DOCSLIB.ORG

Avunculate Marriage in the Bible

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Avunculate Marriage in the Bible Avunculate Marriage in the Bible By Reuven Chaim (Rudolph) Klein Rabbi Reuven Chaim Klein is the author of theLashon HaKodesh: History, Holiness, & Hebrew [available here]. His book is available online and in bookstores throughout the world. Rabbi Klein published articles in various journals including Jewish Bible Quarterly, Kovetz Hamaor, Kovetz Chitzei Gibborim, and Kovetz Kol HaTorah. He studied at premier Yeshivas including the Mir in Jerusalem and BMG in Lakewood. He was most recently a fellow at the Tikvah Institute for Yeshiva Men (Summer 2015) and lives with his wife and children in Beitar Illit, Israel. Anyone who has a copy of the first edition of his book on Lashon HaKodesh is eligible to receive a PDF of the “Additions and Corrections” section of the new edition. Please send requests directly to the author at: [email protected] The term “avunculate marriage” refers to marriage between a man and his niece. In this paper, we will explore the Bible’s view on the permissibility of such unions, and discuss several examples of such marriages in the Bible. Not only does rabbinic literature generally presume that such marriages are permitted, the Talmud even encourages it. On the other hand, other sources ban these relationships. The Sadducees believe that the Bible forbids such marriages. While various Tosafists believe that such marriages are Biblically permitted, they still prohibit marrying one’s niece (at least in some cases) for other reasons. Abraham & Nahor marry their nieces Upon close examination, one will find that at least six Biblical personalities married their nieces. Each of these cases can and are interpreted in various ways; calling into question their relevance to our discussion. However, the mere fact that tradition allows for these sorts of interpretations shows that avunculate marriage is compatible with Biblical tradition, and constitutes a legitimate building block in the institution of the Jewish family. The first two examples of avunculate marriages in the Bible are those between Abraham and Nahor and their respective nieces. The Torah says: And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran. Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begot Lot. And Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees. And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram’s wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. (Gen. 11:26–29) This passage records that Abram (i.e. Abraham), Nahor, and Haran were brothers. Nahor married Milcah, the daughter of Haran; and Abraham married Sarai. According to an ancient tradition preserved in rabbinic sources (Seder Olam Ch. 2; TB Megillah 14a; and TB Sanhedrin 69b) and by Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews Book I, Ch. 6), another name for Sarai is Iscah. The assertion that Sarai is the same person as Iscah is supported by the fact that the Torah provides the paternity of Nahor’s wife Milcah, yet does not mention the paternity of Abraham’s wife Sarai. Given that the Torah delineates one wife’s father, we would have expected it to mention the father of the other wife as well. This difficulty can be resolved if we assume that Sarai is Iscah, since the Torah states that Haran was the father of Iscah.[1] If we assume that the Haran who is mentioned as Abraham and Nahor’s father-in-law is the same person as their brother Haran, and that Sarai is Iscah, then this passage records two instances of avunculate marriages: Nahor married his niece Milcah and Abraham married his niece Iscah/Sarai. However, it is debatable whether Nahor and Abraham’s marriages to Milcah and Sarai were truly avunculate marriages. In order to claim that they were, one must rely on two assumptions, both of which are subject to dispute. Firstly, Ibn Ezra (to Gen. 11:29) expresses skepticism regarding the identification of Iscah with Sarai.[2] Secondly, even if Iscah is Sarai, some commentators (including Abarbanel (Gen. 11) and the Medieval work Moshav Zeqenim[3]) understand that the Bible refers to two different men named Haran. One was a brother to Abraham and Nahor (and father of Lot); while the other was the father of Iscah/Sarai and Milcah.[4] Accordingly, there is no clear consensus on whether Abraham and Nahor married their nieces. Dinah’s daughter Later in Genesis, the Bible relates that when Joseph was the Egyptian viceroy, he married Osnath daughter of Poti-Phera (Gen. 41:45). According to many Midrashic sources (Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Ch. 38; Masekhet Sofrim 21:9; and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to Gen. 41:45(, Osnath was none other than the daughter of Dinah (Jacob’s daughter) and her rapist, Shechem. This “illegitimate” child was initially shunned by Jacob’s family, but eventually found her way back in by marrying Joseph. Thus, Joseph’s wife Osnath was his niece, the daughter of his sister Dinah. Although others understand that Osnath was actually an Egyptian woman,[5] the Midrashic sources above reject the notion that Joseph would marry a non-Israelite woman. Similarly, Rabbeinu Hayyim Paltiel quotes a Midrash[6] which says that Simeon married the daughter of Dinah who was born by rape through Shechem.[7] According to this Midrash (which is probably mutually exclusive with the above mentioned sources), Simeon married his niece, the daughter of his sister Dinah. These examples differ from the others under consideration because these are the only explicit examples of a man marrying his sororal niece (i.e. his sister’s daughter). All the other examples involve a man marrying his fraternal niece (i.e. his brother’s daughter). Uziel and Miriam Amram had three children: Miriam, Aaron, and Moses. The Bible records the marriages of both of Amram’s sons: Moses married Zippora daughter of Jethro (Ex. 2:21), and Aaron married Eliseba daughter of Amminadab (Ex. 6:23). However, the Bible does not tell us about the family of Amram’s daughter Miriam. Rabbinic literature states that she married Caleb (Exodus Rabbah §1:17; Sifrei, Beha’alothkha §78; and TB Sotah 11b–12a). However, according to the apocryphal work The Testament of Amram found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran (4Q543, 4Q549), Amram gave his daughter Miriam to his younger brother Uzziel to wed. That work understands that the sons of Uzziel listed in the Bible (Ex. 6:22) were born to his wife Miriam. Thus, that work believed that Uzziel married his brother’s daughter Miriam. Othniel and Achsa As related in the book of Joshua (15:16–17) and in the opening chapter of Judges (1:12–13), Caleb offered his daughter Achsa to whoever could conquer the Canaanite stronghold at Kiriath Sepher: And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb’s younger brother, took it; and he[Caleb] gave him [Othniel] Achsah his daughter to wife. Othniel succeeded in conquering the city, and thus wins the hand of his brother’s daughter Achsa in marriage. Most assume that Othniel was Caleb’s full brother, although some explain that they shared only a mother, not a father.[8] R. Ishtori ha-Parhi (1280–1366), the foremost Rabbinic topographer of the Medieval period, writes (Kaftor Va-Fereh Ch. 5) that the Sadducees consider themselves more pious than Rabbinic Jews because they forbid one to marry his brother’s daughter. Then, ha- Parhi cites this case as a Biblical precedent for allowing such marriages. Nonetheless, ha-Parhi notes that the case of Othniel only proves that one may marry the daughter of his maternal brother, but does not necessarily prove that one can marry the daughter of his paternal siblings. Elimelech and Naomi There is a Talmudic discussion (TB Bava Bathra 91a) regarding the Book of Ruth which explains the relationships between its major players. It asserts that Elimelech (Naomi’s husband), Salmon (Boaz’s father), the anonymous relative who refused to redeem Naomi’s field, and Naomi’s father were all sons of Nahshon ben Amminadab. According to this understanding, Elimelech married his brother’s daughter—Naomi. However, the Midrash (Ruth Rabbah §6:3) presents a dissenting view that Elimelech was a son of Salmon (and brother to Boaz). According to this understanding, Naomi was not Elimelech’s niece but his first cousin. Mordecai and Esther The Talmud (TB Megillah 13a) relates that Mordecai not only raised the orphaned Esther, but he also married her. Furthermore, some sources, including Josephus in Antiquities (Book XI, Ch. 6), Targum Rishon (to Est. 7:6),[9] and the Vulgate (Est. 2:7) explain that Esther was Mordecai’s niece. Ibn Ezra (to Est. 8:1) and Maimonides (there)[10] also repeat that claim. Together, these two ideas indicate that Mordecai married his niece. Nonetheless, this understanding is simply mistaken as the Bible quite explicitly states that she was his first cousin, not his niece: And he brought up Hadassah, that is, Esther, his uncle’s daughter… (Est. 2:7) and Now when the turn of Esther, the daughter of Abihail the uncle of Mordecai… (Est. 2:15). The Talmud encourages marrying one’s neice The prophet Isaiah tells of several acts of kindness that a man can perform that would prompt God to answer his prayers. He says: Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thy healing shall spring forth speedily; and thy righteousness shall go before thee, the glory of the LORD shall be thy reward.
Recommended publications
  • Yeshiva University • Rosh Hashana To-Go • Tishrei 5769

    Yeshiva University • Rosh Hashana To-Go • Tishrei 5769

    1 YESHIVA UNIVERSITY • ROSH HASHANA TO-GO • TISHREI 5769 Dear Friends, ראש השנה will enhance your ספר It is my sincere hope that the Torah found in this virtual (Rosh HaShana) and your High Holiday experience. We have designed this project not only for the individual, studying alone, but also for a a pair of students) that wishes to work through the study matter together, or a group) חברותא for engaged in facilitated study. להגדיל תורה With this material, we invite you, wherever you may be, to join our Beit Midrash to enjoy the splendor of Torah) and to discuss Torah issues that touch on) ולהאדירה contemporary matters, as well as issues rooted in the ideals of this time of year. We hope, through this To-Go series, to participate in the timeless conversations of our great sages. בברכת כתיבה וחתימה טובה Rabbi Kenneth Brander Dean, Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future Richard M Joel, President, Yeshiva University Rabbi Kenneth Brander, Dean, Center for the Jewish Future Rabbi Robert Shur, General Editor Ephraim Meth, Editor Copyright © 2008 All rights reserved by Yeshiva University Yeshiva University Center for the Jewish Future 500 West 185th Street, Suite 413, New York, NY 10033 [email protected] • 212.960.5400 x 5313 2 YESHIVA UNIVERSITY • ROSH HASHANA TO-GO • TISHREI 5769 Table of Contents Rosh Hashana 2008/5769 The Mitzvah of Shofar: Who’s Listening? Rabbi Reuven Brand The Teshuvah Beyond Teshuvah Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman Rosh HaShanah's Role as the Beginning of a New Fiscal Year and How It Affects Us Rabbi Josh Flug Aseret Yemei Teshuva: The Bridge Between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur Rabbi Shmuel Hain The Music of the Yamim Noraim Cantor Sherwood Goffin Selected Minhagim of Rosh Hashana Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer The Personal and Collective Journey to Har haMoria Mrs.
  • Purifying the Impure?

    Purifying the Impure?

    בס“ד Parshiyot Shemini/Parah 23 Adar II, 5779/March 30, 2019 Vol. 10 Num. 30 (#408) This issue is sponsored by the families of Irwin, Jim and David Diamond in memory of their father, Morris Diamond z”l לזכר ולעילוי נשמת אבינו מורינו ר‘ משה בן דוד שלמה ז“ל Purifying the Impure? Ezer Diena In delineating the rules of purity and 1: The student may be right Rabbi Abulafia’s characterization of this impurity, the Torah warns us very According to Rabbeinu Tam (cited in person as one who is able to overcome a strongly to avoid defiling ourselves by Tosafot to Eruvin and Sanhedrin ibid.), challenge can be further split into two eating or otherwise coming into the student and judge meant to prove tests: the logical, and emotional. contact with the carcasses of only that a sheretz would not cause s her atz i m, literally “creeping impurity if an olive-sized piece were One test is to see a Torah ruling which creatures” [singular: sheretz]. (Vayikra transported, and this may have basis in seems illogical, even by the Torah’s 11:29-38, 41-44) Not only that, but the traditional sources. The ability to permit standards. Certain laws relating to sheretz gained special status as the a sheretz in this way simply indicates purity and impurity may very well fall paradigm of uncleanliness in the detailed knowledge and halachic into this category! In fact, one of the Talmud (Taanit 16a): acumen. However, other commentaries more challenging details of ritual purity, raise technical halachic questions which we read about in Parshat Parah “Rabbi Adda bar Ahavah said: A against this approach, and reject it.
  • Family Business a Demos Collection

    Family Business a Demos Collection

    Family Business a Demos Collection Edited by Helen Wilkinson Open access. Some rights reserved. As the publisher of this work, Demos has an open access policy which enables anyone to access our content electronically without charge. We want to encourage the circulation of our work as widely as possible without affecting the ownership of the copyright, which remains with the copyright holder. Users are welcome to download, save, perform or distribute this work electronically or in any other format, including in foreign language translation without written permission subject to the conditions set out in the Demos open access licence which you can read here. Please read and consider the full licence. The following are some of the conditions imposed by the licence: • Demos and the author(s) are credited; • The Demos website address (www.demos.co.uk) is published together with a copy of this policy statement in a prominent position; • The text is not altered and is used in full (the use of extracts under existing fair usage rights is not affected by this condition); • The work is not resold; • A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to the address below for our archive. By downloading publications, you are confirming that you have read and accepted the terms of the Demos open access licence. Copyright Department Demos Elizabeth House 39 York Road London SE1 7NQ United Kingdom [email protected] You are welcome to ask for permission to use this work for purposes other than those covered by the Demos open access licence.
  • The Best Part of Waking up Birchas Hatorah on Shavuos Morning Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch Faculty, Stone Beit Midrash Program

    The Best Part of Waking up Birchas Hatorah on Shavuos Morning Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch Faculty, Stone Beit Midrash Program

    The Best Part of Waking Up Birchas HaTorah on Shavuos Morning Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch Faculty, Stone Beit Midrash Program The Importance of Birchas HaTorah One of the most significant berachos we recite throughout the day is the birchas haTorah. This series of berachos30 is not only a halachic requirement, but a powerful testament to the importance of Torah study. For example, the Talmud (Nedarim 81a) asks why Torah scholarship often does not pass from a father who is a Torah scholar to his children. Ravina explains that it is result of the scholar’s omission of birchas haTorah: ומפני מה אין מצויין ת"ח לצאת Why is it uncommon for Torah scholars to produce Torah scholars as ת"ח מבניהן? רבינא אמר... their children? Ravina said: Because they [the Torah scholars] do שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה. not recite the berachos [of birchas haTorah] prior [to studying Torah] The Beis Yosef (O.C. 47) quotes his Rebbi, Rabbeinu Yitzhak Abohav, who explains Ravina’s intent: ורבינו הגדול מהר"י אבוהב ז"ל Our great Rebbi, Mahar"i Abohav zt"l, wrote that the [explanation כתב שהטעם שאינם זוכים of the] reason [given by the Talmud] that they are not privileged to לבנים תלמידי חכמים מפני שאין have children that are Torah scholars “because they do not recite the מברכין בתורה הוא לפי שמאחר beracha [of birchas haTorah]” is that since they do not recite שאין מברכין על התורה מורה berachos on the Torah, it demonstrates that they are not studying it שאין קורין אותה לשמה אלא for its own sake, rather merely like a common occupation.
  • Cultivating a Jewish Tax Ethic

    Cultivating a Jewish Tax Ethic

    ARI HART Civilization’s Price: Cultivating a Jewish Tax Ethic Introduction SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. famously wrote that taxes are “the price of civilization”. Judaism recognizes them as more. Taxes are a means of civilization, and their creation and collection reveals a tremendous amount about a society’s priorities and values. Recent scandals involving Jews shirking their tax responsibilities have led to much ink being spilled, in certain circles, on whether or not Jew must pay taxes. The Jewish ethical answer in a free democracy is unequivocally “yes”. 1 Does the Jewish ethical tradition have anything to say beyond this basic question? Aside from how they should be paid (regularly, fully), can we artic - ulate a Jewish tax ethic? The Torah contains several kinds of taxes and tithes in its economic sys - tem. p Terumah was levied to support the priests who did not own prop - erty and devoted themselves to the communal good including running the Temple. Terumah, was given, according to rabbinic mandate at a level of between a fortieth, fiftieth or sixtieth of total produce, depending on the generosity of the payer. p Ma’aser rishon , a tenth taken after terumah was taken, was given to support the landless Levi’im in their service educating and serving the Jewish people. RABBI ARI HART is Assistant Rabbi at the Hebrew Institute of Riverdale and Director of Recruitment at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. 78 Ari Hart 79 p Ma’aser sheini is a share of produce that had to be eaten in the capital, Jerusalem, or sold and substituted with food bought in Jerusalem, to support its economy.
  • SOME MOOT PROBLEMS in SOCIAL ORGANIZATION by ROBERT H

    SOME MOOT PROBLEMS in SOCIAL ORGANIZATION by ROBERT H

    American Anthropologist NEW SERIES Vol. 36 JULY-SEPTEMBER, 1934 No.3 SOME MOOT PROBLEMS IN SOCIAL ORGANIZATION By ROBERT H. LOWIE AXIOMS wo recent papers on social organization1 explain the distribution of T social phenomena by diffusion from a single world centre. Conclusions of such import challenge scrutiny as to the methods by which they have been reached. In my judgment they are corollaries of questionable axioms. According to Professor Olson, unilateral descent is an almost incon­ ceivable anomaly, hence multiple origin is unthinkable: not only have all American clan systems sprung from one source but that source must lie in the Old World to save us "from the awkward plight of positing their special creation within the New World" (pp. 411-14). The axiom is no~ new, since Lewis H. Morgan (Ancient Society, pt. II, ch. XV) considered. the clan (gens) an "essentially abstruse" institution and alleged "the improbability of its repeated reproduction in disconnected areas." Those who do not accept the dogma naturally have offered hypotheses to account for clans. Professor Olson chides them for explaining "the esoteric in terms of the prosaic." What does he conceive an explanation to be? Should it reduce the unknown to the unknowable? There is one attempt to prop the axiom. Unilateral reckoning, it seems, is esoteric because "it contradicts the duality of parenthood,and results in an unnatural stressing of one side of the family.... Children naturally feel that the parent bestowing clanship is of more importance than the one who is nothing more than a biological accessory." Yet in our own so­ ciety the father alone bestows "familyship" without reducing the mother to the status of a mere biological accessory.
  • Download Catalogue

    Download Catalogue

    F i n e J u d a i C a . printed booKs, manusCripts, Ceremonial obJeCts & GraphiC art K e s t e n b au m & C om pa n y thursday, nov ember 19th, 2015 K est e n bau m & C o m pa ny . Auctioneers of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Fine Art A Lot 61 Catalogue of F i n e J u d a i C a . BOOK S, MANUSCRIPTS, GR APHIC & CEREMONIAL A RT INCLUDING A SINGULAR COLLECTION OF EARLY PRINTED HEBREW BOOK S, BIBLICAL & R AbbINIC M ANUSCRIPTS (PART II) Sold by order of the Execution Office, District High Court, Tel Aviv ——— To be Offered for Sale by Auction, Thursday, 19th November, 2015 at 3:00 pm precisely ——— Viewing Beforehand: Sunday, 15th November - 12:00 pm - 6:00 pm Monday, 16th November - 10:00 am - 6:00 pm Tuesday, 17th November - 10:00 am - 6:00 pm Wednesday, 18th November - 10:00 am - 6:00 pm No Viewing on the Day of Sale This Sale may be referred to as: “Sempo” Sale Number Sixty Six Illustrated Catalogues: $38 (US) * $45 (Overseas) KestenbauM & CoMpAny Auctioneers of Rare Books, Manuscripts and Fine Art . 242 West 30th street, 12th Floor, new york, NY 10001 • tel: 212 366-1197 • Fax: 212 366-1368 e-mail: [email protected] • World Wide Web site: www.Kestenbaum.net K est e n bau m & C o m pa ny . Chairman: Daniel E. Kestenbaum Operations Manager: Jackie S. Insel Client Relations: Sandra E. Rapoport, Esq. Printed Books & Manuscripts: Rabbi Eliezer Katzman Rabbi Dovid Kamenetsky (Consultant) Ceremonial & Graphic Art: Abigail H.
  • Dark Avunculate: Shame, Animality, and Queer Development in Oscar Wilde’S “The Star-Child”

    Dark Avunculate: Shame, Animality, and Queer Development in Oscar Wilde’S “The Star-Child”

    WellBeing International WBI Studies Repository 2014 Dark Avunculate: Shame, Animality, and Queer Development in Oscar Wilde’s “The Star-Child” Rasmus R. Simonsen University of Western Ontario Follow this and additional works at: https://www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org/acwp_ailae Part of the Animal Studies Commons, Other Anthropology Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons Recommended Citation Simonsen, R. R. (2014). Dark Avunculate: Shame, Animality, and Queer Development in Oscar Wilde's" The Star-Child". Children's Literature, 42(1), 20-41. This material is brought to you for free and open access by WellBeing International. It has been accepted for inclusion by an authorized administrator of the WBI Studies Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Dark20 Avunculate: Shame, Animality, andRasmus Queer R. Simonsen Development in Oscar Wilde’s “The Star-Child” Rasmus R. Simonsen [A]t the birth of a child or a star there is pain. —Oscar Wilde, De Profundis Then he had been a young girl Caught in the woods by a drunken old man Knowing at the end the taste of his own whiteness, The horror of his own smoothness, And he felt drunken and old. —T. S. Eliot, “The Death of Saint Narcissus” Critics dealing with Oscar Wilde’s collection of fairy tales, A House of Pomegranates, have tended to focus on “how and why a single fairy tale might simultaneously appeal to adults and to children” (Marsh 73). In order to emphasize the different impact of the stories, Michelle Ruggaber points out that the title of the collection itself harbors sin- ister allusions, as it refers to the ancient myth of Proserpine, in which pomegranates are explicitly connected with the underworld (143).
  • ON the MITZVOT of NON-JEWS: an ANALYSIS of AVODAH ZARAH 2B-3A Rabbi Dov Linzer

    ON the MITZVOT of NON-JEWS: an ANALYSIS of AVODAH ZARAH 2B-3A Rabbi Dov Linzer

    MilinHavivinEng1 7/5/05 11:48 AM Page 25 Rabbi Dov Linzer is the Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Chovevei Torah Rabbinical School and the Chair of the Yeshiva’s Departments of Talmud and Jewish Law. ON THE MITZVOT OF NON-JEWS: AN ANALYSIS OF AVODAH ZARAH 2B-3A Rabbi Dov Linzer I. THE SUGYAH Non-Jews are commanded to observe the seven Noahide laws.1 A logical corollary of this is that they are to be rewarded for their performance of these mitzvot, and held liable for transgressing them.2 This assumption, however, is brought into question by the sugyah around the statement of Rav Yosef in Avodah Zarah 2b-3a (paralleled in Bava Kama 35a): 1 Tosefta Avodah Zarah 8:4; Sanhedrin 74b 2 The idea of a world of future reward and punishment for non-Jews is consistent with the position that righteous non-Jews have a portion in the World-to-Come (Tosefta Sanhedrin 13:2; Sanhedrin 105a). It is prima facie difficult to understand how the opposing position, that even the righteous amongst the non-Jews has no share in the World-to-Come, can explain the significance of Noahide mitzvot for a non-Jew. The answers to this question are beyond the scope of this paper, but we can immediately sug- gest three possible solutions: (1) The phrase “World-to-Come” may not refer to the totality of future metaphysical reward, but only one aspect of it; (2) The primary focus of the Noahide laws might be to enforce behavior on this world and do not suggest a meta- physical religious system for non-Jews and (3) While assured no future reward, non-Jews might suffer different degrees of punishment for the degree of their transgressions.
  • An Evolutionary Sketch of Russian Kinship. INSTITUTION American Ethnological Society, Washington, D.C

    An Evolutionary Sketch of Russian Kinship. INSTITUTION American Ethnological Society, Washington, D.C

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 041 494 FL 001 445 AUTHOR Friedrich, Paul TITLE An Evolutionary Sketch of Russian Kinship. INSTITUTION American Ethnological Society, Washington, D.C. PUB DATE 63 NOTE 26p.; From Symposiu on Language and Culture: Proceedings of the 1962 Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society, p1-26 EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF-$0.25 HC-$1.40 DESCRIPTORS Anthropology, Behavioral Science Research, Behavior Patterns, *Cultural Factors, *Diachronic Linguistics, Ethnic Relations, Family (Sociological Unit), *Family Relationship, Family Structure, Ind(' European Languages, Language Patterns, Linguistics, Personal Relationship, *Russian, Semantics, *Slavic Languages, Sociolinguistics, Synchronic Linguistics ABSTRACT This paper presents a preliminary sketch of the evolution of Russian kinship from the reconstructed stages of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Slavic, through old and nineteenth century Russian, to the trends of contemporary modern Russian. Linguistic, historical, and anthropological approaches have been combined. The kinship terminology is viewed as mediating through time between one aspect of linguistic structure and one social aspect of cultural organization. The conclusions deal with a point of method, suAa up the evolution of Russian kinship in relation togeneral evolution and taxonomy, and suggest new fields for the present approach. (Author/RL) otkor Veit ve:e4 U.S. DEPA/100/111 OF HEALTH, EDUCATION I WELFARE OFFICE OF EDUCATION 4. THIS DOCUMENTHAS BEEN /IMPUTED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED PERSON OR OMNI/AMON FROM THE ORI6INATIN6 IL POINTS Of VIEWOR STATED DO POTPRESSOR REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE POSITION OR POLICY, OF EDUCATION ecalunt4useeedeenyd41 apyruid, Medantestagtm) Ott no 5.I. VOL UT IONA RY SKLTcfiOFPT= KINSHIP Paul Friedrich IN THE FOLLOWING paper is presented a preliminary sketch of the evolution of Russian kin- ship from the reconstructed stages of Proto-Indo-European (PIE) and Proto-Slavic, through the historically attested old and nineteenth-century Russian, to the trends of contempo- rary modern Russian.
  • A Categorization of Errors Encountered in the Study of Zemanim

    A Categorization of Errors Encountered in the Study of Zemanim

    91 A Categorization of Errors Encountered in the Study of Zemanim By: WILLIAM GEWIRTZ Introduction To begin, I feel obligated to address my motivation for writing an essay focusing on the errors regarding zemanim one encounters throughout rabbinic literature. My motivation is at least three-fold: 1. For theorists in the development of halakha, these examples provide valuable information for analysis. 2. Without errors identified and accounted for, mastery of this vast and critical area of rabbinic literature will remain difficult even for accomplished halakhists. One need only read the revealing teshuvah in Minhaṭ Yitzhoḳ 1 to observe the (self-reported) chal- lenges faced by one of the last century’s celebrated poskim. 3. On occasion, the erroneous reasoning provided in a teshuvah provides the basis on which others construct their rulings. This has caused practical errors usually, but not always, by lesser authori- ties. Throughout, I do not cite multiple teshuvot where an error occurs; with a few exceptions, one example suffices. Normally, a footnote will specify a source where an error can be found. Most illustrated errors were made by poskim living after the 19th century, when almost all need- ed science was widely available. The errors that I list are focused on the rationale or structure of the arguments regardless of whether the resulting psak may still be reasona- ble. As a result of the errors, however, many pesakim are not well- founded. Furthermore, many who study and then apply those arguments may use the rationale as a basis for an erroneous psak. 1 Minhaṭ Yitzhoḳ̣ (4:53).
  • The Sun's Path at Night

    The Sun's Path at Night

    The Sun’s Path at Night The Revolution in Rabbinic Perspectives on the Ptolemaic Revolution RABBI NATAN SLIFKIN Copyright © 2010 by Natan Slifkin Version 1.1 http://www.ZooTorah.com http://www.RationalistJudaism.com This monograph is adapted from an essay that was written as part of the course requirements for a Master’s degree in Jewish Studies at the Lander Institute (Jerusalem). This document may be freely distributed as long as it is distributed complete and intact. If you are reading a printed version of this document and you wish to download it in PDF format, see www.rationalistjudaism.com Cover photograph: An armillary sphere, depicting the Ptolemaic model of the cosmos. Other monographs available in this series: The Evolution of the Olive Shiluach HaKein: The Transformation of a Mitzvah The Question of the Kidney’s Counsel Sod Hashem Liyreyav: The Expansion of a Useful Concept Messianic Wonders and Skeptical Rationalists The Sun’s Path at Night: The Revolution in Rabbinic Perspectives on the Ptolemaic Revolution Natan Slifkin Introduction The clash between reason and authority has many manifestations. But it comes to the fore with the issue of statements by the Sages of the Talmud concerning the natural world that are subsequently contradicted by science. In traditionalist circles, arguments about this topic have become especially heated in recent years, with many ultra-Orthodox authorities claiming that to attribute such error to the Sages was never a traditional view and is actually heresy.1 Typically, arguments about this topic range far and wide, covering many different statements in the Talmud and Midrash.