I was referring to how many people in a family would be insulted at
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
not being invited to a wedding. With the PostHolocaust generation
Jewish families are getting bigger again. If your a member of "the
family" it doesn't matter how close or far you are physically to feel
a connectedness. If I would visit those relatives I talked of they
might as well be first cousins. For now I don't know all their names
or even all the people but it wouldn't matter a bit. This is really
how families were meant to be. 50,000 Ashkenazic Jews at the time of
Rashi? Was this before or after the Crusades that he lived to see?
I have a family-tree going back to 1650 and I was shown the cemeteries in
Furth by Gisela Blume (for which much thanks).
I had not heard of her previously and she handed me family-trees which were
all connected to this family.
The name Rapaport appears in the family-tree and I have established quite a
few years ago a connection with a number of people who post on this
The mathematics of this is not very difficult and either you are related to
yourself a number of times, or you must be related to half the Jews in New
I have read that the number of Ashkenazi Jews at the time of Rashi was only
We know that at succeeding generations with the family cycle of weddings
individuals form their own families and once fairly close relations become
more distant - their is only so many people you can invite to weddings and
there is the factor of geography.
In statistics I use degrees of connectedness and likewise we do so in our
family relations - third, fourth cousins etc.
We naturally recognise that someone who shares a greatgreatgreatfather is
not as closely related as a first cousin.
Having said that we probably know of families where they have regular
meetings of all descendants of such and such a family that came >from X. This
is more like the Scottish clan.