These sorts of questions take one into the context of Talmud etc where the implication of the command of ‘honouring’ one’s parents are discussed/interpreted - caring for them is taken as part of honouring them.Where in the Torah or in the Hebrew Scriptures does it say that a child must take an aged parent into his home, either due to old age or because the other parent has passed? Where, if anywhere, does the Torah or Hebrew Scriptures address the relationship between a step-parent and a step-child? Is it the same as that of a biological parent? Thanks so very much!!
Family, Parent & Child:These sorts of questions take one into the context of Talmud etc where the implication of the command of ‘honouring’ one’s parents are discussed/interpreted - caring for them is taken as part of honouring them.
As to step-parents, one has the duty to honour them while whichever of your parents they’ve married is alive and it’s regarded as a good thing to do so afterwards.
Thank you for this most informative link.Family, Parent & Child:
Laws, Issues and Relationships
Selected Laws For Raising Children and For Honoring Parents
Torah’s laws and ethics in the domain of honoring parents.
The op wanted a collection of Torah/Tanakh (“Do this/Don’t do that”) statements relating to the situations he outlined and they don’t exist in that kind of neat way but, rather, in what could be described as legal interpretation (as outlined in your citation) of the commandment to ‘honour’.Family, Parent & Child:
Laws, Issues and Relationships
Selected Laws For Raising Children and For Honoring Parents
Torah’s laws and ethics in the domain of honoring parents.
You mean an answer regarding step parents and child?The op wanted a collection of Torah/Tanakh (“Do this/Don’t do that”) statements relating to the situations he outlined and they don’t exist in that kind of neat way but, rather, in what could be described as legal interpretation (as outlined in your citation) of the commandment to ‘honour’.
If you read the op’s questions, they’re about chapter-verse Torah/Tanakh obligations of child to parent and child to step-parent. As I indicated in my first response, those sorts of things are found in ‘Oral Torah’, ie in the mountain of interpretive writings. ‘Shemot Rabbah’ isn’t in Torah/Nevi’im/Ketuvim (ie the Tanakh, what Christians call the ‘OT’), it’s Midrash.You mean an answer regarding step parents and child?
Adoptive, step-, and foster parents are included in this sacred relationship–“He who brings up a child is to be called its father, not he who gave birth” (Shemot Rabbah 46:5 and elsewhere)—although the mutual legal obligations are not, strictly speaking, identical. Parents offering the traditional Friday night blessing to their children do so as God’s emissaries.
The Aggadah is part of Judaism’s Oral law (תורה שבעל פה) — the traditions providing the authoritative interpretation of the Written Law. In this context, the widely held view in Rabbinic literature is that the aggadah is in fact a medium for the transmission of fundamental teachings (Homiletic Sayings - מאמרים לימודיים) or** for explanations of verses in the Tanakh (Exegetic Sayings - מאמרים ביאוריים).**en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AggadahIf you read the op’s questions, they’re about chapter-verse Torah/Tanakh obligations of child to parent and child to step-parent. As I indicated in my first response, those sorts of things are found in ‘Oral Torah’, ie in the mountain of interpretive writings. ‘Shemot Rabbah’ isn’t in Torah/Nevi’im/Ketuvim (ie the Tanakh, what Christians call the ‘OT’), it’s Midrash.
quoting:Most scholars understand Sh’mot (Exodus) Rabbah to be a combination of two separate works, each probably written sometime between the ninth and eleventh century CE. The first half of the midrash offers a line-by-line commentary on the first ten chapters of the book of Exodus, and the second half consists of a series of homilies on chapters twelve through forty. Similarly, Bamidbar (Numbers) Rabbah comprises an exegetical commentary on the first seven chapters of the book of Numbers and a homiletic commentary on the rest of the book. The first part of Bamidbar Rabbah is notable for its inclusion of esoteric material and for its apparent familiarity with Sefer Yetzirah, an early work of Jewish mysticism. myjewishlearning.com/texts/Rabbinics/Midrash/Midrash_Aggadah/How_Midrash_Functions/Midrash_Rabbah.shtml
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 19b = Megillah 13a) deduces from a number of biblical stories that “whoever raises an orphan in his home is considered by Scripture to have given birth to him”.
Similarly, we learn in the midrash (Shemot Rabbah 46:5) “a person who raises a child is called the father and not the person who gives birth”.
Understood, on where the OP needed to read this from…Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies
Forgive me if I am assuming too much, but, since you’re citing Midrash, I assume you’re Jewish. I’m not trying to be combative, just curious how the point is reconciled/argued as appearing against Torah precedent:You mean an answer regarding step parents and child?
Adoptive, step-, and foster parents are included in this sacred relationship–“He who brings up a child is to be called its father, not he who gave birth” (Shemot Rabbah 46:5 and elsewhere)—although the mutual legal obligations are not, strictly speaking, identical. Parents offering the traditional Friday night blessing to their children do so as God’s emissaries.
1 At that time Juda went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Odollamite, named Hiras. 2 And he saw there the daughter of a man of Chanaan, called Sue: and taking her to wife, he went in unto her. 3 And she conceived, and bore a son, and called his name Her. 4 And conceiving again, she bore a son, and called him Onan. 5 She bore also a third: whom she called Sela. after whose birth, she ceased to bear any more.
6 And Juda took a wife for Her his firstborn, whose name was Thamar. 7 And Her, the firstborn of Juda, was wicked in the sight of the Lord: and was slain by him. 8 Juda, therefore add to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name. 10 And therefore the Lord slew him, be- cause he did a detestable thing.
Deuteronomy [Devarim/Ki Tetse] 25:5-10 (text agrees: bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.asp?action=displaypage&book=5&chapter=25&verse=3&portion=49 )5 When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother: 6 And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel. 7 But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongeth to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife. 8 And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife: 9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.
Forgive me if I am assuming too much, but, since you’re citing Midrash, I assume you’re Jewish. I’m not trying to be combative, just curious how the point is reconciled/argued as appearing against Torah precedent:
Technically, no - I’m not Jewish, but my gr-grandparents (since deceased) are. When I went searching for some background history on my mother’s side of the family, I found some information regarding their history (not found out - because I had some idea that the family history was Jewish)
Kinda of a funny story and yet not, when I was growing up, and very young, my grandmother, again - on my mother’s side, explained to me and my cousin about something that was very symbolic that her father (by tradition) carried over to her. After she told us both the story - both my cousin and I stood there looking at my grandmother, so we followed the same tradition over without realizing how my grandmother would react.
Later on, I told her what both me and my cousin did and she just shook her head and asked ‘us’ both “why?” When my gr-grandfather wanted to return back to his home town in Europe, my grandmother was very upset and asked her father not to go back, from what I understood - the list of names of families was still (and at that time) being enforced, or so that I heard. There have been throughout my life - indications of the Jewish background history. Once, I remember, my mother’s reaction to dating a boy from high school who’s family’s background was from Lebanon, I told her at least he was Catholic - and Christian, the ringing of the door in the background and my mother putting her utensils down from the table to open up the door - as I tried to introduce him. When the boy’s family found out about the family’s background on our end of the table, it was kinda of a mutual parting. Again, when I was a kid - I considered it as any other cultural background - you know, Greek - Italian - Irish - there’s no days off from school if your Jewish, only Irish - St Patrick’s day.
Out of High School and into the work force, I meant a friend that was Dutch - Jewish, she and her family were returning back to Holland. I remember hearing her talk about her grandmother reaction to the trip and so I shared my story with her about my grandmother and her father. The girl’s mother and grandmother hide in the streets of Holland eating from garbage cans, and living in an abandoned building. The Grandmother’s family got them out - and when she came to New York, the first thing she saw was the police on horseback, so she ran into the alley’s to hide. The grandmother was so scared - even years later, the girl, once in Holland, had to call home everyday so that her grandmother could hear her voice. I remember, the fear in my grandmother’s voice when she found that her father wanted to return - I thought, at first did something happen, why is my grandmother so upset?
I don’t know how to describe what a sense of that feeling of being Jewish - there are those who practice the faith and live it but then there are those who had family members who were. I remember many stories - and the questions that are on certain threads, that I can answer but do I stretch in that direction. We had a large family (#1) - and the members of the family extended to another larger family, that (from what I understood) helped my grandfather’s dad to the U.S - there were two brothers. And this might answer your question, the 1st brother’s mother died when he was (and I think) 12 years old, and my grandfather’s mother died at child birth - two mothers, two son’s. The father died when he came to the U.S, and from what I understood the older brother was 14 and my grandfather (well) was very young. There is a lake in Wisconsin named after his father - and I don’t know how that was done, but its an open fishery.
You’re more than welcome and I hope that you will read some of the others, as well. I hope that I have given out good information and an explanation for the reasons. There’s much to know and understand, but there’s a point that I have to be satisfied with what I’ve gained.Thank you for this most informative link.
Based on what you’ve explained, this is either outright contradictory to the context set forth in Gen 38:1-10 and Deut 25:5-10, or works within the framework’s appearance of holes- though this is not clear from the explanations you have provided.“Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother”
**
In an example: Hagar is used by Sarah as a surrogate mother whose womb apparently is available at no financial cost to her mistress. Sarah’s statement to Abraham literally are the first words she speaks in the biblical text. The phrase she uses creates a pun, for the literal Hebrew translation of her words, “I shall have a chld through her” are “ib-ba-neh” - I will be built up - is a word play which also could mean “sonned” through her ( the Hebrew “ben” is son).
- if a woman were pregnant at the time of her husband’s death, the child which is eventually born is considered the child of the deceased.
- A divorced or widowed woman, for example, must wait three months before she can remarry because, should she be pregnant with her first husband’s child or become pregnant with the second husband’s child soon after her remarriage, paternity would be uncertain**
The child belongs technically to the primary couple - the 1st wife, and the 2nd wife (Hagar) is secondary.
I’m going to give you some websites and you can view them - my source of thought on this subject came under Woman in Judaism because some of the technical aspect - fell under family law:
Resources:
Women in Judaism: (Go to Previous issues and choice which title you would like to read - the one I liked - Business Women in the Mishnaic and Talmudic period)
A Multidisciplinary Journal :utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/journal_index.html
Medical Ethics and Halacha: daat.ac.il/daat/english/index.html
I had a lot to review - this was a subject that was given on another forum, some of the information I tried to retain from various sources
Ba’alei Ha-Nefesh: jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/baalei-ha-nefesh
Infertile Wife in Rabbinic Judaism:jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/infertile-wife-in-rabbinic-judaism
Unless his older brother’s sperm were somehow working outside of time and space, this exhortation and subsequent law are directly contradicted by the information you have presented when read in context.8 Juda, therefore add to Onan his son: Go in to thy brother’s wife and marry her, that thou mayst raise seed to thy brother. 9 He knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
Midrash may support this notion outside of the specifics of the law, but the law is specific and if not followed correctly, the Midrash is in fact going against the Law.5 When brethren dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but **his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother: 6 And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel. **7 But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongs to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuses to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife. 8 And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife: 9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.
**Also, this come from Luke 20:27-405 When brethren dwell together, and one of them dies without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother: 6 And the first son he shall have of her he shall call by his name, that his name be not abolished out of Israel. 7 But if he will not take his brother’s wife, who by law belongs to him, the woman shall go to the gate of the city, and call upon the ancients, and say: My husband’s brother refuses to raise up his brother’s name in Israel: and will not take me to wife. 8 And they shall cause him to be sent for forthwith, and shall ask him. If he answer: I will not take her to wife: 9 The woman shall come to him before the ancients, and shall take off his shoe from his foot, and spit in his face, and say: So shall it be done to the man that will not build up his brother’s house: 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, the house of the unshod.
Nashim - Nashim (Hebrew: נשים) (“Women” or “Wives”) is the third order of the Mishnah (also of the Tosefta and Talmud), containing the** laws related to women and family life**. Of the six orders of the Mishna, it is the second shortest.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashim
Nashim consists of 7 tractates: the first deals with the issue you need information on…
Yebamoth: (יבמות, “Levirate marriage”); (or Yebamot or Yevamot), referring to the mandated marriage of a widow to her brother-in-law, deals with the Jewish law of levirate marriage (Deut. 25:5-10) and other topics, such as the status of minors. It consists of 16 chapters.
LEVIRATE MARRIAGE (Hebr. “yibbum”): jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9859-levirate-marriage
and the next information - article: Halizah: The ceremony involves the taking off of a brother-in-law’s shoe by the widow of a brother who has died childless, through which ceremony he is released from the obligation of marrying her, and she becomes free to marry whomever she desires (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).“The concept of yibbum is not unique to Judaism. Known as levirate marriage (when the marriage is to the deceased’s brother) or widow inheritance (when it is to any surviving male relative), it has been practiced by other societies with a strong clan.”
In Ceremonial.
Ḥaliẓah is performed with the right hand on the right foot (Yeb. xii. 2), while some authorities in the case of a left-footed person require a separate ḥaliẓah for the left foot (Shulḥan 'Aruk, Eben ha-'Ezer, 169, 25). The test of left-footedness is made by commanding the person to walk straight ahead and noting which foot he starts with (“Ginnat Weradim,” responsum No. 9). The phylactery is placed on the left arm so that the right hand may wind the leather straps (“reẓu’ah”). R. Ashi says that in Ex. xiii. 16, the word “yadekah” (thy hand), with the superfluous “he,” means “yad kehah” (the weak * hand; Men. 37a). According to the cabalists, the reason for placing the phylacteries on the left arm is that it is nearer to the heart, which is bound to the service of God. A person who is left-handed may wear the phylactery on his right arm; but if ambidextrous, he must place it on the left (ib.).
The main thought to the passage was highlighted by you:
knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.
As I’ve pointed out: A divorced or widowed woman, for example, must wait three months before she can remarry because, should she be pregnant with her first husband’s child or become pregnant with the second husband’s child soon after her remarriage, paternity would be uncertain
There are several points to this passage - and some of them range on another law that deals with estate: Business Women in the Mishnaic and Talmudic period: utoronto.ca/wjudaism/journal/journal_index.html
Also, and I like to read up on issues that deal with Ancient Jewish Marriage:
Marriage in ancient times was a negotiated match involving an agreement on conditions, payment of a bridal price, and the groom’s - myjewishlearning.com/life/Relationships/Spouses_and_Partners/About_Marriage/Ancient_Jewish_Marriage.shtml
One more thought on Ruth:
1 Meanwhile Boaz went up to the town gate and sat down there just as the guardian-redeemer[a] he had mentioned came along. Boaz said, “Come over here, my friend, and sit down.” So he went over and sat down.
2 Boaz took ten of the elders of the town and said, “Sit here,” and they did so. 3 Then he said to the guardian-redeemer, “Naomi, who has come back from Moab, is selling the piece of land that belonged to our relative Elimelek. 4 I thought I should bring the matter to your attention and suggest that you buy it in the presence of these seated here and in the presence of the elders of my people. If you will redeem it, do so. But if you** will not, tell me, so I will know. For no one has the right to do it except you, and I am next in line.”
“I will redeem it,” he said.
5 Then Boaz said, “On the day you buy the land from Naomi, you also acquire Ruth the Moabite, the dead man’s widow, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property.”
**6 At this, the guardian-redeemer said, “Then I cannot redeem it because I might endanger my own estate. You redeem it yourself. I cannot do it.” ****
Deuteronomy specifically states brothers who live on the same estate. That they were kinsman distantly, though the nearest it seems, appears as one of those loopholes. The law can be applied, but, it seems as those the men were not brothers nor did they at that time live on the estate. The purchase of the property, as is the kinsman’s right, transfers over to providing overlap with the widow. Because the nearer kinsman rejected that which should have been his through the spirit of the law, the result went to the one who was willing, but technically ineligible.
If anything this prefigures the Jewish rejection of Christ lest they danger their own estate, though technically, Salvation is both from and the purpose of their birthright lineage.
So someone previously ineligible, though technically not through the full story and how it transpires, picks up where they refuse.
Interesting.
Luke 16:
19 There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores, 21 desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man’s table. And no one did give him: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass that the beggar died and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. 23 And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bosom: 24 And he cried and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. 25 And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that you received good things in your lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you cannot, nor from thence come hither. 27 And he said: Then, father, I beseech you that you would send him to my father’s house, for I have five brethren, 28 that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. 29 And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets. Let them hear them. 30 But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. 31 And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.