🚀 go-pugleaf

X-Orig-MsgId: <848b26$imu$2@news1.bu.edu>

Micha Berger (micha@aishdas.org) wrote:
: : Well, we have the example (Genesis 34) of a whole city wanting to
: : "join the family," and circumcision was made a prerequisite to their
: : marrying into the family.

: Cohen discounts that example because it's clear that Simeon and Levi weren't
: acting on the up-and-up. IOW, if they made up the thing about making peace
: with them, who's to say they didn't make up the bit about circumcision?

I am guilty of not reading the article, so I am following up  what
others say. this case looks very unconvincing - it is obviously a reference
that can be explained both ways, and - given the multitudes of possible
explanations and lack of data - Dr Cohen's theory seems to fail the
test of being a "predictive theory" - ie he fits small data by a large
set of free variables, so this leaves his work as a "conjecture" only -
and he should have said it (did he?).

Moshe Shulman's question is also interesting, and Jay's answer is
not enough: Cohen's point is that place A does not mention _any_
rituals for a foreign women - and from the lack of it, he concludes
that there were no requirements. But, as Moshe says, place B does
refer to other requirements. Jay's reply that place B does not
mention mikva is not good enough, as the question remains: why
did place A not mention these requirements - because 
the original author (Dr Kamma) uses the argument of the lack of
reference as proof of absence.

again, I am replying without sources, so feel free to disregard! 

--
Simcha Streltsov		disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simchastr@juno.com		all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon	are equivalent to (-: