On Jul 18, 4:32 pm, "michael adams"  wrote:

> Regardless of anything else you have now contradicted yourself.

No, I haven't.


> Firstly you posted

> >Also, the Torah does not specifically state anywhere that matrilineal
> >descent should be used as a determinant of a child's Jewishness.

Yes, that's what I posted.


> Just now you posted
>
> "CP"  wrote in message
>
> news:e14a279a-31f7-4346-8e6b-be72855b16ca@q24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Could it be that such a revelation - namely that I consider Orthodox Judaism to be
> >an authentic manifestation of the Divine will.

Er, where is the rest of the sentence? And why have you allowed it to
merge with your post? Still having autoquote problems, I see. Or are
you just confused?


> Orthodox Jewish recognition of matrileneal descent is indeed based on the Torah.
> On a Talmudic interpretation of certain verses in Deuteronomy (the 5th Book
> of the Torah). An interpretation which claims that those verses state that
> matrilineal descent should be used as a determinant of a child's Jewishness.
>
> The Talmud represents only one possible interpretation of those verses of
> course.
>
> However, if you accept Orthodox Judaism to be an authentic manifestation of the
> Divine Will, then you are also accepting that the Talmudic interpretation is
> correct.

The key is in the word 'explicitly' or, as I think I wrote originally,
'specifically'. As you say, the principle is based on a particular
interpretation of verses in Deuteronomy. Now if the matter had been
clear cut from the outset, i.e. if those verses in Deuteronomy had
been completely unambiguous, the need for the hermeneutical endeavours
of the Talmud scholars would have been obviated, and I would have said
that yes, you are right.

> That those Verses in Deuteronomy, do in fact state that matrilineal
> descent should be used as a determinant of a child's Jewishness.

See above. Those verses in Deuteronomy do not state explicitly and
unambiguously that matrilineal descent should be a determinant of a
child's Jewishness: that particular principle is a result of the
exegetical endeavours of later scholars as enshrined in Talmudic law.
Many similar situations exist in Islamic law, where principles deemed
to be Koranic are only so inferentially, i.e. they are principles
which have been deduced through the hermeneutical endeavours of
Koranic exegetes. There is no verse in the Koran, for example, which
states explicitly that a woman should cover her head. Nevertheless,
the vast majority of Muslim jurists interpret the 'jilbab' verses as
advocating covering up of the hair as well as the cleavage.


> Which is totally contrary to what you posted before, Dr Turner.

No, Mr Mikey, it isn't. I said that there is no explicit reference in
the first five books of the Bible to matrilineal descent, and this is
quite clear. That Talmudic scholars later interpreted the verses in
Deuteronomy to deduce the principle of matrilineal descent is a
different matter entirely.