[Avodah] besulos

[Zev Sero]

Jonathan Baker wrote:
> From: Zev Sero <zev at sero.name>

>> says.   WHY is this idea that they were uncle and niece so prevalent?
> 
> See article by RAZZ here: http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/purim/ziv.html
> 
> Also Michael Pitkowsky here: http://tinyurl.com/2z6kmk
> 
> Summary:
> - It's an old idea, it appears in Josephus, Targum Rishon and the Vulgate.

So meshabeshta, kevan de'al al?


> - Eliezer Segal suggests it may originate in 2nd-Temple polemics
>   in favor of uncle-niece marriage.

His suggestions there are unacceptable.
     Segal sees the development of this midrashic tradition that
     Abraham married his niece, and also that of Mordechai marrying
     his niece, as a way for some of the Pharisees and sages to
     find scriptural support for the institution,
This assertion falls flat on its face, because there *is* no Pharasaic
source for the claim that Mordechai was Esther's uncle.  Josephus was
a Sadducee heretic, Jerome was a sheigetz who probably got the idea
from Josephus, and Targum Rishon is post-Talmudic.

But worse is this assertion:
     In the light of these facts, it seems far more likely that
     the identification of Sarah and Iscah did not originate in
     the application of midrashic hermeneutic technique to the
     biblical text, but rather out of a polemical determination
     to find pentateuchal support for the practice of niece-
     marriage. (Segal, 428)
So Chazal, wanting to make a point against sectarians who were
making up dinim that aren't even hinted at in the Torah, instead of
arguing the issue on the merits, made up stories about Avraham Avinu
that they knew weren't true?  They deliberately decided to claim that
Sarah and Yiskah were the same person, knowing that they were lying,
and hoping that their opponents wouldn't notice?  What sort of
argument is this?  This is how he thinks Chazal behaved?  This is
how he sees their intellectual honesty?

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev at sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                       	                          - Clarence Thomas