9

Why is it so that if a Jew has a male child with a non-Jewish woman the child is not circumcised, even though, like Ishmail, the child is under Abrahamic (but not Mosaic) covenant, since the father is of "seed of Abraham"? (I assume Abrahamic covenant status follows the father, since it descends from Abraham to Ishmail and Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, from Jacob to all the other Jews and their offspring).

Also, such a child is not Jewish (not under the Mosaic covenant), but Genesis 15:18–21 promises all the descendants of Abraham specific land and to curse those, who curse them. This is different than for Bnei Noah where no such promises are made, so wouldn't that imply a sign of the covenant should be made for all the descendants of Isaac (Ishmail did not inherit the covenant:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, אֲבָל שָׂרָה אִשְׁתְּךָ יֹלֶדֶת לְךָ בֵּן, וְקָרָאתָ אֶת-שְׁמוֹ, יִצְחָק; וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי אִתּוֹ לִבְרִית עוֹלָם, לְזַרְעוֹ אַחֲרָיו
וּלְיִשְׁמָעֵאל, שְׁמַעְתִּיךָ--הִנֵּה בֵּרַכְתִּי אֹתוֹ וְהִפְרֵיתִי אֹתוֹ וְהִרְבֵּיתִי אֹתוֹ, בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד: שְׁנֵים-עָשָׂר נְשִׂיאִם יוֹלִיד, וּנְתַתִּיו לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל

)?

HodofHod
  • 21,056
  • 5
  • 91
  • 156
MichaelS
  • 851
  • 1
  • 6
  • 15
  • the child may be circumcised if the parents wish but is not given a brit milah -- a religious service which includes language pointing out an obligation as a jew – rosends Dec 11 '12 at 16:46
  • 1
    @Dan, thank you. I am curious if it is a sin not to circumcise a son in such a case, and if, like for Bnei Noah, there is a framework for those under Abrahamic but not Mosaic covenant in Judaism so they could follow the Torah as applied to them? – MichaelS Dec 11 '12 at 16:57
  • @MichaelS If your question is more general than just Brit Milah please [edit] that into the question. – Double AA Dec 11 '12 at 17:05
  • 1
    Gen. 21:12 establishes a special "official descendant" status for Isaac. (May flesh this out into an answer later if someone else doesn't.) – Isaac Moses Dec 11 '12 at 17:05
  • 1
    @IsaacMoses As does Gen. 28:4 to Jacob. – Double AA Dec 11 '12 at 17:15
  • So Ishmail is not the "official descendant" yet still we read "But also the son of the handmaid I will make into a nation, because he is your seed." [Gen 21:13]. So as the biological descent itself had a particular meaning. Furthermore if the father is Jewish, he is Isaac's descendant, and if the mother is not Jewish, like with Ishmael, would not it mean the covenant is in place, but the sons of Ishmael would not inherit it, since he was made illegitimate with regard to inheritance from Abraham, but himself still was circumcised and a father of a great nation? – MichaelS Dec 11 '12 at 17:17
  • So the father - halakhicaly Jewish - has the rightful descent from Abraham and his offspring too (because both Isaac and Ishmail became great nations and settled the promised land), but the offspring of illegitimate child (with non-Jewish woman) would not inherit the covenant binding their father, like the descendants of Ishmail did not inherit it because of [Gen. 21:12]. In this case, the child would be under the covenant nevertheless, but its offspring would not be. – MichaelS Dec 11 '12 at 17:24
  • So if I understand correctly, the thrust of this questions are as follows: (1) Is a non-Jew of Abrahamic descent required, by Jewish "law", to be circumcised? (2) Will the "nations" be reciprocally blessed/cursed by non-Jews of Abrahamic descent? Is that correct? Also, +1. This is fascinating! – Charles Koppelman Dec 11 '12 at 18:08
  • I thought the question was more along the lines of "Is there a preferred status of those of Abrahamic/Ishmaelic descent (as part of a specific Abrahamic covenant) distinct from both the Jews and of Noachides and are there any obligations or boons which come as a part of this status?" – rosends Dec 11 '12 at 18:14
  • I advocate splitting this into two questions. – Seth J Dec 11 '12 at 18:19
  • I intended the part about Genesis 15:18–21 to indicate that it must be a separate category, neither a Jew, nor a Gentile, so the question about circumcision arose, since we know a Jew has to circumcise and a Gentile not, but we do not know for this category. As far as I know there are Arab tribes who circumcise and claim descent from Ishmail as the reason. But what does the Jewish law say? It is about the offspring of a Jew, after all. – MichaelS Dec 11 '12 at 20:28
  • Are you asking about a child of an Ishmaelite mother? If so, are you assuming Abrahamic status follows the mother? If so, why assume it follows the mother, and why ask about the case that the father is Jewish? And if you're asking about a non-Ishmaelite mother, you're assuming Abrahamic status follows the father. Why so assume? – msh210 Dec 11 '12 at 22:56
  • But see Rambam Melachim 10:8 who says that there are some non-Jews required in circumcision. – b a Dec 12 '12 at 07:38
  • @msh210: Let's take the simpler case first and say the father is a Levite, so he surely descends from Abraham in paternal line. – MichaelS Dec 12 '12 at 15:02
  • @MichaelS I don't see how that addresses my questions. – msh210 Dec 12 '12 at 15:18
  • @msh210: OK, maybe I can be more precise. The child's mother is a gentile under the Noahide covenant. I assume Abrahamic status follows the father (since it descends from Abraham to Ishmail and Isaac, and from Isaac to Jacob, even when mother is not Jewish, like Hagar). I assume every Jew is bound by Abrahamic covenant. – MichaelS Dec 12 '12 at 15:33
  • @MichaelS I think I found your fallacy. Jews are not bound by Abrahamic covenant. We are bound by Mosaic covenant. – Double AA Dec 12 '12 at 17:19
  • ...for example: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/a/13609/759 – Double AA Dec 13 '12 at 04:34
  • @DoubleAA: but then, what does the obligation Rambam pointed to mean: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?rid=15011 ? – MichaelS Dec 13 '12 at 15:18
  • @MichaelS What's the problem? Are they Jews? Then why wouldn't they still be bound in Abrahamic covenant? – Double AA Dec 13 '12 at 15:20
  • Let's try to wrap it up: Rambam does not say all Isaac descendants to this day are bound by Abrahamic covenant, since Mosaic covenant replaced it. If there were descendants from Isaac who did not make it to the mount Sinai living today, they would be under Abrahamic covenant. Descendants of Ishmael are under Abrahamic covenant. This makes a child of a Jewish father and Gentile mother Bene Noah and for this category no circumcision is required. Is this correct? – MichaelS Dec 13 '12 at 15:27
  • @DoubleAA: If they are Jews they are under Mosaic covenant, which is transmitted in maternal line. I assume Abrahamic covenant is transmitted in paternal line (Abraham - Isaac and Ishmail - Jacob - ..., but I have no more information than the example given in Bereshit for how it descends through generations. If all those of 'seed of Abraham' are under it, then any route leading to him would mean being under the covenant). – MichaelS Dec 13 '12 at 15:35
  • @DoubleAA: So maybe you can turn your comment into an answer and then I will ask another question about the Rambam Melachim 10:8 and its meaning. I think it is very important to understand these issues as clearly as possible. It is very difficult for me to understand והואיל ונתערבו היום בני ישמעאל בבני קטורה יתחייבו הכל במילה בשמיני. ואין נהרגין עליה – MichaelS Dec 13 '12 at 15:45
  • I have known of parents giving their baby boy a bris at eight days old when the child's father is Jewish but the mother is not. – ezra Feb 19 '18 at 22:21

1 Answers1

1

Because the lineage goes through the mother...kind of.

The primary source is a Mishnah in Tractate Kiddushin:

מתני׳ כל מקום שיש קידושין ואין עבירה הולד הולך אחר הזכר ואיזה זו זו כהנת לויה וישראלית שנשאו לכהן לוי וישראל וכל מקום שיש קידושין ויש עבירה הולד הולך אחר הפגום ואיזה זו זו אלמנה לכהן גדול גרושה וחלוצה לכהן הדיוט ממזרת ונתינה לישראל בת ישראל לממזר ולנתין וכל מי שאין לה עליו קידושין אבל יש לה על אחרים קידושין הולד ממזר ואיזה זה זה הבא על אחת מכל העריות שבתורה וכל מי שאין לה לא עליו ולא על אחרים קידושין הולד כמותה ואיזה זה זה ולד שפחה ונכרית

The Mishnah discusses four types of unions:

  1. If the marriage is binding according to Jewish law, and there is no sin in the union, the child’s status follows the father. Therefore, if two ordinary Jews marry each other, the child takes the father’s status. Ex: if a Kohen marries the daughter of a Yisrael, the child is a Kohen.
    1. If the marriage is binding according to Jewish law, but there is a sin in the union, the child’s status follows the one whose status causes the sin. Ex: if a Mamzer marries an ordinary Jew, the child is a Mamzer, regardless of whether it’s the father or the mother who’s a Mamzer.
    2. If the marriage is not binding according to Jewish law, but it would be binding if each spouse married someone else, the child is a Mamzer. Ex: if a man married his sister, the child is a Mamzer, because each one can marry other ordinary Jews legally.

The one relevant to the question is the fourth category: where marriage is not binding according to Jewish law no matter which Jew one of the spouses marries. In such a case, the child’s status follows the mother, not the father. One example brought in the Mishnah is if a non-Jewish woman has a union a Jewish man.

As such, the child is fully Jewish if born from any of the first three types of unions, but he would potentially have a stigma on his lineage depending on the case. In the fourth type of union, though, the child is not Jewish since his mother isn’t Jewish. If he’s not Jewish, there’s no commandment to circumcise him!

DonielF
  • 34,262
  • 4
  • 40
  • 143