6

Judaism is clear on the matrilineal descent. Yet it's not clear to me that the Matriarchs after Sarah were "Jewish" - they were Abraham's relatives, they were not Canaanites as requested by Abraham, but were they followers of Hashem as Abraham, Eliezer, Isaac was? I'm not clear on this distinction of being "Jewish" vs. being a "Hebrew." Abraham is the first Jew, but the Jewish people do not "officially" exist until Sinai.

Same goes for Joseph's wife - I've been told she underwent a conversion, but if Judaism didn't necessarily exist, then how? What's the difference then between her and Isaac and Jacob's wives?

Bottom line: Were the matriarchs after Sarah explicitly Jewish?

Double AA
  • 98,894
  • 6
  • 250
  • 713
EEE
  • 417
  • 2
  • 8
  • 5
    See http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/8646/732 – ertert3terte May 16 '12 at 19:49
  • FWIW, There are opinions who say that Joseph's wife (Osnas) was actually the daughter of Dinah (and Sh'chem) which would make her Jewish matrilineally (assuming Dinah was). – HodofHod May 16 '12 at 20:06
  • 1
    Very related: What was the 'evolution' of determining who is part of the Jewish people? – HodofHod May 16 '12 at 20:49
  • 1
    echoing the ideas in the related question, Abraham was not Jewish (both the term and the binding Mosaic law are anachronisms). Monotheistic followers of hashem were not identified as Jews nor were they bound by laws and titles given later, so the question's premise is flawed. – rosends May 16 '12 at 23:36
  • @Dan So what then is the distinction between a monotheistic follower such as Noach and Abraham? One is distinctly noted as a gentile, the other not. – EEE May 16 '12 at 23:56
  • @EEE the differences include things like Noah didn't try to encourage others to become monotheists and Noah's spirituality didn't confer on him the insight which allowed Abraham to achieve a monotheistic worldview on his own before being spoken to by hashem. Where is either one called a "gentile"? – rosends May 17 '12 at 00:00
  • @Dan The very fact that the Noahide laws derive that title show Noach is a gentile http://www.inner.org/nonjews/kabbalah-for-nations-introduction.php. I am not talking about the differences in monotheistic practice between Noah and Abraham, or between the two men themselves, but rather, how one is typically regarded as "righteous gentile," and someone like Abraham is not. If Abraham isn't a Jew, as you say, then what is he? Monotheistic practicer? Are both he and Noach then just monotheistic practicers? – EEE May 17 '12 at 02:57
  • The Noachide laws are universal - given to Noah and his descendants, Abraham included. They are universal but ultimately Abraham received more laws, but neither is a "gentile" as there was no Jewish people with whom not to be affiliated. Noah and Abe were monotheistic practitioners but Abe came to his practice from his own understanding of the world. There is a well known Talmudic question about Noah's spirituality vs. Abe's and I don't know of any statement that Noah observed the pre-mosaic Mosaic code even voluntarily. – rosends May 17 '12 at 13:09
  • @Dan The pasuk "Noach walked with G-d" is proof he followed G-d's ways prior to any prophetic revelation. Rambam points out this refers to conduct. http://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/757296/jewish/Interpolated-Translation.htm – EEE May 17 '12 at 15:34
  • @EEE if only it were that simple http://www.shaalvim.org/sfw/shiurim/view.asp?id=631 – rosends May 17 '12 at 17:14
  • @Dan This interpretation doesn't explain why the pasuk "walked" occurs before the mention of the revelation. It didn't take a revelation for Noach's belief. So we've concluded that Abraham and Noach are neither Jew nor Gentile. They're monotheists. Funny, that the definition of someone who is not a Jew is a gentile, which ostensibly includes anyone before the establishment of that term. Nor do I think Noach and Abraham can be distinguished by any other term than monotheist, regardless of their different methods of practice or faith as you presented. – EEE May 17 '12 at 18:15
  • Noah's character could have been godly and he could have had moral fiber which mirrored divine wishes but that isn't the same as having awareness of god on a personal level as would happen through revelation. The term "gentile" dates back to the 12th century so saying that the definition from the 12th century would apply to Noah and Abe can't really work. Abe is called an Ivri (based on the etymology you prefer) and we know that Abe was given additional laws, but "monotheist" works for both. And for Sarah et al.For fun, read this http://www.thefreedictionary.com/jaunty – rosends May 17 '12 at 19:14
  • Regardless of when a word comes into use, its application is still valid. Assassins existed before its borrowing into English in 1525 and can be labeled as such. Gentile is defined as "belonging to the same family as all non-Jews." We've stated it's impossible to classify either men as Jews. Gentile is perfectly applicable to both, even though one is the clear forefather of the Jewish people. At this time, someone who lived in New England in prior to the Constitution is not considered a U.S. citizen, even though the term was not extant. Abraham not a Jew? Perfectly legal to say Gentile. – EEE May 17 '12 at 21:12
  • Would you say that someone who lived in New England before 1776 was non-American? Defining someone by a lack of status in a group which doesn't exist makes no sense. Before the Tea Party was formed, I wasn't a "non-tea party Member". Would you feel comfortable calling Abraham and Noah Luddites because they were clearly non computer users? They were clearly scabs because they didn't belong to a union. – rosends May 18 '12 at 12:25
  • I made the distinction of US citizenry. I said nothing about American. Luddites and scabs imply an active choice of non-participation. Someone who doesn't use a computer because he can't afford one isn't then a Luddite. I am referring to a classification of families or nations. Gentile is DEFINED as belonging to the non-Jewish family. If Abraham is not a Jew, he is a gentile. Noach is the same. The term "Native American" didn't appear until much later. Does this mean Geronimo or Squanto can't be called such because of the later emergence? You can't disallow it. – EEE May 18 '12 at 14:53
  • But they aren't American either then. And being a non-Jew is a matter of choice as well, as anyone can be a Jew if he converts. Thus, a gentile is by choice as a scab is by choice. Since there was no group to convert to and no union to join they are either both or neither gentiles and scabs. But, of course, if you wish to use the term gentile to apply to people pre-Judaism who couldn't be Jewish, then do so. You just accepted that both would then be gentiles and your earlier statement "One is distinctly noted as a gentile, the other not" disappears. – rosends May 18 '12 at 15:33
  • We can say synchronically, neither category of Jew or Gentile is applicable. Diachronically, it is. – EEE May 18 '12 at 16:14
  • exactly, and if you wish to expand the application, Moses is also a gentile, as is every member of the children of Israel until after the time of Solomon. Does the term then have any value? – rosends May 18 '12 at 16:23
  • Only synchronically :D – EEE May 18 '12 at 16:33
  • 1
    Note that before Matan Torah Judaism went through the father (see Rashi at the end of Emor regarding the Mekalel's motivation to curse). This doesn't really help, though, since their wives weren't daughters of Avraham and his children. – DonielF Aug 05 '16 at 21:24

0 Answers0