Cooking.com  and search for 
and search for myplace 35
you can get these sets in:
red, blue, or black
| | According to the Torah, lineage/pedigree, a blood right, is passed exclusively by a biological father to his sons. First you have to separate the concept of inheriting tangible property from tribal inheritance (actual lineage). (Numbers 27 speaks of Tzelafchad's Daughters who ask Moses and G-d if they can inherit their father’s property since they are unmarried. G-d says “yes” as long as they remain unmarried. If they do marry and marry within their father’s tribe they can retain their PROPERTY. Note that because it is important). Some Xian’s try to use Numbers 27 to "harmonize" the issues caused by the virgin birth (and two GT genealogies that conflict for Joseph). They try to say: J* got his Davidic stamp of approval to be king through Mary’s bloodline. Just look at Numbers 27. They call this the Levirite marriage and think it solves the problem of the virgin birth and paternal lineage. But they’ve missed a few pertinent facts: The term "levir" is a Latin word that means 'a husband's brother', thus it isn't used in the Hebrew Bible. LATIN, not Hebrew. The Law concerning Levirate Marriage is found in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, and an example of it (actually, a refusal to fulfill the obligation) is the story of Er, Onan, and Tamar, in Genesis 38.
The story tells us that when a married man dies and leaves no heirs to carry on his legacy (name/lineage), if the dead man has an unmarried brother, then this brother must marry the widow and (attempt to) have children. The first born son of that marriage will be considered as if he were the son of the deceased brother, and he will be named accordingly. So already Xians have a problem. Mary didn’t have a first husband who was an older brother to Joseph who died causing him to marry her so his older brother could have an heir. Mary was an unmarried woman before she married Joseph (no previous husband who was Joseph’s brother). Last I looked G-d was not a brother to Joseph anyway.
The Law also has a provision for the case when the surviving brother refuses to go through with such a marriage. One important note here is that the brothers must have at least a common father, i.e., they must be at least paternal brothers. When brothers have only a mother in common, but different fathers, this Law doesn't apply. That bears repeating: WHEN BROTHERS ONLY HAVE A MOTHER IN COMMON (e.g. Mary) BUT DIFFERENT FATHERS (Joseph and Mary had different fathers) THE LAW DOES NOT APPLY. This is consistent with the Jewish Law that blood rights/lineage is passed exclusively by the father to his biological sons, while the mother passes the Jewish identity to the children. Amazingly, recent genetic research discoveries have shown that this is, indeed, the case – the tribal genetic markers reside on the Y-chromosome, which is carried only by the male, while the "Jewish genetic marker" resides on the female's Mitochonrial DNA.
Considering the above, including the requirement that these brothers be paternal, the inheritance of one's bloodline is a moot issue. The common father of the two brothers passes his bloodline to both brothers, so that the bloodline remains intact under the proper application of the Law of Levirate Marriage. There are those who suggest that the marriage of Boaz to Ruth (see Book of Ruth) is a form of a Levirate Marriage. Strictly speaking, it does not follow the requirements spelled out in the Torah. However, when the text is carefully read, it appears that Boaz was a close relative within the clan of Elimelech, the father of Ruth's deceased husband, so that they shared the same paternal "gene pool".
OK, now let us get a bit more 'technical' here, and allow me to show you the reason that the brothers in question must be paternal (i.e., having a common father but different mothers) and not uterine (i.e., having a common mother but different fathers).
The reason the Law allows brothers (and, yes, the Hebrew term used in Deut 25:5-10 is "akh", which means 'brother' here, and it could also mean 'brethren' or 'kin', but not in this case).continue the line is quite simple, and involves one condition. What makes a surviving (unmarried) brother responsible to marry (or release from marriage) his deceased brother’s widow is the fact that, when the two brothers have a father in common - they share the same lineage (call it a common 'paternal gene pool') which, in Judaism, is determined exclusively by the father. When the two brothers share only a common mother, each brother may be from a different lineage (according to their respective fathers), so that the Law of Levirate Marriage doesn't apply.
Here is an example that will illustrate this – you may want to draw a little 'family tree' for each case to help you visualize this.
CASE 1: Suppose that two brothers, say David and Michael, had a common mother, Rachel, but different fathers - David's father's name was Samuel, and Michael's father's name was Joshua. Let us also suppose that David’s father, Samuel, was a "Kohen" (Aaronic Priest), which makes David a "Kohen" as well. Moreover, let us suppose that David’s father died, and his mother remarried Joshua, with whom she then had Michael. And, suppose that Michael’s father, Joshua, was neither from the Aaronic lineage nor from the Levitic lineage, i.e., from some other Tribe, something referred to in traditional Judaism as “Israel”, an ordinary Israelite, which makes Michael the same.
Now, suppose that David was married to Hannah, but he died before they had children, and that Michael was unmarried at the time of his brother's death. If Michael were to marry Hannah, since he has only a common 'maternal gene pool' with his brother David, any sons born of that marriage will not be Aaronic Priests ("Kohanim"), i.e., they will not have the Aaronic Priestly lineage, since their father wasn’t an Aaronic Priest – he was an ordinary Israelite, “Israel”. In other words, the Aaronic Priestly line through Samuel will have been broken with David’s death, and the name (including the lineage) is not “raised up”. The marriage of Michael to Hanna would not accomplish the propagation of the "name/clan/pedigree/lineage" of David's father, Samuel. Quite to the contrary, it would only propagate the "name/clan/pedigree/lineage" of Michael's father, Joshua.
CASE 2: Suppose that David and Michael had a father in common, say Samuel, who was a "Kohen". After David was born, his mother died, and Samuel found another woman (in accordance with Jewish Law [e.g., Ezek 44:22], which forbids a Priest from marrying anyone other than a Jewish virgin or the widow of another Priest), married her and they had Michael. In this case, both David and Michael are "Kohanim". So then, when David married Hannah and died without leaving children, Michael (if unmarried) is obligated to marry his brother’s widow, Hannah, under the Law of Levirate Marriage. All sons that come from that marriage (Michael and Hannah) are now from the Aaronic Priestly lineage, and thus the line is propagated to the next generation, with the firstborn son, say Daniel, carrying David’s name – "Daniel ben David Ha’Kohen" ('Daniel son of David, the Priest), and the subsequent sons carrying Michael’s name, e.g., "Nathan ben Michael Ha’Kohen" ('Nathan son of Michael, the Priest').
This illustrates the reason that the Levirate Marriage Law doesn't apply for brothers who have only a common mother – it only applies when the two brothers have at least a common father. |
