the children to be accepted as 100% Jewish by the Beth Din.
The mechaber in 8.4 says that either parent who has an issur, will pass that down to the child. the fact that in 8.5 he gives the case of a non jewish woman or shifcha etc. does not mean that a Jewish woman has a free pass.
I see no disagreement.
ReplyDelete8.4 follows 8.1-3, all of which refer to cases when BOTH parents are Jewish, and there is a disparity between their lineages.
8.5 is the only one that refers to offspring from a mixed relationship, where the MOTHER is a "shifcha" or "nochris", i.e. not Jewish.
I don't plan to answer about this silly notion of a "free pass".
ReplyDeleteYou are falling into the trap of self -serving mistranslation:
ReplyDeleteHe says in 8.4 כל הנישאת באיסור
Let's assume for the sake of argument that all nochrim are assur (not just the 7 Nations). Thus, whoever marries into an issur... A nochri is just as assur as a mamzer etc.
I think that YOU are the one falling into the trap of self -serving mistranslation.
ReplyDelete1. Context is key. 8.1-4 are all about Jewish people.
2. 8.4 gives explicit examples. A. פסולי כהונה B. פסולי קהל
It says , כל הנישאת באיסור so it is a blanket rule applying to all issurim. He doesn't say only issurim amongst Jews.
ReplyDeleteContext:
ReplyDeleteHe says ואם אחד מהם מפסולי קהל הולד אסור לבא בקהל:
Since the 7 nations or nochrim are assur to enter the Kahal, this applies to them as well as anyone else.
You strangely ignore the next words, where he gives explicit examples:
ReplyDeleteA. פסולי כהונה
B. פסולי קהל
As far as I'm concerned, I consider the case closed, and don't plan to respond anymore on this point. For your own benefit, I advise you to find a local talmid chacham, who will be able to enlighten you on the subject, and how to read the Shulchan Aruch.
Have an informative Shabbos.
IR
A lot of halacha d'rabbanan is aimed at a) adding fences to prevent sin, b) adding fear to prevent sin. In fact Rabbi Rackman ztl wrote a piece called "A Functional Approach to halacha".
ReplyDeleteIn the sense that the matrilineal descent puts to barriers against intermarriage for Jewish women - no conversion required for their Jewish born kids - it provides them a free pass rather than a deterrent.
I repeat, I don't plan to answer about this silly notion of a "free pass".
ReplyDeleteIf you have children, boys or girls, I pray that they never get involved with a non-Jewish partner.
Likewise
ReplyDeletefree pass is sociological , but people make calculations about consequences. Intermarriage is quite a big phenomenon - perhaps this is a double edged sword - it ensures that at least 50% of intermarriages have Jewish offspring, but it also encourages intermarriage, because the lapsed or secular , who are most likely to marry out, see that at least in this world, they won't be punished.
ReplyDeleteWhy?
ReplyDeleteOffspring from gentile ladies are gentiles:
ReplyDeleteNot before Ezra haSofer
I need a reference _ do you know the mishnah where it says the Tzedukim could vote on doraisa matters in the Sanhedrin, but not drabbanan? Thanks in advance and a gutten Shabbes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23486
ReplyDelete“My theory is that among Jews at that time observed well the command “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute קדשה, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute קדש.” (Deuteronomy 23:18). The Jews kept records of family trees.
The rabbinic view is that the Torah attests that the census/enrollment records were true.
God created men with יצר הרע
God created Jewish men to have a huge יצר הרע for the women of the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. In Egypt, even the saintly Joseph, in the midrash, had a huge יצר הרע for the wife of Potifar. This is how God created mankind.
Rabbis decry Jewish men to have sex with non-Jewish women
Megilah 25a
“IF ONE SAYS, AND THOU SHALT NOT GIVE ANY OF THY SEED TO SET THEM APART etc. In the school of R. Ishmael it was stated: The text speaks of an Israelite who has intercourse with a Cuthean woman and begets from her a son for idolatry.”
Wow Rabbi Ishmael says that אשר יתן לזרעו למלך refers to a Jew who has sex with a non-Jewess and begets from her a son.”
It is effectively a "free pass", because she has Jewish children who are not pesulim in any way whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI know people like this, they have "Jewish" children, but are married to goyim.
Kalonymus Anonymus says “It is effectively a "free pass", because she has Jewish children who are not pesulim in any way whatsoever. I know people like this, they have "Jewish" children, but are married to goyim.”
ReplyDeleteThanks KA. For her to have Jewish children, it must be that she is Jewish. Of course her children may have pesulim, e.g. bastards etc. People like this because then their Jewish children are married to goyim. Then these Jewish children married to goyim are like Machlon and Chilion married to Ruth and Orpah.
Bad, because married to goyim violates: “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” (Deuteronomy 7:3) and “join with their noble brothers, and take an oath with sanctions to follow the Teaching of God, given through Moses the servant of God, and to observe carefully all the commandments of the Lord our Lord, His rules and laws. Namely: We will not give our daughters in marriage to the peoples of the land, or take their daughters for our sons.” (Nehemia 10:30-31).
BTW, the Schulchan Aruch is adamant that her say-so alone that her offspring is a true bastard is nothing. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein famously announced at a wedding he was performing---she’s not believed, to a woman telling him that her offspring is illegitimate. What’s your opinion of slander and lies in the K-G heter --- tricks angry women/feminists do when they don’t get their way in the bet din? What’s your opinion of my case SCOTUS 18-9390?
" We will not give our daughters in marriage to the peoples of the land,
ReplyDeleteor take their daughters for our sons.” (Nehemia 10:30-31)."
Whereas an adulteress has to balance the cost of having mamzerim, a regular cross-marrier has a free pass.
K-G/Scotus - I have not got the time to study it - I have to do a chazara of Mishnayot to find a source for something.
Good Shabbes.
KA says “Whereas an adulteress has to balance the cost of having mamzerim, a regular cross-marrier has a free pass.”
ReplyDeleteObviously, you KA, give a free pass to the K-G heter and Tamar staying with her lover and to Susan in SCOTUS 18-9390. You give ladies a free pass saying “a regular cross-marrier has a free pass.” You admit that an adulteress has a problem as adultery is in the 10 commandments. Obviously, you KA don’t view Tamar as an adulteress. Obviously you support Rabbi Rackman and everything on Susan’s Agunah International.
KA, I found a way in SCOTUS 18-9390 to make my case a simple “All my bones shall say, Lord, who is like You? You save the poor from one stronger than he, the poor and needy from his despoiler.” (Psalms 35:10).
Thank you, God, for making me the attorney of record in SCOTUS 18-9390 – a true miracle. I’m not a lawyer. SCOTUS accepts all me papers, with no fees, no notarion, etc. Wow.
Mamzerus is a this worldly cost, since we have no Sanhedrin or sekilah. There is no this worldly cost for the matrilineal woman, since her offspring are still kosher. Follow?
ReplyDeleteKalonymus Anonymus “Mamzerus is a this worldly cost, since we have no Sanhedrin or sekilah. There is no this worldly cost for the matrilineal woman, since her offspring are still kosher. Follow?”
ReplyDeleteWe have no Sanhedrin and no skilah, thus the adulteress has a pass in this world. No cost in this world to the adulteress. A Jewish adulteress has offspring, yes, 100% certain Jewish. No cost to the offspring of the adulteress, except for feeble attempts of mamzer alerts etc. Why are you, KA, saying this ??? Obviously, you take, for example, the Muslim treatment in Pakistan of an alleged adulteress as similar to what our Sanhedrin would do with skilah. Obviously, you don’t like the adamant Schulchan Aruch view that only women have to be checked and verified that they are Jewish, that the man is given a free pass. Am I reading you right, dear friend KA whoever you are? Tell me if you can see my petition papers on SCOTUS 18-9390. Just tell me, on your common sense, if I have a good case. You’re all the way in the UK, yes?
It might Henek rather than skilah, anyways.
ReplyDeleteI only reported the the halacha of the SA, E.H 8:4, which suggests that all imperfections of one parent or other are passed on to the child, in matters of Kohanim, or those who are forbidden to enter into the Klal.
I actually emailed you a while back, using my real name :) So you might know who I am , haha.
Having read your SCOTUS 18-9390, I presume you wrote this without legal representation? Whether they will take kindly to your attack on Judge Prus, I don't know. The case might have merits based on common sense, but not necessarily in legal speak.
Rabbi Rackman ztl was also a member of the Bar, and he could argue his case in American courts. He was in the US army as a chaplain, but he was a victim of McCarthyism, and they punished him by removing his security clearance and giving him a discharge. He decided to go to Military court and represent himself. His case was so well put, that they returned his security clearance, and gave him a promotion. Then he was given an honorable discharge. I think in NY divorce courts you would need a very good (and expensive) lawyer to stand a chance of getting your motion accepted.
@Berel
ReplyDeleteBerel might be an expert in finding phantom Masons, but not in finding phantom Mishnahs.
Haha
ReplyDeleteI'll have to consult my friend, Mr Kehati.
ReplyDeleteIR, do you know the one about sticking a knife into the ground 10x to kosher it?
ReplyDeleteSee Horayot 1:3, Kehati brings the gemara where a Bd is liable only where the sadducees dispute it is forbidden.
ReplyDeleteThe reason is that on explicit statements of the Torah, the sadducees are correct.
I agree this doesn't mean they sat together, but my argument was that not all Karaite /sadducee rulings or opinions are rejected by the mishnah.
Parameters of the halacha regarding sticking a knife into the ground 10x to kosher it:
ReplyDeleteShulchan Aruch/Yoreh Deah/121.7
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Shulchan_Aruch/Yoreh_Deah/121
I knew that source from Horiyos, and it's totally irrelevant to our discussion, unless you shift the goalposts.
ReplyDeletehttp://disq.us/p/224c50l
"If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah, Chazal allowed the Sadducees to vote in the Sanhedrin, on D'oraita questions but not on D'rabbanan, or discarded their opinions on the latter."
You alleged that Sadducees were allowed to be joint members of the regular Sanhedrin. There is NO authentic Jewish source for such an assertion.
You're now singing a different tune.
"I agree this doesn't mean they sat together, but my argument was that not all Karaite /Sadducee rulings or opinions are rejected by the Mishnah."
You give too much credence to the Saducee opinions.
Horiyos (4a)
אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן: והוא שטעה בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו, אבל טעה בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו, זיל קרי בי רב הוא
What do we care about what the Sadducees think? In addition to the effort to clarify the opinion of the sages, we will now have to touch and clarify the opinion of the Sadducees?
Rashi explains:
זיל קרי בי רב הוא. דכיון דאפשר לו ללמוד ולידע לא הוי שוגג מעליא וקרוב למזיד הוי:
This doesn't mean that we consider Saducee opinions. It just means that if Saducees agree on it, then it's such a no-brainer that this doesn't qualify as an "erroneous ruling" on the part of BD, rather it's a case of gross negligence (or malicious intent), for which the Torah did not provide for a sacrifice.
It means sadducee on doraita Is a benchmark for certain halachas. The fact that an orthodox bet din might be corrected by a sadducee one proves my point.
ReplyDeleteIt started when you said my views were karaite on patrilineal.
Anyway. It's good to get correct reference and understanding, thank you.
I am not changing any goalposts, I said, and you just quoted me "
ReplyDelete"If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah".I didn't make categorical claim, and now change my goalposts.
Also, the translation I get from Sefaria is different from yours:
אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אין ב"ד חייבין עד
שיורו בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו אבל בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו פטורין מאי
טעמא זיל קרי בי רב הוא
§ Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A court is not liable to bring an offering unless it issues an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees do not agree.
The Sadducees do not accept the Oral Torah, and they interpret the
Written Torah literally. The court is liable only for a matter that is
not explicitly written in the Torah or that does not clearly stem from
that which is written in the Torah. But with regard to an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees agree, the judges are exempt. What is the reasoning for this exemption? It is a topic that you could go learn in a children’s school. Since the matter the judges ruled upon is so obvious, their ruling simply exhibits ignorance, and is not deemed a ruling
The gemara itself pays heed to what the Sadducees think, so why shouldn't i? It is not justifying Sadducee ideology, just setting the parameters where they differ from Chazal.
A further question arises from this - in that not every Sadducee interpretation of the Written Law is in agreement with Chazal's or the oral law's. Perfect example is the sefirat haomer. So what was this strand of argumentation referring to?
ReplyDeleteThe majority view in Karaite Judaism is that Jewish identity can only be transmitted by patrilineal descent.
ReplyDeleteThat view is against the Gemara and the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch.
I'm still waiting to see that fake "historical" Mishnah, which you so vociferously claimed to exist.
ReplyDeleteYou quoted me as saying
ReplyDelete"If I have correctly remembered the Mishnah"- and I didn't remember its exact stipulation, but I did remember the principle that there is a principal that the Sadducees' view on d'oraita has halachic signficance, even tot he point of whether a BD brings a sacrifice or not. That is what was said, and it was Kehati's reference to the Gemara on the Mishna. So don't put words in my mouth.
OK, and?
ReplyDeleteThe discussion was what the Torah says about lineage, and you agreed it is patrilineal.
The further questions were:
what is the distinction between between "Jewishness" and Israelite/Tribalness? That remains undefined.
Then there was the halacha 8.4 in E.H. that a pgam goes either way to disqualify the child, whether from the mother of father, even in cases of entering the Klal Yisrael.
I had a discussion with one of my local Rabbis, and he pointed me to the Gra.
The point I am yet to be persuaded on, is whether the loshon of that halacha applies to matrilineal or not.
Also, another commentor here, who I previously considered to be hareidi, said that matrilineal began with Ezra.
ReplyDeleteswikipedia saducee
ReplyDeleteThe Rabbis, who are traditionally seen as the descendants of the Pharisees, describe the similarities and differences between the two sects in Mishnah Yadaim. The Mishnah explains that the Sadducees state, "So too, regarding the Holy Scriptures, their impurity is according to (our) love for them. But the books of Homer, which are not beloved, do not defile the hands."[27] A passage from the book of Acts suggests that both Pharisees and Sadducees collaborated in the Sanhedrin, the high Jewish court.[28]
Did they ever sit together in the Sanhedrin? Perhaps in the time of Alexander Yannai?
ReplyDeleteThat makes two of us.
ReplyDeleteAs always, you nailed it!
ReplyDeleteWell done, with all due respect.
ReplyDeleteAhmain and Ahmain!
ReplyDeleteGreat point!
ReplyDeleteI take no responsibility for what anybody else writes, allegedly hareidi, or not.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility aside, an anonymous comment, without any supporting sources, is pretty much worthless.
Factually, it also does not follow from the Sages' remarks, that the halakhah of matrilineal descent underwent alteration in the course of history. Nor is there any hint of this in the book of Ezra.
Can you provide a source from Chazal, that the halakhah of matrilineal descent underwent alteration in the course of history?
ReplyDeleteNote, there is no hint of this in the book of Ezra.
Precisely. The most explicit source for Sadducee members of the Sanhedrin, is a Xtian book (Acts 23:6-8).
ReplyDeleteI know of no source from Chazal, that the Sadducees were allowed to be members of the Sanhedrin in Yerushalayim.
Grasping at straws.
ReplyDelete😁 in Yannai's time, he sided with the sadducees, but that is not lechatchila. It's not grasping at straws, I've heard on several occasions there were tsedukim in the Sanhedrin of his time. That's why Shimon b. Shrtach
ReplyDeleteDon't believe everything that you hear. Ask people for their sources, and take the trouble to look them up!
ReplyDeleteThe alleged source about R' Shimon b. Shetach, is found in Megillas Taanis (28 Teves), ans effectively supports my argument, that there is no source from Chazal that the Sadducees were allowed to be joint members of the regular Sanhedrin.
This alleged "mixed Sanhedrin" in the times of Shimon ben Shatach, was not "mixed". It was fundamentally a breakaway Tzeduki Sanhedrin, as is indicated in the language of the Megillas Taanis שכשהיו הצדוקין יושבין בסנהדרין שלהם, "their Sanhedrin", indicating a different Sanhedrin, one that was separate from the mainstream Sanhedrin.
However R. Shimon b. Shetach managed to infiltrate this particular rebel Sanhedrin, and eventually replaced all their members with Torah loyal rabbis. This is a far cry from a "mixed Sanhedrin".
We have already established that this was not the preferred Sanhedrin, and that the Gemara does not say that. It was a forced Sanhedrin, whether the proper one or not.
ReplyDelete"At times during his reign, the Sanhedrin consisted almost entirely of Sadducees, Simeon being the only Pharisee among them (v. Meg. Ta'anith 10). This fact might be traced also from this
incident [V. Hyman, A., Toledoth, III, 124. A similar story is related by Josephus. (Ant. XIV, 9, 4) of Herod who, as
‘servant’ of Hyrcanus was charged with murder. The identification of the incident related here with that reported by Josephus, involving a confusion of names on the part of the Talmud, as suggested by Krauss, Sanhedrin-Makkot, 103, is quite unwarranted.]"
The language of the Megillas Taanis שכשהיו הצדוקין יושבין בסנהדרין שלהם, "their Sanhedrin", clearly indicates a different Sanhedrin, one that was separate from the mainstream Sanhedrin.
ReplyDeleteI take no responsibility for other people's misreading and misquoting Megillas Taanis.
It doesn't mean it was separate from the regular one, it means the sadducees controlled it. Like, lehavdil, the Knesset. If UTJ took over, then the originals would call it Knesset shelhem.
ReplyDeleteOh - if that was the case. They would have had their own bd all along. Why would it be limited to that period?
ReplyDelete"Don't believe everything that you hear. Ask people for their sources, and take the trouble to look ..."
ReplyDeleteAgreed, thank you.
Perhaps the Sadducees didn't dare to raise their heads to make a breakaway BD, since the Pharisees had the upper hand, and the populace was with the Pharisees. It was only when Yannai took power, and persecuted and murdered Torah sages, that the Sadducees felt strong enough to do so.
ReplyDeleteFurther cases of:
ReplyDeletea) Sadducee opinion serving as a benchmark for halacha.
b) existence of sadducee BD, this time carrying out executions (not mixed).
Talmud
- Mas. Sanhedrin 33b
BUT
NOT FOR CONDEMNATION. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name:
Proving that he erred in a matter which the Sadducees do not admit. But if he erred in a matter which even they admit, let him go back to school and learn it.
Talmud
- Mas. Sanhedrin 52b
R.
ELEAZAR B. ZADOK SAID, IT ONCE HAPPENED THAT A PRIEST'S DAUGHTER
COMMITTED
ADULTERY, etc.
R.
Joseph said: It was a Sadducee6
Beth
din that did this. Now, is this what R. Eleazar b. Zadok
said,
and did the sages answer him so? Has it not been taught: R. Eleazar
b. Zadok said, ‘I remember when I was a child riding on my father's
shoulder that a priest's adulterous daughter was brought [to the
place of execution], surrounded by faggots, and burnt.’ The Sages
answered him: ‘You were then a minor, whose testimony is
inadmissible’?7
—
There were two such incidents.8
Now
which incident did he first relate to them? Shall we say that he
first told them of the incident first mentioned here [which happened
in his majority]: but if he told them what happened in his majority,
and they paid
no
attention to him, surely he would not proceed to tell them what
occurred in his minority? — But
he
must have related this one [of the Baraitha] first, to which they
replied: ‘You were a minor.’ Then
he
told them of the case that occurred in his majority, and they replied, ‘That was done because the Beth din at that time was not learned in the law.
(Because
the Beth din at that time (amplified by R. Joseph as meaning a Beth din of the Sadducees) were not well learned in the law’, shews that
their ruling was in the first instance not based
on the principle of literal interpretation, but the result of ignorance,
it was only subsequently that such ruling crystallized
into
definite principles. J. Derenbourg (Essai, p. 251, n. 2) suggests
that the burning of the priest's adulterous daughter,
described by R. Eleazar b. Zadok, took place during the short
interval between the death of Festus, the Roman
Procurator,
(in 62 C.E.) and the coming of Albinus (63 C.E.). during the
High-Priesthood of Hanan b. Hanan (a
Boethusian
mentioned in Tosef. Yoma i). Cp. also ibid p. 262)
I just posted some more sources which shows they had BD later on too, in Roman times.
ReplyDeletemost Rabbonim agree that Pharisees refers to Chazal, or the Sages of the oral law. No idea why one fellow, claimed they were not Chazal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JxjZ7eXTek
ReplyDeleteKalonymos
Are You a Zedoiki?
hahaha
ReplyDeleteIf it's a subject in the talmud, then analyzing it rationally doesn't make one a tseduki. Unless you believe that "rational" analysis is Tsedukism.
Here ar 2 points:
1) In many cases, the word "Tseduki" is used but it refers to avodah zarah. So it was changed to mask atatcks on other sects who were persecuting the Jews.
2) Many or most frum Jews today believe in gilgul neshamos. Just listen to Rabbi Mizrachi. But where did this all start? The first historical mention of Gilgul was by none other than Anan ben David - the would be gan who started a sect, which was either the karaites or the pre-karaites. And guess who was the biggest authority who opposed the idea of Gilgul? It was none other than Saadia Gaon, the greatest of all the Gaonim, perhaps one of the first philosophers, and staunch fighter of the karaites.
So there we have a new problem: If you are modeh on Gilgul, are you a Tzeduki, and rejecting Saadia? If one is kofer on Gilgul is he with Saadia Gaon, or a Tzeduki? One can be a frummer according to Saadia, and Tseduki according to Arizal.
this is a good video of his
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY9nVZsOmRw
maybe because it's based on Rambam
Where are the zedokim today?
ReplyDeleteAccording to Rav Miller at the Churban they joined with the Roman Invaders and intermarried with them and became Romans!!
Rav Miller has a ton of research on them
They were interested in being like the Roman invaders or occupiers
They were fake and am harotzim completely
You got the wrong end of the stick. The gemara in avodah Zarah says that the tzedukim viewpoint on doraita was basically true, and that this is used as a benchmark for whether a Sanhedrin brings a korban or not.
ReplyDeleteSee also my post about Saadia Gaon on gilgul. He says it is rubbish. Does that mean you hate Saadia Gaon too?
It's unlikely that the high priests intermarried. It was Herod, and his lot. Not sure where he came from, a slave etc.
ReplyDeleteDayan Sherman alleges that the bd of Rav Nachum Rabinovich is not Gedolim but low level. But Sherman is a dwarf. Rav Nahum shlita is a Gaon, producing s commentary on the Yad chazakah of the Rambam, much deeper than what Rav Shach wrote. When Rav Shach met him, was very impressed by his gadlus and scholarship.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.britannica.com/topic/sanhedrin
ReplyDeleteSanhedrin, also spelled sanhedrim, any of several official Jewish councils in Palestine under Roman rule, to which various political, religious, and judicial functions have been attributed. Taken from the Greek word for council (synedrion), the term was apparently applied to various bodies but became especially the designation for the supreme Jewish legislative and judicial court—the Great Sanhedrin, or simply the Sanhedrin, in Jerusalem. There were also local or provincial sanhedrins of lesser jurisdiction and authority. A council of elders, or senate, called the gerousia, which existed under Persian and Syrian rule (333–165 BC), is considered by some scholars the forerunner of the Great Sanhedrin.
ReplyDeleteAlthough eminent sources—the Hellenistic-Jewish historian Josephus, the New Testament, and the Talmud—have mentioned the Sanhedrin, their accounts are fragmentary, apparently contradictory, and often obscure. Hence, its exact nature, composition, and function remain a subject of scholarly investigation and controversy. In the writings of Josephus and the Gospels, for example, the Sanhedrin is presented as a political and judicial council headed by the high priest (in his role as civil ruler); in the Talmud it is described as primarily a religious legislative body headed by sages, though with certain political and judicial functions. Some scholars have accepted the first view as authentic, others the second, while a third school holds that there were two Sanhedrins, one a purely political council, the other a religious court and legislature. Moreover, some scholars attest that the Sanhedrin was a single body, combining political, religious, and judicial functions in a community where these aspects were inseparable.
According to the Talmudic sources, including the tractate Sanhedrin, the Great Sanhedrin was a court of 71 sages that met on fixed occasions in the Lishkat La-Gazit (“Chamber of the Hewn Stones”) in the Jerusalem Temple and that was presided over by two officials (zugot, or “pair”), the nasi and the av bet din. It was a religious legislative body “whence the law [Halakha] goes out to all Israel.” Politically, it could appoint the king and the high priest, declare war, and expand the territory of Jerusalem and the Temple. Judicially, it could try a high priest, a false prophet, a rebellious elder, or an errant tribe. Religiously, it supervised certain rituals, including the Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement) liturgy. The Great Sanhedrin also supervised the smaller, local sanhedrins and was the court of last resort. Again, however, there is a scholarly dispute as to whether the aforementioned specifications are merely an ideal or an actual description. Also, according to one interpretation, the Talmudic sources seem to ascribe to the past a state of affairs that existed only after the fall of the Temple (AD 70).
WHAT IS A TON OF RESEARCH - NAME ONE!
ReplyDeleteExalted people BOOK
ReplyDeletehttps://www.amazon.com/s?k=avigdor+miller+history&i=stripbooks&ref=nb_sb_noss
https://www.amazon.com/Torah-nation-Israels-history-Babylonian-Sanctuary/dp/B0006WTRYC/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_all_spx_wp_0_1/136-7477941-6035405?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=B0006WTRYC&pd_rd_r=7f30a89a-7ce6-4db5-9715-56ec2360e0e9&pd_rd_w=QhKoN&pd_rd_wg=RFW0g&pf_rd_p=ffd394b3-6bb0-43ec-8bd8-b3dd44ab44d6&pf_rd_r=Y98PS99ADB35PNWFDBBR&psc=1&refRID=Y98PS99ADB35PNWFDBBR
ReplyDeleteShoiteh no comparison
ReplyDeleteMiller's books include:
ReplyDeleteYear Title
ISBN/ASIN
1962 Rejoice O Youth!
ISBN 1-60796-296-9
1968 Behold A People ASIN B00147BDGI
1971 Torah Nation ASIN B001N1HBJS
1973 Sing You Righteous ASIN B0032CITKG
1980 Awake My Glory ASIN B000HWDAVW
1987 The Beginning ASIN B00279K63I
1991 Exalted People ASIN B0006YP7EE
1991 A Nation is Born ASIN B002BA11DC
1994 A Kingdom of Priests
1995 The Universe Testifies ASIN B0032CJ32O
1996 Ohr Olam" (Hebrew 10 vol.) (adapted from Rabbi Miller's tapes)
1997 Journey into Greatness ASIN B001CDB5DU
2000 Career of Happiness ASIN B0032CDSZM
2001 A Fortunate Nation ASIN B0032C93L0
2002
Lev Avigdor (לב אביגדור)
2003 Praise My Soul
ISBN 1-931681-48-1
2003
The Path of Life (Rabbi Y. Denese)
2006
The Making of a Nation Haggadah (Rabbi Betzalel Miller)
2012
Rav Avigdor Miller on Emunah and Bitachon (Rabbi Yaakov Astor) ASIN: B008560RXQ
2012 Purim with Rabbi Avigdor Miller - צהלה ושמחה
2011 Q&A Thursday nights With Rabbi Avigdor Miller vol. 1
2013 Q&A Thursday nights With Rabbi Avigdor Miller vol. 2
2014 Q&A Thursday nights With Rabbi Avigdor Miller vol. 3
See also
Samson Rafael Hirsch
R
Idiot, what are you talking about?
ReplyDeleteYOU follow kabbalah, yes? Saadia Gaon said that it's rubbish. So what is your reaction to him? I'm not a player in this, Saadia Gaon was a giant, he knew everything.
ReplyDeleteas a rosh yeshiva replied to such evidence "I can also write a book saying the opposite"
ReplyDeleteWHAT NONSENSE
ReplyDelete