Jewish Law Children and Stepparents

[MorningSong51]

What I’m trying to understand is specifically the aspect of the adoptive/step-parent in regard to the Torah law and whether or not such a case would negate the Midrash supporting that which is not specified in the law.

You have to be kinda of specific, what aspect are you looking for? Taking Care of them? (Elderly law?) The Step - parent, depending if they are non - Jewish and converting over? or the Step - parents who is Jewish? In regards to adoption, are you searching info on child lineage or bloodline and how its perceived - (family law ?) There are many divisions - it all depends on what specifically you’re looking for?
**
One example: **

2 But Abram said, “Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?” 3 And Abram said, “You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir.” (that passage is a form of adoption - the fact that Abraham didn’t have children) You have to remember the verse in the next chapter, Genesis 16, "Go, sleep with my slave; perhaps I can build a family through her.” - In some sense, the child - Ishmael was born from Abraham, yet not from the first wife but from his maidservant - so that would be a case of step - son, even though we’re looking at adoption.

(Mishnah Yevamot 6:6 also rules that “If a man took a wife and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child, he may not abstain [any longer from the duty of propagation],” although exactly how he is to proceed in this instance is not spelled out. Tosefta Yevamot 8:5, however, explicitly states that a man in this situation must divorce his wife and return her marriage settlement to her “For perhaps he did not merit being built up through her.” Since there is no proof that their infertility is the divorced wife’s fault, the Tosefta Yevamot 8:6 states that the divorced wife may marry again, “For perhaps she did not merit being built up through this man.” These measures are also recommended in BT Yevamot 65b, where the rabbis point out that a precedent for the practice of divorcing an infertile wife after ten years may be drawn from Genesis 16:3, since it was only after ten years of living in the land of Canaan that Sarai accepted her infertility and surrogated her servant to bear a child on her behalf. This passage goes on to say that “If the man or the woman was ill, or if both were in prison, [the years when they are separated] are not included in the number” of years after which a divorce is required. The assumption of infertility must follow ten years of normal marital relations.jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/infertile-wife-in-rabbinic-judaism )

In the passage with Abraham, Genesis 17 - it was God who named Isaac (Genesis 17:19, also see Jeremiah 1:5) Also, God had changed Abram name to Abraham and Sarai name to Sarah? Self Identification - is how you see yourself or identifying yourself with someone, but when someone (family member - a parent, or parents) give you a name, it is a personal identification that specifies and differentiates between members of a family, all of whose members usually share the same family name (surname). A given name is purposefully given, usually by a child’s parents at or near birth, in contrast to an inherited one such as a family name…isn’t this true? So when God, gives Abraham the name of the child, what does that tell us? In the same way, Luke 1 - Zechariah’s remained silent until he “wrote” the name/or confirmed the name, John. 64 Immediately his mouth was opened and his tongue set free, and he began to speak, praising God.

And then, Jesus, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”

So Mary trusted/and believed - and obeyed, Genesis 15 - "6 Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. "

 

[MorningSong51]

added thought on step parents: John 19:26-27

Jesus saw his own mother, and the disciple standing near whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son”. Then he said to the disciple, “Behold your mother”. And from that hour, he took his mother into his family.

 

[MorningSong51]

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.” **

Good example of Halizah: A court of three rabbis, to which two others who need not be rabbis are added, meet on the previous day to establish the place where the rite is to be carried out, usually but not necessarily in the courthouse. On the next day, the widow is expected to fast until after the halitzah has been performed. She and the levir appear before the court and she recites in Hebrew the words in the Deuteronomic passage, and he recites the declaration that he does not wish to marry her.
myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Liturgy_Ritual_and_Custom/Halitzah.shtml

9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelek, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from his hometown. Today you are witnesses!” 9 Then Boaz announced to the elders and all the people, “Today you are witnesses that I have bought from Naomi all the property of Elimelek, Kilion and Mahlon. 10 I have also acquired Ruth the Moabite, Mahlon’s widow, as my wife, in order to maintain the name of the dead with his property, so that his name will not disappear from among his family or from his hometown. Today you are witnesses!

”

Good example of Yibum, Yavam, Yevamah: The Torah dictates that if a married man dies childless, the widow is to marry her dead husband’s brother, preferably the eldest. The firstborn son they produce together is considered a continuation of the dead husband’s line. This practice is known as yibum, or levirate marriage. The brother-in-law is called the yavam; the widow is called the yevamah.

LAWS CONCERNING THE AGE OF THE DECEASED’S BROTHER: jlaw.com/Commentary/solomon.html

1. Rule #4: Brother-In-Law: According to the Talmud Yevamos 17b, the widow is obligated to marry her deceased husband’s brother. If the deceased husband does not leave a living brother, his wife is free to marry whoever she pleases.
2. Rule #5: Minor: According to the Talmud Yevamos 1 05b, if the brother of the deceased is a minor, the widow is still bound to him, and does not have the option of freeing herself through Chalitzah since a minor lacks capacity to perform the ceremony. Instead she must wait until the brother reaches the age of majority (Bar Mitzvah 13) in order for him to render Chalitzah at that time. Only then may she remarry. According to the Talmud Niddah 45a if she wants to marry him, she must wait until he reaches 9 years of age.

(Judah and Tamar - 1 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household until my son Shelah grows up.” For he thought, “He may die too, just like his brothers.” So Tamar went to live in her father’s household.)

 

[jonbhorton]

What I’m looking for is how they reconcile that Midrash with the clear example from the Torah, if such a situation were to arise. In other words, most people when asserting a point of doctrine which is seemingly in conflict with other doctrine, expands on the circumstances, but yet still make a note of the conflicting doctrine and why it does not in fact conflict.

For example, this is a rabbinic/Talmudic explanation of the separation of meat and dairy:

Separation of Meat and Dairy

On three separate occasions, the Torah tells us not to “boil a kid in its mother’s milk.” (Ex. 23:19; Ex. 34:26; Deut. 14:21). The Oral Torah explains that this passage prohibits eating meat and dairy together. The rabbis extended this prohibition to include not eating milk and poultry together. In addition, the Talmud prohibits cooking meat and fish together or serving them on the same plates, because it is considered to be unhealthy. It is, however, permissible to eat fish and dairy together, and it is quite common (lox and cream cheese, for example). It is also permissible to eat dairy and eggs together.

This separation includes not only the foods themselves, but the utensils, pots and pans with which they are cooked, the plates and flatware from which they are eaten, the dishwashers or dishpans in which they are cleaned, the sponges with which they are cleaned and the towels with which they are dried. A kosher household will have at least two sets of pots, pans and dishes: one for meat and one for dairy. See Utensils below for more details.

One must wait a significant amount of time between eating meat and dairy. Opinions differ, and vary from three to six hours after meat. This is because fatty residues and meat particles tend to cling to the mouth. From dairy to meat, however, one need only rinse one’s mouth and eat a neutral solid like bread, unless the dairy product in question is also of a type that tends to stick in the mouth.

The Yiddish words fleishik (meat), milchik (dairy) and pareve (neutral) are commonly used to describe food or utensils that fall into one of those categories.

Note that even the smallest quantity of dairy (or meat) in something renders it entirely dairy (or meat) for purposes of kashrut. For example, most margarines are dairy for kosher purposes, because they contain a small quantity of whey or other dairy products to give it a buttery taste. Animal fat is considered meat for purposes of kashrut. You should read the ingredients very carefully, even if the product is kosher-certified.

Source: jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Separation

The plain text says: don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Pretty straightforward. I can see the moral thought behind it. It screams imitation, or semblance to, the pagan sacrificial cultures surrounding the people of Israel.

But then in Genesis 18, Abraham serves God meat and dairy. Two kinds of dairy were served actually. Milk and butter, along with a calf:

And the Lord appeared to him in the vale of Mambre as he was sitting at the door of his tent, in the very heat of the day. 2 And when he had lifted up his eyes, there appeared to him three men standing near to him: and as soon as he saw them, he ran to meet them from the door of his tent, and adored down to the ground. 3 And he said: Lord, if I have found favour in your sight, pass not away from your servant. 4 But I will fetch a little water, and you wash your feet and rest under the tree. 5 And I will set a morsel of bread, and you strengthen your heart, afterwards you shall pass on: for therefore are you come aside to your servant. And they said: Do as you have spoken. 6 Abraham made haste into the tent to Sara, and said to her: Make haste, temper together three measures of flour, and make cakes upon the hearth. 7 And he himself ran to the herd, and took from thence a calf, very tender and very good, and gave it to a young man, who made haste and boiled it. 8 He took also butter and milk, and the calf which he had boiled, and set before them: but he stood by them under the tree.

A couple of interesting things in here. Seemingly conflicting, but, as later revealed to St. Peter, not conflicting and helps us understand the Jewish people more.
(listed by verse)

1. The Lord appears to Abraham. Somehow, He appears in 3 people.
2. Abraham adores down to the ground. He went prostrate. As a humble servant would.
3. Abraham recognizes Him as God and implores favor from Him.
4. Tells God to wash His own feet. Hmm. This is interesting because when Jesus washes others’ feet, He is placing Himself subservient to the person being washed. Feet, in that region, are offensive. At that time, they’re dirty as can be just walking around in sandals in the desert. Kind of weird that Abraham wouldn’t offer to wash God’s feet. I think this might be a passage which Jesus is making a specific point about in His recorded actions and explanation. How God even places Himself in the subservient position for us, even though part of us is always tempted to reject serving Him.
5. Abraham selects a young and tender calf to slaughter to serve God to eat. Good job on Abraham. God doesn’t like it when we donate a sick, lame, blind, imperfect sacrifice to Him. That’s why He had to be the Sacrifice for US.
6. What!?! He serves GOD meat and dairy?! How on earth is this reconciled?

---

 

[jonbhorton]

cont.

Well, not knowing the story of Christ, or believing in Him, or grasping the concept despite the having knowledge, I might suspect God overlooked Abraham’s mistake since it was seemingly innocent. I might also assume that since God accepted this, and partook of it, perhaps God banned it from His people to to retain a food for Himself.

In light of what was revealed to St. Peter in Acts 10:9-16

9 And on the next day, whilst they were going on their journey and drawing near to the city, Peter went up to the higher parts of the house to pray, about the sixth hour. 10 And being hungry, he was desirous to taste somewhat. And as they were preparing, there came upon him an ecstasy of mind. 11 And he saw the heaven opened and a certain vessel descending, as it were a great linen sheet let down by the four corners from heaven to the earth: 12 Wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts and creeping things of the earth and fowls of the air. 13 And there came a voice to him: Arise, Peter. Kill and eat. 14 But Peter said: Far be it from me. For I never ate anything that is common and unclean. 15 And the voice spoke to him again the second time: That which God has cleansed, do not call common. 16 And this was done thrice. And presently the vessel was taken up into heaven.

It seems that in fact God only forbid the Jewish people to eat anything unclean, for it is not unclean having been created by God, and what was unclean, was only unclean to them. That they failed miserably and repeatedly at following these laws, if exactly why Jesus followed them to the letter. He quite literally could not act like a Gentile, despite it being OK for Him as GOD, because He had to be perfect in every way. The Gentiles, we’ve always had the ability to eat whatever we wanted.

I can resolve the contradiction either way, but only one brings closure to the concept for a Jewish believer in Christ. They are, by that act, entering into a New Covenant which is theirs from the beginning of time, at the right moment in time for it to happen, which it did. But us Gentiles are wild branches, and grafted into the New Covenant (Rom 11). It never had an effect on us, and still doesn’t.

So, I can only surmise the meaning of the apparent contradiction as foreshadowing something which always existed and is, upon need and pertinence in time, codified (kinda like Church doctrine on certain issues ).

So, I see the law differently, even though I can see it from what I hope is at least an elementary Jewish perspective from the text itself. However, I understand that oral tradition, such as rabbinic, expounds on things in a way which is often different. Often increasingly restrictive. It’s literally impossible to follow the letter of the law as set forth.

How do they rationalize these contradictions in the Torah, even though they are easily rectifiable with or without Christianity? With the Midrash regarding the step/foster/etc parent issue, how do they view it in light of the marriage/widow/brother/raising of “brother’s” seed? Is it seen as parallel in implementation, or is it otherwise specified as such that the Midrash doesn’t conflict with the Torah situation as specifically described?

Whether the practice is in place as per Deuteronomy 25, in the spirit of the Genesis 38, currently is moot. The Talmud pontificates on all manner of Torah law and corollary expositions regarding the apparent “holes” in Jewish law. I can see the holes filled in easily by Christianity, but how do they reconcile the holes? Particularly of the Midrash which seem to contradict the substance surrounding the other holes.

In other words, what is the speculation of the Midrash in light of Deut 25 account regarding brother/widow/seed as it pertains to the renaming of a child toward the adoptive/step/foster? The text itself indicates the seed of the older brother, who is deceased, is supplied by the younger who doesn’t share the younger’s name but the older’s instead. However, the younger gave the actual seed and raises the child as a sort of step/foster/adoptive parent.

I don’t care about elderly care or any other manner of irrelevant Midrash. I am asking specifically about the law and the Midrash which seems to have potential conflict, and how they bring the two into unity.

Is that clear?

 

[MorningSong51]

cont.

Well, not knowing the story of Christ, or believing in Him, or grasping the concept despite the having knowledge, I might suspect God overlooked Abraham’s mistake since it was seemingly innocent. I might also assume that since God accepted this, and partook of it, perhaps God banned it from His people to to retain a food for Himself.

In light of what was revealed to St. Peter in Acts 10:9-16

It seems that in fact God only forbid the Jewish people to eat anything unclean, for it is not unclean having been created by God, and what was unclean, was only unclean to them. That they failed miserably and repeatedly at following these laws, if exactly why Jesus followed them to the letter. He quite literally could not act like a Gentile, despite it being OK for Him as GOD, because He had to be perfect in every way. The Gentiles, we’ve always had the ability to eat whatever we wanted.

I can resolve the contradiction either way, but only one brings closure to the concept for a Jewish believer in Christ. They are, by that act, entering into a New Covenant which is theirs from the beginning of time, at the right moment in time for it to happen, which it did. But us Gentiles are wild branches, and grafted into the New Covenant (Rom 11). It never had an effect on us, and still doesn’t.

So, I can only surmise the meaning of the apparent contradiction as foreshadowing something which always existed and is, upon need and pertinence in time, codified (kinda like Church doctrine on certain issues ).

So, I see the law differently, even though I can see it from what I hope is at least an elementary Jewish perspective from the text itself. However, I understand that oral tradition, such as rabbinic, expounds on things in a way which is often different. Often increasingly restrictive. It’s literally impossible to follow the letter of the law as set forth.

How do they rationalize these contradictions in the Torah, even though they are easily rectifiable with or without Christianity? With the Midrash regarding the step/foster/etc parent issue, how do they view it in light of the marriage/widow/brother/raising of “brother’s” seed? Is it seen as parallel in implementation, or is it otherwise specified as such that the Midrash doesn’t conflict with the Torah situation as specifically described?

Whether the practice is in place as per Deuteronomy 25, in the spirit of the Genesis 38, currently is moot. The Talmud pontificates on all manner of Torah law and corollary expositions regarding the apparent “holes” in Jewish law. I can see the holes filled in easily by Christianity, but how do they reconcile the holes? Particularly of the Midrash which seem to contradict the substance surrounding the other holes.

In other words, what is the speculation of the Midrash in light of Deut 25 account regarding brother/widow/seed as it pertains to the renaming of a child toward the adoptive/step/foster? The text itself indicates the seed of the older brother, who is deceased, is supplied by the younger who doesn’t share the younger’s name but the older’s instead. However, the younger gave the actual seed and raises the child as a sort of step/foster/adoptive parent.

I don’t care about elderly care or any other manner of irrelevant Midrash. I am asking specifically about the law and the Midrash which seems to have potential conflict, and how they bring the two into unity.

Is that clear?

Yes, it is very clear and understood. There are many conflicts within the Hebrew scripture - as that thought had been discussed on another board, Jewish - Christian board. When one begins to read scripture for the first time, you really don’t see the conflicts or the gaps until you re - read it from the start and then go through the interpretations. Like I said on another thread, you will read scripture (at first) and then hear it at Mass, but you pick up on something new each time especially when father gives his sermons on it - I found a really wonderful priest, who took the time on Sunday - The Epiphany of the Lord (Solemnity) 1/6/2012, as he discussed the subject of Isaiah 60 and then Matthew 2:1-12, giving info on Herod the Great. I was all ears! You see - I received so much info from this forum - here, then I listened to father give his sermon, so I felt that I prepared for Mass, how it connected so well. He first gave a background on the scriptural points (the two readings prior to the gospel) and then had it read - it was wonderful, then he read the gospel.

 

[MorningSong51]

Just so that you know I’ll read through your post again because I only read part of it but for now, I’m signing off.

 

[MorningSong51]

Thank you for the resources.

I understand the concepts laid forth. What I’m trying to understand is specifically the aspect of the adoptive/step-parent in regard to the Torah law and whether or not such a case would negate the Midrash supporting that which is not specified in the law.

Given that the deceased would neither contribute seed, nor raise the child, and in fact the brother would, the waiting period for the widow is irrelevant. The law is given with the idea that in fact the woman was not pregnant or otherwise carrying the deceased’s child. Ergo, the brother takes over, does all the work of the deceased, and still raises that child in his brother’s name.

So, that being said, does this Midrash work against that principle, or parallel with it in regards to situations not specified.

Re: Luke 20:27-40, it doesn’t come from there at all, it merely records the Torah reference the Sadducees made. The Sadducees were bringing up Torah law to trick Jesus, and their question was a twisting of the law as given which is why Jesus admonishes them and corrects their understanding. The passage in Luke and the other Gospel accounts of this demonstrate that the Sadducees weren’t caring about the law at all. They were asking about whose wife was she at the Resurrection and the law concerned children for building up the Nation of Israel, not the state of matrimony at the Resurrection. A Resurrection which the Sadducees posing the question didn’t even believe in to begin with.

On Luke 20:27-40, right as you wrote, “They were asking about whose wife was she at the resurrection and the law concerned children for building up the Nation of Israel” - the point can be expressed even as toward the understanding of what law the Sadducees were expounding on when they confronted Jesus. In order to be able understand the twist, you have to understand the answer Jesus gave, in his reply. True, the Sadducees didn’t believe in the resurrection, as well as, how they perceived the understanding of it. As this leads to the fact on who has final authority for interpretation of the law - the ethical decision that affects the entire community? Matthew 23:2-3, is quoted as, "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat; therefore do whatever they teach you and follow it; but do not do as they do’ (Matt. 23:2-3) Also, we know from reading scripture that there had a battle for leadership between the Pharisees and the Sadducees - different views on the understanding on the afterlife and marriage. This scriptural point, is on “building up” a lineage of both the family and nation.

2 He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. 3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5 Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house, testifying to what would be said in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we hold on to our courage and the hope of which we boast.

Given the story of Ruth, Naomi, has not only lost her husband but she also lost her two sons, “3 Now Elimelek, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, 5 both Mahlon and Kilion also died, and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband.” - the husband/husbands that were able to build up the lineage/bloodline are dead - will a yibbum, need to be initiated, in order to be remarried? Some indicate, yes - while others say, no - because Naomi is beyond childbearing, so who will build up her husband/and sons bloodlines? What does Jesus state about the God of the living and not of the dead? What does this mean? What does the Apostle Paul state in Romans 11 (Ingrafted Branches) and what relationship do we have with Judaism? What is being built up? and who’s building on that relationship? In who’s name? 1 Corinthians 1:30 It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God - See John 15:

The Vine and the Branches

1 “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

 

[MorningSong51]

cont.

A couple of points to make:

• **For all laws and Rabbinic commandments they composed a text that was to be handed down and explained from teacher to student. This teaching later became the basis of the Mishnah, **Likewise, to give the prayers a clear framework, they established the wording of the Shemoneh Esrei, Eighteen Blessings, as well as the blessings before and after food, before and after performing a mitzvah, and before and after the Sabbath (Kiddush and Havdalah). They translated the Tanach [Bible] into the Aramaic vernacular as an authoritative interpretation of each verse. This they divided into twenty four books, and sealed the Tanach, meaning that only these were declared holy books to which nothing could be added or subtracted. They taught: “Be deliberate in judgment; raise many students; and make a fence around the Torah” (Avos 1:1). [HOJP I, 36]
• The religious expression of the Hellenists followed Tzadok, and became know as the Sadducees. The Sadducees denied the existence of the World to Come, ruling out any reward and punishment in the life after this. Hence, no fear of consequences would deter them from any sin. Their only concern was to enjoy physical pleasures, and keep the literalist, minimum of the Law. The Sanhedrin became the battleground between the Pharisees and the Sadducees for the control of the leadership of the Jewish people.

We also know that the Sadducees were assimilationists who saw no reason for the existence of a Jewish nation. The passage in Luke, gives a detailed statement of not only the afterlife but also the fact that Jesus himself tells (some) of the Sadducees that God is not the God of the dead but of the living, referring to a larger fact, “37 But in the account of the burning bush, even Moses showed that the dead rise, for he calls the Lord ‘the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.’ 38 He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.”

In the passage with Abraham, Genesis 17 - it was God who named Isaac (Genesis 17:19, also see Jeremiah 1:5) Also, God had changed Abram name to Abraham and Sarai name to Sarah? A Self Identification - would be how you see yourself or identifying yourself with someone, but when someone (family member - a parent, or parents) give you a name, it is a personal identification that specifies and differentiates between members of a family, all of whose members usually share the same family name (surname). A given name is purposefully given, usually by a child’s parents at or near birth, in contrast to an inherited one such as a family name…isn’t this true? So when God, gives Abraham the name of the child, Isaac - it was prophesied to the patriarch Abraham that he would have a son.

Reading further God appears to Isaac and tells him that "I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves;5 because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.’ As we see this again, in Leviticus 26: 3-9, “9“‘I will look on you with favor and make you fruitful and increase your numbers, and I will keep my covenant with you.” see also John 15:9-16 “9“As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Now remain in my love. 10 If you obey my commands, you will remain in my love, just as I have obeyed my Father’s commands and remain in his love.” - underscoring the last stance, “13 Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends. 14You are my friends if you do what I command. 15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master’s business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you. 16 You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit—fruit that will last.”

Moses, refers to God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - 1 Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. 2 He was faithful to the one who appointed him, just as Moses was faithful in all God’s house. 3 Jesus has been found worthy of greater honor than Moses, just as the builder of a house has greater honor than the house itself. 4 For every house is built by someone, but God is the builder of everything. 5 “Moses was faithful as a servant in all God’s house,”bearing witness to what would be spoken by God in the future. 6 But Christ is faithful as the Son over God’s house. And we are his house, if indeed we hold firmly to our confidence and the hope in which we glory.

I think Paul nailed it with that passage…

 

[MorningSong51]

What I’m looking for is how they reconcile that Midrash with the clear example from the Torah, if such a situation were to arise. In other words, most people when asserting a point of doctrine which is seemingly in conflict with other doctrine, expands on the circumstances, but yet still make a note of the conflicting doctrine and why it does not in fact conflict.

I’m giving you one example of a conflict - now that we know the terminology: Yibum, Yavam, Yevamah: The Torah dictates that if a married man dies childless, the widow is to marry her dead husband’s brother, preferably the eldest. The firstborn son they produce together is considered a continuation of the dead husband’s line. This practice is known as yibum, or levirate marriage. The brother-in-law is called the yavam; the widow is called the yevamah.

and,

Halizah: A court of three rabbis, to which two others who need not be rabbis are added, meet on the previous day to establish the place where the rite is to be carried out, usually but not necessarily in the courthouse. On the next day, the widow is expected to fast until after the halitzah has been performed. She and the levir appear before the court and she recites in Hebrew the words in the Deuteronomic passage, and he recites the declaration that he does not wish to marry her.
myjewishlearning.com/life…Halitzah.shtml

---

The conflict is this, Boaz goes to the next of kin (unnamed closer redeemer) on Naomi behave to redeem the estate (a piece of land that “now” belongs to Naomi (hint)). The other (hint) is “selling” the piece of land that belonged to her late husband Elimelek - one another (hint), was a widow, and back in ancient times, allowed to perform business transactions of selling an estate? Also, on the same occasion, Boaz goes to “inform” (unnamed redeemer) that “if” he buys the land then he would have to marry Ruth - The widow of Elimelech is Naomi, not Ruth, what is being performed here? On “whose” account? Levirate marriage is a type of marriage in which the brother of a deceased man is obligated to marry his brother’s widow, and the widow is obligated to marry her deceased husband’s brother. The practice is similar to widow inheritance, where, for example, the deceased husband’s kin can dictate whom the widow may marry.Widow inheritance, also known as bride inheritance, is a type of marriage in which a widow marries a kinsman of her late husband, often his brother.

Naomi is too old for more children and thus would not impact on the unnamed redeemer’s current children’s inheritance. Why does redeeming the land of his kin Elimelech involve marrying Ruth, a foreign Moabite widow. Moabite woman are forbidden to marry Israelites. The issue of the land redemption is unrelated to marrying except to Naomi. Ruth is not Naomi! But Naomi in a sense adopted Ruth as a member of her own family.

 

[MorningSong51]

The original question was posed toward adopt/step parent at the beginning - right? and also if the Torah sited any laws toward the treatment of either - it does, even in the N.T. The law, a common law, refers that we honor our parents, whether they are adoptive parent to child and or step parent to child this should have “no” boundaries - separateness (or to be separated) as toward distinction. The law, state specifically “To Honor” - Honor by definition, is perceived quality of worthiness and respectability that affects both the social standing and the self-evaluation of an individual or corporate body such as a family, school, regiment or nation. Accordingly, individuals (or corporate bodies) are assigned worth and stature based on the harmony of their actions with a specific code of honour, and the moral code of the society at large.

Honour (honor), is adherence to what is right, and so where is “to Love” - When God gave the first commandment, or mitzvah - He stated, '“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence…” and in Deuteronomy 6:5,“Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.” so one commandment is asking “to remember who lead them out of Egypt and also to not worship any other gods” and in the other verse, the command/mitzvah is asking us to 'Love" God with all our soul, mind and heart, Jesus said (and this is not the 1st command - but it is the greatest commandment/mitzvah) , “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment. A second likewise is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”

Honor is the adherence to do what is right toward another but to Love, means - is both an action and a feeling, the unselfish loyal and benevolent concern for the good of another" as to with all they soul, mind and heart - to treat, our parents/step/adoptive, and as the book of Tobit - writes:

4:3 honour her all the days of thy life, and do that which shall please her, and grieve her not.

4:5 My son, be mindful of the Lord our God all thy days, and let not thy will be set to sin, or to transgress his commandments: do uprightly all thy life long, and follow not the ways of unrighteousness.

4:6 For if thou deal truly, thy doings shall prosperously succeed to thee, and to all them that live justly.

**4:15 Do that to no man which thou hatest: **

What does the command say about “Honor thy Mother and Father?” - Exodus 20:12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.”

---

The question poses additional lessons - on the verse "“Honor your father and mother”–which is the first commandment with a promise–Ephesians 6, see also Exodus 20:12 "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you (see verse 4:5, book of Tobit (above):***

Original question posted by jonbhorton:
I understand the concepts laid forth. What I’m trying to understand is specifically the aspect of the adoptive/step-parent in regard to the Torah law and whether or not such a case would negate the Midrash supporting that which is not specified in the law.

and the original OP question: 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!!

• added thought on step parents: John 19:26-27
  Jesus saw his own mother, and the disciple standing near whom he loved, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold your son”. Then he said to the disciple, “Behold your mother”. And from that hour, he took his mother into his family.

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.

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”.

 

[meltzerboy]

What I’m looking for is how they reconcile that Midrash with the clear example from the Torah, if such a situation were to arise. In other words, most people when asserting a point of doctrine which is seemingly in conflict with other doctrine, expands on the circumstances, but yet still make a note of the conflicting doctrine and why it does not in fact conflict.

For example, this is a rabbinic/Talmudic explanation of the separation of meat and dairy:

Source: jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm#Separation

The plain text says: don’t boil a kid in its mother’s milk. Pretty straightforward. I can see the moral thought behind it. It screams imitation, or semblance to, the pagan sacrificial cultures surrounding the people of Israel.

But then in Genesis 18, Abraham serves God meat and dairy. Two kinds of dairy were served actually. Milk and butter, along with a calf:

A couple of interesting things in here. Seemingly conflicting, but, as later revealed to St. Peter, not conflicting and helps us understand the Jewish people more.
(listed by verse)

1. The Lord appears to Abraham. Somehow, He appears in 3 people.
2. Abraham adores down to the ground. He went prostrate. As a humble servant would.
3. Abraham recognizes Him as God and implores favor from Him.
4. Tells God to wash His own feet. Hmm. This is interesting because when Jesus washes others’ feet, He is placing Himself subservient to the person being washed. Feet, in that region, are offensive. At that time, they’re dirty as can be just walking around in sandals in the desert. Kind of weird that Abraham wouldn’t offer to wash God’s feet. I think this might be a passage which Jesus is making a specific point about in His recorded actions and explanation. How God even places Himself in the subservient position for us, even though part of us is always tempted to reject serving Him.
5. Abraham selects a young and tender calf to slaughter to serve God to eat. Good job on Abraham. God doesn’t like it when we donate a sick, lame, blind, imperfect sacrifice to Him. That’s why He had to be the Sacrifice for US.
6. What!?! He serves GOD meat and dairy?! How on earth is this reconciled?

---

Since you mention it, there is in fact a restriction with regard to eating fish and milk together in certain Sephardic as well as Chasidic communities even though there is no scientific evidence today that this combination of foods is in any way detrimental to one’s health. I have no idea where this custom came from. Likewise, meat and fish were once thought to be injurious to health if eaten at the same time, but this too has been disproved. In Orthodox communities, they may be served together on the same table on the same set of dishes. Although no extended time period is required to separate their consumption, one must not eat them in succession before rinsing the mouth. It is worth noting that for certain Torah or Talmud mitzvot (commandments is really an inexact definition of the term), rabbis have noted that there needn’t be an obvious health necessity or moral connection. If all the Written and Oral Law were so easy to explain and interpret, following it would not demonstrate one’s love of G-d. One could merely rationalize the whole Law without necessarily placing one’s trust in G-d. Furthermore, the minutiae of the Law are meant to sanctify even the most mundane behaviors. Finally, the Talmudic interpretations and commentaries, often not in agreement with one another, attempt to apply the essence of Torah Law to new and problematic life situations that may not have been specifically mentioned previously, as well as deciphering the more recondite passages in the Torah.

 

[MorningSong51]

Originally posted by jonbhorton:

1. Tells God to wash His own feet. Hmm. This is interesting because when Jesus washes others’ feet, He is placing Himself subservient to the person being washed. Feet, in that region, are offensive. At that time, they’re dirty as can be just walking around in sandals in the desert. Kind of weird that Abraham wouldn’t offer to wash God’s feet. I think this might be a passage which Jesus is making a specific point about in His recorded actions and explanation. How God even places Himself in the subservient position for us, even though part of us is always tempted to reject serving Him.

Abraham didn’t tell God to wash his own feet, Jon.

In Genesis 18 it states, “4 Let a little water be brought, and then you may all wash your feet and rest under this tree.” and as I remember the passage, Abraham had “hurried” to meet them and bowed low to the ground. However, the emphasizes is on this part of scripture, “3 He said, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord” - there another verse that (might) correlate - Numbers 6:26 “G-d will show you favor and give you peace”, favor or goodwill. Synonyms: kindness, kindliness, love, Chesed, The Hebrew noun khesed or chesed (חסד) is the Hebrew word for “kindness.” It is also commonly translated as “loving-kindness,” or "love. The only other verse that I found in the Old Testament, But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD and in the N.T, “It remained in the land until the time of David, 46who enjoyed God’s favor and asked that he might provide a dwelling place for the God of Jacob.k 47But it was Solomon who built the house for him.” - Acts 7:46

So in Luke 1:28, the verse states, “you who are highly favored!”, the understanding of the verse then draws a much deeper meaning when the Angel Gabriel greets Mary.

 

[MorningSong51]

Originally posted by jonbhorton:

Feet, in that region, are offensive

Only if someone shows you the sole of their foot is it considered offensive, it considered the dirtiest part of the body, and its highly offensive.

Originally posted by jonbhorton:

Kind of weird that Abraham wouldn’t offer to wash God’s feet.

Not really, in Exodus - Moses is told to take off his sandals because the place where he’s standing is Holy ground. I don’t whether it was out of fear on Abraham part? The interesting contrast is the fact that the patriarchs up until Abraham, like Enoch (Enoch walked with God 300 years), Noah (walked with God - righteous man, blameless among the people of his time) but with Abraham, the scripture states that there were three occasions before God actually appeared to him: Genesis 12, “1The Lord had said to Abram, “Leave your country, your people and your father’s household and go to the land I will show you.” that was the 1st time that God called out to him, the 2nd “the Lord came to Abram in a vision” and then on the 3rd,“1The Lord appeared to Abraham near the great trees of Mamre” It was actually on the 2nd occasion, that God told Abraham to “walk before me and be blameless” - that God had appeared to him on the third occasion. You don’t read that with the other patriarchs, - that’s why I think, that it might have prompted Abraham to say, “If I have found favor in your eyes, my lord, do not pass your servant by.”

Again, not sure?

 

[MorningSong51]

Since you mention it, there is in fact a restriction with regard to eating fish and milk together in certain Sephardic as well as Chasidic communities even though there is no scientific evidence today that this combination of foods is in any way detrimental to one’s health. I have no idea where this custom came from. Likewise, meat and fish were once thought to be injurious to health if eaten at the same time, but this too has been disproved. In Orthodox communities, they may be served together on the same table on the same set of dishes. Although no extended time period is required to separate their consumption, one must not eat them in succession before rinsing the mouth. It is worth noting that for certain Torah or Talmud mitzvot (commandments is really an inexact definition of the term), rabbis have noted that there needn’t be an obvious health necessity or moral connection. If all the Written and Oral Law were so easy to explain and interpret, following it would not demonstrate one’s love of G-d. One could merely rationalize the whole Law without necessarily placing one’s trust in G-d. Furthermore, the minutiae of the Law are meant to sanctify even the most mundane behaviors. Finally, the Talmudic interpretations and commentaries, often not in agreement with one another, attempt to apply the essence of Torah Law to new and problematic life situations that may not have been specifically mentioned previously, as well as deciphering the more recondite passages in the Torah.

I hope this is correct, if not - let me know! This is a test run!

תּוֹדָה רַבָּה

 

[MorningSong51]

Since you mention it, there is in fact a restriction with regard to eating fish and milk together in certain Sephardic as well as Chasidic communities even though there is no scientific evidence today that this combination of foods is in any way detrimental to one’s health. I have no idea where this custom came from. Likewise, meat and fish were once thought to be injurious to health if eaten at the same time, but this too has been disproved. In Orthodox communities, they may be served together on the same table on the same set of dishes. Although no extended time period is required to separate their consumption, one must not eat them in succession before rinsing the mouth. It is worth noting that for certain Torah or Talmud mitzvot (commandments is really an inexact definition of the term), rabbis have noted that there needn’t be an obvious health necessity or moral connection. If all the Written and Oral Law were so easy to explain and interpret, following it would not demonstrate one’s love of G-d. One could merely rationalize the whole Law without necessarily placing one’s trust in G-d. Furthermore, the minutiae of the Law are meant to sanctify even the most mundane behaviors. Finally, the Talmudic interpretations and commentaries, often not in agreement with one another, attempt to apply the essence of Torah Law to new and problematic life situations that may not have been specifically mentioned previously, as well as deciphering the more recondite passages in the Torah.

Hi Meltzerboy;

I looked up the information regarding the restriction on the consumption of fish and meat or eating fish and milk together, and also what the health issues were about:

There is nothing in the Torah or the Talmud that prohibits eating fish and meat together. The first place in rabbinic literature where we see a prohibition against eating fish and meat is in the Shulhan Arukh, where Rabbi Joseph Caro writes that one must abstain from eating fish and meat together because that combination causes a danger to one’s health (Yoreh Deah 116:2-3).

What kind of danger? Caro implied that fish and meat cooked together could lead to a person contracting tzaraat, a biblical skin disease commonly translated as leprosy, though distinct from the disease we call leprosy today (some scholars believe Caro is merely worried that fish and meat will exacerbate the problems of one who already has tzaraat). Caro is clear that the mandated separation between meat and fish is made out of concern for medical risk, not because the combination is explicitly prohibited by the Torah.

As a result of this ruling in the Shulhan Arukh, halakhah (Jewish law) prohibits cooking fish and meat together, or serving them together in one dish. However, the distinction between fish and meat is significantly different from the distinction between milk and meat. Kosher kitchens generally have separate sets of dishes and utensils for dairy and meat, but fish does not require these same extreme measures.

In Orthodox communities, the separation between meat and fish is generally still upheld, under the logic that the standards for safety made by Rabbi Caro have not changed. myjewishlearning.com/ask_the_expert/at/Ask_the_Expert_Meat_and_Fish.shtml

Also, I had checked on some other information regarding Passover: Kashrut observance between Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews:

Traditional Forbidden Chametz & Foods on Pesach
Ashkenazi and Sephardic Passover Food Traditions and Prohibitions

Read more at Suite101: Traditional Forbidden Chametz & Foods on Pesach: Ashkenazi and Sephardic Passover Food Traditions and Prohibitions | Suite101.com malysastrattonlouk.suite101.com/traditional-forbidden-chametz–foods-on-pesach-a209687#ixzz1ji3zlUcV

 

[Kaninchen]

Being a vegetarian makes Kosher much easier.

 

[MorningSong51]

Being a vegetarian makes Kosher much easier.

You bet… a vegetarian pilaf sounds pretty goodhttp://www.theologyweb.com/campus/images/smilies/yummy.gif

 

[jonbhorton]

Morningsong, you can’t seem to answer what amounts to a simple “yes” or “no” question.

Throwing oodles of literary widgets at the questions doesn’t make it disappear. I’m going to try this ONE MORE TIME.

Re:

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.

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”.

How do these interface with the clear law set forth in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, and in light of Genesis 38: 1-10?

You have clearly stated, according to Talmudic resources, including Midrash, that whoever raises a child shall have that child known by his name. The Torah says, in the case specific to the brother of the deceased, that the child (fathered by the brother of the deceased) shall be known by the deceased’s name.

Now, does this Midrash make note of the Torah law? Yes or no.

If yes, does it provide a caveat that is doesn’t apply to the Torah situation? Yes or no

I don’t care to read about how Shmuel’s cousin was adopted and raised by Hannah and her husband Levi and what the Midrash says about who he takes care of when at 58 he finds out he’s a cousin and his parents are still alive. Quit obfuscating the issue with random stuff that has no bearing, unless you are willing to explain how it does have bearing.

Further, passages from the New Testament have no bearing. I’m asking specifically about how the Torah interfaces with Midrash. Nothing else. I don’t care what the New Testament, Auto trader magazine, or any other written material has to say about sorta-kinda-not-about-the-question-at-all topics.

I’ll put this in bold, please answer only the bold or consider your time wasted because I won’t read it. I want to see YES or NO. Once you establish that, feel free to expound on WHY you answered YES or NO.

**Now, does this Midrash make note of the Torah law? Yes or no.

If yes, does it provide a caveat that is doesn’t apply to the Torah situation as described? Yes or no

If yes, what does it say. If no, no reply needed other than “no”.

Understand my question? Again, a yes or no reply.
**

 

[meltzerboy]

Being a vegetarian makes Kosher much easier.

Isn’t there a case proposed in Judaism by some Orthodox Jews, based on Torah or Talmud teaching, for vegetarianism?

As you undoubtedly know, even Orthodox Jewish vegetarians have certain challenges in keeping kosher, such as inspecting berries for worms. And, I believe, dates are also problematic with regard to kashrut. Not to mention the grain controversy during Passover, as well as the nuances surrounding kosher wine and cheese.

I realize all of the above is off topic, but am I correct about some of this?