- This topic has 51 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 10 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sounds like a random question, but I’ll explain why I mention it later (gotta run make the cholent).
It is a machlokes in the Gemara (brought down in Rashi in VaYechi), whether they married their half sisters (whose births are not mentioned in the Torah) or Cannanites (i.e. non-Jews).
being human: Chazal stress that they were not Canaanites, but from Egypt (similar quandry i.e. benei Cham) Midyan, Edom, (other semites and assorted cousins) that Shaul ben hacananis was either the only exception, or perhaps a son of Dina, and the mother of Er and Onan possibly the only exception.
assuming that when Yaakov left Aram most were of marriageable age they most probably married women from the house of Terach as did Yaakov and Yitzchak before
I was taught that each brother was born with a twin sister and they married them interchangeably. We know that Yosef married Dina’s daughter Osnas.
I was taught that each brother was born with a twin sister
Correct Oomis except for Binyomin who was born with 2 triplet sisters.
And yosef was born as a single.
Pretty big plot hole..if you ask me.
Twisted,
What is your source that they were not Canaanites. Rashi says that according to R’ Nechemia they were Canaanits. (Beraishis 37:35)
Oomis,
You were taught only one side of a machlokes. The posuk in Beraishis, cited above) refers to Yakov’s “daughters” (plural). R’Yehuda says that each shevet was born with a twin and they married their half-sisters. R’Nechemia says that they married Canaanites and the verse is calling Yakov’s daughter-in-laws “daughters.”
This is something I never understood. So is intermarriage technically halachically permitted? If the shvatim and according to some meforshim, Moshe rabbeinu, married non-Jewesses?
gadfly: It was before Matan Torah.
Crisis: Take your Documentarianism somewhere else.
Sam 2: but didn’t the avos keep all the mitzvos? the shevatim would have learned much torah from yaakov avinu, Rashi even brings the midrash of Yosef specifically learning the sugyah of Eglah Arufah.
So are you instead saying that they knew the mitzvos but purposefully didn’t keep them, because they were patur before kabbalas hatorah? that seems like a big stretch and you need a rai’ah.
Although not universally accepted, Seder Doros Olom, gives names of those the Shevatim married and in some cases, if I recall, some other details too. As I am at work, I don’t have the sefer with me (I have one of the single volume, heavy books) so cannot give details but, if one of you fine folk have it available, take a look at the beginning of the sefer where it goes each millenium at the start.
It makes for fascinating reading too. This actually is a great parsha to ask this question as I usually give the follow up questions from this week’s parsha (though it can be used elsewhere): Who is Serach’s biological father?
I will leave the scholars of this place to argue this one out.
Didn’t they know Torah though? Don’t chazal say the avos knew and observed the Torah?
Gadfly: Yes, but it was optional, not obligatory. Also, some things just don’t make sense before Matan Torah. Since we didn’t exist as a nation before Matan Torah, it doesn’t make sense to exclude others from the not-yet-existent nation. Thus, the concept of “intermarriage”, by definition, could not exist before Matan Torah.
writersoul: shkoyach on the cholent! the bbq sauce part does seem pretty weird but I’ll definitely give it a try if it really is so good :).
Regarding your article, it definitely seems a little sketchy to me. What’s the source? The imahos all married into the same family that stemmed from Avraham, and Rivkah and Rachel are even extended relatives of their husbands. I forget how exactly they are related but al regel achas they are descendants of Avraham’s brother nachor and thus would have had similar DNA to their baalim, making this theory very suspicious..
writersoul,
Trashcan.
The same study that claims to have found evidence of “four women” as the forebearers of 40% of the Ashkenzi population, also concluded that the women lived in first and second centuries CE (i.e. the times of the Mishna).
The famous ???”? which says that they only kept the ???? inside ??? ????? will not even answer the question, because they married their siblings while living in ??? ?????.
The ???”? explains that they kept the ???? even outside ??? ?????, and the way they married (I think he is talking about ???? marrying two sisters) was because of the principle ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? – A ger who enters Judaism from any other religion loses any relations he had and is considered a newborn child. The ???? uses this to say that ???? can marry their siblings (at least ?????????).
The ???? only kept the ???? using the concept of ????, since they as ??? ?? were not ?????. Since their whole ???? was as ????, they only kept the ????? inasmuch as their ????, which therefore told them they were not related to their siblings.
I once heard a ??? that since ????? before ??? ???? was only maternal, the ????? would marry the relations that were only paternal, and they DIDN’T marry their own twins, but rather each others twins. (This is how ????? married ????; see ???? ????? ?? ????? in ???? ????)
What I wonder is: If each ??? was born with a twin, what happened with ???? and ????? Was ???? born with a twin girl (because she was originally intended to turn out male) and was ???? born was a twin boy?
Yekke2,
That the arayos before the Torah were only maternal is because the arayos of the Sheva Mitzvos (which certainly applied before Mattan Torah) are only maternal. It doesn’t answer the kasha of the Shevatim keeping the Torah before Matan Torah.
As an aside what is the mekor in Chazal that the shevatim kept the Torah. The mekor that I know of says that Avraham Avinu kept the Torah, it doesn’t say anything about the Shevatim.
I once heard a pshat that before Matan Torah Avraham Avinu and his descendants kept the Mitzvo Essai but not the Mitzvos Lo Sassei. Before Matan Torah the Ivrim had the status of ayno metzuveh v’oseh and we don’t find the concept of an ayno metzuveh v’oseh for a lo sassei.
Beninguman – The Maternal-only ????? is similar to the Briker Rav’s ??? about ??????? – The Ramba”m writes that before ??? ???? there was no ??????? involved in marriage. Even those who KEEP the ???? would NOT be able to be ???? a lady, even using the ????, because there was no such ???? as ???????. Similarly, before ??? ????, the ‘relation’ship of the Fathers family was not considered relations ????? ????, even for somebody who keeps the ????.
Yekke2,
It is a substantial leap to the say the same thing by arayos. Kiddushin is not something that occurs naturally. It is a chiddush in the form of a chalos created by people. Before ??? ???? there was no musag of such a chalos and therefore someone trying to be mekadesh a woman would be like someone today trying to be mekadesh a chair.
Ma shein kein by arayos, where we are dealing with mitzius. Furthermore, today there is still no arayos for non-Jews to their half-sisters from their father, but the Torah still refers to a relationship between non-Jewish fathers and their children (e.g., Balak ben Tzipor, Bladdan ben Bladdan).
Ben: Why doesn’t that make sense? I’d assume that that far back it would be pretty easy for everyone to be descended from just one or two people.
Sam2,
I wasn’t saying the study didn’t make sense. I was saying that the article that hypothesized that the “four women” in the study were the Imahos, doesn’t make sense because the “four women” in the study lived in the times of the Mishna not the times of the Avos.
writersoul,
I once asked a geneticist I know about this (who is himself a Levi). The Kohen gene is a unique marker that is theorized to have began with Aharon HaKohen (some 80% of Kohanim have it). The geneticist told me that that there is a Levi gene as well, however only about 50% of Leviim have it (which is why it is trumpeted like the kohen gene is). The geneticist refuses to get tested himself because he wants to be able to rely on his chazaka.
The geneticist speculated that more people falsely claimed to be Leviim because there weren’t any ramifications beyond getting aliyos.
Stay away from studies of the Cohen gene if you want to keep your sanity. I was taught an incredibly chutzpadik apikorsus theory of the Cohen gene when I was in college and decided to take a genetics class. B”h that even as a freshman I had the courage to speak out against it in front of the whole class and I can only hope that some of my classmates believed me and not the professor.
writersoul,
I didn’t ask that specific question. It seems obvious to me that every Kohen would have the Levi gene, but a Levi would not have the Kohen gene because it is a later occuring mutation. The mutation started with Aharon HaKohen. Leviim are not patrilineal descendants of Aharon.
Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer says that they married their sisters specifically to avoid having to marry women from other nations:
????? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???
As to how they could marry their sisters if they kept the Torah, the Daas Zekeinim asks this (which I guess is a source benignuman, that they kept the Torah) and answers ??”? ?? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??”? ?????? ????”? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? i.e. they kept whichever parts they wanted. Interestingly, the Daas Zekeinim concludes that based on the Gemara (Pesachim 119b) which says that Yaakov will decline to do the ??? ?? ???? because he married two sisters, apparently there is ??? ???? since in the future there will be a Torah, and Yaakov knowingly married them anyway because it was the only way he could marry Tidkanios that would produce all 12 of his sons.
I read somewhere (probably in the CR) in the name of R’ Yaakov Kaminetzky, that Yaakov originally only planned to marry Rachel, but then Lavan tricked him into marrying Leah. Once that was done, he was stuck. It wouldn’t be nice to Rachel not to marry her after he had agreed to. Since his keeping the Torah was only a chumra (since the Torah was not yet given), he couldn’t use his chumra if it would cause pain to Rachel.
The Maharal explains that they only kept ????? ??? and not ????? ?? ????. But that was about Yaakov. I don’t recall, as of now, a reference to the Shvatim keeping the Mitzvos.
“The Maharal explains that they only kept ????? ??? and not ????? ?? ????. But that was about Yaakov. I don’t recall, as of now, a reference to the Shvatim keeping the Mitzvos.”
The Maharal discusses the Shevatim as well. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14210&st=&pgnum=234
the definitive answer to whom the Shvotim married is to be found near the end of sefer Hayoshor, a medrash on Breishis and the beginning of Shmos.
Sefer Hayashar is not more definitive than Mamarei Chazal. It is a Likut based on Selected Midrashim written in a way that it should read as one consistant narative.
42: I’m pretty sure I’ve posted that in the name of R’ Schachter in the CR.
Sefer Hayashar is also of unclear origin and reliability.
The Parshas Derachim is the go-to sefer for all this.
The Medrash says that Yosef kept SHabbos in Mitzrayim and his household showed the Shevatim that they did proper shechitah, and Ephraim learned Torah with Yaakov. They certainly kept the Torah in some form.
yekke2: why would Yosef and Dina be different? By Dina it says explicitly ???? ???? ??, which sounds like she was born alone, but it’s not muchrcah that she didn’t have a twin.
Rashi brings down a shita that Dina married Shimon (with whom she shared both father and mother). There is also a midrash that Dina married Iyov.
“Rashi brings down a shita that Dina married Shimon (with whom she shared both father and mother).”
The Ba’alei (A Ba’al) Tosafos (brought in Tosafos Hashalem Otzar Peirushei Ba’alei HaTosafos) ask how Shimon could marry Dinah who was his full sister, and answers ????? ????? ??? ???? ???
PAA,
That is based on a midrash in Targum Yonason ben Uziel that Leah davened and Hashem switched the fetuses.
PAA: That should have tremendous Halachah L’ma’aseh applications Bizman HaZeh. Do you realize what this means? We actually have a Rishon that Paskens on surrogacy. This is amazing. What’s the exact Makor?
writersoul,
The likelihood of a mutation occurring in any given generation is unlikely, but here we know there was a mutation and that mutation is no more likely to have occurred with Levi than to have occurred with Aharon.
In other words, every mutation is an unlikely event but they have to have occurred sometime, and Aharon is as good a place as any, especially considering that it is primarily Kohanim that have the gene.
Sam2,
Rabbi Bleich discusses this “psak” on surrogacy in one of his Contemporary Halachic Problems books.
Sam2:
The Sefer is called Tosafos Hashalem. It is a many-volumed set arranged according to the parshiyos. It is a likut of Ba’alei Tosafos. The piece I quoted is in Parshas Vayigash 46:10 Ose 2 and seems to be from the Riva (if I understand their sourcing). I couldn’t find it on hebrewbooks so here is the exact quote:
????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ??”? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???
The same question and answer is brought in Moshav Zekeinim
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20791&st=&pgnum=106
Regarding halacha l’maaseh, R’ Moshe Shternbuch writes that he has seen Dinah brought as a raya the other way – that despite being conceived by Rachel, she is called “Bas Leah”. He then says that you can’t bring a raya from ma’aseh nissim. http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20026&st=&pgnum=545
sbgh613 asked a year ago “Who was Serach’s biological father?”. Does anybody here know the story with that? Why wouldn’t it be Asher as the pasuk states?
The Medrash that I quoted earlier actually says ???? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? which lichora means that they shevatim married their full sisters. The Mateh Efraim in fact asks this as a kashya on those who explained that the shevatim married each other’s twins.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.