| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 223.1 | 8-} | ZEPPO::MAHLER | Lizzy Borden had PMS ! | Mon Nov 03 1986 14:19 | 4 |
|
Whaddya know. I always thought it was only those with
a street address in New York that are Real Jews.
|
| 223.2 | You're asking for it | NONODE::CHERSON | A Symbol of Reality | Mon Nov 03 1986 16:10 | 14 |
| re:-1
There OTHER places on this earth where Jews habitate(:-).
re:.0
Fred, I hate to tell you this but when you are taking on the born-again
crowd, you're asking for it. I know because during the early '70's
a group of Christians attempted to "save" me. Don't forget this
was long before born-again became a byword, and crypto-fascism became
popular.
David
|
| 223.3 | | LSMVAX::ROSENBLUH | | Mon Nov 03 1986 16:45 | 13 |
| Fred, if you have the stomach for it, why don't you take on the
born-again crowd directly? I mean, why not post a direct response to
whomever had the crazy opinion that only Judeans are Jews, or whatever
it was (it sounds very confusing to me). Anyway, posting the note
you HERE probably isn't going to get it read by the people
who take the position you are arguing against. Are you looking
for moral support from the readers of this file? (Ok, ok, you have
it. Now what?)
I suspect that this person is interpreting the Bible through his
own theological system, which obviously has nothing to do with Judaism.
So, like, you could point this out to him, right?
|
| 223.4 | Side Issue | MINAR::BISHOP | | Tue Nov 04 1986 13:36 | 4 |
| What are the seven mitzvot of Noah refered to
in the base note?
-John Bishop
|
| 223.5 | I am curious | SSDEVO::RICHARD | Mike | Wed Jan 07 1987 19:47 | 18 |
| > Secondly the question of who is a Jew is very clearly defined in
> the Talmud. In "kedushin" (I will look up the chapter number if
> someone really wants to know) the gamora addresses a man about his
> wife's child and says "If her mother [the wife's mother] is Jewish
> then the child is yours. If her mother is not Jewish then the
> child is hers".
>
> Fred
The above seems to imply that a child born to a Jewish father and a
non-Jewish mother is not in fact a Jew. Is it true then that maternal
ancestry defines whether one is Jewish or not? I thought that in Judea,
prior to the destruction of the Temple, Jewish lineage was defined
by the father's ancestry. Why the change, if the above is true?
/Mike
|
| 223.6 | Yes but... | GRAMPS::LISS | ESD&P Shrewsbury | Thu Jan 08 1987 13:28 | 24 |
| Re .5 (For referenced quote see .0)
>The above seems to imply that a child born to a Jewish father and a
>non-Jewish mother is not in fact a Jew.
That is correct.
Based on the same pusik in the Talmud, if the mother of the child
is Jewish the child is Jewish regardless of any attempted
conversion. This holds for as many generations as one can trace
their matrilineal descent to a Jewish woman.
> ...I thought that in Judea,
>prior to the destruction of the Temple, Jewish lineage was defined
>by the father's ancestry. Why the change, if the above is true?
The only thing that is patralineal is ones position within the
community. For example the son of a cohan is a cohan regardless of
what his mother is. The son of a levi is a levi, the son of an
israel is an israel. The Talmud is the Oral Law given to Mosha. If
you can quote an opposing Jewish source please do so.
Fred
|
| 223.7 | Things change | CSCMA::SEIDMAN | Aaron Seidman | Fri Jan 09 1987 14:42 | 10 |
| There was a change between biblical and talmudic times, although
I don't know why (one obvious speculation is that one can always be sure
of the mother). It is quite clear (e.g. wives of Joseph, Moses were not
Hebrew) that at one point affiliation was patrilineal. By the time the
Yerushalmi (Talmud) was written, Jewishness was matrilineal.
It is one of a number of things that changed between the period
of the first kingdom and the mishnaic period.
Aaron
|