Maternal Lineage (Judaism)

[Shermana]

The trouble you're having is the consequence of a perverse racist and xenophobic perspective, and it leads to some remarkable absurdities.

So, for example, we can imagine a husband and wife converting to Judaism and then having a child. Your options are:

• The parents changed their race when they converted.
• The child is a different race than his or her parents.
• The child is not a real Jew.

Which is it?

First answer the Levite and Cohen question.

 

[dantech]

Now that's an interesting answer, Dantech, I would indeed be more interested in seeing more about this.

So do you believe that Jewish Souls are appointed to be Jews before they are born? It seems you're definitely agreeing that there's indeed a difference of Soul as well as biology among Jews, if I'm not mistaken.

All the souls, today, are existing souls who are in need of a Tikkun (fixing). This comes from our notion of Gilgulim and Tikkun Olam. The souls we inherit have existed for thousands of years and are returned to earth, multiple times, until they are able to repair and annul all the sins they committed during a previous life.

According to Kabballah, when one dies, and knows all that is "tweaking" his soul away from being pure, he cries out to God to give him a second chance and send him back.
An example, in our case, would be about someone who purposely left Judaism in another life. In this life, he might come back as a goy who, to make his Tikkun, needs to convert to Judaism.

 

[dantech]

Of course, I'm not calling anyone inferior or superior, just clarifying what might be a touchy fact or two that some opinions seem to reject. Though I do believe that those souls chosen to be incarnated as Cohens and Levites may be "superior" in the Heavenly ranking, but that's for another subject.

Again, this comes back to the the taints on the soul and Tikkun Olam. You see, when all the original souls lived, back when the Hebrews left Egypt, each and every Hebrew at the time ended up worshiping the Golden Calf. The Levites and Kohens, However, were the only ones who didn't.

God appointed Aharon to be the Kohen Gadol of the time, and therefore making all his descendants Kohanim.

Until the transgression of the Golden Calf, the firstborn sons were the ones who were designated to do the holy service in the Mishkan, the Portable Sanctuary, in the Desert. Since no one from the Tribe of Levi worshipped the Golden Calf, the Almighty replaced the firstborn with the Tribe of Levi to serve in the sanctuary (Numbers 3:11-12).

The reason why they are considered superior, in some sort, is because they didn't commit that initial sin which started the whole Tikkun Olam concept.

But just because they have that merit, doesn't actually make them superior to the rest. Moshe Rabeinu was not a Kohen (EDIT: Thanks Harmonious for the correction). However the bible clearly states :"And there hath not risen a prophet since in Israel like unto Moshe"(Devarim 34, 10). It also says that we each have the potential to achieve our limits like Moshe did.

This shows us that the average farmer could become the greatest of all men, regardless of whether he is Kohen, Levite, or Israelite.

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Staff Advisory***

This thread has been moved to the Same-Faith Debates forum per Staff consensus.
​

 

[Harmonious]

But just because they have that merit, doesn't actually make them superior to the rest. Moshe Rabeinu was neither a Kohen, or a Levite.

Dan, while I've grown to appreciate your scholarship, this is not correct.

Moses was indeed a Levi. He didn't end up with the standard job of a Levi, but he was the son of Amram who was indeed a Levi.

But I do like how you explained that any individual has the ability to fulfill his or her own potential.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... imagine a husband and wife converting to Judaism and then having a child. Your options are:

• The parents changed their race when they converted.
• The child is a different race than his or her parents.
• The child is not a real Jew.

Which is it?

First answer the Levite and Cohen question.

:biglaugh:

Oh well, I guess we have no choice but to pander to this petty avoidance tactic. Let's see ...

..., we've already established that there is indeed a Racial and Biological element that cannot be denied at least in terms of standard Jewish thought. Otherwise, you'll have to explain Levites and Cohens.

Apparently, Shermana (who seems fixated on race - or perhaps I should say the 'Racial element') has discovered to new races: the "Levites and Cohens."

Other than the crass stupidity of the argument, the reference is particularly curious in an article on matrilineal descent. Note:

We should also recognize that later rabbinic tradition did not shift to the matrilineal line when conditions did not demand it. Therefore, the rabbinic tradition remained patrilineal in the descent of the priesthood; it was and remains the male kohen who determines the status of his children. The child is a kohen even if the father married a Levite or an Israelite. Thus lineage was and continues to be determined by the male alone whenever the marriage is otherwise proper (M. Kid. 3.12; Kid. 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 245.1). [source]

Apparently, a real Jew is determined by the "Racial element" - hence matrineal rather than patrilineal descent - and Shermana cleverly supports this notion by pointing to the Kohanim, membership in which was determined by patrilineal rather than matrilineal descent.

Well, no one ever said that a xenophobic fixation on 'Racial elements' makes sense.

And, of course, clan is not race, and I'll leave it to Shermana to tell us whether or not Gershom, son of Moses and Zipporah, was a Levite. But first, Shermana, ...

... imagine a husband and wife converting to Judaism and then having a child. Your options are:

• The parents changed their race when they converted.
• The child is a different race than his or her parents.
• The child is not a real Jew.

Which is it?

 

[dantech]

Dan, while I've grown to appreciate your scholarship, this is not correct.

Moses was indeed a Levi. He didn't end up with the standard job of a Levi, but he was the son of Amram who was indeed a Levi.

But I do like how you explained that any individual has the ability to fulfill his or her own potential.

You are 100% right, I don't know how I forgot that.

 

[Harmonious]

And, of course, clan is not race, and I'll leave it to Shermana to tell us whether or not Gershom, son of Moses and Zipporah, was a Levite.

Oh! I couldn't figure out what you meant before. Now I know.

Shermana started this thread when a different thread was knocked off track when Shermana asked about what Judaism was, if it was genetic, or social, or what.

Since he was arguing with you, I thought this might have worked. But I see where yiur suspicions are coming from.

 

[Harmonious]

I can't believe I've missed the obvious, because I answered your questions as if they were honest questions.

Shermana, are you trying to portray Jews as institutionalized racists?

 

[dantech]

I can't believe I've missed the obvious, because I answered your questions as if they were honest questions.

Shermana, are you trying to portray Jews as institutionalized racists?

I missed that too. You really think that that's what he's trying to do?

 

[Harmonious]

I missed that too. You really think that that's what he's trying to do?

I don't know. I hope not, but quite possibly.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Shermana's bottom line in this discussion and elsewhe is clear:

By all means otherwise show a single definition of ethnicity that discludes "Race" as the foundation.

Race as the Foundation!

Race as the Foundation!

Race as the Foundation!

Race as the Foundation!

Race as the Foundation!​

It could not be more clear, more disgusting, or more reminiscent of Third Reich mentality.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yet again: Shermana ...

... imagine a husband and wife converting to Judaism and then having a child. Your options are:

• The parents changed their race when they converted.
• The child is a different race than his or her parents.
• The child is not a real Jew.

Which is it?

 

[Flankerl]

Then I would suggest more reading on the subject.

The US is atypical in that we associate race and ethnicity in offical forms.
Ethnic group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for definitions, here ya go:

United Nations Statistics Division - Demographic and Social Statistics

Ethnic group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Race and Ethnicity in Rural America | Rural Communities Explorer

Ethnic group | Define Ethnic group at Dictionary.com

Ethnicity vs Race - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

Sociology: Race and Ethnicity Defined

And some more scholarly examples:
Ethnic Identity - Joseph E. Trimble, Ph.D.
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/i...ntroduction Ethnic Groups and Boundaries .pdf
http://gbl.indiana.edu/baumann/Baumann 2004 - Defining Ethnicity.pdf


As for you question about the child: Because one is born of a Jewish mother, and one is not. And, as we have already repeatedly established, Judaism accepts two avenues into the group: maternal descent and conversion.

Thank you for posting this. Some people may not realise that there are indeed other countries outside of the USA where these words have a different meaning.
In fact there are countries where you couldnt write "David Baker, 1984-09-14, White" into any database because the mere mention or idea of "race" is forbidden.
Ethnicity plays a much larger role in such societies.


This is also a rather weird thread.

 

[Caladan]

What's the difference between a race and a "Socio-religious" ethnicity? I've heard plenty of Rabbis who say that even Atheist Jews are still Jews if they're born of a Jewish mother.

Because defining Jews (or any other group) as a separate race is archaic and doesn't make much sense in today's discourse.
Ethnicity may include genetic origin, linguistic features, religious features, and other markers of a distinct group.
Jews are really a melange of ethnicities under a broader Jewish umbrella, at least in Israel. If you look at Israeli society it's the prime example of global Jewry. You have central European Jews, eastern European Jews, North African and Middle Eastern Jews, and of course other groups such as Ethiopian or Indian Jews. Can you really say that these people are a 'race'?
This social fusion includes many ethnicities who also share long held Jewish ethnic markers.
They may share genetic origins, linguistic similarities, traditional similarities, but I don't see anything that qualifies them as a separate race any more than lets say Greeks or Persians.
Jews seem to share genetic similarities with other groups such as the Kurds as far as I know. Various groups in the Middle East or the Mediterranean in general share bonds, and it would not make much sense to call each group a 'race' today.
Would we call Turks a race? or Berbers? or are Japanese and Koreans separate races?
In short, how do you really define race?

 

[Tarheeler]

Thank you for posting this. Some people may not realise that there are indeed other countries outside of the USA where these words have a different meaning.
In fact there are countries where you couldnt write "David Baker, 1984-09-14, White" into any database because the mere mention or idea of "race" is forbidden.
Ethnicity plays a much larger role in such societies.


This is also a rather weird thread.

Well, thank you for the thank you!

I just wish it had evoked a better response from the intended audience.
And I agree; it is a weird thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Shermana, I'm still waiting for an answer to the following queston ...

... imagine a husband and wife converting to Judaism and then having a child. Your options are:

• The parents changed their race when they converted.
• The child is a different race than his or her parents.
• The child is not a real Jew.

Which is it?

 

[Shermana]

I don't know. I hope not, but quite possibly.

Yeah, by pointing out that Levites and Cohenites and Maternal Lineage is all biological transmission of Judaism whereas an adopted Newborn must be converted, I'm attempting to portray Judaism as a totally racist enterprise rather than discussing a Theological matter. Yeah that's it. Totally. That's been my plan. Rather than wanting to have a civil discussion on what exactly is the reason behind this concept and seeing if there's any Talmud or Midrash to explain it, all I wanted to do was show that Jews are racists, that was my plan.

Not like I just wanted a straight answer to a simple question to a point of contention.

And of course, the fact that Levites and Cohenites cannot be made from converts, there's absolutely NO "racial" factor involved with the religion. None. Because "biological" and "race" mean something different....somehow....somewhere.

And as for Gershom, if anything that just proves that the Maternal Lineage concept goes against the Torah itself, but hey, why try to discuss things like that when I'm clearly trying to have a Third Reich mentality here to show all Judaism is so racist (as if "racism" in this use of the word is somehow bad).

Fortunately this thread is being taken to the debates so you all won't be getting away this soon.

 

[Shermana]

Shermana, I'm still waiting for an answer to the following queston ...

Well Jay if you had bothered to actually read anything I said, you'd notice that i ALREADY agreed that directly born children of converts are Jewish.

What everyone has been ignoring (evading and then attacking after dodging the question) however, is that apparently an adopted newborn is not considered a "Real Jew" and must be converted through the conversion process.

So there for, an adopted newborn is NOT a "real Jew" according to this belief.

Therefore, there is a defacto biological factor. NOw what exactly is the difference between that and a "racial" factor.

As to your defense of Levites and Aaronites being "their own race", you clearly have no idea what I'm trying to say there. There is indeed a racial factor involved with being priests. It's that simple. If you're not a racial Levite, from Levite bloodline, you can't be one if you're adopted. It seems you just have a problem with the Semantics. As Caladan has pointed out, the word "Race" may be too undefined (and too loaded) to be useful here, so perhaps "Bloodline-ist" might be a better way of objectively putting it).

That's defacto "Racism" , but not a bad kind of racism. Your avoidance of this issue and making a strawman version of the argument shows you got something to hide about it, but there's no reason for that.

Now with that said, does ANYONE have any actual Midrash and old Jewish writings on the matter here we can discuss or is this all recent Liberal personal opinion?

 

[Shermana]

Because defining Jews (or any other group) as a separate race is archaic and doesn't make much sense in today's discourse.
Ethnicity may include genetic origin, linguistic features, religious features, and other markers of a distinct group.
Jews are really a melange of ethnicities under a broader Jewish umbrella, at least in Israel. If you look at Israeli society it's the prime example of global Jewry. You have central European Jews, eastern European Jews, North African and Middle Eastern Jews, and of course other groups such as Ethiopian or Indian Jews. Can you really say that these people are a 'race'?
This social fusion includes many ethnicities who also share long held Jewish ethnic markers.
They may share genetic origins, linguistic similarities, traditional similarities, but I don't see anything that qualifies them as a separate race any more than lets say Greeks or Persians.
Jews seem to share genetic similarities with other groups such as the Kurds as far as I know. Various groups in the Middle East or the Mediterranean in general share bonds, and it would not make much sense to call each group a 'race' today.
Would we call Turks a race? or Berbers? or are Japanese and Koreans separate races?
In short, how do you really define race?

Thank you Caladan, finally someone whose response isn't dripping in venom.

As we can see, the word "race" here is in question and isn't exactly a clearly defined term, much like the arbitrary uses of "Ethnicity" which Tarheeler tried to force a particular (non-American-used) definition.

Perhaps the best way to discuss this is to first define what constitutes "Race" and what it doesn't.

Now if you'll notice, I've been interchanging the words "race" with "Biological".

The idea is clear that only bloodborn Jews (even of converts) are Jews. How is that not "racial"? What criteria do we need to draw from to determine what is a different race from another? If we have no criteria, then perhaps race is simply a word we can't use together, and any attept to discuss it will get Godwin's law flung in your face.

So what exactly is the term to use for a Religion that involves a Priesthood that does NOT accept converts and ONLY accepts those who have "the right bloodline" and considers an adopted newborn NOT a "real Jew" that must be converted but considers a bloodline-born Jew (from an adopted convert as well) a "real Jew"? I think there's nothing wrong whatsoever with admitting this "Bloodline" factor (perhaps "Bloodline-ist" is better than 'racial"?).

So should we replace the term "Race" with "Pure Tribal bloodlines"?

And as Jay pointed out (a good point in the midst of the dodgery), doesn't Gershom kinda disprove the Maternal-only thing?