Matrilineal Descent

Parshat Pinchas

As often with this blog, I chose this topic because it was something I wanted to dig into a little further.  I have often wondered when the idea of matrilineal descent, that "Jewishness" is passed from the mother, come into Judaism.  Sometimes, the research on these questions leads to interesting conclusions, but in this case, I'm left with no solid answer.  There's an argument that matrilineal descent stretches all the way back to the biblical authors, and there's an argument that patrilineal descent was the likely governing principle and it switched at some point.  I'll present the arguments for both as best as I can.  But first we'll need some background.

What Does it Mean to be "Jewish?"

This is an incredibly loaded question even today.  Judaism today is an ethnicity, a culture and a religion.  You can partake in one brand of Judaism without bothering with another.  I'm ethnically "Jewish" and do maintain some cultural ties to Judaism.  But religiously, I do not believe in anything that can be labeled Judaism.  So am I Jewish?  Depends on who you ask, and what assumptions they have about the word.

However, what we're really interested in is what "Jewish" meant at the time the biblical texts were being written, the first temple period, the exile and the second temple period.  The word Jewish didn't really exist yet, it's a later term to describe people dwelling in the Roman province of Judea.  It is not a term that the biblical authors use.  Instead they tend to prefer something like b'nai yisrael (children of Israel), yisraeli (Israelite), and in very few places ivri (Hebrew.)  We talked a little bit about the last one in the context of the Exodus and whether there's a link between ivri and apiru.

In the past when writing articles for the blog, I thought about what term to use to describe this group of people.  Religious articles will just refer to them as Jewish, although that's obviously an anachronism for more reasons than one.  I usually use Israelite, and that's what I'll use in this post as well.  It's an imperfect term, but I'll need to call them something while we figure out what exactly Israelite means.  So really, the better question to ask is "what does it mean to be an Israelite" during this time period.

Tribal Society

The Israelite society depicted in the Tanach was a tribal one.  It's unclear how much of the actual tribal description with twelve or thirteen distinct tribes is historical, but the general idea of a tribal society certainly seems reasonable for that period of time.  We see some description of how this all works in this week's parsha with the daughters of Tzelofchad.  In brief, this guy Tzelofchad dies and he has no sons, only five daughters.  Generally in the society the land would be split up amongst the sons, with the eldest son getting a double portion.  (As an aside, such a society cannot last for more than a few generations, since the land would be too split up.  So this is probably a later faulty reconstruction).  The daughters petition Moshe (Moses) that they should get the inheritance, and after consulting God, he agrees.  However, there is a condition that they must not marry outside of their tribe, in this case Menashe.

We can now begin to describe the society that is portrayed in the Torah based off of this story and similar commandments.  Tribal allegiance is patrilineal, passed down from father to son.  If you are female, and marry a male from another tribe, then you join their tribe.  It never goes the other way.  We see a similar idea when discussing the Canaanite nations.  Deut 7:3 says:

neither shalt thou make marriages with [the Canaanite nations]: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.

This is pretty standard for the region, and indeed many societies throughout history.  Cultural ties between nations were often made by marriages, and it's always a daughter that is transferred between tribes and nations.  Despite this warning, about separation from the societies, it doesn't seem to have been very much practiced.  The books of Shmuel and Melachim (Samuel and Kings) demonstrate an integration between tribes that were traditionally part of the Israelite tribes, and ones that weren't.  For example, the "mighty men" of David included someone from the tribe of Ammon (2 Sam 23:37) and another from the Hittites (2 Sam 23:39).  There are also many other people of unknown lineage, named only by their place. Also, consider David's wife Bath-sheba who appears to be the daughter of Eliam one of David's heroes of unknown origin.  Her first husband, who David has killed, is none other than the mighty man that is mentioned before from the Hittite clan.  Clearly, there was some intermarriage going on, and some tribal exchanges between Israelites and some tribes deemed by later authors to be non-Israelite.

If you went back in time and asked the people what their religion was, they'd probably look at you strangely.  There was no such idea as a religion based on beliefs.  Rather, your religion came from your tribal allegiance.  There is no distinction between Israelite the nation and Israelite the religion.  Since the national identification was passed down from father to son via tribal allegiance, it seems reasonable to assume that the religious aspect was the same.

Conversion

And what about conversion?  The idea never appears in the Torah.  There is never a situation where a male "converts" and becomes an Israelite.  Although, who was an Israelite was somewhat of a fluid concept, it was not easy to switch tribes as a male.  However, as a female, it's much easier.  Besides Bathsheba we are given lots of examples of kings with foreign wives.  Since these wives are often depicted as worshiping their own gods, much to the chagrin of the authors of the Torah, it seems clear that they never really adopted the "religion" of their husbands.  These include the wives of Shlomo (Solomon) and another we'll look at more closely.

When we go very late in the biblical corpus (by estimated date written as opposed to described period) we arrive at the story of Ruth.  Here is an example of a woman who converts not just by adopting a tribal allegiance, but also by adopting the ideology.  Later, in the Talmudic period, they would use Ruth to define what it means to convert, but we'll get to that in a bit.

Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention one particular verse which has caused a lot of trouble both for traditional commentators and myself.  The verse is Deut 23:3

An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the LORD; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of the LORD for ever;

This created problems for the Torah commentators because Ruth, mentioned above, was a Moabite.  They explained this by limiting this verse to applying to men only.  This is a questionable interpretation, especially when you compare it to something like Nehehmiah 13:1:3

1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the hearing of the people; and therein was found written, that an Ammonite and a Moabite should not enter into the assembly of God for ever; 2 because they met not the children of Israel with bread and with water, but hired Balaam against them, to curse them; howbeit our God turned the curse into a blessing. 3 And it came to pass, when they had heard the law, that they separated from Israel all the alien mixture.

The "alien mixture" in this translation are specifically women, which is a running theme in the books of Ezra/Nehemiah.  I won't go into more detail on this, I've already gone on too long.  There's an essay here if you have more interest on this topic.

I mentioned that Deut 23:3 was problematic for me also.  That is because of the phrase "assembly of the Lord" or in Hebrew, קְהַל יְהוָה.  What exactly this means isn't clear.  The preceding verse indicates that "bastards" (mamzer) cannot enter this "assembly of God" and the verse before that indicates the same thing about people with genital abnormalities.  Perhaps this has more to do with describing who can enter some sort of holy building rather than a general Hebrew nation?  I'm honestly not sure.  Clearly though, we don't consider someone not Jewish today because they have crushed testicles.  Anyway, let's finally get to the topic I promised at the beginning.

Separating Tribes from Religion

I think a lot of religious Jews are fuzzy on the development of religion in the "Second Temple Period" which spans from about 500 BCE to the destruction of the second temple in 70 CE. A lot of the concepts that we associate with Judaism solidified during this time, and in fact, the idea of Judaism as a religion separate from a culture arose at the very end of this.  Let's try to figure out why.

At the very beginning of this period, in fact a bit before, there's the first real breakaway "sect" of Judaism.  I put sect in quotes, because it's entirely possible that the Judaism we know is actually the breakaway sect and they were the original.  I'm referring to the Samaritans.  The Samaritans, named for the biblical city of Shomron, were a group that had their own version of the Torah, which is very similar to the Torah of Rabbinic Judaism (from here on I'll refer to Rabbinic Judaism as just Judaism).  One major difference is that it includes the description of Har Gerizim as the holy site specified for divine worship.  The rest of the books of the Tanach are not considered holy by the Samaritans.  But who were they?

According to them, they represent members of the nation of Israel that fled after the destruction of the northern kingdom by the Assyrians.  Obviously, there's something problematic for Judaism with this claim.  How can a group claim the same religion yet have a different form of worship, specifically on a different divinely ordained holy place?  The solution, for at least the biblical author of the end section of Melachim (Kings) was to claim that the Samaritans were not Jewish, as in not part of the Jewish tribe based on the patrilineal ideas above. They claim that the Samaritans were a different nation settled there by the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:24):

And the king of Assyria brought men from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Avva, and from Hamath and Sepharvaim, and placed them in the cities of Samaria instead of the children of Israel; and they possessed Samaria, and dwelt in the cities thereof.

But how to explain the fact that they pretty much worshiped the same religion?  Continuing (2 Kings 17:25-28)

25 And so it was, at the beginning of their dwelling there, that they feared not the LORD; therefore the LORD sent lions among them, which killed some of them. 26 Wherefore they spoke to the king of Assyria, saying: 'The nations which thou hast carried away, and placed in the cities of Samaria, know not the manner of the God of the land; therefore He hath sent lions among them, and, behold, they slay them, because they know not the manner of the God of the land.' 27 Then the king of Assyria commanded, saying: 'Carry thither one of the priests whom ye brought from thence; and let them go and dwell there, and let him teach them the manner of the God of the land.' 28 So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.

That seems to wrap it up nicely.  The main purpose of this account is to delegitimize the Samaritans as a representation of Judaism. They are not Jewish, as in they do not actually descend from the northern tribes like they claim.  The relationship between Judaism and the Samaritans was always rocky, but we won't dwell on it any more.  The main point of all this is to show how at this time, Judaism the religion was still tied to Judaism the ethnicity. 

As the second temple period progressed, the number of alternative sects of Judaism grew.  Besides the Samaritans, the Sadducees sprung up around 150 BCE, and the Essenes around the same time.  Both these groups were obviously ethnically Jewish, but they had a very different approach to the religion.  It's possible that the separation between Judaism the religion and Judaism the culture started at this point.  What is certain, is that these breakaway sects paved the way for the biggest breakaway sect of them all, Christianity.

At the end of the second biblical period, but before the composition of the Talmud, the Christian religion formed.  The approach was radically different to anything that came before it.  No longer did you have to be born into a religion.  Anyone could become a Christian, it was just a matter of belief.  The idea of "conversion" into a religion now existed.  The lines were set.  Judaism would have to really decide who was a Jew, whether you could become one if you were born elsewhere (conversion), or whether you could only be a member by blood, like Zoroastrianism.  Also, do you become a Jew automatically if your parent is Jewish, your mother (matrilineal) or your father (patrilineal) both or neither.  Until this point there was no need to answer these questions, but now that Christianity forced the issue and made it clear that religion could stand outside tribal boundaries, the Rabbis of the Talmud, and indeed the leaders of every other sect of Judaism were forced to decide.  Let's see what they chose and why.

Support for Patrilineal Descent

A lot of the support for patrilineal descent has already been laid out in the above section.  Biblical Judaism was a society where religion as inseparable from tribal allegiance.  And also tribal allegiance was clearly passed down from father to son.  So by the transitive property, you can argue that religion would have to be passed down as well.

In addition, the Tanach furnishes many stories in which a Jewish male marries a non-Jewish female and there's no scandal or indication of impropriety.  These stretch all the way back to the stories of the Patriarchs, but they also include Moshe (Moses) who marries the Midianite priests daughter Tzipporah.  In addition, Shlomo (Solomon) marries many women, who worship "other gods" including an Egyptian princess, and there is no discussion of the "Jewishness" of any of the offspring.  Additionally, there is the Israelite king Ahav (Ahab) who's wife Izevel (Jezebel) comes from another kingdom from the north.  The Tanach criticizes her for worshipping idols, yet there's no complaint from the populace when their son takes over the throne.  The son would not be Jewish is there was an idea of matrilineal descent.

The idea that your allegiance to the Jewish religion is past down from father to son was the choice of various Jewish sects that split off before the Talmudic period.  These include the Karaites, the Samaritans, and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia.  Basically, they decided if tribal allegiance came from the father then religious allegiance should as well.

Support for Matrilineal Descent

Rabbinic Judaism went with matrilineal descent.  How did they justify it?  The Talmud justifies it from the verses in Devarim, one of which I quoted above (Deut 7:3-4):

3 neither shalt thou make marriages with them: thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For he will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods; so will the anger of the LORD be kindled against you, and He will destroy thee quickly.

If you read this you might wonder why this seems to source matrilineal descent.  The answer is that the second verse refers only to the son being "turned away" by God and nothing about the Jewish daughter being turned away.  If this looks like a post-hoc explanation to justify a previous custom, well that's pretty much par for the course for Talmudic arguments.  It seems more likely to me that these verses were warning against intermarriage such as those performed by Ahav and Shlomo.

Another possible section supporting matrilineality comes from Vayikra (Lev 24:10-11)

10 And the son of an Israelitish woman, whose father was an Egyptian, went out among the children of Israel; and the son of the Israelitish woman and a man of Israel strove together in the camp. 11 And the son of the Israelitish woman blasphemed the Name, and cursed; and they brought him unto Moses. And his mother's name was Shelomith, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.

The argument is that the person in question is referred to in verse 11 as the son of an Israelite woman rather than the son of an Egyptian man, indicating that it's the matrilineal lineage that's important here.  This story makes no distinction or determination if this child is considered Israelite or not, so it's really tough to go to matrilineal descent from here.  There are a handful of other individuals of mixed parentage, such as the Hiram mentioned in 1 Kings 7:13, who is the son of a woman from Naphtali and a person from Tyre.  He is hired by Shlomo to build various things for the temple, and he seems accepted in Israelite society.

Yet on the other hand there is the descendent of an Israelite woman and an Amalekite man in 2 Samuel 1, who David kills in retribution for the slaying of Saul.  Twice, in 2 Sam. 1:8, and 2 Sam 1:13 he identifies himself as an Amalekite, not an Israelite.  Can we read anything from this?

As far as I know, these are the best arguments for matrilineal descent in the Tanach.  If you know of any more, I'd love to hear them.

Why the Matrilineal Choice?

If my historical reconstruction is correct, at the end of the second temple period religion and tribal allegiance were separated.  Then various Jewish sects decided whether Jewish religion would be passed down from the father or the mother.  Most sects chose the father, Rabbinic Judaism chose the mother.  But why?

To be honest, I am not sure, and this is a question that I'm going to have to leave open.  I am not sure why the society would favor matrilineal descent.  It is very possible that the Talmudic exegesis quoted above was honest, and they came to this conclusion through textual analysis.  It's also possible that they already had the custom and justified it with this verse.  It's likely that they could have justified patrilineal descent through similar exegesis, as the other sects of Judaism did.

I've written more on this topic that I meant to.  At the end, I don't have too much to show for it, in terms of solid conclusions.  Nevertheless, I hope the discussion has been interesting, and I would love to hear your thoughts on the topic.