Matrilineality in Judaism
|Part of a series on|
|Jews and Judaism|
Matrilineality in Judaism is the view that people born of a Jewish mother are themselves Jewish. The Torah does not explicitly discuss the conferring of Jewish status through matrilineality. The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) also provides many examples of Israelite men whose children begotten through foreign women appear to have been accepted as Israelite. In contrast, Jewish oral tradition codified in Mishnah in the 2nd century CE serves as the basis of a shift in Rabbinic Judaism from patrilineal to matrilineal descent.
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 3:12) states that, to be a Jew, one must be either the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism, (ger tzedek, "righteous convert"). Orthodox opinion regards this rule as dating from receipt of the Torah at Mount Sinai, but most non-Orthodox scholars regard it as originating either at the time of Ezra (4th Century BCE) or during the period of Roman rule in the 1st–2nd centuries CE, as patrilineal descent is known to have been the standard of Judaism prior to that time.
In the Hellenistic period of the 4th Century BCE – 1st Century CE some evidence may be interpreted to indicate that the offspring of intermarriages between Jewish men and non-Jewish women were considered Jewish; as is usual in prerabbinic texts, there is no mention of conversion on the part of the Gentile spouse. On the other hand, Philo of Alexandria calls the child of a Jew and a non-Jew a nothos (bastard), regardless of whether the non-Jewish parent is the father or the mother.
Karaite Judaism holds that Judaism can only be transmitted through the father, and thus holds a rule of patrilineality. Nevertheless, historical Karaite Jewish and Rabbinical Jewish communities would usually intermarry with each other. Seven marriage contracts involving Karaite and Rabbanite individuals have so far been discovered in the Cairo Genizah. These marriage contracts stipulated the mutual tolerance of those practices in which the Karaites and the Rabbanites differed Karaite Judaism argues that Jewish identity can only be passed through the father, since all Jewish descent in the Tanakh is traced patrilineally.
With the emergence of Jewish denominations and the modern rise in Jewish intermarriage in the 20th century, questions about the law of matrilineal descent have assumed greater importance to the Jewish community at large. The heterogeneous Jewish community is divided on the issue of "Who is a Jew?" via descent; matrilineal descent still is the rule within Orthodox Judaism, which also holds that anyone with a Jewish mother has an irrevocable Jewish status, and matrilineal descent is the norm in the Conservative movement. Since 1983, Reform Judaism in the United States of America officially adopted a bilineal policy: one is a Jew if either of one's parents is Jewish, provided that either (a) one is raised as a Jew, by Reform standards, or (b) one engages in an appropriate act of public identification, formalizing a practice that had been common in Reform synagogues for at least a generation. Karaite Judaism, which includes only the Tanakh in its canon, interprets the Torah to indicate that Jewishness passes exclusively through the father's line, maintaining the system of patrilineality that many scholars believe was the practice of ancient Israel.
In Numbers 27:7 God gave a unique gift to Israelites: bloodline passed to daughters if no male heirs were born. In Numbers 36:4 when this is questioned, Moses says the inheritance belongs to the women as long as they marry within their own tribe. Later, in 1 Chronicles 2:21-23; 7:14 we see Jair, called "Jair son of Manasseh" but is actually "son of Manasseh's granddaughter"
Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen of Harvard University states:
Numerous Israelites heroes and kings married foreign women: for example, Judah married a Canaanite, Joseph an Egyptian, Moses a Midianite and an Ethiopian, David a Philistine, and Solomon women of every description. By her marriage with an Israelite man a foreign women joined the clan, people, and religion of her husband. It never occurred to anyone in pre-exilic times to argue that such marriages were null and void, that foreign women must "convert" to Judaism, or that the off-spring of the marriage were not Israelite if the women did not convert.
In contrast, the Book of Ezra relates that the prophet Ezra, a Jewish priestly scribe, commanded his Jewish followers amidst the Babylonian captivity (c. 459 BCE) to divorce their foreign wives, and this sometimes has been regarded as the foundation of the present rule. According to the Bible, Ezra resolved the identity threat which arose by the intermarriage between Jews and foreigners and provided a definite reading of the Torah.
Josephus (37 CE – c. 100 CE), in Antiquities of the Jews, refers to marriages between Jewish men and Gentile women without much commentary and seems to assume that the offspring is Jewish; as is usual in prerabbinic texts, there is no mention of conversion on the part of the Gentile spouse.(In one place he refers to Herod as being "half-Jewish", but this is likely referring to his father's status as an Idumean forced-convert, not to his mother being a Nabatean.) In contrast, Philo of Alexandria (20 BCE – 50 CE) calls the child of any Jewish intermarriage a nothos (bastard), regardless of which parent is not Jewish. In the same vein, the Mishnah raises the possibility that the child of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother is a mamzer, though this is dismissed in the later stratum of the Talmud.
The Mishnah (Kiddushin 3:12) states that, to be a Jew, one must be either the child of a Jewish mother or a convert to Judaism. The Talmud (Kiddushin 68b) derives this law from the Torah, specifically from Deuteronomy 7:3–4, which reads: "Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give to his son, nor shalt thou take his daughter to thy son. For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods." This is in reference to Deut 7:1-2 where "...thou shalt make no covenant with them..." being the many nations of Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hittites and Jebusites.
The Talmudic sages also point out that a son born to your daughter by a non-Jewish father is called "your son"; a son born to your son by a non-Jewish mother is called "her son." To this point, "Rebekah spake unto Jacob her son .."(Gen 27:6,15,17&42) and by Gen 27:43, Jacob is called my son. Thus, the Torah is specifically concerned with a mother turning "away thy son from following Me."
Rabbi Louis Jacobs noted,
"There has been a development of the law in these instances from Biblical and pre-Rabbinic times [from patrilineal to matrilineal descent]. The attempt to find reasons for the change, however, has proved to be elusive...[b]ut the development in the law had already taken place before the redaction of the Mishnah at the very latest. With the exception of the Rabbi in the Jerusalem Talmud (Qiddushin, 3:12) who permitted the child of a gentile mother and Jewish father to be circumcised on the Sabbath and whose opinion was vehemently rejected, the law is accepted unanimously in both Talmuds. It is recorded as the law in all the Codes without dissenting voice and has been the universal norm in all Jewish communities.
In the Middle Ages, there was a minority stream of rabbinic opinion arguing in theoretical terms for a rule that, to be Jewish by descent, both of one's parents must be Jewish. In practical terms, however, the matrilineal rule remained unchallenged amongst many Jewish communities from Talmudic times till the twentieth century.
Karaite Judaism includes only the Tanakh in its canon, excluding the Talmud. Karaite Judaism interprets the Torah to indicate that Jewishness passes exclusively through the father's line, thus maintaining the system of patrilineality, that many scholars believe was the practice of ancient Israel. Credence for patrilineality as being standard can best Identified in the book of Malachi. Malachi 3:6-7 & 4:5-6. Calls upon the children(sons) of Israel to "Return unto Me".
With the birth of alternative branches of Judaism and the rise in intermarriage in the 20th century, questions about the law of matrilineal descent arose. Children born to Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers, in particular, were asking why they were not accepted as Jews. As of today, Judaism is divided on the issue of "Who is a Jew?" via descent.
The majority view in Karaite Judaism is that Jewish identity can only be transmitted by patrilineal descent, though some require both parents to be Jewish. They argue that only patrilineal descent can transmit Jewish identity on the grounds that all descent in the Torah went according to the male line. Only someone who is patrilineally Jewish (someone whose father's father was Jewish) is regarded as a Jew by the Mo‘eṣet HaḤakhamim, or the Karaite Council of Sages based in Israel.
Matrilineal descent still is the rule within Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism holds that anyone with a Jewish mother also has irrevocable Jewish status; in other words, even if someone with a Jewish mother converts to another religion, that person still is considered Jewish.
The view of matrilineal descent as originating at the time of the Council of Jamnia is openly held by many scholars affiliated with the Conservative movement: see the views of Shaye J. D. Cohen, below.
At the same time, matrilineal descent remains the norm in Conservative halakha. In 1986, the Conservative Movement's Rabbinical Assembly reiterated the commitment of the Conservative movement to the law of matrilineal descent. Furthermore, the movement stated that any rabbi who accepts the principle of patrilineal descent will be subject to expulsion from the Rabbinical Assembly. At the same time, it affirmed that "sincere Jews by choice" should be warmly welcomed into the community and that "sensitivity should be shown to Jews who have intermarried and their families." The Conservative movement actively reaches out to intermarried families by offering them opportunities for Jewish growth and enrichment.
Polls conducted by the Conservative movement show that 68% of all regular attenders at Conservative synagogues would support changing the law to allow Jewish identity by patrilineal descent. However, there is little rabbinic support for such a change (and, if Cohen's argument is correct, such a change could not be made without also recognising the legality of mixed marriages.) However, at least some Conservative and pluralistic rabbis individually support patrilineal descent.
In 1983, the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed a resolution waiving the need for formal conversion for anyone with at least one Jewish parent who has made affirmative acts of Jewish identity. This departed from the traditional position requiring formal conversion to Judaism for children without a Jewish mother. The 1983 resolution of the American Reform movement has had a mixed reception in Reform Jewish communities outside of the United States. Most notably, the Israel Movement for Progressive Judaism has rejected patrilineal descent and requires formal conversion for anyone without a Jewish mother. As well, a joint Orthodox, Traditional, Conservative and Reform Bet Din formed in Denver, Colorado to promote uniform standards for conversion to Judaism was dissolved in 1983, due to that Reform resolution. However, in 2015 the majority of Britain's Assembly of Reform Rabbis voted in favor of a position paper proposing "that individuals who live a Jewish life, and who are patrilineally Jewish, can be welcomed into the Jewish community and confirmed as Jewish through an individual process." Britain's Assembly of Reform Rabbis stated that rabbis "would be able to take local decisions – ratified by the Beit Din – confirming Jewish status."
Other movements within the World Union for Progressive Judaism have adopted essentially the same position as U.S. Reform Judaism. These include: Liberal Judaism in England; Reconstructionist Judaism in the U.S., Canada and elsewhere; Progressive Judaism in Australia; one congregation in Austria; some congregations in Eastern Europe. Note that Reform Judaism in Canada and England adopts a different position, similar to that of Conservative Judaism (though there may be an accelerated conversion process for the children of Jewish fathers).
Reconstructionist Judaism, which values equity and inclusivity, also adopted the idea of bilineal descent. According to Reconstructionist Judaism, children of one Jewish parent, of either gender, are considered Jewish if raised as Jews.
Many secular and non-religious Jews in America, Israel and elsewhere adopt a bilineal view similar to that detailed above. In Israel, the status quo is that the Orthodox definition is followed: the child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother may immigrate to Israel (and may claim rights under the Law of Return), but will be registered in official documents as a non-Jew. The consequences are various: he/she may not be wedded inside the state to anybody considered to be officially a Jew, and he/she may not be buried in the Jewish section of a cemetery.
The historical debate
The matrilineal law of descent as currently accepted by Orthodox Judaism appears to be an exception to a generally patrilineal system of family law. For example, laws of inheritance and the descent of the monarchy follow the father. A Jew also belongs to the tribe of his or her father, so a Kohen or Levi must be the son of a Kohen or Levi. The child of a mixed Sephardi-Ashkenazi marriage generally adopts the communal identity of the father.
For this reason, many scholars[who?] suggest that the original rule of Jewish descent must have been patrilineal, and that it was changed around the time of Ezra, or even later, at the time of Council of Jamnia, possibly under the influence of Roman law. There are several instances in the Bible where Israelite men marry Gentile women without direct mention of the women converting, although some like Zipporah and Rebecca were still insisting in the practices of their former families. For example, many of the Israelite kings married foreign princesses, and this does not seem to have prevented the children of these marriages from being considered among the Children of Israel and even succeeding to the throne. An example is Rehoboam, who was the son of Solomon by the Ammonite princess Naamah. Another example is the Book of Ruth, which seems to claim such ancestry for King David himself.
The Orthodox answer is that both Ruth and Naamah were converts to Judaism: the Talmud derives the laws of proselytes from the exchange between Naomi and Ruth.
Historians,[who?] however, believe that the very notion of conversion with a mikvah is postbiblical. It must also be pointed out that, even if Ruth never became Jewish, this would not affect the Jewishness of King David on either a pure patrilineal or a pure matrilineal rule, as Ruth was King David's paternal great-grandmother.
A reconciliation of the evidence has been offered by Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen. The original rule was patrilineal, but only applied to cases where the parents were legally married, or could lawfully have married, as it is only in these cases that the child legally has a father at all. So in the case of an all-Jewish or all-Gentile marriage, the child inherits his or her Jewish or Gentile status from the father. In Biblical times, the same rule would have applied to most mixed marriages, as such marriages were frowned upon but not regarded as legally impossible. However, since the time of Ezra, Jewish law has held that mixed marriages are not only forbidden but void. Accordingly, the child of such a union has no legal father, and takes the status of the mother by default; just as in English custom a legitimate child takes his or her father’s surname but an illegitimate child takes his or her mother’s. In the result, it is only in the case of a mixed marriage that the child inherits its Jewish status from the mother; in the normal case of two Jewish parents a child inherits his or her status from the father, but the Jewishness of the mother is a necessary condition for this to happen. The practical result of this is the same as that of a purely matrilineal rule.
- Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 16.225, 18.109, 18.139, 18.141, 14.8–10, 14.121, 14.403, or, according to one of his statements, "half-Jewish"
- On the Life of Moses 2.36.193, On the Virtues 40.224, On the Life of Moses 1.27.147
- Yaron, Y., Joe Pessah, and Abraham Qanai. An Introduction to Karaite Judaism: History, Theology, Practice, and Culture. N.p.: Qirqisani Center, 2003. Print.
- Nolland, John (2005). The Gospel of Matthew. Wm B Eerdmans Co. ISBN 0802823890.
- Antiquities of the Jews 16.225, 18.109, 18.139, 18.141, 14.8–10, 14.121, 14.403
- Jacobs, Louis. "There is no problem of descent.". Retrieved 2009-06-03.
- Karaite FAQs; Congregation Or Saddiqim, Giyyur
- Wertheimer, Jews in the Center: Conservative Synagogues and their Members.
- Reform Movement's Resolution on Patrilineal Descent
- Reform Judaism in Israel: Progress and Prospects
- Wertheimer, Jack (1997). A People Divided: Judaism in Contemporary America. University Press of New England.
- Lewis, Jerry. "UK Reform rabbis accept patrilineal descent - Diaspora - Jerusalem Post". Jpost.com. Retrieved 2015-07-19.
- Yevamoth 47b
- Reviewed by Louis Jacobs, There is no Problem of Descent.
- The Arba'ah Turim holds that the Biblical prohibition related only to cohabitation with the seven nations, and that the rule making marriage with Gentiles void, and the prohibition of marrying Samaritans, are rules of Rabbinic rather than Biblical law: Tur Even ha-Ezer ch. 16.
- The origin of Matrilineal Descent in Judaism
- Why is Judaism passed on through the mother?
- Louis Jacobs, "There is No Problem of Descent"
- Matrilineal or Patrilineal Descent Lisa Katz
- Professor Shaye J. D. Cohen, "The origin of the Matrilineal rule in Rabbinical Judaism"
- Reform Movement's Resolution on Patrilineal Descent, March 15, 1983. "The Status of Children of Mixed Marriages"