Matrilineal Descent and Ezra 9-10

    Until a few decades ago it was universally accepted in the Jewish world that the children of a Jewish mother were considered Jewish regardless of the religion of the father.  It was only starting in the 1950s that the Reform movement began to accept as Jews , children who had one Jewish parent.  Nevertheless the origins of matrilineal descent are somewhat obscure.  (Much of what I detail here is found in some essays and book chapters written by Prof. Shaye Cohen)

    The sources for understanding the origins of matrilineal descent are the Tanach, the Mishnah and the Gemara.  Looking through the entirety of Tanach one is hard put to find any evidence of matrilineal descent and for that matter conversion to Judaism.  There are a myriad of examples of Israelite men marrying gentile women.  Through marriage the women became part of the Israelite community.  Nowhere is a process for converting mentioned.  The first source suggesting conversion is in the book of Judith, an apocryphal book of the 1st or 2nd century BCE.

    Possibly, the only source in Tanach which may could be construed as indicating evidence for matrilineal descent during biblical times is in the last two chapters of the book of Ezra.  This episode relates that Ezra was informed that the people of the land, some of whom had come with the first "Aliyah" with Zerubavel had married foreign women.  This bothered Ezra greatly.  It would seem that for Ezra, conversion was not  a solution to the problem.  There is also an emphasis on the Cohanim and Leviim who have married foreign women.  The women they married include: Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.  Are we to believe that in post exilic times there were still Jebusites , Hittites and Perizzites?  It would appear that the author of Ezra is attempting to show that a Torah law was transgressed  by these marriages and hence the urgency to correct the problem.  But regarding the question of matrilineal descent, one Shecheniah says to Ezra that the women should be expelled with their children.  Ezra does not specifically endorse the expulsion of the children- only the mothers.  Does Shecheniah want to expel the children because their mothers were gentile and hence they were also gentile?  The whole episode lacks a certain consistency.

    It seems to me that we are not dealing here with strict halachik themes.  Rather the returning Babylonian exiles had undergone the punishment of exile and in a sense were "purified".  The magnitude of the intermarriage was so great in Ezra's eyes that it superseded any legal remedies such as conversion.  This might be similar to the episode in Leviticus 10 where Moshe is upset that the chattat sacrifice was not eaten.  Milgrom feels that because the death of Nadav and Avihu in the sanctuary precincts was such a serious breech of purity that the usual rules regarding a High Priest and mourning did not apply.  It was an ad hoc decision by Aaron , much as the decision of Ezra was an ad hoc decision.

 

What's in a name?

 

The answer to Shakespeare's famous question as answered in Romeo and Juliet seems to be : not much. But Judaism seems to place great value on names. For instance, the names of the holidays reflect may reflect values that are placed on them after the Biblical period.

The 2 holidays of Passover which are called “Pesach” (the evening of the 14^th of Nisan) and “Matzot” ( the seven day festval starting on the fifteenth) . Only in Devarim is the entire holiday called Pesach. But the name added in Rabbinic literature is Zman Cheruteinu- the time of our freedom. This new shade of significance emphasizes the historical aspect of God taking us out of Egypt rather than any possible agricultural roots of the holiday.

Shavuot is called the holiday of Katzir, Bikkurim or Shavuot- Harvest, First fruits or Weeks, respectively. These names reflect the agricultural aspect of the holiday ( Shavuot-Weeks indicates the seven weeks between the barley harvest and the wheat harvest ) . But just as well known is the name Zman matan Torateinu – the time of giving of the Torah. The Torah does not explicitly associate Shavuot with the giving of the Torah. The first such written source is in the book of Jubilees in the 2^nd century BCE. Certainly at this time and probably for some time before, the association of Shavuot and the giving of the Torah was accepted by everyone. The additional name of the holiday reflects this universally accepted theme.

Rosh HaShanah is in our day the New Year, even though it begins the seventh month of the year. In the Torah it is called zichron teruah – a memorial of blowing the horn or yom teruah - a day of blowing the horn. The holiday heralded the coming of Sukkot. The idea of Yom teruah becoming the New Year festival and day of judgment for the world probably dates to the years before the book of Jubilees, as there is a suggestion there of the day as a day of judgment. The calendar used by the Dead Sea sect and others such as the writers of Jubilees and Enoch had 4 “memorial days” . One each on the first day of the first, fourth,seventh and tenth month. It is not a coincidence that Rosh HaShanah retains that name.

Sukkot goes by two names in the Torah-Chag -Ha Asif (Harvest) and Sukkot. A verse in VaYikra states that God made the Israelites to dwell in Sukkot (huts). Asif shows the agricultural aspect. The name added by the Rabbis is Zman simchateinu- the time of our joy. The joy derives from the fact that only at this time, as opposed to Pesach and Shavuot, did the farmer have a few weeks off from farming duties. The holiday marked the end of the agricultural year. He could then, really celebrate. This made Sukkot the holiday par excellence.

The name Chanukah probably didn't stick until the 2^nd century of the common era. In the second book of Maccabees the original name of the holiday is “ the holiday of Sukkot in Kislev” . There are a few reasons for this which are beyond the scope of this article. The first century CE historian Josephus is unaware of the name Chanukah. He calls the holiday “Lights”. The 2^nd century beraitah in tractate Shabbat which asks Mai Chanukah ? ( What is Chanukah?) may not be asking a rhetorical question. The reason for the change of name to Chanukah may be because the Rabbis wanted to emphasize the restoration and dedication ( chanukat) of the Temple rather than the military victories of the Maccabees. Why the original name of the holiday was “lights” is unclear.

The name of the holiday of Purim was originally “The day of Mordechai”. Why the name changed to Purim and why the Megillah is named after Esther is also unclear. I could have been called the scroll of Mordechai or even the scroll of Ahasuerus, like the Chanukah scroll of Antiochus.

Names changes have other significance. When the Egyptians tried to exert power over Israel around 600 BCE, the Pharoah changed the name of Elyakim to Yehoyakim as a measure of his power over a potential vassal.

Taking on a new name had significance. A king upon coronation would take a throne name. In Judaism to this day, a sick person is sometimes given an extra name like Chaim, which means life, in order to help his recovery.

Stranger yet are the stories in Tanach of heavenly beings not giving up their name. Yaakov wrestles with the angel and then asks his name. The angel refuses to divulge it. Similarly Manoach, father of Samson, asks the visiting angel his name who also refuses to give it. The reason is probably that there was a belief that the knowledge of a secret name would give one power over it's owner. Consider also the name “game” that God plays with Moses in Exodus 3. Somewhat reminiscent also is the Rumpelstiltskin story.

Finally, God changes the names of the Patriarchs, Avraham, Sara and Yaakov. The reason is probably to be found in what has already been mentioned above.

In sum the answer to Shakespeare's question is that renaming something can give it a new look and new purpose.