Sunday, July 24, 2011

Paternal vs. Maternal Lineage in Judaism and the bible. In general views it by the father.(Part 3) Ezra

Rabbinic Judaism has decided against the torah and against the fathers of these children  that a child is Jewish if the mother is Jewish in 100% of the cases and nothing else matters which seems like rigid gender type politics and which while the Torah does have general gender roles it is not this rigid as is here. For example the daughter Zelapchad were able to inherit property to preserve their fathers name although in dong so they were required to marry within their tribe.

  This here though is a clear pander to feminists  and like all feminism at the end of the day benefit men in exactly the way the feminists thought they were stopping  that men can then marry a woman with no Jewish male influence or background so they think they can then mold the woman the way they want without any competing male influences. Which anyway is very arrogant thinking.

Here are the first two parts of this topic.
Paternal vs. Maternal Lineage Part 1

Paternal vs. Maternal Lineage Part 2

But anyway. Many BT's seem to be an expert on this as they try to push the propaganda on those that know little about Judaism and the more they mention the more I realize this clearly was a ruse by the Rabbis more then I originally realized. So they bring up Ezra in Chapter 9 and 10 when he condemns the Jews for intermarriage. If you have a bible or Tanach read this. The issue here was marrying  from the 7 nations around them that had very abhorrent practices in sexual and family matters including sacrificing their children to their God and serious sexual sins. He repeats the saying in Deutoronomy 7:3 "do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons or let their daughters marry your sons (Ezra 9:12). It did explain that this would lead to the children practices idol worship from the parent either father or mother from the 7 tribes.

Here in Ezra the issue of men  marrying foreign wives and whose abhorrent practices are like those of the  Caanites, the Hitties, the Perizzies, the Jebusites, the Amonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and Amorites.     (9:1 in Ezra) But Ezra did mention the problem for both genders yet in this case only the men seem to be mentioned. Starting with Cohens and the most important men involved in this sin in Chapter 10. They agree to expel their wives and children as well as they realized their children would be raised with very evil ideas that could not co-exist. This DOES SHOW that a man does have to marry a woman of character and not practice evil ideologies that will impact the children and who the father is not 100% of what makes someone Jewish especially if the father recognizes the kid is not going to be raised properly.  And how you are raised is relevant.  We see here though also that the men had charcter and admitting they were wrong with the ones with the most influential positions mentioned first. This is much different then today when the  male leaders are never wrong.

But only men are mentioned here. Does this mean it is ok for woman to intermarry or they weren't involved in this sin? Clearly from Ezra mentioning both genders in 9:12 which he is just repeating the idea in Deutoronomy 7: 3 and not reinventing the wheel here. Clearly likely women as well intermarried. However, in their case they could not just divorce their husbands. They would need the other nation to decide to divorce their foreign Jewish wife. And clearly their children would be raised in the ideas of the foreign man they are marrying which was why the torah warned the Jewish people not to give their daughter to a foreign man. But once done they can only try to make the man want to divorce them but they can't decide that themselves. Or their father can try to pay off the man to divorce his daughter.

This case of Ezra if anything this shows real male leadership compared to today when the men in positions of authority can never be wrong and just go after men at lower ends while here the most important men were mentioned first and took responsibility for their own behavior and decide their wives and children had to be sent away which was them not benefiting from their own sin which to conclude from this that woman could benefit from marrying a non-jew is absurd and ignoring Deutoronomy 7:3 and the fact that the real issue here was that sadly once the women married a foreign man they could not just want a divorce when they want and would need help from their father paying off the guy or by making themselves repugnant to their husband to get a divorce which in their case also likely would not be able to take the children in this divorce from a foreign man as that would not be something the man would agree to. So a woman marrying a nonjewish man would in most cases lead the kid to be raised in another religion and to suggest the woman can somehow outsmart the foreign father is just pure arrogance and would be teaching the children to disrespect the father which is wrong in the first place.

No comments: