Replies

According to Jewish law, the oldest son had the responsibility of caring for the widowed mother, and that responsibility would pass to the next oldest if anything happened to the first-born son. By this time, St. Joseph has died. Since Jesus, the first born, had no "blood brother," He entrusted Mary to the care of St. John, the Beloved Disciple.

Exactly where in the Old Testament does this Jewish law appear? Jesus would not have been bound to follow Jewish custom or tradition unless it is encoded in Jewish Scripture.

There are a lot of possible reasons for why Jesus might have wanted John to care for His mother rather than His brothers. Why Jesus did what He did is pure speculation.

Through critical thinking, you have just arrived at historical truth.

Nice try. Other than Mary being a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, almost every point you present is highly debatable to say the least.

Exactly where in the Old Testament does this Jewish law appear? Jesus would not have been bound to follow Jewish custom or tradition unless it is encoded in Jewish Scripture.

According to the Mercer Dictionary of the Bible ... "An adult woman in the family was legally considered to be under the authority of the male head of the household - first her father, then her husband after marriage. If her husband died, she could hope to be cared for by her adult children or, if there were none, she could return to her father or be taken in by the next of kin. The Book of Ruth deals with some of these complexities".

This informs me that Jesus, in bequeathing his mother to John, signaled he had no paternal or maternal siblings.

Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the Lord in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. And Moses brought their cause before the Lord. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the Lord commanded Moses.
Numbers, Catholic chapter twenty seven, Protestant verses one to eleven,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James,
and abandoned by those who will not heed the holy catholic apostolic church, nor the Jews.

The Basic Rules

The Torah devotes six verses to the laws of inheritance (Bamidbar 27:5-11), setting forth the procedure for disposition of estates:

When male offspring exist, they are invariably the exclusive heirs of their father's estate.

The Torah awards women no rights of inheritance as long as there are male heirs in the same class. (Daughters do not inherit if there are sons, nor sisters if there are brothers. Also, only paternal relatives can be considered heirs.) 1

In the absence of sons, daughters (and their offspring) are exclusive heirs. Children who die before their father are replaced by their qualified heirs. When a decedent leaves no children, his father is the exclusive heir to his estate.

If his father is no longer living, his children (the decedent's paternal brothers) inherit his estate.

When the first born is a male, he is entitled to two shares of the tangible assets of the estate, by rule of bechora (progenitor). Originally a widow was only entitled to her kesuba of 200 silver pieces. By rabbinical ordinance dating to pre-Talmudic times, her needs and living facilities must be provided for from her husband's estate until the time that she claims the lump sum due under the kesuba, or until she remarries. The Rabbis also made provision for support and maintenance of unmarried daughters (up to physical maturity at the age of 12½), and for a dowry at their time of marriage - which may run as high as ten percent of the total assets left by the decedent.2 But this does not leave options for changes of the type Mr. Zoberstein or Dave Samsonoff had wanted to offer in their wills.

The Torah concludes this discussion with the term chukas mishpat (a statute of judgment). From the use of the word chuka, which implies inalienability, the Rambam derives a maxim that a person cannot change the order of inheritance described in the Torah - neither to bequeath a legacy to a person not entitled to inherit, nor to disinherit a person entitled to inherit. In this respect, inheritance differs from the general rule in monetary matters, which allows people to stipulate any conditions or rules of conduct of business they choose (kol tenai shebemamon kayom) 3. The only modification permitted by the halacha is to provide a greater share, or even one's complete estate, to any of the persons entitled to inherit, even though this would disinherit others in the same class, providing that a first-born (bechor) is not deprived of his right to a double share.4

The Sages were generally not in favor of any disinheritance or diminution of inheritance among one's children, even in favor of one child who is a Torah scholar over another who does not conduct himself properly, and they counseled against participation in any such disposition of assets.5