Jewish Identity: Part 2
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
In the previous article of this series on Jewish Identity (Jewish Identity: Part 1) the nature of Judaism as a religion as opposed to a racial ethnicity and culture was discussed. The conclusion of the previous article was that based on the written Scriptures of the Hebrew Bible, the teachings of the Rabbonim and the historical context of Jewish history, Judaism is not a race but a religious experience shared by a wide and diverse group of individuals who represent very unique manifestations of the Jewish collective. The collective is best defined as a family in their relationship to one another rather than a genetic kinship.
Questioning the Matrilineal Principle
Concerning Jewish descent we must understand that being Jewish by birth is not as relevant in a modern context as it was for the pre-exilic Judean based community. Geneological descent was important in ancient times for the purposes of inheritance of citizenship within ancient Israelite society. Within this context we know from the Torah that inheritance and citizenry was established by patrilineal lineage. For example, all of the genealogies in the Hebrew Bible are patrilineal and the census of Numbers (Bamidbar) is patrilineal. There are no recorded matrilineal genealogies because the lineage of the woman was unimportant in that societal context. Further, women were often brought in from outside cultures thus their lineages were not relevant for tracing individual heritage.
Let's look at how lineage was specifically regarded in the Torah of Sinai:
"Take a census of the entire society of the children of Israel, according to their families, by their fathers lineage, according to their names, every male, by their polls" (Num. 1:2)
"And they gathered together the community on the first day of the second month, and they declared their lineages of their families, according to their fathers lineage (patrilineal descent), according to the number of names…" (Num. 1:18)
If there was a census done by Moses today to determine the number of Jews then logically that census would be according to patrilineal descent. Further, the lineage of the Jewish people would have to be determined from the Patriach Jacob (Israel). Those Rabbonim who exclude those who, according to Torah, are part of the community of Israel via the qualifications of the census are committing an aveira by transgressing the commandment:
"You will not take recompense, nor will you discriminate between the descendant of your people, but you will love your neighbor as yourself: I am YHVH" (Lev. 19:18).
As I have stated previously the matrilineal line is unimportant in the context of Torah. Joseph, Moses, Boaz all married foreign women. In the Bible there is no evidence for matrilineal lineage as a determination for Jewish identity.
The Biblical basis for matrilineal lineage is supposedly Deuteronomy 7:3-4 and the expulsion of foreign wives in the book of Ezra. However, neither of these two texts have anything to do with Jewish lineage and are taken completely out of context through a poor method of Biblical isogesis. Let's look at these two texts in more detail:
· Deuteronomy 7:3-4 states: "You will not intermarry with them (Canaanites), you will not give your daughter (Israelite daughter) to his son (son of Canaan), and you shall not take his daughter (Canaanite daughter) for your son (Israelite son). For he will turn your son (Israelite son) away from following Me, and they will serve the idols of others." This verse is the foundational verse for matrilineal lineage and is quoted in the Babylonian Talmud Kiddushin 68b:
R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai, Because Scripture saith, For he will turn away thy son from following me:3 thy son by4 an Israelite woman is called thy son, but thy son by a heathen is not called thy son.5 Rabina said: This proves that thy daughter's son by a heathen is called thy son.6 Shall we say that Rabina holds that if a heathen or a [non-Jewish] slave cohabits with a Jewess the issue is mamzer?7 — [No.] Granted that he is not [regarded as] fit,8 he is not mamzer either, but merely stigmatised as unfit.9 Now, that [verse] refers to the seven nations!10 whence do we know it of other nations? — Scripture saith, `For he will turn away [thy son],' which includes all who may turn [him] away. That is well according to R. Simeon, who interprets the reason of Scripture.11 But on the view of the Rabbis,12 what is the reason?13 — Scripture saith, and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, [etc.],14 whence it follows that before that kiddushin with her is invalid.
The common Rabbinic interpretation of this is that the prohibition in the Torah contains the ambiguous lower-case "he" who is the object of the verb "turn." The subject is the intermarried Israelite son. So the question is who is the "he" who will turn the Israelite son to idolatry? The Talmud states that the he is in reference to the seven gentile nations who may have an influence on him because of the intermarriage. Who are these seven gentile nations? Deuteronomy 7:1 and Joshua 3:10 list them as Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These are the nations that in ancient time oppressed Israel and tried to coerce them to serve their foreign idols. The Talmud though goes further and prohibits all intermarriage to any gentile. However, the prohibition, in accordance with the Torah of Moses, applies on to an Israelite woman as in the context of the Talmud the "he" (seven nations) will turn "your son" to idolatry, meaning, the offspring of an improper union will produce non-Jewish children. The concern is that a non-Israelite man will marry and Israelite woman but why is there no concern over the possibility that a non-Israelite woman will turn your son away? Presumably because the child of an Israelite man and a non-Israelite woman is not Jewish to begin with (is not considered "your son").
This interpretation of the Torah and the Talmud is completely out of its historical context. The Rabbonim who interpret this way are doing so based upon an exilic (galut) mentality that is divorced from the context of ancient Israelite custom, which is the context of Deuteronomy 7:3-4). A marriage in the ancient world is quite different than marriage in our modern day. Ancianet wedding customs required the father of a potential groom to select a bride with very little in any input from his son. A suitable bride would be chosed, usually from kin, and a dowery would be paid for her and an agreement made between fathers- the woman had no say in the arrangement. There was subsequently a period of time wherein the groom would begin preparing a place for his bride in his fathers house. Once preperations were complete the groom would travel to the brides families house and bring her back to his fathers house wherein they would live with the grooms family. The bride left her family and her families heritage behind. In those days, religion was not about personal devotion but family and tribal affiliation. When a bride was taken she not only lived under her father-in-laws roof but adopted all of the customs and the religion of that household. In this context, Deuteronomy 7:3-4 is not expressing any concern over a non-Israelite woman turning "your son" away not because the child is not Jewish but because the child is unquestionably Jewish. Further, we need to look at the verse in question and consider that it also states: "your daughter you will not give to his son…" which would nullify any matrilineal principle.
When interpreting Biblical and Talmudic texts one is required to utilize proper Hermeneutics (rules of interpretation). The Rules of Hermeneutics as outlines by Rav Ishmael states explicitly: "A matter derived from its context, or a matter derived from its end," meaning the matter of discussion of the interpretation of a specific word or text must be regarded in its context. In the issue of Deuteronomy 7:3-4 the Rabbonim have taken this out of its context both specifically and generally. Further, the harmonizing of this text with other related texts is completely ignored. Since this verse in question is somewhat ambiguous it has to be interpreted in the context of a more clear verse to be reconciled. If the two cannot be reconciled then a third is needed to reconcile between the two. In this case the following verses explain the context of our verse in question in that they present a clear and straight-forward admonition concerning patrilineal descent: i.e. Num. 1:2; Num. 1:18.
No Rabbi has the power to raise up a law contrary to the Torah of Moses nor the Talmud. Only the Great Sanhedrin can alter the Talmud but even the Sanhedrin cannot violate the Torah of Moses they may only determine a particular mitzvah's stringency or leniency.
· The other appeal by the matrimonial apologists is in the story of Ezra and his return from Babylon to Jerusalem. In this narrative the Jewish resident who proceeded Ezra and were already living in Israel had married foreign women and the Land was filled with idolatry. Ezra commanded that every Israelite man should expel their non-Israelite wives and their children in "accordance with the Torah" (Ezra 10:3). The apologists will contend that the phrase in "accordance with the Torah" means that Ezra is using Deuteronomy 7:3-4 as justification for the expulsion of these women with their children since they are not to be considered Jewish. Thus it is concluded that this story in Ezra is justification for accepting matrilineal lineage.
Based on the contextual reasoning of Deuteronomy 7:3-4, it is quite apparent that this story has nothing to do with matrilineal descent. The Torah itself records many marriages to foreign wives and as explained previously the cultural norm was for these women to move into their husbands families home and become a full-member of their new family whereby they would adopt the religion of their new family. The only justification for Ezra's demand is that the Torah gives the community the power to expel foreigners who are engaged in idolatry.
The question could be asked, Why are non-Jewish women and their children expelled but the children of a Jewish woman with a non-Jewish husband not mention in the expulsion decree? Given the historical and social context of this narrative, there are no non-Jewish husbands of Jewish women mentioned in the text because Jewish women married to a non-Jewish man would have moved into her husband's families home and therefore her husband and children would not be living in Israel for Ezra to expel.
Conclusion
There is much more that could and should be written but time does not permit me to write any further for now. I would like to state though that there is much more historical evidence for non-matrilineal lineage. For example, Flavius Josephus discusses Jewish lineage in specific contexts that demonstrate that in his time the matrilineal line was not the determining factor. Further, Philo of Alexandria clearly states that in his day amongst the Jews of the Alexandrian community the lineage was patrilineal.
I want to stress that the information I have presented does not indicate that one is a Jew whether they were from Jewish sperm or a Jewish egg. The Torah was written in a specific social and cultural context that currently doesn't exist. Further, the Talmud is a record of halachic precepts and discussions that are predominantly pre-exilic in nature. The basis of Jewishness today is not automatically conferred like a magic because of dubious genetics which are intermingled and in many cases non-existent. Judaism is not a race it is a family of faith and therefore any child who is born into a Jewish home, who undergoes brit milah and is raised with a Jewish education that culminates in his own personal acceptance of the Torah's mitzvoth via bar mitzvah, that child is Jewish. Further, any person who converts according to the teachings of the Sages is fully Jewish and it is not permissible to discriminate.
0 comments: