got me thinking about why do women take the last name of their husbands.
Coincidentally, I was reading Simon Winchester's book, 'The River at the Center of the World,' where I came across this interesting fact: "the Moso - a people related to the Nakhi, who lived on the northern side of the Yangtze and whose practices are more rigorously matriarchal than their country cousins. For instance, their family names pass down from mother to daughter."
So I hopped online and asked the great and wise Google, 'why do women take the last name of the husbands?"
Here is what Wiki-Answers had to say: "In earlier times, women were considered property, so they took on their "owners" last name. Slaves took on their owners' last names, too; that is why not many African Americans have African last names.
Nowadays it is a choice to take on a husband's last name; some do it out of convention or tradition but it is not mandatory; some combine last names or even take on the wife's name (rare). Practices also vary in gay marriages."
Some other answers I found: Men lack the ability to change. or, women take everything else, why not the man's name too.
But as a Jewish question, Jewishness passes from mother to child. The reason for this matriarchal lineage descent is because while we may not always know who is the father, you always know who is the mother.
So specifically for Jews, wouldn't it make more sense for the man to take the woman's last name?
4 comments:
Good question. The answer is that Jewishness and lineage are two separate things in Jewish law. A child does indeed receive his Jewishness from his mother, but his lineage, which in Biblical times applied to tribal identification and today still applies to Kohanim and Leviim, comes through the father based on the wording in the Torah during the various census. That's why the woman takes the husband's name, because she's joining his family and her children will have his lineage.
Although women can inherit and keep lineage going, as the daughters asked moses and moses asked god.
The issue of kohanim and leviim and inheritance should make it more important to follow the mother. What if the son of a kohen is actually the son of the gardner?
The example you bring is a limited case: if there are no sons, the daughters receive the inheritance. However, the language of the Torah (which is clear in the original Hebrew but gets missed in the English translations) clarifies that their possession is temporary. For example, the daughters in question received land in their father's tribe's territories but their sons, who would be counted as members of their husbands' tribes, would then transfer those lands to the other tribe. That's why they make a second appearance at the end of Bamidbar and more rules have to be expounded to prevent that from happening.
I don't understand your other question. What does a kohen have to do with being a gardner?
If preisthood travels down by the dad, what if the kohen's son is actually the gardner's son, or milkman's or potter's? If the wife had an affair. The same reason why jewishness passes down by the mom, shouldn't the kohanat?
As for the women not being able to inherit tribal lineage or monies as a long term solution, further clarifies the standing women had in biblical times.
I wonder if all the people who yearn for a torah true society really understand what that would mean for their wives, daughter, mom's and themselves.
Post a Comment