Who is a Jew? From our older son....

[Gxg (G²)]

Don't both of these examples make the male the source of identity?

I think it is a matter of both having male structure and yet female allowances that were not present before.

 

[annier]

I think it is a matter of both having male structure and yet female allowances that were not present before.

But... as for Ruth, it was her status as a childless widow. Who her husband was made for the difference did it not? As for the daughters of Zelophehad, same thing. Who her husband became, made for the difference as well. Naomi, had a kinsman redeemer herself through her husband.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

But... as for Ruth, it was her status as a childless widow. Who her husband was made for the difference did it not? .

As for the daughters of Zelophehad, same thing. Who her husband became, made for the difference as well. Naomi, had a kinsman redeemer herself through her husband

By all means I agree. Nevertheless, the situation with the Daughters of Zeolophad was a bit distinct in how things went down. Again, no one is arguing that patrilinneal descent was not a big theme as much as it's argued that it wasn't always a male at the helm that made all the difference.

In the case of the Daughters of Zeolophad, they had a choice in whom they were able to marry - counter to the ways that it seems men chose husbands for their daughters and the women seemed to have less say. And they did seem to have a lot more influence, from what I've studied. For some good study material on the issue, one can go here or to the following:

• Pinchas - She Who Reigns - Robin Cohn
• Justice and Compassion in Biblical Law - Page 33 - Google Books Result
• Death, Property and the Ancestors: A Study of the Mortuary Customs of the LoDagaa of West Africa (Routledge Library Editions: Anthropology and Ethnography) ... - Jack Goody - Google Books

In Israel, property was passed from father to son, but any patrilineal system myst have alternative inheritance arrangements for a man who has no sons (as ancestral land is not to be sold per I Kings 21 /Micah 2:1-5). One such arangement, known also from other ancient Near documents, is that daughters may inherit, and that solution is here given Mosaic sanction. A restriction was added in Numbers 36:1-12, and the decision is carried out in Joshua 17:3-6. As it concerns Numbers 27:4 (and also noted in Deuteronomy 25:5-7), the son perpetuates the father's name in his genealogy. Presumably in the case of Zelophehad's descendants and would inherit his property, an arrangement also known from other ancient Near Eastern documents (1 Chronicles 2:33-35 /1 Chronicles 2, 1 Chronicles 24:27-29 , etc.). The complication that the sons will be part of their fathers' lineages as well is resolved in Numbers 36. In Numbers 27:8-11, the line of inheritance approved here favors direc descendants, male or female, over other relatives, then moves from near to more distant male relatives. The regulation given in Numbers 36 is that women who inherit must marry within a specific family group (or else forfeit their property) - a common action amongst societies with patrilineal inheritance laws.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

But... as for Ruth, it was her status as a childless widow. Who her husband was made for the difference did it not? .

Some of that would also depend on the issues of righteousness -as in the righteousness of the woman, should her husband be a fool or ungodly.