A Jew is considered by his mother or father. The attitude of a Jewish father to the problem of children - goyim
My friend broke up with me because he is Jewish and I am Russian. It turns out, he told me, that a Jew can only marry a Jewish woman. And we were getting ready for the wedding.
In all seriousness, this mother young man She suggested that I go to the archives and “rummage through the genealogy,” and if I found even a drop of Jewish blood, bring them (the parents) a certificate. But my mother said that I wouldn’t find anything.
From Russia with love
The third Sunday of November is a holiday for those who chose to live in a foreign land. Emigrant Day, celebrated on the initiative of national bishops' conferences, is truly exotic for Russia, despite the fact that our country has given the world a huge number of immigrants, and they, in turn, have given the world many celebrities. Milla Jovovich's Slavic roots are a long-known fact, but Lenny Kravitz's Russian grandmother is a big surprise for many.
Immigration to Israel from Russia and Ukraine
This is a rather controversial state, but it is highly popular regarding immigration among people from the CIS, in particular Russia and Ukraine.
I received several requests from readers asking me to make a selection of information that would give general idea about the pros and cons of moving to Israel.
The Law of Return (repatriation of Jews) has been in force since 1950.
How to break it, help, the father and mother were Russian born in Crimea?
You need to receive a written refusal from the Federal Migration Service. then go to court to establish the fact of permanent residence in the territory of the Republic of Crimea as of March 18, 2014.
In a simplified procedure, after receiving a residence permit (without complying with the condition of five-year residence on the residence permit), persons acquire Russian citizenship if they:
are citizens of states that were part of the USSR, have received secondary vocational or higher education in created in Russian Federation organizations implementing educational activities, after July 1, 2002;
have an incapacitated son or daughter who has reached the age of 18, who is a citizen of Russia, and is left without the care of another parent - a citizen of Russia;
recognized as native speakers of the Russian language, that is, they speak Russian and use it every day in family, everyday life and cultural spheres, in the event that they themselves, or their relatives in a direct ascending line, permanently reside or previously permanently resided in the territory of the Russian Federation or in the territory belonging to Russian Empire or the USSR, within the State border of the Russian Federation.
What is Ivan Urgant's nationality?
Ivan’s mother is Russian actress Valeria Ivanovna Kiseleva. Father - Andrei Lvovich Urgant - is also a Russian actor. Andrei Urgant’s mother, Nina Nikolaevna Urgant, was born Estonian. Father - Lev Maksovich Milinder - actor of the Soviet Russian theater, Jewish by origin.
I will tell you all for sure that Ivan has no Jewish roots. He writes everywhere that he is a Jew and asks to be considered a Russian Jew, as if complaining that anti-Simmits hate him and call him a Jew.
My boyfriend
The man I'm dating turned out to be Jewish! Purely Russian surname, absolutely Russian appearance. I couldn't even think of anything like that. And then suddenly in the conversation it turned out that his mother was a purebred Jew. And a few years later, when his father (he is Ukrainian) baptized him according to Orthodox customs, his mother hung a Star of David on his neck.
Who cares who your children will be (even blacks) if you love him! But if you don't like it, then yes.
Father is Jewish, mother is Russian
Question: I grew up in Crimea, my father is Jewish, I lived for 33 years with the idea that I was a Jew. Since childhood I was told that I was a Jew and the son of a Jew, when I grew up I went into the army, it was the same there, I returned from the army again the same song. True, after finishing my military service, they were already afraid to say this to my face. I came to Israel - I’m Russian, is this right?
The fact that in Russia you were called a “Jew” speaks about the spiritual level (or rather, the lack thereof) of those with whom you encountered.
Why is Jewishness determined by mother?
I don’t know what to answer you. After all, if for you this is not a question, but a shock of life, when it suddenly turned out that you or your children are not Jews, there is no answer to this. Especially for those who throughout their lives not only considered themselves a Jew, but also suffered as a Jew, no explanation will be convincing. For feelings, logic is illogical.
But if you are just interested, then I want to ask you. A Turk married a Japanese woman.
I am Jewish, my wife is not. Who is our son?
The rabbi of the Russian-speaking community of Baltimore and Washington, Rabbi V. Belinsky, answers your questions.
Dear Rabbi Belinsky!
I am Jewish myself, and my wife is non-Jewish. This doesn’t bother me at all, because I sincerely believe that nationality does not determine anything - the main thing is that there is a good person. And for me there is no better person in the world than my wife!
But unexpectedly we were faced with a problem that outrages and worries me to the point of pain in my heart! The fact is that when we wanted to perform a Bar Mitzvah for my son, the synagogue refused to allow us to perform the ceremony. They said that since my wife was non-Jewish, our son was also non-Jewish, and therefore there was no question of a Bar Mitzvah. Does Judaism still believe that the nationality of a child's mother is its main characteristic?
Paul R. Owings Mills, MD
Answer: Pavel, you touched on a very sore subject. I understand your indignation. However, unfortunately, I cannot help you. According to Jewish tradition, Jewishness should be transmitted only through the maternal line - this is written in the Torah itself.
The Lubavitcher Rebbe was once asked why nationality is passed on to a child from the mother? He replied: “Can the Almighty be so cruel as to take away her child from a mother after she carried him, gave birth in pain and breastfed him?” Everyone understands (even from a purely biological point of view) that a woman plays a predominant role in the birth of a new life. However, most cultures of the world are based on male dominance, and according to their tradition, a woman was considered the property of a man, and the children born by her belonged exclusively to their father. The fact that today many traditions still believe that nationality is transmitted through the male line is an echo of dark antiquity.
From time immemorial, Judaism has revered woman in all her forms, especially the woman-mother. Therefore, in the Jewish tradition, nationality is given to a child on the maternal side. However, there are situations in which this awareness can be very painful for us men. And, no matter how regrettable it may be, the problem you write about concerns many people. In the Soviet Union, some did not even know that Jewishness depends on the mother, and their souls now hurt because their children cannot be considered Jews.
But, on the other hand, if we approach the issue from a purely logical point of view, then there should be no room for indignation and grief. If, as you sincerely believe, a person’s nationality does not determine anything, then why does it bother you “to the point of pain in your heart” that your son cannot be a Jew? Nationality doesn't determine anything, does it? If “the main thing is that he be a good man", then you can raise your son to be a good person without a Bar Mitzvah. Why then do you need this ceremony?
“Good” and “bad” are a very important, but far from the only scale by which people are characterized. Judaism has never claimed that Jewish women are the best wives and Jewish men are the best. best husbands. Judaism has never claimed that Jews are more moral people. It is quite possible that you will find situations in which the opposite is true.
The Torah believes in the uniqueness of each person and each group of people. And therefore the religion given to the Jews is prescribed only for them. The Torah believes that man cannot forget his roots and origins.
However, Judaism never closes its doors to those who want to enter - anyone can convert to Judaism. To do this, you need to get acquainted with the Jewish tradition, want to live according to the laws of the Torah and undergo conversion - the formal acceptance of Judaism. After this, the person is one hundred percent Jewish. But conversion is a serious and long process. It is quite possible that when your son grows up, he will want to do this and then, like you, he will be a Jew.
Having been brought up in the spirit of Soviet egalitarianism, it is hard for us to believe that we, Jews, are somehow different from other peoples. However, this can be verified by studying world history. You can verify this by looking around you. You can see this by seeing a Jewish father who claims that nationality does not determine anything, but whose soul hurts because his son is a non-Jew.
No other nation in the world has such a rule - the nationality of the child is determined by the mother. There are several explanations for this. Most likely, all of them, to one degree or another, influenced the establishment of such a tradition.
The main and determining reason is what the Torah commands. For many centuries, Jews were forbidden to marry women of other nationalities, since it was believed that the child was most connected with the mother. The mother, while still in the womb, passes on the genetic memory of her people to the child. And then, engaged in education, he continues to do this until his offspring fully matures. For Jews, culture is decisive for self-identification. That is why the cult of the mother is so developed among Jews.
But this is not the only reason for this phenomenon. Rather, the tradition, enshrined in the Torah as law, arose as a reaction to the realities in which Eretz Israel found itself under Roman rule.
In those ancient times, many Jewish women were raped by the Romans. They gave birth to children. And the adoption of such a rule - nationality is transmitted through the maternal line - was intended to preserve these women for Jewry and, most importantly, to preserve their children for Jewry. Ultimately, at a time when Jewish men often died in endless wars, the introduction of such a rule helped save the Jews as a nation.
Explanations of Jewish scholars
1. Biological. There are thousands of examples in history when problems arise with establishing paternity. Or when several men simultaneously claim the right to be considered the father of a child. In the case of the mother, the child's identity is not in doubt. That is why the mother was given priority.
2. Hereditary. More recently, genetic scientists have discovered that a mother's intelligence is always passed on to her children, but a father's intelligence is not. It all depends on the gender of the child. If a girl is born, then the quality of her intelligence will be average between her father and mother, i.e. approximately 50% from father and 50% from mother. If a boy is born, then the father's genes do not participate at all in shaping the quality of his intelligence; he gets 100% from his mother.
3. Social. The mother spends much more time with the child than the father. It is the mother who transmits traditions to the child - what is called culture. And for Jews this is precisely what determines the preservation of the nation.
4. Legal. When Palestine was under Rome, the entire population, regardless of nationality, was subject to Roman law. And it read: children born to men who cohabited with a woman, but did not marry her, did not receive Roman citizenship and received the mother’s descent. Thus, Jewish law reflected the legal realities in which Eretz Israel existed.
According to the Talmud, Jewishness is transmitted through the mother. However, this is contrary to the Torah (Bible). In the Torah, the Jews are called the children of Israel. After the name of the forefather of the Jewish people of Israel (previously his name was Jacob). If Jewishness is transmitted through the mother, then why is the people never called in the Torah the sons of Rachel, or Leah (Leah) (both wives of Israel)?
It is not possible to count ALL nations by their father, but only Jews by their mother. It turns out that there is a “conflict” of nationalities and religions in one person. Especially if the dad, for example, is a Christian. According to his father, the child is Russian Orthodox, and according to his mother, he is Jewish. Some are right from their point of view, others from theirs. The child is baptized after the father, and circumcised after the mother. According to his father, Jesus Christ is God, and according to his mother, Yoshka is a bastard and the son of a harlot. On Saturday he goes to the Shema Israel synagogue with his mother, and on Sunday he bows to the icons in church. And who is he after that? Abram Nikolaevich Necheporenko? It turns out to be porridge.
The Bible, and even Judaism, calls for following the faith of our fathers, not our mothers. So what should the son of a Russian and a Jewish woman do? Both Orthodoxy and Judaism call for following the faith of the fathers, but according to the Talmud it turns out that the faith of the mothers is necessary? After all, this is absurd.
Or vice versa. Mom is a Karaite, dad is a Jew. Jews do not recognize a child as a Jew, and Karaites do not recognize a child as a Karaite. What should a child do? Who is he - a Karabevite Jew? It is very doubtful that the Jewish God would allow this.
If both sides do not determine the status of these children according to the same criterion, then a conflict will arise that will be resolved in favor of the stronger of them. If the legality of a marriage was recognized by non-Jewish authorities, then they had the decisive vote in determining the identity of the children from these marriages. No children of Jewish fathers and mothers felt any Jewish soul. Until they were reminded “very tactfully” by Hitler equally.
Until the 19th century mixed marriages were almost always accompanied by baptism. In the 19th century In many countries, mixed marriages were already allowed without the obligatory preliminary baptism of Jewish brides and grooms, but the children of both Jewish fathers and Jewish mothers from these marriages were baptized in almost 100% of cases.
Of course, in a dispute between father and mother, the father, the head of the family by definition, wins, because we live in a patriarchal society. The most famous and typical example of this is the decision of the US Court. When the Jew Klein and his non-Jewish wife had a daughter, the father insisted on raising her as a Jew. But the Klein family fell apart, the daughter began to live with her mother, and the child’s mother now wanted her daughter to be raised both as a Jew and as a Christian. As a result, the girl found herself on the verge of a nervous breakdown, not understanding how to behave. The father went to court demanding that the girl stay with him and be raised as a Jew. The court proceeded from the equality of the rights of the father and mother to pass on their faith to the child, however, guided by the rule “the interests of the child come first,” it upheld Klein’s claim. The father’s faith “won.”
Many historians and authorities on heterodox Judaism argue that Jewishness was originally passed down through the father. The rule “by mother” was finally established after the Khmelnytsky region, when many women gave birth after rape. Until the 16th century, there were no scientific facts confirming this new rule. This is stated, for example, in the complete Hebrew version of the History of the Jewish People, edited by Prof. Etinger. It is used as a textbook in Israeli universities. Not the two-volume one in Russian from the Aliya Library, but the four-volume one. There is no stated fact or precedent in the entire Talmud that a certain Jew is a Jew because his mother is Jewish. (see details of the discussion of this point).
Jews explain the transition to Jewishness through their mother by the obvious and accessible establishment of motherhood and the difficulty of obtaining convincing evidence of paternity.
But why did only Jews switch to motherhood? Other nations also faced this problem but did not give up paternity.
This artificial principle of facilitating the determination of nationality corresponds to the saying “They look not where they have lost, but where it is light and easier to look.” That is, objective criteria are replaced by subjective and moral and ethical ones.
But these days, Jewish women voluntarily marry people of other faiths, including atheists. Even if both parents are Jews, and the child is an atheist, then he is actually not a Jew. AND before the Jews atheists were expelled from the community and treated as dead, as well as converts to another faith. For example, this happened with one of the founders of modern atheism - the outstanding philosopher Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza. He was severely beaten by the Orthodox and excommunicated from the community for his atheism. Even though his parents are Jews.
However, all the wives of the patriarchs were non-Jews. Pharaoh himself gave Joseph as a wife “Asnat, daughter of Potiphera, priest of On.” At the same time, both of their sons from a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father became Jews and even ancestors of the tribes of Israel! Both of Moses' wives were non-Jews.
2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a thorn bush
6 And he said: I am God father yours
9 And behold, a cry sons of Israel has reached Me...
10 Now go, and I will send you to Pharaoh; and bring out my people, sons Israelites, from Egypt.
13 And Moses said to God, Behold, I will come to sons Israelites and I will say to them: “The God of your fathers has sent me to you.” And they will say to me: “What is His name?” What should I tell them?
15 And God said again to Moses, Say thus sons Israelev: Lord, God fathers yours, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you.
16 Go, gather the elders of Israel and say to them: The Lord God fathers yours, appeared to me. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying: I remembered you and (saw) what is happening to you in Egypt.
17 And he said: I will bring you out from under the yoke of Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, the Heitites, the Emorites, the Perizites, the Hivites, and the Hibites, to a land flowing with milk and honey. (Shemot (Exodus) 3)
1 When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and take possession of it and settle in it...
5 say: father mine was a wandering Aramean, and he went to Egypt and settled there with a few people, and there arose from him a great, strong and numerous people;
7 And we cried out to the Lord God fathers ours;
15 Look down from Thy holy habitation from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel, and the land which Thou hast given us, as Thou hast sworn fathers to ours [give us] a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deuteronomy 26)
What do we see? Moses mentions only his father, not his mother, and mentions that all the people came from his father, and not from his mother. God is called the "God of fathers" and not of mothers. God calls the Jews sons of their fathers. The female gender is not crushed at all. Only men.
Consider the biblical example of the son of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man. Leviticus (24:10-22):
and went out son of an Israeli and (aka) son of an Egyptian on Wednesday sons of Israel, and quarreled in this camp son of an Israeli woman with an Israeli man (in Hebrew text verbatim "with the son of Israel" ).
And the son of the Israelite woman insulted the Name and cursed... and God said: “Bring him who curses out of the camp, and the whole community will stone him. And tell the children of Israel this: whoever curses his God will bear his sin. And he who insults the Name of Jehovah will die will be betrayed, the whole society will throw stones at him: both the ger (alien) and resident of the country (ezrah), he who curses the name will be put to death. You will have one law for a stranger and a resident of the country".
“The son of an Israelite and an Egyptian” is NOT called a “son of Israel”! But in contrast to this son of a Jewish woman all other Israelites are called children of Israel in the same passage! He is contrasted with the milieu of the “sons of Israel” (“Bnei Israel” in the original Hebrew). Not “sons of Israel,” but specifically “sons of Israel.” “Son of Israel” is a synonym for the word “Jew,” for Israel is the forefather of all Jews, spiritual and physical. By Israel is meant the entire people, and the “son of Israel” means each individual Jew, the son of the people. It is symbolic that it was the son of a pagan father who became a blasphemer. His mother's Jewish roots did not influence him in any way.
Even more interesting is the interpretation of this moment by the most authoritative sage in Orthodox Judaism, Rashi:
"And the son of the Israelite woman and the son of the Egyptian went out to among the children of Israel",
"among the children of Israel"
Rashi:"Teaches that he became a proselyte ( joined to the people of Israel)[Sifra]"
Rashi emphasizes that the son of an Israeli woman became a proselyte, that is, he converted to Judaism from paganism. Accordingly, from birth from an Israeli mother, he was not a Jew, as is now accepted in Judaism, but only once joined the people of Israel!!!
Thus, none other than the great Rashi himself admits that Jewishness was not previously transmitted through the mother. Moreover, Rashi himself was not the first to notice this. He refers to "Sifra" (Aramaic סִפְרָא, corresponding to Hebrew sefer, "book") - a halakhic midrash for the book of Leviticus - a collection of Tannaite barait.
Thus, Rashi scored an own goal. The Jews themselves, and even the most revered ones in Judaism, manage to refute the fundamental postulates of Judaism better than any Christians.
The period of Jewish statehood also provides many examples of intermarriage, including the intermarriages of David, Solomon, and Ahab.
During this period, I know from the Bible only one Jewish woman who married a non-Jew - Queen Esther. And it’s hard to believe that the children of this Jewish mother and the father of the KING OF THE PAGENTS, who himself was probably considered a deity, became Jews.
The key passage in the Bible from which Jews begin to reason about the inheritance of Jewishness through the mother and the prohibition of intermarrying with other peoples is the 7th chapter of the book of Devarim (according to the Christian tradition, “Deuteronomy”).
This is how the modern Jewish respected rabbi Eliyahu Essas does it:
In the Written Torah, in the fifth book - Devarim it is said, What cannot be created family with non-Jews:
"Don't enter into family relationships with them. Do not marry your daughter to his (non-Jewish) son. But do not take his daughter for your son" (chapter 7, art. 3). http://www.evrey.com/sitep/askrabbi1/q.php?q=otvet/q66.htm
So, Rav Essas is talking about non-Jews in general and not about some ancient peoples. Now let's see what the Torah says:
A sane reader-truth seeker will immediately think, “Who is this “with them” with?” With the Russians or the Chinese? And he will understand that this is hack work. Therefore, he will open the text of the Torah and see who the pronoun “with them” corresponds to.
This is designed to make people trust sages and not check quotes. But it is not so much the sages who are to blame as the gullible readers and listeners themselves. If a person wants to know the truth, then he will check the quote, and if he wants to hear what he wants to hear because he is a Jew, then that is his problem.
As Christ said, “they are blind leaders of the blind; and if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14).
Here is an example of how Jewish school graduate Leya Livshits “fell” into the same “pit.” (pictured right). Her the request article is called"Please marry a Jew!" :
The Torah clearly prohibits marriage with representatives of other nations. This prohibition is one of the 613 commandments, and can be traced historically from the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai more than 3,000 years ago. The source of the prohibition is in the verse: “And do not be related to them:You shall not give your daughter for his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son” (Deuteronomy 7:3)
Leya Livshits
As you can see, Leah grabbed a snippet of a quote from the Torah, leaving behind the main thing - the prohibition not to become related not to all non-Jews, but only to the 7 nations that inhabited the Promised Land.
And the reader mistakenly thinks that we are talking about all nations. Thus the lie becomes "the great wisdom given orally from Sinai." Let me emphasize again for the inattentive reader. In the Bible, Jehovah personally speaks only about 7 nations. Jehovah does not speak about all nations. There is no such thing in the text of the Bible (Torah).
But the Jews do not quote the words of Jehovah only about the 7 nations, but begin the quotation after these words and instead of the words of Jehovah about the 7 nations listed by name, they substitute their own own words about ALL peoples. And if the reader does not check the text of the Torah, like I did, then he will never know that Jehovah is not talking about everyone, but only about 7 separate nations.
Please note - after Leah Livshits’ article, someone Andrei commented that she was deceiving, hiding the fact that it is not forbidden to be related to everyone, but only to some peoples.
To which a certain Miriam replied:
You can only judge the context by reading Hebrew.In the Torah, every letter, every vowel, every common root has a meaning.So you can’t draw conclusions from the Russian translation
But the same thing is written in Hebrew. Leah Livshits, proving the Jewish point of view, refers to the Russian translation - this is correct, but if she is objected to on the basis of the same translation made by the Jews, What are you! How can you object to a graduate of a Jewish school!
In some Christian editions of the Bible, before each chapter it is written summary chapter, and before this chapter it is correctly indicated “the prohibition of becoming related to the 7 nations that inhabited the Promised Land.” But how often do Jews criticize Christians by taking quotes out of context? As the Christian Christ said, “They see a speck in someone else’s eye, but they don’t notice a club in their own.”
Rabbi-mathematician and popularizer of Judaism Pinchas Polonsky manipulates the transmission of Jewishness through the mother in the Bible as follows:
The first story in the Torah that describes the process of marriage is the story of how Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac. And this is the instruction Abraham gives to his servant:
"I conjure you that you will not take my son a wife from among his daughters. Canaanites among whom I live. But you will go to my land and to my relatives, and from it you will take a wife for my son Isaac" (Genesis 24:3)
Hocus Pocus. I twist and turn, I want to confuse. Which thimble contains the ball? The Canaanites are one of those 7 nations with which Jews are forbidden to become related. But Polonsky cites this example as proof that Jewishness is transmitted precisely through the mother - they say they looked for a mother for future grandchildren among Abraham's relatives - the Jews. But, Polonsky ignores the fact that Abraham emphasizes " you will not take my son a wife from among his daughters Canaanites among whom I live ".
Abraham simply had no other choice - only 2 options. Either his relatives or the Canaanites. There is no third. It’s not right to send a slave to Japan to get a wife. And nearby there are only Canaanites forbidden by God, “among whom I live.”
This is due to particularly disgusting moral traditions in these peoples - human sacrifice, homosexuality, witchcraft rituals and other abominations.
The erroneous explanation of the transmission of Jewishness through the mother is most clearly explained by Rav Michael Koritz (he is the one most often referred to when discussing this topic):
The basis of this law is taken from the following Torah verses:
"AND SHALL NOT BE BORN WITH THEM: YOU SHALL NOT GIVE YOUR DAUGHTER TO HIS SON, AND YOU SHALL NOT TAKE HIS DAUGHTER TO YOUR SON. /4/ FOR YOUR SON WILL BE TURNED AWAY FROM ME, AND THEY SHALL SERVE OTHER GODS, AND THE WRATH OF GOD WILL BE BURNED UPON YOU AND DESTROY YOU HE WILL SEE YOU SOON" (Devarim 7, 3 - 4)
Rashi makes the following commentary on this verse: “If the son of a pagan takes your daughter as his wife, he will turn away your son (i.e., the grandson) whom your daughter will bear for him (from following) Me. This teaches us that the son of your the daughter of a pagan is called “your son,” but the son of your son by a pagan is not called “your son,” but “her son”; for in connection with “thou shalt not take his daughter,” it is not said, “for she will turn away your son from following Me.” "(Talmud, tractate Yevamot 23a)
In other words: There are two prohibitions in verse 3 when the non-Jewish party is male or female. In verse 4 there is only one case, and the action “will turn away” is used in the masculine gender. This forces the sages to explain that we are talking about a non-Jew, and the son mentioned further is not a son, but a grandson. The use of the word son in relation to more distant descendants is often found in the Torah. Thus, the son of a daughter will be a grandson, but the son of a son, if he married a non-Jew, will not. Seems too complicated? But a careful analysis of the text inevitably leads us to such conclusions. However, we should not forget that the written text was always accompanied by an oral tradition containing its exact understanding."
"- BECAUSE WILL TURN YOUR SON FROM [FOLLOWING] ME - the son of a Gentile, when he marries your daughter, will turn away your son whom your daughter bears to him from [following] me. [Thus] we have learned that the son of your daughter by a Gentile is called “thy son,” but the son of your son by a Gentile is not called “thy son,” but [is called] "her son""
On the contrary, in the example of the son of an Israeli woman and an Egyptian from Leviticus (24:10-22), the son of a Hebrew woman is not called the son of Israel! and the son of an Egyptian! By father! Everything is exactly the opposite of what the sages say!
And in general, the sages say something completely unreasonable. If someone is called the son of a Jew or a Jewess, this does not mean that this son is necessarily a Jew. He is simply his (her) son. For completely ordinary physiological reasons. Isn’t the son of a Jewish woman and a Russian now the son of a Russian? But even if we proceed from the logic of the sages, the son of a Jewish woman is called not the son of Israel, but the son of an Egyptian - after his father! While other Jews are called sons of Israel.
But even if we agree with the opinion of the sages that we are talking about the son of a Jewish woman, then God does not mention the son of a Jew, because he is not worried. Why should He bother, because he made a Covenant with his father, which he is obliged to pass on to his son:
These are the commandments, statutes and laws that God commanded that you should do in the land into which you are moving to take possession of it, so that you may fear God and keep all His statutes and His commandments - you and your son and your son's son " (Deuteronomy 6:1,2)
Let these words that I command you today be upon your heart. And repeat them to yours sons(Deuteronomy 6:6,7).
When yours asks you son Then tell your son(Deuteronomy 6:20,21).
(In Hebrew, “you” is in the masculine form (in Russian there is no difference), “SAY” IS THE SAME - GOD ADDRESSES ONLY TO MEN AND SPEAKS ONLY ABOUT SONS).
The only thing that is said unequivocally and undoubtedly is that it is the SON who will turn away, and not the daughter. God is not at all interested in the disgust of a daughter - a descendant from a mixed marriage. It follows that God recognizes that it is the father, not the mother, who influences the self-identification of children from a mixed marriage. And accordingly, future children from the son of a mixed marriage will follow in the footsteps of their father and not their mother. And if the son of a mixed marriage turns away from God, then so will his descendants.
Rabbi Michael Koritz continues to argue:
for in connection with “do not take his daughter” it is not said “for she will turn your son away from following Me” (Talmud, tractate Yevamot 23a)
The mistake of the sages is that they write “the son of your son by a non-Jewish woman” [called] "her son"", but he is not called “her son” anywhere in this passage of the Torah. The sages were mistaken. And then they explain why he is supposedly called “her son.” Moreover, they explain it completely illogically - they proceed from what is not said. They explain why he is called “her son”, but he is not called as such. This is the same as proving 2X2 = 5 because in connection with “2X2” it is not said that “2X2 is not 5”.
Torah commentators continue to argue:
In other words: There are two prohibitions in verse 3 when the non-Jewish party is male or female. In verse 4 there is only one case, and the action “will turn away” is used in the masculine gender. This forces the sages to explain that we are talking about a non-Jew, and the son mentioned next is not a son, but grandson.
Please note that the verb “disgustes” is used without the pronoun “he”. And according to the context, the impersonal form “this will disgust” and not “it will disgust” is appropriate. Since the previous 3rd verse ends with “and do not marry his daughter to your son” and therefore in the next sentence the verb can either refer to her or to no one in particular, but to the entire previous verse. But, since the verb is in the masculine form, the second option remains.
In an impersonal form, neither masculine nor feminine, it is translated through “this” in the most authoritative Russian language Jewish translation by Soncino, and in another Jewish translation by David Yosefon - also in an impersonal form plural"For will disgust your son is from me". Therefore, it makes no sense to carry out all the reasoning based on the premise “he will disgust.”
But it is precisely from this premise that the sages draw the conclusion that we are talking about the son of a Jewish woman, whose pagan husband “he will turn away.”
But even if “he” turns away, then who is he anyway? For some reason, the sages believe that “he” is the husband of the Jewish woman. But in verse 3 a certain “he” has already appeared, for whose children Jewish children should not be given away: “ And do not be related to them: do not give your daughter for his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because he will turn away..." - we see from the third verse that “he” is simply any non-Jewish people. That’s all! Just like “you” - the one to whom God is speaking - is the Jewish people. That is, “he will turn away” - the pagan people will turn away not the grandson, but the Jewish husband of a non-Jewish woman from 7 nations. It’s very simple.
Moreover. The Hebrew word for “thy son,” “benha,” can be translated not only as “son,” but also as “child,” of either gender. By analogy with the Russian language.
Let me remind you that this is a fragment from the book “Dvarim”, where the laws set out earlier in the book “Shemot” are repeated. Even if we follow the logic of traditional interpreters and assume that we are talking about a grandson, we will pay attention to the Shemot verse corresponding to the above (34:16):
ולקחת מבנתיו, לבניך; וזנו בנתיו, אחרי אלהיהן, והזנו את-בניך, אחרי אלהיהן
And you will take from his daughters for your sons, and his daughters will become corrupt, following their gods, and they will corrupt your sons by their gods.
Here the children of non-Jews (and the “grandsons” of Jews) are called NOT “her sons,” as the sages erroneously stated in their interpretation of Devarim (7:4), but "yours" (Jewish) sons who will be corrupted by “their daughters.” The father is Jewish, and the mother is non-Jewish, “their daughter”, and their son - it turns out that the father is Jewish, “your son”.
What both passages say clearly is that it is SON will disgust, not the daughter. This corresponds to my version that it is the son who is the “bearer” of Jewry. Not just kind. Because here Moshe is addressing the entire people of Israel, and not just one tribe.
All his descendants came to Egypt with Jacob -
3 And He said: I am God, God father yours; Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there.
5 And Jacob rose up from Beersheba, and they took sons Israelites of Yaakov, father his own, and his little ones, and his wives...
7Their sons and their sons' sons what's with him, daughters their and daughters sons his own, and he brought all his family with him to Egypt (Genesis 46)
Note! The sons of daughters are not mentioned among the Jews, but the sons of sons and the daughters of sons are mentioned. Again, because Jewishness is not passed on from daughters to granddaughters or grandchildren. Only from sons!
Only his grandchildren and granddaughters remained with Yakov. male line (sons and daughters of his sons). The female lines did not remain among Jacob's Jewish descendants. Only his unmarried daughters came to Egypt with Jacob, otherwise their husbands and children would have been among those who entered. Who they married in Egypt and what the fate of them and their children was, whether they remained part of the tribes of Israel - the Torah is silent. The children of those who remained became the sons of Israel, and the children of those who left became the Egyptians. In the Torah, everything is only in the male line, but the Almighty does not reject Jews in the female line with the only condition that a non-Jewish father does not reject the son of a Jewish woman (Devarim 7:4), in other words, if the son of a Jewish woman wants to be a Jew and feels like a Jew, also like a Russian - Russian, a Chinese - Chinese, etc.
And also in favor of maternal Jewishness is the separation from non-Jewish wives and “their” children in the book of Ezra. Let's read what is written there. Ezra (9:1):
The rulers came to me and said: The people of Israel and the priests and Levites were not separated from the foreign nations. WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites,
Firstly, the people of Israel, the priests and Levites are reproached not so much for taking pagan wives, but for not separating themselves from their abominations (pagan traditions and foreign gods). Secondly, we are talking only about these above-mentioned peoples, and NOT about any peoples! But why are these peoples listed here? Because God Not prohibits Jews from taking wives from ALL nations, namely only those listed above, that is, those nations that lived in the Promised Land!
These are the nations with which you cannot be related, listed in the book of Devarim (7:1): “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are going to take possession of it, and drives out many nations from before you: The Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perzeites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations,...don’t be related to them.” Almost all of these nations are listed in the book of Ezra, which the sages do not quote at all. 2 more nations that are on this list of Ezra were included in the list of “forbidden nations” in Devarim (23:3) - these are the Ammonites and Moabites. And one more people - the Egyptians. By definition, you cannot be related to these people. That's why they left Egypt.
And with other peoples, be related as much as you want. Take them as your wife without any conversion for health reasons. Devarim (21:10–14):
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers (everyone) into your hand, and you take a prisoner from him, and you see a beautiful woman among the captives, and you desire her, and you want to take her as your wife, then bring her to your house... and she will be your wife. If it happens that you do not want her, then let her go wherever she wants, but do not sell her for silver, do not turn her into a slave, for you forced her.
“For you forced her” means that no conversion was even close. Conversion is voluntary.
In the book of Ezra in the same chapter 9, Ezra himself explains on the basis of which he separated the wives from these nations, mentioning that these were precisely the nations who lived in the territory of the promised land, about which Moshe spoke earlier:
1 The people of Israel and the priests and Levites were not separated from the foreign nations WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites., ...10 we have departed from Your commandments, 11 which You commanded... saying: the land you are going to in order to take possession of it, the land is unclean, it is defiled by the uncleanness of foreign peoples, their abominations, with which they filled it from end to end in their defilements. So, do not marry your daughters to sons. their , and daughters their do not marry your sons 14 Shall we again break Your commandments and become related to THESE disgusting peoples?
Ezra lists the nations and emphasizes what he says ONLY ABOUT THESE disgusting nations that Moshe spoke about 1000 years before him, and not all of them! No need to take the phrase out of context!
But even more interesting in Ezra (10:3):
וְעַתָּה נִכְרָת-בְּרִית לֵאלֹהֵינוּ לְהוֹצִיא כָל-נָשִׁים וְהַנּוֹלָד מֵהֶם
Let us now make a covenant with our God release all wives and their offspring
Please note that the pronoun מֵהֶם – “from them, by them” costs in male gender in the plural. That is, it is necessary to release non-Jewish women and children born from them (from men). (This is a common expression in the biblical text when a man “gave birth” to a child: “Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob.”, etc.).
What kind of men are we talking about, the children born from whom should be released?
This means that “they” mean foreign men. Therefore, again, children from non-Jewish husbands are not considered Jews.
It may also refer to the children of pagan women from their previous marriages to pagan men. But this is unlikely and does not change the essence of the matter - in any case, nowhere is it said to release children born from Jewish fathers. This means that the children of Jewish fathers are Jews. For Jews are not expelled from Jewish society.
There are some exceptions in the Hebrew Bible where feminine plural words are used with a masculine pronoun. On the Kuraev forum, Rav Michael Jedwabny objected to me: “I still believe that the meaning of the verse is 100% transparent.” But the problem is that the meaning is transparent only in the translation into Russian, in which there is no difference between the masculine and feminine gender in the plural, but in Hebrew there is. Yes, there are individual exceptions, but building a Jewish theory on the fact that in this case an exception to the rule is not serious.
So far, through our combined efforts, we have been able to find one exception - Ecclesiastes 2:10
“Whatever my eyes asked for (einai is a feminine word), I did not refuse them (me-ham).”
So, who does Ezra separate from his people? Non-Jewish mothers and children from non-Jewish fathers (and, accordingly, Jewish mothers).
If children of non-Jewish fathers were considered non-Jewish, they would be released. And it was non-Jewish women and children of Jewish mothers (and therefore non-Jewish fathers) who were released.
Hence the conclusion is drawn that nationality is determined by the father.
Ezra's book ends with another interesting expression. Ezra(10:44):
כל-אלה, נשאי (נשאו) נשים נכריות; ויש מהם נשים, וישימו בנים
All of them (took) foreign wives, and among them (those who took) foreign women, and put sons.
Please note that these foreign wives DID NOT GIVE BIRTH!!! sons, but “laid down.” Moreover, they put it in the masculine plural. This is a literal translation. The meaning is “planted” or perhaps “planted”, “brought”. But the main thing is that these women did not give birth to children for Jews. A completely different verb is used in this case. That is, these are children not from Jewish fathers. Perhaps Jews took wives with children from previous marriages, or took as wives pregnant women from non-Jews.
For comparison, when verse 3 of this chapter spoke about children born of pagans, the verb “gave birth” was used. In short, it turns out that foreign women gave birth to children from pagans and “planted” them with the Jews. It was these women and their children that Ezra ordered to be released—those “born” of non-Jews and “placed” with Jews. And about the expulsion of children born by fathers Jews - not a word. Therefore, the children of Jewish fathers are Jews, and the children of non-Jewish fathers are non-Jews, and they had nothing to do among the Jews. Therefore, they were released with their mothers.
With the expression “veyasimu banim” the Tanakh mocks those men who took other people’s wives, saying: וישימו – added, imposed, otherwise they would say: יולדו (yolidu) – “gave birth.” Ezra does not recognize the legality of such a birth.
Moreover, Ezra is again concerned that the pagans “laid down” sons, and not children in general or daughters. Again, because non-Jewish sons will produce non-Jewish descendants. And Ezra is not at all concerned about the addition of his daughters, because they do not affect the Jewishness of his descendants.
Bereshit Chapter 46:
8. Here are the names sons of Israel, who came to Egypt - Jacob and his sons. Yaakov's firstborn son Reuven.
9. Reuven's sons Hanoch, Palu, Hezron and Carmi. 10. Shimon's sons Emuel, Yamin, Hoad, Jachin, Tzohar and the son of the Canaanite woman Saul
So, Saul is the son of a Canaanite woman. The man Yaakov Shaul is the grandson of the man. But he is also called “son of Israel” - that is, a Jew, although his only father, Shimon, is a Jew. Jew on my father's side!
But who is this Canaanite mother?
Soncino's comment:
"son of the Canaanite woman" Luzzatto explains that she was the daughter of Dinah. She is called a Canaanite here because her father was Shechem
This is an absolutely amazing comment.
Let me remind you that Shechem is a Canaanite. The one who slept with Yaakov's daughter Dinah and because of whom Shimon and Levi later struck down the entire male population of the city.
So. Attention! From a Jewish mother, Dina, and a non-Jewish man, Nablus, was born... a Canaanite, that is, a non-Jew!
The mother is Jewish, the daughter is not! Because nationality is passed on through the father. What I said at the very beginning - it cannot be that for all nations, belonging to the people is determined by the father, and for Jews, by the mother. She is called a “Canaanite” by whom? By God Himself in the Torah! This is written by the hand of Moses! Canaaniteism was passed down from the father, not from the mother. Although this is contrary to Halakha. The mother is Jewish, but the daughter of a Jewish woman is not called Jewish!
Shaul is Jewish by father. Why is he a Jew - because he is listed among all 33 " souls of the sons and daughters of Israel” in verse 15 of this chapter.
Look how interesting this story is. Shaul's mother is non-Jewish, and her son is Jewish on his father's side. And Dinah, the mother of Saul’s mother, is a Jew, but her daughter is not a Jew, but a Canaanite. The mother did not pass on Jewishness to her daughter Dina, but from her father (Shimon) the Jewishness was passed on to Shaul, although his mother is a Canaanite!
Let's bear the irons. Briefly. The Sages' Error in Defining Jewry:
1. In the commentary to Devarim 7:4 the error is that no son of a non-Jewish woman is called “her son”!!! This is stated in the commentary of the sages, but it is not in the Torah. They were wrong.
2. But even if he was named, this would not mean that he is not the son of the Jewish people. There is no logic. Ishmael, for example, is called the son of Abraham - but this does not make him a Jew. (If a mule is the son of a mare, this does not mean that he is not the son of a donkey. All hares have big ears. But this does not mean that all those with big ears are hares). In order for the son of a pagan not to be recognized as a son of the Jewish people, it is necessary that the son be called “not the son of the Jewish people.” And everything else is speculation.
3. In the book of Ezra, the Jews separated themselves not from all non-Jewish wives, but from the wives only from those nations that are prohibited in the book of Devarim (7:1) and (23:3) and, as predicted, they seduced their husbands and children with ABONYMS their.
4. In the book of Ezra, they separated themselves not from the children born of Gentiles from Jewish fathers, but from the children born from Gentile fathers. The pronoun “they” is in the masculine gender. Therefore, Ezra released the women and not their children, as it might seem from a foreign translation, but children from non-Jewish fathers
5. Other nations can be taken as a wife without conversion “for you forced her” (Devarim 21:10-14)
I have compiled a table organizing the list of nations with which Jews are forbidden to be related according to the books of Deuteronomy and Ezra.
Sons of Canaan, Genesis (10:15-18) | Forbidden peoples Deuteronomy (7:1, 23:3) | Forbidden peoples Ezra (9:1) |
Hittites | Hittites |
|
Jebusite | Jebusites | Jebusites |
Amorite | Amorites | Amorites |
Gergesey | Gergesei | |
Evey | Hievians | Moabites |
Egyptians |
There is no complete clarity, but it is obvious that these peoples are descendants of Canaan. Of the 7 descendants, the names of five are included in the names of the five nations in both lists. Why the names of the other two sons do not coincide with the names of the other prohibited peoples is not yet clear. There are only assumptions. Most likely, because the names of peoples do not always come from the forefather. A people can be called by the name of the area in which they settled, or by the name of the deity they began to worship. Plus, in those days there were double names. Jacob, for example, became Israel. Jews could be called both Jews and Israelites and even “eshurun”, which presumably comes from the word “yashar” (straight) (In the Tanakh in Hebrew it is used 4 times: Devarim 32:15; 33:5,26; Yeshayahu 44, 2 ).
Let us note that in both lists of prohibited peoples the “Canaanites” appear; the name comes from the name of Canaan. Which doesn’t look logical, since the lists already include peoples descended from the sons of Canaan, who are already automatically Canaanites. Perhaps these are the descendants of Arkay or Sinei, who remembered or glorified their grandfather more than their father. The father, perhaps, died early or simply withdrew from raising the children, and the grandfather took over their upbringing.
There is another hypothesis. It is possible, and even very likely, that Canaan had daughters, but the Bible does not mention them. And the descendants from the daughters are named after the grandfather. According to the theory of probability, 7 daughters should be born for 7 sons, but they are not mentioned. In general, for some reason, the Bible rarely mentions daughters among descendants. It cannot be that girls are born much less often than boys. They are simply too small to mention. And it started with Adam and Eve. The names of the sons are given, Abel, Cain and Seth, but the daughters are not mentioned at all until the fifth chapter. With whom then did the sons of Adam give offspring?
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and went out and told his two brothers.
Shem and Japheth took the robe and, putting it on their shoulders, went backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned back, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
Noah woke up from his wine and found out what he had done to him his youngest son and said: damned Canaan(Gen.9:21-25)
It’s not difficult to notice that Ham seems to have done something wrong, and his son Canaan is cursed. What connection? Moreover, this is the main opinion of different religions, that it was Ham who did something bad.
To understand this passage, one must decide whether Canaan was cursed for his own transgression or for the transgression of his father, as it may seem at first glance.
If Ham is guilty, it is only that he conveyed information about his father’s nakedness to his brothers and did not do what they did when they covered the sleeping Noah with clothes. Ham is not seen in anything else. If a son was cursed for his father, why only one, when there are three more besides Canaan.
The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Puth and Canaan. (Gen.10:6)
Maybe Canaan the Elder and those three were not yet born when everything happened? On the contrary, he is the youngest. Although in the Bible there is a reverse order of listing genealogical chains, here it is chronological, starting with the eldest. Because this is how the genealogy was set from the very beginning: “This is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth... Shem,... the elder brother of Japheth, also had children.” The answer to the question - why is Canaan cursed? - is found in the next verse: “Noah... found out what his younger son had done to him, and said: Cursed is Canaan.”
There is nothing in the actions of Ham, the father of Canaan, during the entire Noah incident that fits the description of “did OVER him.” Moreover, it is said that he did less the son of Noah, and Ham is the middle one.
Then who is this son of Noah if not Ham and Japheth? This is Canaan itself. Grandson. He is called the youngest son of Noah.
This conclusion has a serious justification: any direct descendant of a biblical character could be called his son. Zacchaeus is called the son of Abraham, although he is far from being a son. Jesus is called the son of David, although it would be “more correct” to say great-great-great...grandson. In this sense, the grandson is called the lesser son.
But if Canaan suffered for his own sin, then what was his sin? It is said that Noah learned what his youngest son had DONE TO HIM. Canaan took an ACTION, did not just observe the forbidden, like his father.
Without deciphering the offense itself, the Bible nevertheless indicates its severe consequences, thereby making it clear that Canaan had to do something out of the ordinary. And such an act could be a sexual act on a naked sleeping grandfather. What does the phrase “above him” correspond to?
“And the borders of the Canaanites were towards Sodom and Gomorrah” (Gen. 10). Sodom and Gomorrah will become the boundaries of the borders of the land of Canaan. Entire cities of homosexuals! Here's the result!
(Medvedenko)
Horrible. Rabbis and their students receive support from the state budget and are exempt from military service for studying the Torah, but they make mistakes and sin, and because of them, not Jews (by their father) but non-Jews (by their mother) are considered Jews. Accordingly, non-Jews who are considered Jews came to the state of Israel, created for Jews. And many Jews cannot repatriate because they are considered non-Jews.
- VC
According to the Talmud, Jewishness is transmitted through the mother. However, this is contrary to the Torah (Bible). In the Torah, the Jews are called the children of Israel. After the name of the forefather of the Jewish people of Israel (previously his name was Jacob). If Jewishness is transmitted through the mother, then why is the people never called in the Torah the sons of Rachel, or Leah (Leah) (both wives of Israel)?
It is not possible to count ALL nations by their father, but only Jews by their mother. It turns out that there is a “conflict” of nationalities and religions in one person. Especially if the dad, for example, is a Christian. According to his father, the child is Russian Orthodox, and according to his mother, he is Jewish. Some are right from their point of view, others from theirs. The child is baptized after the father, and circumcised after the mother. According to his father, Jesus Christ is God, and according to his mother, Yoshka is a bastard and the son of a harlot. On Saturday he goes to the Shema Israel synagogue with his mother, and on Sunday he bows to the icons in church. And who is he after that? Abram Nikolaevich Necheporenko? It turns out to be porridge.
The Bible, and even Judaism, calls for following the faith of our fathers, not our mothers. So what should the son of a Russian and a Jewish woman do? Both Orthodoxy and Judaism call for following the faith of the fathers, but according to the Talmud it turns out that the faith of the mothers is necessary? After all, this is absurd.
Or vice versa. Mom is a Karaite, dad is a Jew. Jews do not recognize a child as a Jew, and Karaites do not recognize a child as a Karaite. What should a child do? Who is he - a Karabevite Jew? It is very doubtful that the Jewish God would allow this.
If both sides do not determine the status of these children according to the same criterion, then a conflict will arise that will be resolved in favor of the stronger of them. If the legality of a marriage was recognized by non-Jewish authorities, then they had the decisive vote in determining the identity of the children from these marriages. No children of Jewish fathers and mothers felt any Jewish soul. Until they were reminded “very tactfully” by Hitler equally.
Until the 19th century mixed marriages were almost always accompanied by baptism. In the 19th century In many countries, mixed marriages were already allowed without the obligatory preliminary baptism of Jewish brides and grooms, but the children of both Jewish fathers and Jewish mothers from these marriages were baptized in almost 100% of cases.
Of course, in a dispute between father and mother, the father, the head of the family by definition, wins, because we live in a patriarchal society. The most famous and typical example of this is the decision of the US Court. When the Jew Klein and his non-Jewish wife had a daughter, the father insisted on raising her as a Jew. But the Klein family fell apart, the daughter began to live with her mother, and the child’s mother now wanted her daughter to be raised both as a Jew and as a Christian. As a result, the girl found herself on the verge of a nervous breakdown, not understanding how to behave. The father went to court demanding that the girl stay with him and be raised as a Jew. The court proceeded from the equality of the rights of the father and mother to pass on their faith to the child, however, guided by the rule “the interests of the child come first,” it upheld Klein’s claim. The father’s faith “won.”
Many historians and authorities on heterodox Judaism argue that Jewishness was originally passed down through the father. The rule “by mother” was finally established after the Khmelnytsky region, when many women gave birth after rape. Until the 16th century, there were no scientific facts confirming this new rule. This is stated, for example, in the complete Hebrew version of the History of the Jewish People, edited by Prof. Etinger. It is used as a textbook in Israeli universities. Not the two-volume one in Russian from the Aliya Library, but the four-volume one. There is no stated fact or precedent in the entire Talmud that a certain Jew is a Jew because his mother is Jewish. (see details of the discussion of this point).
Jews explain the transition to Jewishness through their mother by the obvious and accessible establishment of motherhood and the difficulty of obtaining convincing evidence of paternity.
But why did only Jews switch to motherhood? Other nations also faced this problem but did not give up paternity.
This artificial principle of facilitating the determination of nationality corresponds to the saying “They look not where they have lost, but where it is light and easier to look.” That is, objective criteria are replaced by subjective and moral and ethical ones.
But these days, Jewish women voluntarily marry people of other faiths, including atheists. Even if both parents are Jews, and the child is an atheist, then he is actually not a Jew. And before, Jews expelled atheists from the community and treated them as dead, as well as converts to another faith. For example, this happened with one of the founders of modern atheism - the outstanding philosopher Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza. He was severely beaten by the Orthodox and excommunicated from the community for his atheism. Even though his parents are Jews.
However, all the wives of the patriarchs were non-Jews. Pharaoh himself gave Joseph as a wife “Asnat, daughter of Potiphera, priest of On.” At the same time, both of their sons from a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father became Jews and even ancestors of the tribes of Israel! Both of Moses' wives were non-Jews.
2 And the angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a thorn bush
6 And he said: I am God father yours
9 And behold, a cry sons of Israel has reached Me...
10 Now go, and I will send you to Pharaoh; and bring out my people, sons Israelites, from Egypt.
13 And Moses said to God, Behold, I will come to sons Israelites and I will say to them: “The God of your fathers has sent me to you.” And they will say to me: “What is His name?” What should I tell them?
15 And God said again to Moses, Say thus sons Israelev: Lord, God fathers yours, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob has sent me to you.
16 Go, gather the elders of Israel and say to them: The Lord God fathers yours, appeared to me. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying: I remembered you and (saw) what is happening to you in Egypt.
17 And he said: I will bring you out from under the yoke of Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, the Heitites, the Emorites, the Perizites, the Hivites, and the Hibites, to a land flowing with milk and honey. (Shemot (Exodus) 3)
1 When you come to the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and take possession of it and settle in it...
5 say: father mine was a wandering Aramean, and he went to Egypt and settled there with a few people, and there arose from him a great, strong and numerous people;
7 And we cried out to the Lord God fathers ours;
15 Look down from Thy holy habitation from heaven, and bless Thy people Israel, and the land which Thou hast given us, as Thou hast sworn fathers to ours [give us] a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deuteronomy 26)
What do we see? Moses mentions only his father, not his mother, and mentions that all the people came from his father, and not from his mother. God is called the "God of fathers" and not of mothers. God calls the Jews sons of their fathers. The female gender is not crushed at all. Only men.
Consider the biblical example of the son of a Jewish woman and a non-Jewish man. Leviticus (24:10-22):
and went out son of an Israeli and (aka) son of an Egyptian on Wednesday sons of Israel, and quarreled in this camp son of an Israeli woman with an Israeli man (in Hebrew text verbatim "with the son of Israel" ).
And the son of the Israelite woman insulted the Name and cursed... and God said: “Bring him who curses out of the camp, and the whole community will stone him. And tell the children of Israel this: whoever curses his God will bear his sin. And he who insults the Name of Jehovah will die will be betrayed, the whole society will throw stones at him: both the ger (alien) and resident of the country (ezrah), he who curses the name will be put to death. You will have one law for a stranger and a resident of the country".
“The son of an Israelite and an Egyptian” is NOT called a “son of Israel”! But in contrast to this son of a Jewish woman all other Israelites are called children of Israel in the same passage! He is contrasted with the milieu of the “sons of Israel” (“Bnei Israel” in the original Hebrew). Not “sons of Israel,” but specifically “sons of Israel.” “Son of Israel” is a synonym for the word “Jew,” for Israel is the forefather of all Jews, spiritual and physical. By Israel is meant the entire people, and the “son of Israel” means each individual Jew, the son of the people. It is symbolic that it was the son of a pagan father who became a blasphemer. His mother's Jewish roots did not influence him in any way.
Even more interesting is the interpretation of this moment by the most authoritative sage in Orthodox Judaism, Rashi:
"And the son of the Israelite woman and the son of the Egyptian went out to among the children of Israel",
"among the children of Israel"
Rashi:"Teaches that he became a proselyte ( joined to the people of Israel)[Sifra]"
Rashi emphasizes that the son of an Israeli woman became a proselyte, that is, he converted to Judaism from paganism. Accordingly, from birth from an Israeli mother, he was not a Jew, as is now accepted in Judaism, but only once joined the people of Israel!!!
Thus, none other than the great Rashi himself admits that Jewishness was not previously transmitted through the mother. Moreover, Rashi himself was not the first to notice this. He refers to "Sifra" (Aramaic סִפְרָא, corresponding to Hebrew sefer, "book") - a halakhic midrash for the book of Leviticus - a collection of Tannaite barait.
Thus, Rashi scored an own goal. The Jews themselves, and even the most revered ones in Judaism, manage to refute the fundamental postulates of Judaism better than any Christians.
The period of Jewish statehood also provides many examples of intermarriage, including the intermarriages of David, Solomon, and Ahab.
During this period, I know from the Bible only one Jewish woman who married a non-Jew - Queen Esther. And it’s hard to believe that the children of this Jewish mother and the father of the KING OF THE PAGENTS, who himself was probably considered a deity, became Jews.
The key passage in the Bible from which Jews begin to reason about the inheritance of Jewishness through the mother and the prohibition of intermarrying with other peoples is the 7th chapter of the book of Devarim (according to the Christian tradition, “Deuteronomy”).
This is how the modern Jewish respected rabbi Eliyahu Essas does it:
In the Written Torah, in the fifth book - Devarim it is said, What cannot be created family with non-Jews:
“Do not enter into family relations with them. Do not marry your daughter to his (non-Jewish) son. And do not take his daughter for your son” (chapter 7, v. 3). http://www.evrey.com/sitep/askrabbi1/q.php?q=otvet/q66.htm
So, Rav Essas is talking about non-Jews in general and not about some ancient peoples. Now let's see what the Torah says:
A sane reader-truth seeker will immediately think, “Who is this “with them” with?” With the Russians or the Chinese? And he will understand that this is hack work. Therefore, he will open the text of the Torah and see who the pronoun “with them” corresponds to.
This is designed to make people trust sages and not check quotes. But it is not so much the sages who are to blame as the gullible readers and listeners themselves. If a person wants to know the truth, then he will check the quote, and if he wants to hear what he wants to hear because he is a Jew, then that is his problem.
As Christ said, “they are blind leaders of the blind; and if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit” (Matthew 15:14).
Here is an example of how Jewish school graduate Leya Livshits “fell” into the same “pit.” (pictured right). Her the request article is called"Please marry a Jew!" :
The Torah clearly prohibits marriage with representatives of other nations. This prohibition is one of the 613 commandments, and can be traced historically from the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai more than 3,000 years ago. The source of the prohibition is in the verse: “And do not be related to them:You shall not give your daughter for his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son” (Deuteronomy 7:3)
Leya Livshits
As you can see, Leah grabbed a snippet of a quote from the Torah, leaving behind the main thing - the prohibition not to become related not to all non-Jews, but only to the 7 nations that inhabited the Promised Land.
And the reader mistakenly thinks that we are talking about all nations. Thus the lie becomes "the great wisdom given orally from Sinai." Let me emphasize again for the inattentive reader. In the Bible, Jehovah personally speaks only about 7 nations. Jehovah does not speak about all nations. There is no such thing in the text of the Bible (Torah).
But the Jews do not quote the words of Jehovah only about the 7 nations, but begin the quotation after these words and instead of the words of Jehovah about the 7 nations listed by name, they substitute their own words about ALL nations. And if the reader does not check the text of the Torah, like I did, then he will never know that Jehovah is not talking about everyone, but only about 7 separate nations.
Please note - after Leah Livshits’ article, someone Andrei commented that she was deceiving, hiding the fact that it is not forbidden to be related to everyone, but only to some peoples.
To which a certain Miriam replied:
You can only judge the context by reading Hebrew.In the Torah, every letter, every vowel, every common root has a meaning.So you can’t draw conclusions from the Russian translation
But the same thing is written in Hebrew. Leah Livshits, proving the Jewish point of view, refers to the Russian translation - this is correct, but if she is objected to on the basis of the same translation made by the Jews, What are you! How can you object to a graduate of a Jewish school!
In some Christian editions of the Bible, a summary of the chapter is written before each chapter, and before this chapter it is correctly indicated “the prohibition of becoming related to the 7 nations that inhabited the Promised Land.” But how often do Jews criticize Christians by taking quotes out of context? As the Christian Christ said, “They see a speck in someone else’s eye, but they don’t notice a club in their own.”
Rabbi-mathematician and popularizer of Judaism Pinchas Polonsky manipulates the transmission of Jewishness through the mother in the Bible as follows:
The first story in the Torah that describes the process of marriage is the story of how Abraham sought a wife for his son Isaac. And this is the instruction Abraham gives to his servant:
"I conjure you that you will not take my son a wife from among his daughters. Canaanites among whom I live. But you will go to my land and to my relatives, and from it you will take a wife for my son Isaac" (Genesis 24:3)
Hocus Pocus. I twist and turn, I want to confuse. Which thimble contains the ball? The Canaanites are one of those 7 nations with which Jews are forbidden to become related. But Polonsky cites this example as proof that Jewishness is transmitted precisely through the mother - they say they looked for a mother for future grandchildren among Abraham's relatives - the Jews. But, Polonsky ignores the fact that Abraham emphasizes " you will not take my son a wife from among his daughters Canaanites among whom I live ".
Abraham simply had no other choice - only 2 options. Either his relatives or the Canaanites. There is no third. It’s not right to send a slave to Japan to get a wife. And nearby there are only Canaanites forbidden by God, “among whom I live.”
This is due to particularly disgusting moral traditions in these peoples - human sacrifice, homosexuality, witchcraft rituals and other abominations.
The erroneous explanation of the transmission of Jewishness through the mother is most clearly explained by Rav Michael Koritz (he is the one most often referred to when discussing this topic):
The basis of this law is taken from the following Torah verses:
"AND SHALL NOT BE BORN WITH THEM: YOU SHALL NOT GIVE YOUR DAUGHTER TO HIS SON, AND YOU SHALL NOT TAKE HIS DAUGHTER TO YOUR SON. /4/ FOR YOUR SON WILL BE TURNED AWAY FROM ME, AND THEY SHALL SERVE OTHER GODS, AND THE WRATH OF GOD WILL BE BURNED UPON YOU AND DESTROY YOU HE WILL SEE YOU SOON" (Devarim 7, 3 - 4)
Rashi makes the following commentary on this verse: “If the son of a pagan takes your daughter as his wife, he will turn away your son (i.e., the grandson) whom your daughter will bear for him (from following) Me. This teaches us that the son of your the daughter of a pagan is called “your son,” but the son of your son by a pagan is not called “your son,” but “her son”; for in connection with “thou shalt not take his daughter,” it is not said, “for she will turn away your son from following Me.” "(Talmud, tractate Yevamot 23a)
In other words: There are two prohibitions in verse 3 when the non-Jewish party is male or female. In verse 4 there is only one case, and the action “will turn away” is used in the masculine gender. This forces the sages to explain that we are talking about a non-Jew, and the son mentioned further is not a son, but a grandson. The use of the word son in relation to more distant descendants is often found in the Torah. Thus, the son of a daughter will be a grandson, but the son of a son, if he married a non-Jew, will not. Seems too complicated? But a careful analysis of the text inevitably leads us to such conclusions. However, we should not forget that the written text was always accompanied by an oral tradition containing its exact understanding."
"- BECAUSE WILL TURN YOUR SON FROM [FOLLOWING] ME - the son of a Gentile, when he marries your daughter, will turn away your son whom your daughter bears to him from [following] me. [Thus] we have learned that the son of your daughter by a Gentile is called “thy son,” but the son of your son by a Gentile is not called “thy son,” but [is called] "her son""
On the contrary, in the example of the son of an Israeli woman and an Egyptian from Leviticus (24:10-22), the son of a Hebrew woman is not called the son of Israel! and the son of an Egyptian! By father! Everything is exactly the opposite of what the sages say!
And in general, the sages say something completely unreasonable. If someone is called the son of a Jew or a Jewess, this does not mean that this son is necessarily a Jew. He is simply his (her) son. For completely ordinary physiological reasons. Isn’t the son of a Jewish woman and a Russian now the son of a Russian? But even if we proceed from the logic of the sages, the son of a Jewish woman is called not the son of Israel, but the son of an Egyptian - after his father! While other Jews are called sons of Israel.
But even if we agree with the opinion of the sages that we are talking about the son of a Jewish woman, then God does not mention the son of a Jew, because he is not worried. Why should He bother, because he made a Covenant with his father, which he is obliged to pass on to his son:
These are the commandments, statutes and laws that God commanded that you should do in the land into which you are moving to take possession of it, so that you may fear God and keep all His statutes and His commandments - you and your son and your son's son " (Deuteronomy 6:1,2)
Let these words that I command you today be upon your heart. And repeat them to yours sons(Deuteronomy 6:6,7).
When yours asks you son Then tell your son(Deuteronomy 6:20,21).
(In Hebrew, “you” is in the masculine form (in Russian there is no difference), “SAY” IS THE SAME - GOD ADDRESSES ONLY TO MEN AND SPEAKS ONLY ABOUT SONS).
The only thing that is said unequivocally and undoubtedly is that it is the SON who will turn away, and not the daughter. God is not at all interested in the disgust of a daughter - a descendant from a mixed marriage. It follows that God recognizes that it is the father, not the mother, who influences the self-identification of children from a mixed marriage. And accordingly, future children from the son of a mixed marriage will follow in the footsteps of their father and not their mother. And if the son of a mixed marriage turns away from God, then so will his descendants.
Rabbi Michael Koritz continues to argue:
for in connection with “do not take his daughter” it is not said “for she will turn your son away from following Me” (Talmud, tractate Yevamot 23a)
The mistake of the sages is that they write “the son of your son by a non-Jewish woman” [called] "her son"", but he is not called “her son” anywhere in this passage of the Torah. The sages were mistaken. And then they explain why he is supposedly called “her son.” Moreover, they explain it completely illogically - they proceed from what is not said. They explain why he is called “her son”, but he is not called as such. This is the same as proving 2X2 = 5 because in connection with “2X2” it is not said that “2X2 is not 5”.
Torah commentators continue to argue:
In other words: There are two prohibitions in verse 3 when the non-Jewish party is male or female. In verse 4 there is only one case, and the action “will turn away” is used in the masculine gender. This forces the sages to explain that we are talking about a non-Jew, and the son mentioned next is not a son, but grandson.
Please note that the verb “disgustes” is used without the pronoun “he”. And according to the context, the impersonal form “this will disgust” and not “it will disgust” is appropriate. Since the previous 3rd verse ends with “and do not marry his daughter to your son” and therefore in the next sentence the verb can either refer to her or to no one in particular, but to the entire previous verse. But, since the verb is in the masculine form, the second option remains.
In an impersonal form, neither masculine nor feminine, it is translated through “this” in the most authoritative Russian language Jewish translation by Soncino, and in another Jewish translation by David Yosefon - also in the impersonal plural form "For will disgust your son is from me". Therefore, it makes no sense to carry out all the reasoning based on the premise “he will disgust.”
But it is precisely from this premise that the sages draw the conclusion that we are talking about the son of a Jewish woman, whose pagan husband “he will turn away.”
But even if “he” turns away, then who is he anyway? For some reason, the sages believe that “he” is the husband of the Jewish woman. But in verse 3 a certain “he” has already appeared, for whose children Jewish children should not be given away: “ And do not be related to them: do not give your daughter for his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. Because he will turn away..." - we see from the third verse that “he” is simply any non-Jewish people. That’s all! Just like “you” - the one to whom God is speaking - is the Jewish people. That is, “he will turn away” - the pagan people will turn away not the grandson, but the Jewish husband of a non-Jewish woman from 7 nations. It’s very simple.
Moreover. The Hebrew word for “thy son,” “benha,” can be translated not only as “son,” but also as “child,” of either gender. By analogy with the Russian language.
Let me remind you that this is a fragment from the book “Dvarim”, where the laws set out earlier in the book “Shemot” are repeated. Even if we follow the logic of traditional interpreters and assume that we are talking about a grandson, we will pay attention to the Shemot verse corresponding to the above (34:16):
ולקחת מבנתיו, לבניך; וזנו בנתיו, אחרי אלהיהן, והזנו את-בניך, אחרי אלהיהן
And you will take from his daughters for your sons, and his daughters will become corrupt, following their gods, and they will corrupt your sons by their gods.
Here the children of non-Jews (and the “grandsons” of Jews) are called NOT “her sons,” as the sages erroneously stated in their interpretation of Devarim (7:4), but "yours" (Jewish) sons who will be corrupted by “their daughters.” The father is Jewish, and the mother is non-Jewish, “their daughter”, and their son - it turns out that the father is Jewish, “your son”.
What both passages say clearly is that it is SON will disgust, not the daughter. This corresponds to my version that it is the son who is the “bearer” of Jewry. Not just kind. Because here Moshe is addressing the entire people of Israel, and not just one tribe.
All his descendants came to Egypt with Jacob -
3 And He said: I am God, God father yours; Do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great nation there.
5 And Jacob rose up from Beersheba, and they took sons Israelites of Yaakov, father his own, and his little ones, and his wives...
7Their sons and their sons' sons what's with him, daughters their and daughters sons his own, and he brought all his family with him to Egypt (Genesis 46)
Note! The sons of daughters are not mentioned among the Jews, but the sons of sons and the daughters of sons are mentioned. Again, because Jewishness is not passed on from daughters to granddaughters or grandchildren. Only from sons!
Only his grandchildren and granddaughters remained with Yakov. male line (sons and daughters of his sons). The female lines did not remain among Jacob's Jewish descendants. Only his unmarried daughters came to Egypt with Jacob, otherwise their husbands and children would have been among those who entered. Who they married in Egypt and what the fate of them and their children was, whether they remained part of the tribes of Israel - the Torah is silent. The children of those who remained became the sons of Israel, and the children of those who left became the Egyptians. In the Torah, everything is only in the male line, but the Almighty does not reject Jews in the female line with the only condition that a non-Jewish father does not reject the son of a Jewish woman (Devarim 7:4), in other words, if the son of a Jewish woman wants to be a Jew and feels like a Jew, also like a Russian - Russian, a Chinese - Chinese, etc.
And also in favor of maternal Jewishness is the separation from non-Jewish wives and “their” children in the book of Ezra. Let's read what is written there. Ezra (9:1):
The rulers came to me and said: The people of Israel and the priests and Levites were not separated from the foreign nations. WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites,
Firstly, the people of Israel, the priests and Levites are reproached not so much for taking pagan wives, but for not separating themselves from their abominations (pagan traditions and foreign gods). Secondly, we are talking only about these above-mentioned peoples, and NOT about any peoples! But why are these peoples listed here? Because God Not prohibits Jews from taking wives from ALL nations, namely only those listed above, that is, those nations that lived in the Promised Land!
These are the nations with which you cannot be related, listed in the book of Devarim (7:1): “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are going to take possession of it, and drives out many nations from before you: The Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perzeites, and the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations,...don’t be related to them.” Almost all of these nations are listed in the book of Ezra, which the sages do not quote at all. 2 more nations that are on this list of Ezra were included in the list of “forbidden nations” in Devarim (23:3) - these are the Ammonites and Moabites. And one more people - the Egyptians. By definition, you cannot be related to these people. That's why they left Egypt.
And with other peoples, be related as much as you want. Take them as your wife without any conversion for health reasons. Devarim (21:10–14):
When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers (everyone) into your hand, and you take a prisoner from him, and you see a beautiful woman among the captives, and you desire her, and you want to take her as your wife, then bring her to your house... and she will be your wife. If it happens that you do not want her, then let her go wherever she wants, but do not sell her for silver, do not turn her into a slave, for you forced her.
“For you forced her” means that no conversion was even close. Conversion is voluntary.
In the book of Ezra in the same chapter 9, Ezra himself explains on the basis of which he separated the wives from these nations, mentioning that these were precisely the nations who lived in the territory of the promised land, about which Moshe spoke earlier:
1 The people of Israel and the priests and Levites were not separated from the foreign nations WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians and the Amorites., ...10 we have departed from Your commandments, 11 which You commanded... saying: the land you are going to in order to take possession of it, the land is unclean, it is defiled by the uncleanness of foreign peoples, their abominations, with which they filled it from end to end in their defilements. So, do not marry your daughters to sons. their , and daughters their do not marry your sons 14 Shall we again break Your commandments and become related to THESE disgusting peoples?
Ezra lists the nations and emphasizes what he says ONLY ABOUT THESE disgusting nations that Moshe spoke about 1000 years before him, and not all of them! No need to take the phrase out of context!
But even more interesting in Ezra (10:3):
וְעַתָּה נִכְרָת-בְּרִית לֵאלֹהֵינוּ לְהוֹצִיא כָל-נָשִׁים וְהַנּוֹלָד מֵהֶם
Let us now make a covenant with our God release all wives and their offspring
Please note that the pronoun מֵהֶם – “from them, by them” costs in male gender in the plural. That is, it is necessary to release non-Jewish women and children born from them (from men). (This is a common expression in the biblical text when a man “gave birth” to a child: “Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob.”, etc.).
What kind of men are we talking about, the children born from whom should be released?
This means that “they” mean foreign men. Therefore, again, children from non-Jewish husbands are not considered Jews.
It may also refer to the children of pagan women from their previous marriages to pagan men. But this is unlikely and does not change the essence of the matter - in any case, nowhere is it said to release children born from Jewish fathers. This means that the children of Jewish fathers are Jews. For Jews are not expelled from Jewish society.
There are some exceptions in the Hebrew Bible where feminine plural words are used with a masculine pronoun. On the Kuraev forum, Rav Michael Jedwabny objected to me: “I still believe that the meaning of the verse is 100% transparent.” But the problem is that the meaning is transparent only in the translation into Russian, in which there is no difference between the masculine and feminine gender in the plural, but in Hebrew there is. Yes, there are individual exceptions, but building a Jewish theory on the fact that in this case an exception to the rule is not serious.
So far, through our combined efforts, we have been able to find one exception - Ecclesiastes 2:10
“Whatever my eyes asked for (einai is a feminine word), I did not refuse them (me-ham).”
So, who does Ezra separate from his people? Non-Jewish mothers and children from non-Jewish fathers (and, accordingly, Jewish mothers).
If children of non-Jewish fathers were considered non-Jewish, they would be released. And it was non-Jewish women and children of Jewish mothers (and therefore non-Jewish fathers) who were released.
Hence the conclusion is drawn that nationality is determined by the father.
Ezra's book ends with another interesting expression. Ezra(10:44):
כל-אלה, נשאי (נשאו) נשים נכריות; ויש מהם נשים, וישימו בנים
All of them (took) foreign wives, and among them (those who took) foreign women, and put sons.
Please note that these foreign wives DID NOT GIVE BIRTH!!! sons, but “laid down.” Moreover, they put it in the masculine plural. This is a literal translation. The meaning is “planted” or perhaps “planted”, “brought”. But the main thing is that these women did not give birth to children for Jews. A completely different verb is used in this case. That is, these are children not from Jewish fathers. Perhaps Jews took wives with children from previous marriages, or took as wives pregnant women from non-Jews.
For comparison, when verse 3 of this chapter spoke about children born of pagans, the verb “gave birth” was used. In short, it turns out that foreign women gave birth to children from pagans and “planted” them with the Jews. It was these women and their children that Ezra ordered to be released—those “born” of non-Jews and “placed” with Jews. And not a word about the expulsion of children born to Jewish fathers. Therefore, the children of Jewish fathers are Jews, and the children of non-Jewish fathers are non-Jews, and they had nothing to do among the Jews. Therefore, they were released with their mothers.
With the expression “veyasimu banim” the Tanakh mocks those men who took other people’s wives, saying: וישימו – added, imposed, otherwise they would say: יולדו (yolidu) – “gave birth.” Ezra does not recognize the legality of such a birth.
Moreover, Ezra is again concerned that the pagans “laid down” sons, and not children in general or daughters. Again, because non-Jewish sons will produce non-Jewish descendants. And Ezra is not at all concerned about the addition of his daughters, because they do not affect the Jewishness of his descendants.
Bereshit Chapter 46:
8. Here are the names sons of Israel, who came to Egypt - Jacob and his sons. Yaakov's firstborn son Reuven.
9. Reuven's sons Hanoch, Palu, Hezron and Carmi. 10. Shimon's sons Emuel, Yamin, Hoad, Jachin, Tzohar and the son of the Canaanite woman Saul
So, Saul is the son of a Canaanite woman. The man Yaakov Shaul is the grandson of the man. But he is also called “son of Israel” - that is, a Jew, although his only father, Shimon, is a Jew. Jew on my father's side!
But who is this Canaanite mother?
Soncino's comment:
"son of the Canaanite woman" Luzzatto explains that she was the daughter of Dinah. She is called a Canaanite here because her father was Shechem
This is an absolutely amazing comment.
Let me remind you that Shechem is a Canaanite. The one who slept with Yaakov's daughter Dinah and because of whom Shimon and Levi later struck down the entire male population of the city.
So. Attention! From a Jewish mother, Dina, and a non-Jewish man, Nablus, was born... a Canaanite, that is, a non-Jew!
The mother is Jewish, the daughter is not! Because nationality is passed on through the father. What I said at the very beginning - it cannot be that for all nations, belonging to the people is determined by the father, and for Jews, by the mother. She is called a “Canaanite” by whom? By God Himself in the Torah! This is written by the hand of Moses! Canaaniteism was passed down from the father, not from the mother. Although this is contrary to Halakha. The mother is Jewish, but the daughter of a Jewish woman is not called Jewish!
Shaul is Jewish by father. Why is he a Jew - because he is listed among all 33 " souls of the sons and daughters of Israel” in verse 15 of this chapter.
Look how interesting this story is. Shaul's mother is non-Jewish, and her son is Jewish on his father's side. And Dinah, the mother of Saul’s mother, is a Jew, but her daughter is not a Jew, but a Canaanite. The mother did not pass on Jewishness to her daughter Dina, but from her father (Shimon) the Jewishness was passed on to Shaul, although his mother is a Canaanite!
Let's bear the irons. Briefly. The Sages' Error in Defining Jewry:
1. In the commentary to Devarim 7:4 the error is that no son of a non-Jewish woman is called “her son”!!! This is stated in the commentary of the sages, but it is not in the Torah. They were wrong.
2. But even if he was named, this would not mean that he is not the son of the Jewish people. There is no logic. Ishmael, for example, is called the son of Abraham - but this does not make him a Jew. (If a mule is the son of a mare, this does not mean that he is not the son of a donkey. All hares have big ears. But this does not mean that all those with big ears are hares). In order for the son of a pagan not to be recognized as a son of the Jewish people, it is necessary that the son be called “not the son of the Jewish people.” And everything else is speculation.
3. In the book of Ezra, the Jews separated themselves not from all non-Jewish wives, but from the wives only from those nations that are prohibited in the book of Devarim (7:1) and (23:3) and, as predicted, they seduced their husbands and children with ABONYMS their.
4. In the book of Ezra, they separated themselves not from the children born of Gentiles from Jewish fathers, but from the children born from Gentile fathers. The pronoun “they” is in the masculine gender. Therefore, Ezra released the women and not their children, as it might seem from a foreign translation, but children from non-Jewish fathers
5. Other nations can be taken as a wife without conversion “for you forced her” (Devarim 21:10-14)
I have compiled a table organizing the list of nations with which Jews are forbidden to be related according to the books of Deuteronomy and Ezra.
Sons of Canaan, Genesis (10:15-18) | Forbidden peoples Deuteronomy (7:1, 23:3) | Forbidden peoples Ezra (9:1) |
Hittites | Hittites |
|
Jebusite | Jebusites | Jebusites |
Amorite | Amorites | Amorites |
Gergesey | Gergesei | |
Evey | Hievians | Moabites |
Egyptians |
There is no complete clarity, but it is obvious that these peoples are descendants of Canaan. Of the 7 descendants, the names of five are included in the names of the five nations in both lists. Why the names of the other two sons do not coincide with the names of the other prohibited peoples is not yet clear. There are only assumptions. Most likely, because the names of peoples do not always come from the forefather. A people can be called by the name of the area in which they settled, or by the name of the deity they began to worship. Plus, in those days there were double names. Jacob, for example, became Israel. Jews could be called both Jews and Israelites and even “eshurun”, which presumably comes from the word “yashar” (straight) (In the Tanakh in Hebrew it is used 4 times: Devarim 32:15; 33:5,26; Yeshayahu 44, 2 ).
Let us note that in both lists of prohibited peoples the “Canaanites” appear; the name comes from the name of Canaan. Which doesn’t look logical, since the lists already include peoples descended from the sons of Canaan, who are already automatically Canaanites. Perhaps these are the descendants of Arkay or Sinei, who remembered or glorified their grandfather more than their father. The father, perhaps, died early or simply withdrew from raising the children, and the grandfather took over their upbringing.
There is another hypothesis. It is possible, and even very likely, that Canaan had daughters, but the Bible does not mention them. And the descendants from the daughters are named after the grandfather. According to the theory of probability, 7 daughters should be born for 7 sons, but they are not mentioned. In general, for some reason, the Bible rarely mentions daughters among descendants. It cannot be that girls are born much less often than boys. They are simply too small to mention. And it started with Adam and Eve. The names of the sons are given, Abel, Cain and Seth, but the daughters are not mentioned at all until the fifth chapter. With whom then did the sons of Adam give offspring?
And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness, and went out and told his two brothers.
Shem and Japheth took the robe and, putting it on their shoulders, went backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned back, and they did not see their father’s nakedness.
Noah woke up from his wine and found out what he had done to him his youngest son and said: damned Canaan(Gen.9:21-25)
It’s not difficult to notice that Ham seems to have done something wrong, and his son Canaan is cursed. What connection? Moreover, this is the main opinion of different religions, that it was Ham who did something bad.
To understand this passage, one must decide whether Canaan was cursed for his own transgression or for the transgression of his father, as it may seem at first glance.
If Ham is guilty, it is only that he conveyed information about his father’s nakedness to his brothers and did not do what they did when they covered the sleeping Noah with clothes. Ham is not seen in anything else. If a son was cursed for his father, why only one, when there are three more besides Canaan.
The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Puth and Canaan. (Gen.10:6)
Maybe Canaan the Elder and those three were not yet born when everything happened? On the contrary, he is the youngest. Although in the Bible there is a reverse order of listing genealogical chains, here it is chronological, starting with the eldest. Because this is how the genealogy was set from the very beginning: “This is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth... Shem,... the elder brother of Japheth, also had children.” The answer to the question - why is Canaan cursed? - is found in the next verse: “Noah... found out what his younger son had done to him, and said: Cursed is Canaan.”
There is nothing in the actions of Ham, the father of Canaan, during the entire Noah incident that fits the description of “did OVER him.” Moreover, it is said that he did less the son of Noah, and Ham is the middle one.
Then who is this son of Noah if not Ham and Japheth? This is Canaan itself. Grandson. He is called the youngest son of Noah.
This conclusion has a serious justification: any direct descendant of a biblical character could be called his son. Zacchaeus is called the son of Abraham, although he is far from being a son. Jesus is called the son of David, although it would be “more correct” to say great-great-great...grandson. In this sense, the grandson is called the lesser son.
But if Canaan suffered for his own sin, then what was his sin? It is said that Noah learned what his youngest son had DONE TO HIM. Canaan took an ACTION, did not just observe the forbidden, like his father.
Without deciphering the offense itself, the Bible nevertheless indicates its severe consequences, thereby making it clear that Canaan had to do something out of the ordinary. And such an act could be a sexual act on a naked sleeping grandfather. What does the phrase “above him” correspond to?
“And the borders of the Canaanites were towards Sodom and Gomorrah” (Gen. 10). Sodom and Gomorrah will become the boundaries of the borders of the land of Canaan. Entire cities of homosexuals! Here's the result!
(Medvedenko)
Horrible. Rabbis and their students receive support from the state budget and are exempt from military service for studying the Torah, but they make mistakes and sin, and because of them, not Jews (by their father) but non-Jews (by their mother) are considered Jews. Accordingly, non-Jews who are considered Jews came to the state of Israel, created for Jews. And many Jews cannot repatriate because they are considered non-Jews.
- VC
Loading...
