Thursday, January 01, 2009

Conubium aka Kiddushin

"According to [early] Roman law, a child is the legal heir of his father and is in his father's custody (potestas) only if his father and mother were joined in a legal marriage (justum matrimonium). The capacity to contract a legal marriage was called conubium (or ius conubii), and was possessed almost exclusively by Roman citizens. Marriage between a person with conubium and a person without conubium was valid, but it was not a justum matrimonium; and without a justum matrimonium, the status of the child follows that of the mother." - Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The Beginnings of Jewishness," page 294.

Compare with:

According to Jewish law, a child follows the tribal status of his father if both his father and mother possessed the capacity to join in a legal marriage. This capacity is called kiddushin and is possessed exclusively by Jews. Relations between a person capable of kiddushin and a person incapable of kiddushin, say a Jew and a Gentile, results in the status of the child following that of the mother.

An echo of Roman law in Halachic matrilineal descent?

38 comments:

Anonymous said...

There are complexities in Jewish law, such as the mamzer (which occurs when the man and woman did not have a legal marriage, but the woman could be legally married to another), that you didn't bring up.

Does Shaye Cohen make that point or is it your idea?

Orthoprax said...

Anon,

Shaye Cohen notes that, and there are similar yet different categories in Roman law. These other categories exist because the Roman law required that not only conubium exist but that a proper marriage was also in place for the son to follow the father (Jewish law does not require the marriage). If not then the child had a category of spurius or vulgo quaesitus - illegitmate. Even the children of incest were just categorized as spurius.

There are yet still other differences, but the point is this common idea of a category of who can be married and when those requirements are met then the child's identity follows the father - and when not met then it follows the mother. Similarly, both legal systems also recognize that if two non-Romans or two non-Jews have a child then that child follows the father.

Only in the absence of a legal union, with no valid patrilineal line, does the child follow the mother.

The Candy Man said...

@Orthoprax,

I see what you're getting at. What is the case in Rome where the child follows the mother? Which status is in question there (since Jewishness is not on the list)?

Also, what is the halakhic status of a child between non-Jewish slave and Jewish citizen? According to your logic, it should follow the mother.

The ultimate question is, what is the halakhic rationale for matrilineal descent? It certainly doesn't come from the Torah. So maybe you're on to something here.

Orthoprax said...

CM,

"What is the case in Rome where the child follows the mother? "

Roman citizenship. Where a Roman woman has a child with a non-citizen.

"Also, what is the halakhic status of a child between non-Jewish slave and Jewish citizen? According to your logic, it should follow the mother."

I believe it does. If the mother is a non-Jewish slave, so is the child. If the mother is a free Jew then so is the child.

"The ultimate question is, what is the halakhic rationale for matrilineal descent? It certainly doesn't come from the Torah. So maybe you're on to something here."

This isn't my idea. I found it in the book I referenced. I don't know if this is the whole story, but there are certainly interesting parallels in the legal systems.

FrumBusinessGuy said...

Check out my new Blog on MAKING MONEY at http://frumandmakingmoney.blogspot.com/

Shalmo said...

Rabbinical/Jewish law was codified 200 years after muslim law, hence we see many similarities and indeed many influences the sharia on judaism.

Even Maimonides took various sufi concepts from islam and incorporated them into Judaism to give the legalistic religion spirituality

Miri said...

The comparison isn't quite the same though; in Judaism, as long as the father was Jewish, the shevet still depended on the father, whether the parents "legally united" in Jewish law or not. You did say that the parents had to have the capacity to be legally united, but not that they actually had to be legally united. I mean, truthfully, the laws about what make a kiddushin valid can be pretty lax, so maybe that's how they were getting at it. It was only when the father was not Jewish that the child carried no important form of patrilineal descent according to Jewish law.

Orthoprax said...

Shalmo,

"Rabbinical/Jewish law was codified 200 years after muslim law, hence we see many similarities and indeed many influences the sharia on judaism."

The Mishnah was compiled before 200 CE and the Talmud by 500 CE. Muhammed wasn't even born yet. So your comment is totally wrong.

"Even Maimonides took various sufi concepts from islam and incorporated them into Judaism to give the legalistic religion spirituality"

Um, no. Maimonides was more the rationalist and seems to have been influenced more by the likes of Averroes (aka ibn Rushd). R' Bachya ibn Paquda though seems to have been influenced by Sufi thought.



Miri,

"You did say that the parents had to have the capacity to be legally united, but not that they actually had to be legally united."

Yes, I agree, they are not same all the way through. The Romans had an extra concept thrown in that Halacha does not. My point though is that the legal theory behind conubium/kiddushin is essentially identical with similar results.

There's a real question where the whole concept of kiddushin even comes from. It seems to just pop into literary existence for the first time in the Mishnah.

Shalmo said...

"The Mishnah was compiled before 200 CE and the Talmud by 500 CE. Muhammed wasn't even born yet. So your comment is totally wrong."

Did you read my comment, and process its content before replying?

I said codified. As in Rabbinical law was codified 200 years post sharia. So who's totally wrong?

"Um, no. Maimonides was more the rationalist and seems to have been influenced more by the likes of Averroes (aka ibn Rushd). R' Bachya ibn Paquda though seems to have been influenced by Sufi thought."

Oh I am SOOOOOOO gonna refute you.

Maimonides used Sufi and Islamic ideas to give Judaism a faith,defying every law about reading the Torah.He succeeded in saving Jews from converting to Islam,but at the cost of destroying Judaism forever.

The argument for sufi influence is particularly tempting. Maimonides' in-law was a known sufi; his wife may have been one too; there were known Jewish sufis in his entourage; his son was under sufi influence; and the school that developed under R. Abraham was certainly under sufi influence. Indeed, in his Mishne Torah in Hilkhot Nezirut 14:15, Maimonides argues just for such pietistic living in spite of its not being a life led according to the golden mean as he requires elsewhere:
But he who vows to God in the way of holiness -- this is pleasing and praiseworthy. Concerning this it was said, "The laurel (Heb., nezer) of his God is upon his head ... he is holy unto the Lord" (Nu. 6:4-5). And Scripture has accounted him as equal to the prophet, as it says, "I shall cause prophets to arise from your children and nazirites from your young men" (Amos 2:11).
Again, in his Mishne Torah in Hilkhot Shemitta ve-Yovel 13:12-13, Maimonides makes an argument for intensely religious living:
Why did [the tribe of] Levi not merit an inheritance in the land of Israel and a share in the spoils of war together with its brothers? Because it was set aside to worship God, to teach His direct ways and His righteous judgements to the public ... Therefore, they were set aside from the ways of the world: they did not wage war like the rest of Israel and they did not inherit the land ... Rather, they are the army of the Lord, as it says ...
The tribe of Levi is not alone [in this]. Rather, every single person of those who live in the world, whose spirit has gratefully welled up, and who has comprehended in his or her mind to be separated and to stand before God, to serve Him, to worship Him, and to know Him; who has walked in the straight path that God has intended for her or him; and who has shed from his or her neck the yoke of the many accountings that humans make [of one another] -- this person has become holy [like] the holy of holies, and God will be her or his portion and inheritance forever and ever. Such a person will have sufficient in this world, as did the priests and levites, as David, may he rest in peace, said, "The Lord is my portion of inheritance and my cup; You sustain my destiny" (Ps. 16:5).
Lobel has pointed out that Halevi took terms that were in the Islamic environment and transformed those terms by applying them in a rather strict rabbinic framework of thought. Much the same may be true of Maimonides: that he first built an intellectualist, philosophic system rooted largely in Aristotle though drawing on Alfarabi and others; and then, on the basis of his own personal religious experience, he added on top of that a spiritual teaching which used sufi-like terms in their non-technical sense, transforming those terms to serve his own purposes.

Maimonides in the twelfth century formulated his "Thirteen Articles of Faith" that have become the most famous creedal formulation. His statement that accompanied the formulation was a caveat that a person who held to these beliefs should be loved with affection and brotherly sympathy - even if he be guilty of every possible transgression through his desires and lack of self-control. He will be punished according to the measure of his perversity but he will none the less enjoy a portion in the world to come. However, if a man breaks away from any of the fundamental principles of belief, then he loses his membership in the body of Israel; he is a heretic who should be hated and extirpated.

Maimonides thus made correct faith supreme over all other aspects of Judaism and Jewish life. "The believing sinner is included in 'the general body of Israel.' The unbeliever [though a righteous and just person] is excluded."(31) This, I submit, is a nonbiblical position. I hazard the thought that Maimonides was driven to take this position by his rationalist approach, his great power of conceptualization, and perhaps also by his fear that the danger of apostasy to Islam or Christianity was so great and imminent that a strong and unusual measure had to be taken. Since Islam and Christianity emphasized creedal faith, there had to be, to meet the emergency, a formulation of Jewish creedal beliefs

Milton R. Konvitz

Isaac Luria:

The teachings of the Ari have been widely accepted in Orthodox Judaism, although not all groups follow the customs he initiated or revived. Those communities which most tend to play down or avoid the influence of the Ari mainly consist of certain Litvish and Modern Orthodox groups, as well as a noticeable segment of Baladi Yemenite Jews and others who follow a form of Torah Judaism more strictly in line with classical authorities like Maimonides and the Geonim (see Dor Daim) and the Spanish and Portuguese Jews.

Shalmo said...

One more thing. These lists of things like "13 principles of Faith" and "613 mitzvohs" is a prime example of Islamic influence paving its way through Maimonides. Its a very muslim thing to do to have lists of things that summarize your faith, and help organize it in a more usable form. In islam these are known as kalma, as well as usool-e-deen and furo-e-deen.

As for rabbinical law's codification. It isn't just sharia, we see influences from the persians and even the byzantines make their way into it.

This isn't shocking. The thing with Judaism is that there is this historical tendancy with its scribes to take things (laws,myths) from their surroundings and give it a Jewish spin.

We especially see this not just with law, but with theology as well. When the Jews knew the Greeks, they come up with their own version of Hercules and the Namion lion in the myth of Samson. Or with the case with the Sumerians where they came up with the Tower of Babel story ripped right off the myth of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta. Countless other examples are known as well. Most of the Torah stories came this way, taken from better stories originating with the babylonians, assyrians, sumerians, egyptians, Hittites, greeks and so forth. Oh well at least with Samson they stuck with only the Nameon Lion myth, and didn't rip off the rest of Hercules' 12 trials.

Orthoprax said...

Shalmo,

"I said codified. As in Rabbinical law was codified 200 years post sharia. So who's totally wrong?"

You are still wrong. Jewish law was first codified in the Mishnah and again in the Gemara. I guess you have a special definition for the word.

"Oh I am SOOOOOOO gonna refute you."

What are you, a child?

It genuinely does not bother me a whit if Maimonides was influenced by Sufi thought, as I remarked on another famous rabbi who had an obvious following, but Maimonides' sometimes inclination to pietism is hardly an argument which impresses me for its great influence. As I also noted - I agree that Maimonides was significantly influenced by rationalist Muslin thought - ala ibn Rushd who I also mentioned.

The idea that oriental rabbis took the process of listing things from Muslim thought is interesting, but I'm not really seeing its deep significance.

"This isn't shocking. The thing with Judaism is that there is this historical tendancy with its scribes to take things (laws,myths) from their surroundings and give it a Jewish spin."

There's little doubt about that, as is true for most societies there is a give and take of cultural influence. This doesn't mean Samson is "ripped off" from Hercules or Tower of Babel from Sumer, since there are fundamental and obvious differences between the stories.

This whole train of thought is fascinating from a Muslim though. You must be aware that your whole religion is essentially a recasting of Medieval Judaism in Arabic, right?

Shalmo said...

Constantly saying I am wrong does not make you statements true buddy.

As for you Talmud. Well see here is the thing. The Talmud is a creation of second temple Judea. ALL other jewish sects whether essenes, zealots, karaites, etc etc opposed it. Why is it that only pharisees came up with it.

You do know that there are numerous instances where the entire Torah was forgotten by your ilk in your own books. How is it that there could be any preservation of an oral law, when even the written one was forgetten again and again. The word pharisee comes from the word 'parsi', which is the original, persian word for zorastrianism. Yup that is where pharisee judaism comes from, a conglomerate of judaism with zorastrianism.

This is why the Essenes opposed the pharisee because they loathed the zorastrian ideas invading judaism

As for my religion being a new form of Judaism, well sorry to say but you are utterly wrong. In islam women with broken hyms are not "defiled", a woman's sexual status plays zero role in her marriage prospects. Where as in the Torah a jew must never charge interest from another jew, but must do so from a gentile; in islam we don't charge interest from anybody whether muslim or non-muslim. From what any lay person can tell, the sharia is far more JUST than anything halacka has to offer

As the example from Maimonides should show, influence goes the other way round. You guys ripp us off and then claim we took stuff from you

Here is an example of Judaism's view on God:
Avoda Zara (3b): "Rav Yehuda says, there are twelve hours in a day. The first three hours God sits and learns the Torah, the second three hours he sits and judges the world. The third three hours God feeds the entire world... the fourth three hour period God plays with the Leviathan as it is written: "the Leviathan which you have created to play with"".

That hardly comes of as an example of an omnipresent, all-powerful, universal, personal, incorporeal God which is what today's Judaism espouses. So absolute monotheism is perhaps the greatest contribution of islam to judaism. But ofcourse you would prefer it to be the other way round simply because you have "claims" of being older. tsk tsk tsk!

Shalmo said...

My point is muslims have theological reasons for why we share some stories with Jews. For example to us David and Solomon were both prophets, so obviously we would have these similarities. We believe that the blessing and promise on Ishmael (which you see in the Torah) is what led to the Bani Hashim, Ishmael descendents, from whom came Mohammed.

So we have theological reasons for sharing some of the same stories in the Torah. What theological reason do you have for most of the Torah stories being ripped off the canaanites, hittikes, sumerians, babylonians, egyptians, greeks, etc etc

One of best proof of islam is in fact when you read is all the appropriated mythology such as the stuff ripped of from those other civilizations I mentioned completely disappears. So for example Samson and his fight with the lion who was ripped of the Greek myth of Hercules is absent in the Quran. Similarly the Sumerian myth of of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, which is where the ludicrous idea of the original language being hebrew (or aramaic) and being split into the many languages we have today in the Tower of Babel story, is absent from the Quran. This is one of great miracles of the Quran, that it corrects the Hebrew Bible. There is a hadith from Mohammed that says we to not attack the Bible nor defend it. If we attack it then we may be attacking some of the original stuff still given to the Jews by God, if we defend it then we may be defending clear man-made fabrications in it as well. Hence the not attack or defend makes the best sense

Here's another great example. In the bible it says God created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th; which is why Jews do shabbat on that day. Now obviously this description humanizes God, likely pagan influence on the bible compilers, since clearly we know an all-powerful God doesn't need to rest

In the Quran it says God made the universe in 6 time periods (not days) and it concludes by stating, not an iota of weariness touched him from his work (meaning he wasn't tired after finishing his creation). Subhanallah!

Orthoprax said...

Shalmo,

Virtually everything you've said here is either outright false, a misattribution, a misunderstanding, or just plain nuttiness.

If I felt you were making arguments that even approached reasonableness I might argue back, but I honestly don't believe you meet that criteria. You seem to have gotten your whole education from Islamic propaganda.

I'll just advise any readers that they should fact check on their own if they think your assertions are remotely valid.

Shalmo said...

Islamic propaganda????? That the best you could do.

I am ready to cite everthing I have stated.

Sorry to tell you but muslims on average don't care much about Judaism, except of course when we are dealing with christian missionaries trying to zealously convert us, in which case we then have to go to their books which incidentally includes the Old Testament or Tanakh. And that is where we learn about the kill little boys, kill pregnant women and take virgins as sex slaves tid-bits.

Amalek & Genocide: Midianites: Num 31, Deut 3

One of the mitzvos is to wipe out (kill) all people who are Amalek.

Is true that ----- Amalek attacked the Jews at desert of Sinai, therefore can their extermination be justify as self defense?
2. Why? -----include their animals as part of the extermination?
3. Why? Can killing the Amalekies be classified as making peace and improving the world?

I don't have a problem with the idea of 'collateral damage', innocents killed unintentionally while hostiles, command and control are targeted.

But captured 'young children' off the field of battle killed 'for vengeance' (three times it says that in Numbers 31) are not 'collateral damage'.

Would it be reasonable to you if a country at war with Jews captured tens of thousands of young Jewish children killed them 'for vengeance'?

Would that be 'collateral damage' or 'martial law'?

I could also write essays on how the Torah is filled to the brink with virginal obsession, but who has the time.

Shalmo said...

Alright let's deal step by step with rebuking your previous accusation.

In Islam, rape isn't just a case of zina (adultery), it's classified as hiraabah (related to the word harb, meaning war, and literally means aggression, terror, etc.) and is punishable by death. It is a social crime that threatens the safety and physical and mental well-being of individuals, their families, and society as a whole. It is basically anything done under coercion or force (armed robbery, rape, kidnapping, terrorism).

"The recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and do mischief in the land is only that they shall be killed or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on the opposite sides, or be exiled from the land. That is their disgrace in this world, and a great torment is theirs in the Hereafter. Except for those who (having fled away and then) come back (as Muslims) with repentance before they fall into your power; in that case, know that Allaah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful." 5:33

The Arabic word ightisaab refers to taking something wrongfully by force, and is now used exclusively to refer to the unlawful transgression against the rights of a woman (rape). If you can imagine your daughter, mother, aunt, or close friend being sexually violated, it is very clear that justice needs to be brought, not only to avenge the crime that took place, but to prevent it from happening again, and for some people, to serve as a deterrent for it being committed in the future. A victim of rape can be hurt, both physically and mentally, and thus, needs a lot of time to recover, as well as help and support from her family and loved ones. In addition to the physical punishment of the rapist, and the comfort that justice brings to an individual and society, there is also monetary compensation. I'm not Shia, so I don't know the specifics of the practice, however, many Sunni scholars have mandated financial compensation for acts of hiraabah.

For instance, Imam Malik (founder of the earliest Sunni school surviving today) said in his Muwatta: "In our view the man who rapes a woman, whether she is a virgin or not, if she is a free woman he must pay a dowry like that of her peers...the punishment is to be carried out on the rapist and there is no punishment for the woman who has been raped, whatever the case." Book #36, Hadith #36.16.14.

This is called a mahr and is what a husband pays his wife before marriage. Thus, in compensation for the crime, before the punishment is carried out, the perpetrator must pay victim something equal to a standard mahr. Today this is usually several thousand dollars, at a minimum. If property was taken or destroyed, the owner would have to be compensated, etc. Thus, not only is the victim compensated financially, but justice is also brought, peace of mind gained, and social order maintained. The victim should be given time to recuperate and although there will always be scars, God willing she will find a good husband who she loves and treats her equitably.

Now back to what I said about how contrary to Judaism, in Islam women with broken hymens are not "defiled," and a woman's "sexual status" plays zero role in her marriage prospects. The morality of Judaism and that of Islam are very different, as evinced in the following verses from the Torah:

Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle. "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them. "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the Lord in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the Lord's people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man. Numbers 31:13-18

Moses and his companions, in their quest to take over the Holy Land, kill women and children (this is haram in Islam and constitutes murder, a crime that you will go to hell for), but spare the virgins. The Torah is replete with virginal obsession. Someone being "defiled," is not an Islamic concept, it's Biblical, and there's no notion or example anywhere in the entirety of the Qur'an and Sunnah that a victim of rape is "defiled," looked down upon, or their social status lowered in any way, shape, or form.

TSK TSK TSK!

Narrated Wa'il ibn Hujr: When a woman went out in the time of the Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) for prayer, a man attacked her and overpowered (raped) her. She shouted and he went off, and when a man came by, she said: That (man) did such and such to me. And when a company of the Emigrants came by, she said: That man did such and such to me. They went and seized the man whom they thought had had intercourse with her and brought him to her. She said: Yes, this is he. Then they brought him to the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him). When he (the Prophet) was about to pass sentence, the man who (actually) had assaulted her stood up and said: Apostle of Allah, I am the man who did it to her. He (the Prophet) said to her: Go away, for Allah has forgiven you. But he told the man some good words (AbuDawud said: meaning the man who was seized), and of the man who had had intercourse with her, he said: Stone him to death. He also said: He has repented to such an extent that if the people of Medina had repented similarly, it would have been accepted from them. Sunan Abu Dawud Book #38, #4366.

Orthoprax said...

Shalmo,

"Islamic propaganda????? That the best you could do."

No, obviously not the best, but it is sufficient. By anachronism, the Talmud was obviously not what was objected to the other Jewish sects. The idea that Pharisee is derived from Parsi is plainly a false etymology. The idea that Jews "must" demand interest from a non-Jew is frankly an ancient antisemitic canard. And it's pretty clear that R' Yehuda was not speaking literally.

You just make one false or misleading claim after another. All of which, as is apparent to me, stem from some common source of Islamic propaganda.

In any case, with regard to the hymen business, I don't know enough about Islamic law to comment, but it's also pretty irrelevant. If in this one aspect we find more sophistication from the Islamic side there are plenty of other areas where the Islamic side is that much closer to barbarism. But I doubt that's even true because we hear stories every now of then of women rape victims in Saudi Arabia or Sudan being threatened with execution for being adulterers via rape. Sharia doesn't sound very sophisticated to me.

I am quite confident that both the Koran along with the Torah have their share of moral lapses as compared to modern standards. However, where you have blind propaganda is where you think only the Muslim apologetics are valid for the Koran's errors while ignoring the centuries of Jewish apologetics for the Torah's which mirrors them.

Shalmo said...

ME laughs!!!

Notice how you didn't answer any of the said criticism, just hushed it away by saying I am ignorant and using the "islamic propaganda" card yet again.

I could on and on.

And NO. You can't compare the Quran to the Torah because in the Quran women are not married to their rapists (rapists are executed in sharia), nor do women observe longer periods of purification for male children, not did Muhammed ever order his men to kill little boys, pregnant and to take virgins for themselves. And every muslim male sure as Hell DOES NOT THANK GOD EVERYDAY FOR NOT MAKING HIM A WOMAN. "chuckles"

And please don't bring Saudi or Sudan. The West made those countries what they are today. The Saud family was set up by the British to ensure a power brochure in the middl-east that provides the West with the oil it has today. They also sponsored wahabism, the totalitarian ideology that gave the Saud family the power along with Abdul Wahab to create the kingdom of Saudia Arabia. Its just another case of the West sponsoring a bunch of nuts in our lands, and then blaming islam for it

And btw one can write essays on the barbarism committed by Israel on a daily basis. Here is an example of Judaism in action:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1180527966693&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

"All civilians living in Gaza are collectively guilty for Kassam attacks on Sderot, former Sephardi chief rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu has written in a letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
Eliyahu ruled that there was absolutely no moral prohibition against the indiscriminate killing of civilians during a potential massive military offensive on Gaza aimed at stopping the rocket launchings.The letter, published in Olam Katan [Small World], a weekly pamphlet to be distributed in synagogues nationwide this Friday, cited the biblical story of the Shechem massacre (Genesis 34) and Maimonides' commentary (Laws of Kings 9, 14) on the story as proof texts for his legal decision."

This is not surprising considering there is no holy book on this planet that has the endless tales of rape, murder, ethnocentrism and genocide that the Torah does. You do know that it was the stories on the conquest of Canaan that both the Crusaders and the powers behind the Inquisition used to justify their genocide.

Btw you are right that every religion has its apologists. The problem is that every religion can't be right, hence you have to seperate the weak apologetics from the strong ones. And based on, shall I say you complete inability to offer a single rebuttal, tells me Judaism has a long long long way to go before anybody takes its apologetics seriously.

Then again since 60% of Jews world-wide are atheists, a number that is growing daily, it shows all the more what a pathetic back-water Jewish apologetics really are. He-haw!

Shalmo said...

Don't worry. I know there are some decent Jews out there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sWRX_OFOV08

But until the majority of the Jewish people realize that just coz a book, eek gasp most definitely NOT written by Moses (DH anyone?), says that its ok to kill everyone in Canaan and take their property, so long as you mark your covenant in the flesh, doesn't make it ok. Especially not today when you use the same literature to justify once again stealing land, this time being that of the Palestinians.

People like you Orthoprax need to realize that there is only so much Jewish barbarism the world will take, before we say enough is enough

Shalmo said...

What did Moses says to the Jews in his farewell address in Deuteronomy 31:

27 For I know how rebellious and stiff-necked you are. If you have been rebellious against the LORD while I am still alive and with you, how much more will you rebel after I die! 28 Assemble before me all the elders of your tribes and all your officials, so that I can speak these words in their hearing and call heaven and earth to testify against them. 29 For I know that after my death you are sure to become UTTERLY CORRUPT and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall upon you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and provoke him to anger by what your hands have made."

Emphasis on the "utterly corrupt" part. Enough said!

Shalmo said...

One last comment I want you to consider critically:

There is something important to bare in mind. The Arabs had control of and residence in Jerusalem for close to 13 centuries, which is as long a time or more than that for which the Bani Israel had sovereignty over the area from the conquest of Canaan in ca 1250 CE to the Roman invasion of 70 CE. The Arabs have just as much historical tie to the area as the Jews. So the idea that Jews have explicit right because their ancestors lived there God knows how long ago is ludicrous.

And here is the most important part. Many Jews are descendants from later converts (ever wonder about all those blond haired Jews...). Jews had largely already left prior to any Muslims coming in there, and no, it wasn't because the Romans kicked them all out. That's a distortion of history, Jews had been leaving for other lands for some time, such as to Egypt (Alexandria) and other areas, not out of persecutions, but for the same reason so many people in the "third world" leave their homelands today, economic opportunities. From what I recall, population estimates indicate that prior to the Roman sack, the majority of Jews were already living outside of Palestine. Even after the Roman sack of Jerusalem, there was still a Jewish presence in Palestine after that. How can the descendants (thousands of years later) of people who voluntarily left, or whose ancestors were never there in the first place, lay any claim to the land today?


And ofcourse if a Jew read the above paragraph he would accuse me of historical revisionism, which is why I have made sure to get my information from a source even they can't deny:

"Writing in 1971, Salo W. Baron estimated the Jewish population within the borders of the Roman empire at just under 7 million, with slightly more than a million others living outside its borders, mostly to the east; the Jewish population of Palestine he placed at not higher than 2.5 million (Encyclopaedia Judaica [New York: Macmillan, 1972], vol. 13, p. 871). Paul Johnson writes “Though it is impossible to present accurate figures, it is clear that by the time of Christ the diaspora Jews greatly outnumbered the settled Jews of Palestine: perhaps by as many as 4.5 million to 1” (A History of Christianity [New York: Athenaeum, 1976], p. 12). Subsequent estimates generally fall between these extremes. Thus, Wayne Meeks in The First Urban Christians (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983) estimates 1 million Jews in Palestine, 5 million to 6 million in the diaspora."

FROM: Encyclopaedia Judaica and Yale University Press

Shalmo said...

*correction: in my first reply I meant to say longer periods of purification for FEMALE children, as that is what Judaism demands

shalom!

Shalmo said...

Lier

I'm assuming you take Judaism 101 as a legitimate site for all things Jewish

http://www.jewfaq.org/613.htm

To lend to an alien at interest (Deut. 23:21) According to tradition, this is mandatory (affirmative).

emphasis on the "according to tradition this is mandatory"

anti-semtic card my butt!!! I guess Tracy forgot to add the "must always lie to gentiles lest they start realizing what a cult of worshipping all things Jewish Judaism is" in her list of the 613 mitzvohs. Then again I'm sure we could find one in the Talmud since its filled to the brink with such nonsense.

Shalmo said...

Now about your nonsensical attempt at weezing away the Zorastrian connections, I suggest you read this article:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/religion/zorobig.html

"The Sadducees, the 'purists', made up over 97% of the population and believed in "no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit" (Acts 23:8) - in a word, no Persian ideas. The Pharisees or Persian faction - Pharisee, Parsee, Farsi - never numbered very high, not more than 6,000, although only Pharisaism survived the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D"

It you seems you are horrendously clueless about exactly what it was that the various jewish sects in second temple Judea were fighting over.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=40&letter=S

The Sadduccees rejected the Oral Torah(Talmud), which the Pharisees claimed to be a continuously passed down oral tradition which Moses received on Mount Sinai as a companion and elucidation of the Written Torah (Five Book of Moses). Instead they insisted on strict literal interpretation of the Five books of Moses, the Written Torah. Your own "Jewish Encyclopedia" refutes you. You are a very sad man!

Also read up on the Essenes: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=478&letter=E&search=Essenes

Shalmo said...

You said"

"By anachronism, the Talmud was obviously not what was objected to the other Jewish sects"

Which has horrendously just been refuted above, read the Sadduccees description. Also Karaites which survive today. There's also Ethiopian Jews who reject Torah. Only the Pharisees invented it.

Either you are lieing or are just clueless about your own religion

Shalmo said...

^^correction: meant to say ethiopian jews who also reject the so-called ORAL Torah

Orthoprax said...

Shalmo,

You seem to be very good at arguing against positions I never defended in the first place!

"And NO. You can't compare the Quran to the Torah"

The point is that I don't care to get into an argument putting down the Koran. I really, seriously don't care. Anyone who wants to go out and see its deficiencies can easily go out and do a google search on their own.

"And please don't bring Saudi or Sudan."

Why? The actions of your fellow Muslims speak pretty loudly to me.

"Btw you are right that every religion has its apologists. The problem is that every religion can't be right, hence you have to seperate the weak apologetics from the strong ones."

Or maybe none of them are? All of these types of apologetics are WEAK.

"And based on, shall I say you complete inability to offer a single rebuttal, tells me Judaism has a long long long way to go before anybody takes its apologetics seriously."

It's not an inability, it's a serious lack of caring to engage with you. You seem to really want to get into a fight - I seriously don't care to.

"To lend to an alien at interest (Deut. 23:21) According to tradition, this is mandatory (affirmative). emphasis on the "according to tradition this is mandatory" anti-semtic card my butt!!!"

Jewish tradition is not monolithic. There are some rabbis who say this and others who say the opposite. The generally accepted rule today is that such a thing is not mandatory.

"Now about your nonsensical attempt at weezing away the Zorastrian connections"

I actually wasn't commenting on the connections, but of your false etymology. There is no legitimate source that says Pharisee is derived from Farsi. Read what I say, don't read into what I say.

"It you seems you are horrendously clueless about exactly what it was that the various jewish sects in second temple Judea were fighting over."

Again, read what I said, not into what I said. The Saduccees couldn't have rejected the Talmud because that text post-dates their existence. They didn't even reject the *existence* of the oral law, but just it's authoritative legitimacy.


In the end, you seem to have a lot of free time and use it to make a million and one posts about everything that comes to your mind. The truth is that I acknowledge, as I have already several times, many of the deficiencies in Halacha. But you tend to go a step or two further beyond what is reasonable and are blind to the deficiencies in your own religion.

Shalmo said...

Anti-GENTILISM is the problem. There was no such thing as “anti-semitism” until the Old Testament of the Bible, especially the Torah created anti-GENTILISM, and sensible NON-Jews said: “Hey! since you HATE ME for NOT being one of you, I am sure not going to be PRO-semitism!”. They codified hatred of all NON-Jews (GENTILES) in their religion, and now wonder why Gentiles are “anti” them. So-called “antisemitism” is not “hate”, it is the normal reaction of any SANE person to a Group, Society, Organization, that openly preaches IT’s hatred of You. Judaism has been preaching it’s Hatred of NON-jews for thousands of years, and THAT is why any NON-jew with self-esteem, and self-respect, is PRO-Gentile.

Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, leader of Chabad-Lubavitch.
“The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: ‘Let us differentiate.’ Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have case of ‘let us differentiate’ between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of (members) of all nations of the world… A non-Jew’s entire reality is only vanity. The entire creation (of a non-Jew) exists only for the sake of the Jews.”

Orthoprax said...

Uh huh, that makes sense. Or maybe if you were not in fact antisemitic you'd realize that chauvinism is pandemic in the human species. Nobody hates the Chinese for calling themselves the Middle Kingdom.

Why doesn't the fact that the Navajo call themselves Dine = "People," implying that non-Navajo, non-Dine are not people inspire you to write post after post bashing them?

Shalmo said...

I'm gonna keep this brief

Here are just a few examples of Chazal taking in islamic ideas and then judeo-fying them:

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBnumb.html
-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BByalkut.html
-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBrabbah.html
-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html

You can read the proofs for them right there. The dates in particular leave no doubt on who influenced who. Like I said just coz Judaism has claims of being older, people ignore that influence went the other way, especially considering how muslims were contemptuous on taking in any jewish ideas since they felt the jewish books were "corrupted"

countless other examples can be found here as well: http://www.google.com/search?q=midrash&btnG=Search&domains=www.islamic-awareness.org&sitesearch=www.islamic-awareness.org

^^Use the search feature as they have a lifetime of reading available there

Peace!

Orthoprax said...

Are you still on this kick?

Unbiased academic sources consistently and coherently give the Midrashic sources early dates - as other early-dated sources refer to them! They show a better understanding of the history than your obviously biased and ideologically-driven site which selectively discusses only dates of final compilation and manuscription, of which it only discusses conclusions favorable to its argument. This is an incomplete and twisted way of study. Indeed, your site also has a habit of selectively quoting; leaving out parts which prove them wrong:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Saifullah/cain-abel2.htm

It's unlikely that Muhammed sat down and read copies of these Midrashim (especially since he was reported to be illiterate), but it is likely that he and his early converts heard them related from Jewish traders and the like.

Shalmo, you need to keep in mind that it genuinely wouldn't bother me if it turned out that things in Judaism had Islamic sources. Seriously - wouldn't bother me in the least. I just think you're wrong. For you though, it is apparent that you have some ideological need for Judaism to be derivative. If you really seek truth, try stripping yourself from religious ideology and then assess the evidence plainly.

Shalmo said...

Lots of funky words like "Unbiased academic sources consistently and coherently give the Midrashic sources early dates - as other early-dated sources refer to them"; but where's the proof aside from conjectural spinning? I checked out all the dates on the site, and they are legitimate with the sources they cite.

Now since you used something as ridiculous as answering-islam, may I present to you its companion site:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/

If there is an argument on answering-islam, there is likely a counter-argument on answering-christianity

Its interesting that despite them using Jewish sources like "Encyclopaedia Judaica", "Jewish Encyclopedia" and everything also being mostly western sources, you still are able to bark that its theologically rigged, even though its not a response to convert Jews but a response against christian missionaries targeting muslims for conversion.

And the best refutation you could come up with was a link from answering-christianity, which btw that very article I pointed to just refuted.

answering-christianity uses nothing but orientalists who are completely clueless on the basics of islam who uses lunatics like Patricia Crone, ignoring what people like feel about the Bible to begin with.

You would go crazy if I did the same to learn about Judaism. How about I go to David Duke to learn about Judaism, of course then you would call me anti-semite? Everything I have cited on this page has pure Jewish sources such as Jewish Encyclopedia, Chabad and so on.

"It's unlikely that Muhammed sat down and read copies of these Midrashim (especially since he was reported to be illiterate), but it is likely that he and his early converts heard them related from Jewish traders and the like."

Which is also horrendously refuted. Islamic-awareness in fact have issued a very good challenge.

If there indeed was somebody or a group of people from whom Mohammed learned all this stuff, then where are they? What proof is there that they existed? Who were they? When/where did these lessons to Mohammed begin, considering we have in full detail more knowledge of him and every instance of his life than any other individual in all of history? Most the islamic sources on him have abundant contemporary verification. Unless of course you prefer to argue a negative which can never be proven

And that very site you touted about has abundant refutations for all the so-called borrowing theories. Here a list of all the refutations: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/

And here are two non-muslims who more or less aren't leaning either way in their views about islamic sources:

Karen Armstrong in her book A History Of God writes about the revelation to the Prophet Muhammad(P) by God:

In about the year 610 an Arab merchant of the thriving city of Mecca in Hijaz, who had never read the Bible and probably never heard of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, had an experience that was uncannily similar to theirs.[1]

Roger DuPasquier, a Swiss journalist and author, asserts that:

To this day no-one has put forward a defensible explanation of how an unlettered caravan merchant of the early seventh century might have been able, by his own devices, to produce a text of such inimitable beauty, of such capacity to stir emotion, and which contained knowledge and wisdom which stood so far above the ideas current among makind at that time. The studies carried out in the West which try to determine the 'sources used by Muhammad', or to bring to light the psychological phenomenon which enabled him to draw the inspiration from his 'subconscious', have demonstrated only one thing: the anti-Muslim prejudice of their author

Unless you are inconsistent and presuppose that supernatural origins are only possible for Judaism, but not for any other religion. If you are someone who believes in the supernatural then you have to be consistent and give islam, or any other religion the same break

If I apply your methodology to Judaism, then that means that Judaism is just a conglomerate of Cannanites who stoles mythology from everyone around them whether the hitties, egyptians, sumerians, cannanites, babylonians etc etc with monotheism and the concept of a soul plagarized from Greek thinkers like Plato, Socrates and Aristotle.

Shalmo said...

In fact that very same site, offers a startling proof for the Quran and the Sunnah's authenticity.

If it indeed copied the bible then how was it able to avoid copying the errors as well, and how did Muhammed know which was true and which was false without access to 21st century biblical criticism

"According to modern linguist research the word "Pharaoh" comes from the Egyptian per-aa, meaning the "Great House" and originally referred to the palace rather than the king himself. The word was used by the writers of the Old Testament and has since become a widely adopted title for all the kings of Egypt. However, the Egyptians did not call their ruler "Pharaoh" until the 18th Dynasty (c. 1552 - 1295 BC) in the New Kingdom Period. In the language of the hieroglyphs, "Pharaoh" was first used to refer to the king during the reign of Amenhophis IV (c. 1352 - 1338 BC). We know that such a designation was correct in the time of Moses but the use of the word Pharaoh in the story of Joseph is an anachronism, as under the rule of the Hyksos there was no "Pharaoh." Similarly, the events related in Genesis 12 concerning Abraham (c. 2000-1700 BCE) could not have occurred in a time when the sovereign of Egypt was called Pharaoh, and this exposes yet another anachronism. In several chapters of Genesis we find the same error frequently recurring – some ninety-six times in total. What is clear is that the biblical writers composed their texts under the influences of the knowledge of their time, when the king of Egypt was usually designated as "Pharaoh". The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible explains the reasons of such discrepancies with modern knowledge:

The frank attitude toward the stories about Egypt in Genesis and Exodus is that folk memory had retained the essentials of great Hebrew experience but had later clothed that memory with some details imperfectly recollected and some circumstantial details borrowed from later times and conditions.

The situation is entirely different in the Qur'an. As is the case with the Bible, reference to the sovereign of ancient Egypt is found throughout various chapters of the Qur'an. A careful study of the minutiae of each narrative reveals some compelling differences. With regard to the Egyptian king who was a contemporary of Joseph, the Qur'an uses the title "King" (Arabic, Malik); he is never once addressed as Pharaoh. As for the king who ruled during the time of Moses, the Qur'an repeatedly calls him Pharaoh (Arabic, Fir'awn).

These facts that we have mentioned were unknown at the time of the Qur'anic Revelation. The only source of knowledge of the religious past were the Bible-based stories in circulation. From the time of the Old Testament to the Qur'an, the only document mankind possessed on these ancient stories was the Bible itself. Furthermore, the knowledge of the old Egyptian hieroglyphs had been totally forgotten until they were finally deciphered in the 19th century CE.

The historicity of the Pharaonic title provides yet another sharp reminder to those that adhere to the precarious theory that parts of the Qur'an were allegedly copied from the Bible. If Egyptian hieroglyphs were long dead and the biblical account an inaccurate work of folk memory, then from where did the Prophet Muhammad obtain his information? The Qur'an answers:

Your Companion is neither astray nor being misled. Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him. He was taught by one mighty in Power. [Qur'an 53:2-5]

It is interesting to note that the meaning of the word ayah, usually translated as 'verse' in the Qur'an, also means a sign and a proof. The reference to Pharaoh and other facts concerning ancient Egypt in the Qur'an suggests a special reflection."

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/josephdetail.html

I could also use the same argument to point and question why for instance neither the Quran nor the Sunnah state the world is 6000 years old as Judaism espouses, if indeed it was copied. (And don't you dare give me the usual Jewish apologist nonsense, because the geneologies from Adam in the Torah make it impossible not to see the world as that old)

In fact the Sunnah in particular outright rejects this view.

Or the appropriated mythology from the egyptians, cannanites, sumerians, greeks, babylonians, and so forth. How did he know what to take and what to leave out if he took it all from your books?

Again Mohammed did not have access to 21st century biblical criticism, so how did he know?

Shalmo said...

"If you really seek truth, try stripping yourself from religious ideology and then assess the evidence plainly."

I just gave you the evidence.

And no thanks, I'll stick with my religion.

With the 50% intermarriage rate in North America and in other parts of the world, and the coming destruction soon to happen in our lifetimes, I don't really see a future for Jewry

Its best that I stick with a religion that has some future. The other two abrahamic faiths are doomed to extinction from present estimates, where we are the fastest growing bunch on this globe

Orthoprax said...

Shalmo,

"Lots of funky words like "Unbiased academic sources consistently and coherently give the Midrashic sources early dates - as other early-dated sources refer to them"; but where's the proof aside from conjectural spinning?"

Typically from places like the Talmud which have likely references to the Midrashim. I don't know why it isn't obvious to you but those texts clearly had a long development. Setting the 'date' of the midrashim at the time of compilation or manuscription, when it's well understood that their origins likely date back far earlier is where the spin is at.

Do you honestly believe that the Jews were not creating legends and such about the stories in the Torah until only after the Koran was written? And only then immediately began copying Islamic stories? Does that sound even remotely likely?

"Now since you used something as ridiculous as answering-islam, may I present to you its companion site"

I presented that specific page of that site to show you how your site took Waxman's quote on Midrash Tanhuma woefully out of context in an effort of intellectual dishonesty. This is important, y'know. But I don't vouch for the general quality of the rest of anything on that site.

"Its interesting that despite them using Jewish sources like "Encyclopaedia Judaica", "Jewish Encyclopedia" and everything also being mostly western sources, you still are able to bark that its theologically rigged"

Because it plainly is.. Using sources inappropriately or selectively tends only to confirm suspicions of ideological bias.

"If there indeed was somebody or a group of people from whom Mohammed learned all this stuff, then where are they? What proof is there that they existed? Who were they?"

LOL. Ok - so supernatural revelation is more likely than anonymous Jewish traders because we'd expect these Jews to leave a receipt? Are you serious?

The rest of what you wrote here is either total non-sequiturs or plain nonsense from too much diarrhea of the keyboard.

Anonymous said...

topic51, [url=http://www.chop.edu/forum/user/profile/8207.page]klonopin no prescription[/url], ;-( jjy, http://www.chop.edu/forum/user/profile/8207.page buy klonopin no prescription :-), [url=http://www.chop.edu/forum/user/profile/8208.page]xanax 2mg online[/url], ;-( eyo, http://www.chop.edu/forum/user/profile/8208.page xanax 2mg :-(, [url=http://forum.cprs.ca/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6]order adipex[/url], ;-( ovj, http://forum.cprs.ca/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6 order adipex online :-(, [url=http://forum.cprs.ca/default.aspx?g=posts&m=7]buy alprazolam no prescription[/url], :-( snc, http://forum.cprs.ca/default.aspx?g=posts&m=7 alprazolam without prescription :-(, [url=http://forum.cprs.ca/default.aspx?g=posts&m=8]ambien no prescription[/url], :-( vrm, http://forum.cprs.ca/default.aspx?g=posts&m=8 buy ambien without prescription *sorry*

Anonymous said...

hi! [url=http://esnips.com/web/minnaregina/]Hello. And Bye.
[/url] http://esnips.com/web/minnaregina/ free nude video clips of milfs
thanks!
free nude video clips of milfs

Mr. Cohen said...

The Jewish law of matrilineal descent can be derived from the Tanach [Jewish Bible], specifically:

{1}Shemot / Exodus, chapter 21

{2} Devarim / Deuteronomy, chapter 7

{3} Ezra chapters 9 and 10.

All of these predate the Roman Empire by centuries.

To receive quick quotes from Jewish holy books and short true inspirational stories of Rabbis, go to:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DerechEmet/