The Talmud agrees with me!

In an earlier post,  http://tanakhemet.blogspot.com/2018/07/is-oral-law-good-idea.html

I explained why the Oral Law is not a good idea.  Questions of its authenticity aside, the method of oral transmission of a vast and complex legal system is definitely not a good idea.

The Talmud (Temurah 16a-b) goes so far to say that when Moses died, 3000 laws were forgotten by the next generation , i.e. Joshua and his leadership.

see: https://steinsaltz.org/daf/temurah-16a-b-forgetting-torah-laws/

These are supposed oral laws. Now this itself is an interesting topic of discussion, but in essence, the Talmud itself is providing evidence that supports my claim.  If Joshua could forget 3000 laws which Moses allegedly taught him, then the oral law is a complete disaster.

Again, this claim by the Talmud must be scrutinized,  but that is for a later occasion.  It is important to note that the system of oral law is so dysfunctional, that within the very first generation, according to the Talmud itself, it has already broken down.

Rabbi David Segal (the TaZ)

Rabbi Segal is widely known as the TaZ , after the name of the commentary he wrote on the Shulchan Aruch – the rabbinical work of day to day practical halacha.

The Taz lived from 1586-1667  https://www.geni.com/people/Rabbi-David-Segal-the-TaZ/4950928906290042156

He was greatly respected and is still considered a major Rabbinic authority.

It is stated by tha Taz on several occasions that “although the Sages have leeway to enact their own new prohibitions, they may not prohibit something explicitly permitted by the Torah” 

-          source:  http://matzav.com/the-taz-hayaduah-bava-metzia-70/

Indeed, this is itself derived from the Talmud.

If this is to be the case, and it appears to be quite widely accepted, then he is essentially making the same argument as Karaites do.  Of course there are endless examples,  but if we look at the prohibition of consuming chicken with dairy products, which is purely rabbinical, it is quite clear from the Torah that this is not forbidden.  It might be argued that not everything is explicitly permitted, however, that is nitpicking. The principle is very powerful, and can be applied to almost every case where Karaites would argue against adding to the Torah.

This one idea of the Taz, repudiates the entire Oral law thesis, the Talmud and the Shulchan Aruch which he comments upon.

Is the Oral Law a Good Idea?

From a purely pragmatic perspective, is it a good idea to have a large body of vital law and principles committed to memory and not to writing?

The believers in the oral law claim that an Oral law was given to Moses and not written down. They then argue that it was transmitted /taught orally for another 1500 years or so.  The excuse they give for it to be written down is:

"In the lifetime of Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi (around 1700 years ago), Roman persecution, the recent destruction of the second Temple and the disruption of stable Jewish community life threatened our ability to properly retain and transmit this oral law. Rabbi Yehuda, therefore, wrote down the bare basics in the Mishna. A couple of centuries of hardship and persecution later, the rabbis of Babylonia saw a need to record even more detail and compiled a written version of what is known as the Talmud"

https://torah.org/learning/basics-primer-torah-oraltorah/

It seems to be a very inefficient  system and design.  Why would this section be given in oral form originally, if it was inevitable for it to be written down?
And what is unique about the the hardship of Roman persecution?  There was persecution even before the Romans, and there was the destruction of the First Temple. In First Temple times, there were many periods of idolatry, when even the Written law was lost or forgotten. how could the oral law be remembered then?  And if it existed, why wasn't it written down in those times?

So the form of oral transmission is really not a good idea. it is impossible to verbally remember a mass of information the size of the Talmud.  If there was no written format, then even a photographic memory would not suffice.  So it follows that not only is it a bad idea, it was impossible to implement.

Aryeh Kaplan's False Translation

The late Aryeh Kaplan was quite poplar in his time, an he even wrote a Translation of the Torah. However, this would be better described as a mistranslation.  He consistently misrepresented what is written in the Torah, and instead puts down false statements that suit his own goals.

One example is in this article he wrote about the Oral Law.

http://www.aish.com/jl/b/ol/48943186.html

He alleges "If I would have written the majority of my Torah, [Israel] would be counted the same as strangers" (Hosea 8:12).

However, this is not what Hoshea wrote or said.

The plain translation is given on Mechon mamre:

יב  אכתוב- (אֶכְתָּב-) לוֹ--רבו (רֻבֵּי), תּוֹרָתִי:  כְּמוֹ-זָר, נֶחְשָׁבוּ. 12 Though I write for him never so many things of My Law, they are accounted as a stranger's. 

The Law was written, containing so many things, but still considered as "foreign" - because the sinners in Israel and Ephraim had taken to false gods.

This in no way is alluding to the existence or necessity of a an oral law, quite the opposite. It is attesting to the fullness and completeness of the written law, which is still rejected, by the idolaters, and perhaps also by those who feel it is incomplete.

Halacha LeMoshe Mi Sinai

 The 4-headed "shin" on the Tefillin is an unusual variation of the modern Hebrew letter shin, which ordinarily has only 3 heads.  There is also a 3 headed shin  on tefillin, with the same calligraphy.  It appears nowhere else in Hebrew literature, And, the explanation, according to Maimonides, is that is is one of the 31 alleged Halachot that were given orally to Moses at mount Sinai, but not committed to writing (until the Oral Law became a book).

https://www.ou.org/torah/mitzvot/taryag/31_halachos_lmoshe_misinai_according_to_the_rambam/


In fact, apart from this list of 31 halachot, many others are also claimed to have been given to Moses but not mentioned in the Torah.  It is interesting - how does one verify philosophically such a claim?
The problem  is that there is no written contemporaneous evidence of there being an oral law or these specific halachot being given to Moses. The claim occurs some 1150 years after the event.

This particular claim, of the style of the shin, its calligraphy etc. can be refuted. That is because the Hebrew script at the time of Writing of the Torah was not the same as the one we have today or at the time of the Mishnah.  The Hebrew script of the Bible was paleo-Hebrew.  And the paleo-hebrew alphabet does not look the same as the modern square letters , which are in fact Aramaic.







The second last letter of this alphabet looks very much like an English "w" and that in fact was a Biblical shin.

Had the halacha of this shin (and indeed tefillin ) been given to Moses at Sinai, it is unthinkable that it would be written in the form of a future vulgate language. It is likely that the scholars who concocted this story of the 31 or so laws were unaware of the history of the Hebrew language.

Dessler's Strive for "Truth"

A famous ultra-orthodox rabbi,  Eliyahu Dessler, was primarily active in the Gateshead yeshiva of England and later the Ponovezh Yeshiva in Bnei Brak, Israel. His books have become a set piece fo the Lithuanian Hareidi stream of orthodoxy, who consider  his every word as being scientific and Divine truth all in one.  However, even a brief  familiarity with his writings reveal that not only are his views  questionable, but they are often entirely false.

According to one lecturer at http://www.webyeshiva.org/course/strive-for-truth-michtav-meeliyahu/

" Rav Dessler opened the shiur with an important statement of purpose. Rav Dessler did not see the תנ"ך as a history book. He also did not see it as a book of theology, which is an abstract inquiry into the meaning of Judaism. The stories in the תנ"ך are there to teach, to instruct us how to serve Hashem"

Firstly, the  תנ"ך is not a single book, it comprises of various books, some of which are Prophetic, others are more historical or Chronicles.   The Books of Kings and Chronicles have many functions, but they are primarily historical records of leaders of Israel or history of Israel.

Furthermore,  there are many prophetic and theological books within the TNK. That doesn't exclude the moral and ethical instruction.  However, just as an example, the book of Daniel, can hardly be described as an ethical work.  It is full of miracles, mystery, prophecy and eschatology.

Even in Kings, we see, for example, Elijah's battle with the prophets of baal.  This is not an ethical instruction, it is about supernatural events, which are not applicable today since we do not have Prophets.  It is thus all the more surprising that Dessler, who takes his name from that very prophet, is making false statements about the TNK.

What is more worrying, is that thousands of rabbis who are his followers take his words as Gospel, when in fact they are false speculations.

The “Rabbi” - Yosef Mizrachi, and Holocaust Denial

A while back, the popular but controversial so-called Rabbi Y. Mizrachi caused yet another stir when he denied that 6 million Jews were slaughtered in the Holocaust. Although he subsequently apologized for this, it is worth analysing how and why such crass stupidity was ever publicised.

The lecture, given in Hebrew begins with him “revealing a secret” (sod). He then says that the “emet” (truth) is that less than 1 million Jews were killed. This figure is in line with holocaust deniers, revisionists and neo nazis – whom he supposedly opposes. Why has a man who claims to be a rabbi, who allegedly studies and teaches Kabbalah, and speaks in Holier than thou language to everyone else – fallen to such a low, even in his own poor history of offensive remarks?

I suggest we try to reconstruct some of his world view.

He tells a story of how he left school and then left the army, to look for work in the USA. Here he got a job in a bagel shop. Working at the till, he claims that he calculated the receipts of customers in his head, without using the till itself. By this he implies that he is some unrecognised mathematical genius. However, he has no formal education, and has no credentials or recognised mathematical or scientific qualifications. He also has no formal training in statistics, so he is not a reliable person to pontificate on matters so grave as the Holocaust and its victims.

Next, he repeatedly barks at his critics, claiming that he has brought more people back to “Orthodox Torah” than anyone else in history. Again, a tall story. However he has signs of arrogance and megalomania, and has hidden messianic pretensions. This same line was used by the followers of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, who claimed him to be the messiah. It was also part of the Shabbetai Zvi movement, which initially gained many followers, who became religious and fooled even the some of the leading rabbis of thee time.

In the same lecture, Mizrachi claims that the American DJ Howard stern is not Jewish, because his mother is allegedly not Jewish. However, this is false. Stern's parents both were Jewish (although he may have joked about being half Jewish at some point). Now Mizrachi is not a qualified Rabbi, and is also not a Dayan, so he is not someone who can answer halachic questions or make decisions regarding Jewish status. But his comments show that he has an arrogance way above what his actual capacity and status is.

So what would possibly motivate a person to come to with such nonsense?

Here are some possibilities:

1) Simply, he has to create material for his lectures, so he has a fertile imagination. He has no scientific research programme, these are all conjectures, perhaps ideas that come to him when he is traveling from one lecture to another.

2) He may have delusions of grandeur. This is supported by the terms he uses. He didn't present this claim as a theory or hypothesis, but he presented it as a “secret” ans as the “Emet” or truth. The evidence was self generated, i.e. the workings of his own mind. So a serious researcher, historian or scientist would not make such grandiose statements without having them verified by independent experts. Thus, it seems he has a superiority complex, and that also explains how he reacts to people who criticise him. To him any idea that comes into his head must ipso facto be true, and that is how he makes such insane comments, and tries to back them up by appeal to religion or “Divine Information” (the name of his website).

3) It is not clear where his influences come from. He mentions Satmar, Neturei karta , but also criticizes them at times. Yet he is repeating the same kind of Holocaust denial that Neturei karta made when they visited Iran. They said on BBC news that they felt only 1 million Jews were killed, because they held that 6 million was a figure created by Zionist propaganda. He is anti-Zionist, so some of these negative influences may well have come from the NK .

There are also false allegations made by  Mizrachi that Theodore Herzl wrote to the Pope with a programme for mass conversion of the Jews. This is another false claim, but it comes from the same type of Neturei Karta/satmar sources, who have a pathological hatred for Zionism.  Just as he himself has criticised NK for attending a holocaust denial rally in Tehran, and prayed for the health of the PLO terrorist, so he himself (Mizrachi) had fallen into the trap of Holocaust denial.

It is important to note that he tried to make a public apology to a Holocaust survivor, but the survivor attacked this man's nasty behaviour.

The sad thing is that Mr Mizrachi does have some worthwhile thins to say. I find that listening to a 1 hour lecture of his might actually have 1 or 2 very interesting points. One such point is that it is forbidden by the Shulchan Aruch to listen to a Rabbi who is nasty – that means insulting, offensive, arrogant, extortionate, or dictatorial. Unfortunately, by applying this principal to Mizrachi himself , which a lot of people will intuitively do, it would mean we should not listen to anything he says, even if some of his ideas are valid or true.

If I had one message to give to Mizrachi, it would be to check his own arrogance, and wonder why he has aroused so much anger, unparalleled by any other rabbi on the current scene. He could potentially be a truly righteous person, and not drive away so many people. He has been banned from the UK for example as a hate preacher. Part of his own defence mechanism is to see everyone who opposes him as evil and impure – but he has made the most evil statements, which are on the same level as those made by neo nazis and holocaust deniers. This perhaps refutes his claim that everyone who opposes him is evil.

Maimonides vs Raavad – Modern Orthodox revolutionary?

The 2 great Rabbinic scholars of the 12^th century were known as Maimonides (Rambam) and his frequent controversialist, Abraham ben David (RABaD or Raavad). Whereas Maimonides is well known throughout the Jewish (and non-Jewish) world, with hundreds of books about him, hospitals, and schools named after him and is a celebrated figure of Jewish intellect in areas of philosophy, medicine, astronomy etc. Rabad is scarcely known outside of rabbinical scholarship and the experts in halacha (and Kabbala) who study his original critiques of Maimonides.

Maimonides is known as a towering intellect, who was esteemed by surrounding Muslim and Christian cultures; as a philosopher whose magnum opus The Guide for the Perplexed is still the mainstay of Jewish philosophy and theology, and whose original 13 principles of faith have become a declaration of faith for the rabbinical orthodox world. Rabad was known as a great talmudist, who had the entire Talmud deeply ensconced in his memory, and he was reputed to be able to access any part of it on demand. He was the major rabbinic authority for France and Ashkenaz, whereas Maimonides was the authority for Spain and Sepharad.

Maimonides is considered a “Modern” orthodox proponent, because of his philosophical and rational thinking, his use of science and rejection of mysticism and superstition. Rabad, on the other hand, is largely claimed as a model for Ultra-Orthodoxy precisely because of his espousal of and expertise in Kabbalah, and his alleged disregard of science. However, neither of these stereotypes are necessarily true. I will argue quite the opposite.

A statement I have often heard from the Yeshiva world is that they follow Maimonides in halacha (legal interpretation) but not in philosophy. Indeed, the relatively modern Shulchan Aruch is largely based on Rambam's legal works. This statement, however, is problematic, because the one authority who is supposedly authentically Orthodox – Rabad – was also the chief critic of Maimonides' halacha, and not philosophy. Rabad leveled severe criticism against the “Mishneh Torah” of Maimonides, both methodological and substantive. The main methodological criticisms were that Maimonides was not providing sources for his statements, and that a text book of halacha is a bad thing, rather it should be derived through consideration of the various opinions in the Talmud. Indeed certain of Maimonides' statements seem to be in error (or fabricated) and Rabad will show that there is in fact much evidence to support the opposite conclusion.

The key problem with Maimonides is that he tends to present a strict position, when in fact the Talmud suggests a lenient or permissive position on many matters. He also seems to be aloof and unconcerned by the real world burden he is imposing on people, whereas Rabad is very concerned by the increasing burden of rabbinically added extras. In one famous controversy, Rambam is suggesting that a rabbinic Gezeira (added restriction) cannot be undone by a later generation. Here, the Rabad presents a case where this was precisely occurred since the reasons for that restriction were no longer relevant.

So whilst it may be claimed that Rambam was a Modern orthodox revolutionary, he was in practice an extreme conservative, who often presents halachic views which are impractical and unwarranted, whereas Rabad was the true revolutionary. Revolutionary is a relative term, since our impression of Rabbinic law is one of strictness and ascetism. Rambam, the philosopher was the ascetic, and he imposed an ascetic halacha, whereas Rabad, the Kabbalist was the most open minded thinker in the past 1000 years. His vision of Talmud was not one that strangles a person's humanity, happiness of enjoyment in this world – this was the conclusion that Rambam reached. Rabad viewed the Talmud as a way of living and allowing people to fulfil there lives in this world, and not to wait for the next. Hence, it is my view that Abraham ben David was the true Modern Orthodox revolutionary.

The Single Lineage Theory

As previously discussed, the mainstream Rabbinic concept of Matrilineal descent is a single lineage theory. That means the woman can conceive by any man, or anonymous donor, and the child will still be considered Jewish.  In fact even in the case of adultery, if the male cohabiter is not Jewish, the child will (according to Rabbinic halacha) be both Jewish and kasher, ie  without the taint of mamzerut. (Mamzerut is a complex matter and is not supported by the textual reading of the Torah).

There is evidence that refutes the matrilineal theory.  Today’s evidence is from the Mitzvah of Levirate marriage or Yibum.

Deut 25:

ה  כִּי-יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו, וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין-לוֹ--לֹא-תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת-הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה, לְאִישׁ זָר:  יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ, וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ.	5 If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband's brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband's brother unto her.
ו  וְהָיָה, הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד--יָקוּם, עַל-שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת; וְלֹא-יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ, מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.	6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.
ז  וְאִם-לֹא יַחְפֹּץ הָאִישׁ, לָקַחַת אֶת-יְבִמְתּוֹ; וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה אֶל-הַזְּקֵנִים, וְאָמְרָה מֵאֵן יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל--לֹא אָבָה, יַבְּמִי.	7 And if the man like not to take his brother's wife, then his brother's wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: 'My husband's brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband's brother unto me.'
ח  וְקָרְאוּ-לוֹ זִקְנֵי-עִירוֹ, וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו; וְעָמַד וְאָמַר, לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ.	8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand, and say: 'I like not to take her';
ט  וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו, לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ, וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו; וְעָנְתָה, וְאָמְרָה, כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יִבְנֶה אֶת-בֵּית אָחִיו.	9 then shall his brother's wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: 'So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother's house.'
י  וְנִקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל:  בֵּית, חֲלוּץ הַנָּעַל.  {ס}	10 And his name shall be called in Israel the house of him that had his shoe loosed. {S}

According to rabbinic thought, the father of a child has no bearing whatsoever of the identity of the child, i.e. being part of Israel or being a “Jew”.  This is entirely from

the mother. Thus the father could be a Chinese Buddhist,  an African tribesman, or a native American, and the child would still be Jewish.  However, the Torah refutes this claim.  

In the case given in the Torah above, the problem with the husband dying childless is that his name is blotted from Israel:  “6 And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.”

From here, we can deduce that for a person born to be considered an Israelite, he must have his father’s name, i.e. identity.  This sounds like the mirror image of the rabbinic claim.  It doesn’t tell us whether both parents need to be Israelites. However, the  Yibum does not apply to a wife who dies childless, i.e.  her sister is not obligated to marry the husband  whose wife dies (assuming the sister is not already married). This means that the name of the mother is not passed on to the child, and hence the Israelite identity is passed on from the father.

The Yibum procedure has a single function, which is to perpetuate the name of a deceased man, should he be childless.  One might ask, what would be the purpose of this mitzvah if the Israelite identity were passed on from the mother?

Israelites, Jews and Matrilineal Descent. Jews or Shoes?

The question used both rhetorically and also legally, is “Who is a Jew?”.

According to Rabbinic Judaism, which in its orthodox manifestation controls many Batei Din around the world, and dominates the Israeli scene, this is something which is passed on by the mother and not the father. A Jewish woman who intermarried with person of non Jewish heritage still gives birth to “Jewish” children, whereas the favour is not returned to the Jewish man who takes a wife of non Jewish heritage.

This is the well known story. Apart from conversion, which is the only other option, there is not much of an alternative. The Karaites do not have a clear position on this, although some will make a claim that Patrilineal descent is valid, whereas others insist on both parents being Jewish.

To try to understand this issue, it might help to define what “Jewish” actually means. In fact, there is something that preceeds “Jewishness”, and that is being an Israelite. Israel was a given name to Jacob. His descendants are Israelites. Israelites are the people to whom the Torah was given. Before we can discuss Jews we need to understand who the Israelites are.

Genesis Chapter 29

16 Now Laban had two daughters: the name of the elder was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 And Leah's eyes were weak; but Rachel was of beautiful form and fair to look upon. 18 And Jacob loved Rachel; and he said: 'I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter.' 19 And Laban said: 'It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man; abide with me.' 20 And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. 21 And Jacob said unto Laban: 'Give me my wife, for my days are filled, that I may go in unto her.' 22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast. 23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her. 24 And Laban gave Zilpah his handmaid unto his daughter Leah for a handmaid. 25 And it came to pass in the morning that, behold, it was Leah; and he said to Laban: 'What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?' 26 And Laban said: 'It is not so done in our place, to give the younger before the first-born. 27 Fulfil the week of this one, and we will give thee the other also for the service which thou shalt serve with me yet seven other years.' 28 And Jacob did so, and fulfilled her week; and he gave him Rachel his daughter to wife. 29 And Laban gave to Rachel his daughter Bilhah his handmaid to be her handmaid. 30 And he went in also unto Rachel, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served with him yet seven other years. 31 And the LORD saw that Leah was hated, and he opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. 32 And Leah conceived, and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said: 'Because the LORD hath looked upon my affliction; for now my husband will love me.' 33 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: 'Because the LORD hath heard that I am hated, He hath therefore given me this son also.' And she called his name Simeon. 34 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and said: 'Now this time will my husband be joined unto me, because I have borne him three sons.' Therefore was his name called Levi. 35 And she conceived again, and bore a son; and she said: 'This time will I praise the LORD.' Therefore she called his name Judah; and she left off bearing.

Jacob's first 4 sons were:

Reuven

Shimon

Levi

Judah

These were born from Leah. His 2^nd wife, Rachel, was infertile at this stage, so she offered him her handmaid, Bilhah, to bear children for him. Bilhah bore:

Dan

Nahptali

Then Leah gave Jacob her handmaid called Zilpah, and she bore 2 sons:

Gad

Asher

Then Leah bore him 2 further sons:

Issachar

Zevulun

And a daughter called Dinah

Finally, Rachel was successful in bearing a son named Joseph. And again later she bore Benjamin.

These 12 sons of Jacob, through 4 wives, become the 12 tribes of Israel. They are referred to throughout the Torah as Bnei Israel - “sons of Israel”.

If they are sons of Israel, from 4 different wives, 2 of whom are handmaids, then the Torah attaches more importance to their patrilineal lineage than their matrilineal lineage. That doesn't denigrate the matriarchs in any way, but they are descended from Laban, who was not the most “pure” or honest of people.

It is important to note that one of the tribes of Israel is called Judah, after the son of Leah and Israel.

So far, the only determining factor of identifying an Israelite is that he is one of the sons of Israel = Bnei Israel. Israel has 4 wives, 2 of whom are sisters, the other 2 are unknown handmaids. Hence the identity of the sons are by definition, after father. If it were otherwise, they would not be Israelites, but Leahites and Rachelites. The promise was made to Abraham, and not Laban. Laban was the grandson of Nahor, who was Abraham's brother. Again, it was Abraham, and not his brother Nahor who was chosen as the progenitor of Israel (nation) who would inherit the land of Israel.

Any suggestion that Israelite identity is matrilineal is both logically absurd, and contradictory tot he Torah. We have no idea who Laban's magical wife was, and why she should determine who is a Jew! BY what merits should she determine the future of Israel, when this was already promised to be the speciality of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? So far, matrilinealism is a parallel universe, or alternate narrative , divorced from reality, history or the text of the Torah.

So what of Judah and the Jews?

As far as the Torah is concerned, Judah is only one of the 12 tribes of Israel. There is nothing more Israelitish about Judah than there is about Gad, Reuven, Dan, Naphtali, Benjamin etc. Technically speaking the other tribes are non-Jews. Because Jews are Yehudim, who are descended from Yehudah (Judah). Indeed, Jacob blesses all his sons, who will inherit the land of Israel and each get a portion of Israel.

Yehudah's family is also interesting. In Genesis 38, we see that Judah marries the daughter of a Canaanite. They have 3 sons: Er, Onan, and Shelah. Er marries an unknown woman named Tamar.

Er dies, and so Onan must perform a levirate marriage to continue his brother's seed. The levirate marriage is predicated on a patrilineal inheritance. By definition, only a male from the deceased's family, (usually brother) can continue his name. Onan gets buyer’s remorse, and is punished for refusing to bring up his brother's name. He dies as a result of this sin. So to continue with the Levirate marriage, which is Torah commandment, the youngest son of Yehudah – Shelah must marry Tamar. Yehudah is scared that the bad luck will go on to kill his 3^rd and last son. So he puts this on hold. Even if Shelah does sire a son for Tamar, it is only to continue Er's name, not Tamar's.

Er, Onan, and Shelah were the first sons of Yehudah, and were Yehudim – the very first Jews in history. Their Jewishness was not from his Canaanite wife, but from himself. His wife's father was called Shua, a Canaanite. According to Rabbinic thought, since Judaism is matrilineal, then the inheritance was from Mr or Mrs Shua. In other words, Jews are not descended from Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, but from Shua, and Canaan. Therefore, the new religion is in fact Shuism, and the descendants should be called Shoes not Jews.

Yehudah then ends up with what he thinks is a prostitute, but turns out to be Tamar. By this, she is continuing the name of Er, and not Yehudah per se. Yehudah becomes an unwitting Levirate for his son Er. The sons born to Yehudah and Tamar are called Perez and Zerah. These are now , along with Shelah, the 3 living Jews, because their father was Yehudah. If we follow the rabbinic argument, they are not Jews at all, but Tamarites. In fact, their religion would be Tamarism and not Judaism, but they are actually legally descended from Er.

The Torah, and the law of Levirate marriage therein offer strong proof that Israelite identity in general and Yehudish (Jewish) identity in particular is patrilineal. It cannot be otherwise. There is no Shuism, or Tamarism or Canaanite Torah. The promise of Israel was made to the forefathers, and not to Canaan or Tamar. The rabbinical question of “who is a Jew” and its answer, in fact is claiming that a Shuite (Shoe) is a Jew. This is absurd and meaningless.

Whilst is true that we later see in the book of Ruth that Perez is the ancestor of King David, this is patrilineal. It is from his line via Er and Yehudah that David becomes King and not from Tamar.

As far as the Torah is concerned , Israelite and Jewish identity is patrilineal, even where there is intermarriage with Canaanites, as was the case with Yehudah himself.