JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

family
the Talmud, such as the families of Bet Zerifa (Kid. 71a), Bet
Zevaim and Bet Kupai (Yev. 15b), and Bet Dorkati (Ket. 10b).
Among the priestly families, a completely pure and unsullied
genealogy was rigidly insisted upon. It took the most extreme
forms, and it was laid down that “they set a higher standard in
matters of priestly descent” (Ket. 13a). Josephus, who prided
himself on his priestly descent (Life, 1:1), states that the genealogies
of the priests were carefully preserved in the archives
of the Temple. The attempt of the Pharisees to remove John
Hyrcanus (I) from his office of high priesthood (Kid. 66a; cf.
Jos., Ant., 13:10, 288–92) and the pathetic incident of R. Zechariah
b. ha-Kaẓav, a priest, who was forced to divorce his wife,
despite his oath that he had not left her for a moment during
their capture by enemy soldiery (Ket. 2:9), are both based on
the law that a woman who had been taken captive by non-
Jewish soldiers was forbidden to marry a kohen.
What was obligatory and mandatory for priestly families
was regarded as desirable for non-priestly families. Most of
the last chapter of the talmudic tractate Kiddushin deals with
this question, with the aim of ensuring the purity of the family.
Both purity of descent and eugenic considerations were
regarded as important: “A man should not marry into a family
which has a recurrent history of epilepsy or leprosy” (Yev.
64b). The responsibility of the individual member of a family
toward the good name of the family as a whole is constantly
stressed: “A family is like a heap of stones. Remove one, and
the whole structure can collapse” (Gen. R. 100:7). “Woe unto
him who sullies his children and his family” (Kid. 70a) and
“whosoever brings disrepute upon himself brings disrepute
upon his whole family” (Num. R. 21:3). This regard for the
good name of the family as a whole gave rise to the impressive
ceremony of *Keẓaẓah in which “all the members of the
family” participated when one of them “married a woman
who was not worthy of them” (Ket. 28b).
There were “aristocratic families of Israel” on whom
alone “the Holy One, blessed be He, causes his Divine Spirit
to rest” (Kid. 70b). They alone were regarded as worthy of
marrying into the priestly families. The status of certain families
as “pure and impure” and as “sullied and unsullied” was
well known (Ket. 28b.). It was regarded as a meritorious act
to marry the daughter of a scholar (Pes. 49a), and genealogical
lists were drawn up, and carefully preserved (Pes. 62b;
Yev. 49b). The last mishnah of Ta’anit (4:8) records an ancient
custom that on the 15th of Av and on the Day of Atonement
the young men of Jerusalem used to go out in the vineyards
to choose their brides, and the maidens adjured them saying;
“Young man, lift up thine eyes and see what thou art choosing
for thyself. Set not thine eyes on beauty; set thine eyes on
family.” On the other hand, a blind eye was turned to a family
in which it was known that there had been an undesirable
admixture which could not be traced (Kid. 71a). During
the talmudic period, the marked tendency of descendants to
continue the calling or the profession of their forebears is referred
to in a statement justifying the fact that retribution is
taken in the case of the worshiper of Moloch “from the man
and his family” (Lev. 20:5). “If he sinned, in what did his family
sin? Because there is not a family containing a publican of
which all the members are not publicans or containing a thief
in which they are not all thieves” (Shev. 39a). Mention is also
made of “families of scribes, which produce scribes, of scholars
who produce scholars, and of plutocrats who produce plutocrats”
(Eccl. R. 4:9). This emphasis on the worthiness of the
families as a prime consideration in choosing one’s life partner
has persisted throughout the social life of the Jews. It was
commonplace among East European Jews for the parents of
the potential bride or bridegroom to ensure that the parents
should be such as “one could sit down with them at table.” It
is an interesting fact that in Hebrew and in Yiddish there is
a word (mechutan) to designate the relationship established
between the parents of the bride and the parents of the bridegroom,
or between the respective families.
THE SMALLER FAMILY UNIT. In Jewish social life and tradition
the family constitutes perhaps the most closely knit
unit in any society. All members of the family, husband and
wife, parents and children, are bound by mutual ties of responsibility.
Although in theory polygamy is permitted by both Bible
and Talmud, the ideal set forward is always of husband, wife,
and children forming one unit. The passage from Psalms,
“it shall be well with thee, thy wife shall be a fruitful vine
in the innermost part of thy house; thy children like olive
plants round about thy table” (Ps. 128:2–3), formed the basis of
innumerable homilies on the part of the rabbis extolling the
virtue of domestic bliss (cf. Tanh. Va-Yishlaḥ; ser 18, etc.).
The family was regarded as the smallest social unit through
which the cultural and religious heritage of Judaism can be
transmitted.
Where Christianity glorified celibacy and monasticism as
the highest ideal and a means of extolling the virtue of chastity,
Judaism extolled the institution of marriage and the family.
It is significant of the difference in outlook that whereas
Paul regarded celibacy as the highest virtue and only reluctantly
gave permission to marry, “But if they cannot contain,
let them marry; for it is better to marry than burn” (i.e., incur
the death penalty of burning for incest and adultery; I Cor.
7:9), a Midrash attributes the death of Nadab and Abihu, the
two sons of Aaron, “from a fire from the Lord” (Lev. 10:2) to
the fact that in their arrogance they refused to marry (Lev.
R. 20:10). The rabbis pointed to the verse “He created it [the
world] not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Is. 45:18) as a
justification for the religious duty not only of marrying but of
setting up a family. R. Eliezer went so far as to regard the man
who does not marry and shirks the duty of rearing children as
equivalent to a murderer (Tosef., Yev. 8:4). The Mishnah (Yev.
6:6) lays it down as a duty to procreate, in accordance with
Gen. 1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply,” the minimum number of
children for its fulfillment being two (according to Bet Shammai
two male children; according to Bet Hillel one male and
one female). So essentially was this regarded as the purpose
694 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 6