Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

On Sep 28, 8:17 pm, Wjhonson <wjhon...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
The Jewish encyclopedia is not a source on this topic is it.
It's using other underlying sources isn't it?
You can quote eighteen levels deep, but if you don't quote the actual underlying source, you can't get anywhere.

That the Exilarch position is heriditary is a false claim.  It is not.
Exilarchs were selected.

The word does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud.
It does not appear at all in the Talmud.

You seem to be confusing your terms.  "Heriditary" positions are inherited father-to-son.
You would not call a position "heriditary" if it was inherited by your third cousin, when in fact you had sons

Of course men who served in the temple inherited their positions.  This is plain from the mind-numbing detail of Chronicles.
However there is no authentic documentation, whatsoever, no one shread of it, that claims that the Exilarch position passed father to son as "King" "Ruler" of "the Jews".

It's all backward looking redaction.







-----Original Message-----
From: Sholom Simon <sho...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: gen-medieval <gen-medie...@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Cc: sholom <sho...@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed, Sep 28, 2011 5:14 am
Subject: Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors

And you're quoting from the very book in question.
 Circular much?
Huh?  (FWIW, I was quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia (1915), Vol 5)
The fact that the Exilarch position (which you claimed wasn't in any
ontemporary sources, despite the fact that it appears hundreds, perhaps
housands, of times in the Talmud) is hereditary is beyond dispute.
This is not to argue that it is correctly from the Davidic line, as there
ay have been some broken links in the chain.  But to say that it's not a
ereditary position at all is nonsense.
In fact Jewish law, to this day even, *requires* some positions to be
ereditary (not necessarily father to son, but indeed patrilineal descent
f some sort).  This not only included the King, the Nasi, and the
xilarch in the past, but also the High Priest, and, in fact, everyone who
erved in an official capacity at the Temple in Jerusalem (including even
hich families got the honor of bringing wood to fuel the fire for the
ltar (see Talmud, Tractate Ta'anis, 28a; for examples of the
ecordkeeping of genealogical tables, see Mishna, Yevamot 5:4; Tosefta
aggigah 2:9; Talmud Yevamos 49a-b.), which people sang Psalms, played
nstruments, guarded the doors, etc).  In fact, thru patrilineal descent,
any of those families are *still* honored today (descendants of Aaron,
alled Kohanim (plural of Kohen -- the family from which the High Priest
escends) are honored at synagogues today; and secondary honors go to
evi'im (plural of Levi, from the tribe of Levi; from which the singers,
uards, treasurers, and other "helpers" around the Temple).  See
aimonides, Mishna Torah, Hilchot Klei HaHamikdash, Chpt 1-4;
Similarly, Chassidic groups in the last few hundred years thru today are
uilt on this model -- although in this case, the Rebbe, or leader, passes
rom father to son or son-in-law.  There are even discussions about
hether the Chief Rabbi of Elizabeth, New Jersey, is required to be an
nherited position.
The point of all this is that many positions of communal authority are
equired to be an inherited position, and it has been that way for over
000 years.  To say the Exilarch is not such a position displays a lack of
nowledge of Jewish law.
-- Sholom

------------------------------
o unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-requ...@xxxxxxxxxxxx
ith the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
he message

Doh! The office of exilarch was hereditary within the exilarchal
family. Wake up.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
    ... It's using other underlying sources isn't it? ... You can quote eighteen levels deep, but if you don't quote the actual underlying source, you can't get anywhere. ... That the Exilarch position is heriditary is a false claim. ... The word does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
    ... The Jewish encyclopedia is not a source on this topic is it. ... It's using other underlying sources isn't it? ... You can quote eighteen levels deep, but if you don't quote the actual underlying source, you can't get anywhere. ... The word does not appear hundreds nor thousands of times in the Talmud. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: Medieval Jewish Ancestors
    ... There is no evidence whatsoever that any Jewish community at all, anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century AD or the first century BC. ... Not everything that is said about them in the Talmud is necessarily correct, but everything that is said about them in the Talmud is evidence, to be analyzed for trustworthiness using various criteria. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Medieval Jewish Ancestors
    ... anywhere, had ever heard of an exilarch in say, the third century AD or the fith century AD or the first century BC. ... The Aramaic term for "Exilarch" is "Reish Galusah", and it appears all over the Talmud. ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)