Jerusalem 1917-2017

[The Revolting Man]

David wouldn't be mamzer because of Judah and Tamar because the Law hadn't been given at that point and where there is no Law no sin is imputed. God doesn't put us on double secret probation and hold us accountable for to laws He hasn't told us about.

 

[Nikud]

David wouldn't be mamzer because of Judah and Tamar because the Law hadn't been given at that point and where there is no Law no sin is imputed. God doesn't put us on double secret probation and hold us accountable for to laws He hasn't told us about.

I got lost in the details of the event and definitions that It didn't dawn on me to look at the timeline.

 

[Quartus]

the Law hadn't been given at that point

Now we are getting to the purpose of this digression. Allowing different things at different times and not allowing them at other times DOES NOT mean that someone (namely me) throws out the law or disregards Moses. The patriarchs clearly had some aspects of the law since we know they sacrificed, and we already touched on principles of the Levirate marriage in Judah's day. Abraham had the gospel preached to him despite not having the benefit of what Matthew Mark Luke and John wrote.
Gal 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that G-d would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.”

We simply do not know in what way this gospel information was communicated to Abraham. Neither do we know to exactly what extent Moses merely documented God's law that already existed (including at least some sacrifice, some aspects of the Levirate marriage) and what was new ("when you come into the land").
For instance, this part of the law related to the events of the Exodus:
Exo 13:11 “When the L-RD brings you into the land of the Canaanites, as he swore to you and your fathers, and shall give it to you,
Exo 13:12 you shall set apart to the L-RD all that first opens the womb. All the firstborn of your animals that are males shall be the L-RD's.
Exo 13:13 Every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. Every firstborn of man among your sons you shall redeem.
Exo 13:14 And when in time to come your son asks you, ‘What does this mean?’ you shall say to him, ‘By a strong hand the L-RD brought us out of Egypt, from the house of slavery.

And when did Moses write the law? When Abraham's children stopped being a family (Genesis) and became a nation (Exodus). And that is what I meant above when I said that that the Law of Moses was a law for a nation.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

The Bible records historical proof that the Amorites and Moabites were pushed out of the land of Moab. So the people who lived in Moab were the Israelites. This means Ruth was from an Israelite tribe.

As I was going through the thread, this brought new information to light for me. After thinking about it though, I see several witnesses that I have come across in my studies that would make me think that this might not be entirely accurate. While I don’t have a lot of time today to flesh this out, I just want to bring out a couple of things that make me say, hmmm.

1. The fact that the nation of Moab was defeated to the point that they were all killed or driven out and subsequently the Israelite tribes occupied the area does not necessarily prove that anyone living there was Israelite.
2. In the Book of Gad the Seer (available here https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Book...8&qid=1513691455&sr=1-1&keywords=gad+the+seer ). David is challenged by a Moabite man who wishes to be a convert. When David responds that the Law forbids a Moabite from ever entering the congregation, the man responds by questioning Davids pedigree based upon Ruth being a Moabitess.
3. http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/280331/jewish/Nitzevet-Mother-of-David.htm. This link gives the very interesting story of Davids birth and the actions of David’s father Jesse which were predicated upon his understanding that Ruth was a Moabitess.
   
4. (I don’t have the link for this but will try to get it) My brother and I were visiting recently and he was telling me how he’d found (in an old Hebrew source) that Naomi’s sons were both killed when they joined a Moabite king in an incursion into Israel. That scripture records that once this king was defeated, the command was given to kill all the men that had trespassed into Israel. Possibly this is why they ‘died, both of them.’ Ruth 1:5
5. Also, in Ruth Rabbah, it is noted that the point of conversion for Ruth was when she was entreating Naomi to let her go with her. Ruth said to Naomi, "Do not sin against me by telling me to leave and return from following you. I intend to convert anyway, and it is better that I do it with you than with someone else." When Naomi heard this, she immediately began to lay out before her the laws of conversion. If she was already Israelite, why would she need to be converted?

Several other things that I’m mulling over but as I’m out of time this will have to do for now.
Peace, Love and all the Fuzzy stuff

 

[Nikud]

I found this about Ruth. I'm still going to do a complete study.

The Torah does not exactly forbid a Moabite to convert, only to "enter the assembly of G-d" (Deut. 23:4). This is understood by the Talmud to mean that they may not marry an ethnic Jew (Yevamot 77b). Thus, a Moabite may in fact convert, but may not subsequently marry into the Jewish people – but must rather marry another convert or a Jew of poor lineage. Although a Moabite may personally become Jewish and observe the mitzvot, the Torah did not permit their truly becoming a part of the nation (v. 5).

The question is thus not how Ruth could have converted, but how she could have subsequently married Boaz. In fact, Ruth's descendant – the illustrious King David – was hassled by some of the greatest scholars of his time claiming that Ruth's marriage had never been permitted, and so David was not fit to rule.

However, upon closer inspection we see that the Torah was precise in writing the word "Moabite" in the masculine form, indicating that only Moabite males are forbidden to marry in, but Moabite females are allowed to.

(Sources: Talmud – Yevamot 77a; Zohar Chadash – Ruth 78a)

 

[Quartus]

I was getting a headache half-way through 77b but I will try again later with a pencil and a large piece of paper.

Now Kevin, you got really close to why I got so interested in Deut 23 in the first place. What then do the Rabbis make of an Egyptian mamzer? 3 or 10 generations? (Deut 23:2, 7-8)

Would you mind seeing if you come across anything on that one while you do your other research please?