Jewish dating non jewish
It is pretty clear that she did not "officially" convert. Saying that there are two different torahs that often override each other is alot more Karaite than anything I've ever said. This is completely on topic and what I'm saying is the truth. Because you fail to understand that you are having trouble with so many other issues. I have no problem with the Rabbis explaining an eye for an eye to mean financial compensation. I have no problem with the Rabbis explaining an eye for an eye to mean financial compensation.The resulting feud among the Rabbis whether the children of that union were Jewish or not is an indication, that even among the Rabbis of that time, the "maternal descent rule" was not a unanimous opinion). Saying that there are two different torahs that often override each other is alot more Karaite than anything I've ever said. Well, if you think that the Tanach is not the bedrock of out faith at all, then you must follow a different religion. You really believe "An eye for an eye" means someone that knocked out another person's eye gets his own knocked out in return? It may not have meant that originally but that is immaterial to our discussion. It may not have meant that originally but that is immaterial to our discussion.By halakhic standards, therefore, their descendants were not Jewish, either, even though their Jewishness was not challenged by the rabbinical authorities.Although such communities must, in their first generations, have known the truth about themselves, this does not appear to have bothered them or anyone else very much.The same goes for Isaac's exhortation to his son Jacob not to take a wife from among the Canaanites.It is pretty clear that the Patriarchs hated the Cannanites (and the other pagans) BECAUSE they engaged in horrible idol worship (child sacrifice etc.) NOT because they "weren't Jewish".
This interest often stems from their quest to find the ancestral roots of their own faith. You really believe "An eye for an eye" means someone that knocked out another person's eye gets his own knocked out in return? Or do you believe that "conversion" as we know it today and "conversion" as it was practiced back then are 2 quite different things. Or do you believe that "conversion" as we know it today and "conversion" as it was practiced back then are 2 quite different things.In addition, it is pretty clear that Jewish ancestry (as well as tribal status) was once determined by the father and not by the mother.The "maternal ancestry rule" was instituted by later Rabbinic authorities for political and religious reasons (the Jewish exilarch Bustenai, for example, had no qualms about taking a Persian wife.I guess they couldn't since back then there was no internet or airplanes.But nowadays, it would be very apparent to other Jews that your wife (and therefore children) aren't Jewish.Of Jacob's 12 sons, at least 8 married out of their clan.King Solomon was criticized for taking many wives, HOWEVER, this stinging criticism is followed by the explication that his wives were idol-worshippers who perverted his heart against Torah.However, very often this interest remains only an interest BECAUSE they are intimidated by the current geirus process. I'll let you get back on to your conversion topic which I don't know much about so I'll bow out.Some might argue that this is a good thing but I disagree. But I just want to say you really should re-examine your understanding of Judaism.One example of this are the ancient Moabites and Ammonites. For example all the law's of Shcheta and kosher meat can not be derived from anywhere in tanach.The Torah clearly prohibits any marriage among them, however the Rabbis have relaxed this stricture and ruled that the prohibition only applied to marrying the males among them and not the females (how else to explain the story of Ruth the Moabite). There is only the statement to keep the laws of kosher meat "the way I told you." All the "laws from Moshe on Sinai" are also not found anywhere in Tanach. LA Guy, the first thing you should know is that I have no problem with the idea of intermarriage. The main difference between nowadays and way back when is feminism.