I wanted to take a look at the subject of Rabbinc Dillemma 101 once again. Here is a point raised recently:
"Let's take this a step further. Let's say hypothetically, there was a woman named Mary and she married a man named Joseph who was of the tribe of Judah. Now, let's say Joseph and Mary conceived a child together through natural means on their wedding night. Now, let's assume that her husband Joseph was tragically killed the very next morning. Now, let's say Mary found another man to marry shortly after her husbands death. Let's say this man is named Zechariah and he is a Levite. Let's say after Mary's child is born, Zechariah adopts him as his son. Would Mary's son, whose biological father was of the tribe of Judah, now assume the tribe of Levi simply because he was adopted by Zechariah the Levite?
As you can see, this really isn't a "Rabbinic Dilemma." Tribal heritage is passed down biologically through the father. In the case of jesus, joseph marrying mary is simply wishful thinking on your part concerning jesus's tribal status. Women don't "transfer" tribal status to their sons simply because of their marriage to their husbands. Otherwise, the biological son born to Mary and Joseph in the above example would assume the tribe of Levi after Zechariah adopts him, despite the fact that he was biologically descended from the tribe of Judah through his biological father Joseph! Once again, your argument is out of silence and assumptions rather than sound scriptural foundations. Shalom and G-d bless."
Regarding Mary, I agree that tribal lineage doesn't go through the female, My point is that because Mary had Jesus in her womb before the wedding and that since Joseph had married her, Jesus could then be adopted by Joseph into his family tree. Mary's tribal affiliation is not a factor that plays, it's the one she marries who passes on the lineage because of the adoption.
Also Numbers 1:18 says this:
"18 and they called the whole community together on the first day of the second month. The people registered their ancestry by their clans and families, and the men twenty years old or more were listed by name, one by one, "
Even though it speaks of the counting of man 20 years and older, I am not sure how this speaks of lineage only going through the father via BIOLOGICAL descent, Unless I am missing something here. I wouldn't mind someone explaining this to me here. I could simply argue here that there is an argument from silence coming from the one arguing his point. All I can say is at this point, Let the readers come to their conclusion.
Addendum: I raised Numbers 1:18 as an issue. Ezra 2:62 was brought up a while back.