*Shortly after the Yorkshireman’s death in 2006, a JC correspondent claimed that Trueman had admitted to him in 1993 that he had only recently discovered that his maternal grandmother was Jewish and that his mother, Ethel, had been put up for adoption. “Freddie said he was perfectly happy to be considered Jewish. ‘But don’t expect me to stop eating bacon sandwiches,’ he added.” *
Isaac? There’s really no other answer if you consider Abraham as the first. There was no radical reconfiguration of belief in the wake of the attempted sacrifice, just a reformation in ritual, and confirmation of Abraham as sort of a second (third?) Adam in the wake of the Sodom and Gomorrah purification.
Sarah’s thoughts on the whole “sacrifice Isaac” thing aren’t addressed in Genesis, as it proceeds straight to her death. The purchase of her burial plot from Ephron the Hittite did give Abraham’s descendants their first indisputable land rights in the promised land, though.
I might submit after all, that there were no Jews until the ratification of the covenant with Moses in Exodus 24:7. There were certainly Israelites, but wouldn’t Judaism have to start with the Covenant? I may not understand this as well as I think I do, so I hope someone will be along to set me straight if I’m wrong. Zev Steinhardt, I’d probably trust most to weigh in.
Well you accept without need for a specific cite that other than Reform the ruling is that legal Jewish is Matrilineal. There is nothing that says 50% Jewish or 98% Jewish. It is just Jewish. 100%. No additional cite needed. If the woman is Jewish by Jewish law because her mother was Jewish (by law) then the daughter’s daughter is Jewish and that girl’s daughter, also the daughter of a Jewish woman, is Jewish … no matter how they were raised or who the father was over how many generations. There is no dilution of the ruling possible over generations when each one counts as completely Jewish. Legally anyway (not Reform). The other path open being conversion of course.
How much that legal bit matters I don’t know. Practically it is another thing. Identity is much more than the official legal definition in the majority of the denominations.
A scholarly article or a ruling from some authority (does not matter which) would certainly be appreciated. Not that I disbelieve you or anyone else, but I suspect this might have come up or been an issue in a matter at some time?
kayaker, the op was not about what your friend would consider his identity but what Jewish law would say he is. By Jewish law (again excepting Reform tradition) that friend is an apostate and Jewish. It does not matter if he calls himself Baptist from that perspective.
Note the child of an apostate mother is a Jew. Period.
Does that suffice?
Traditional Jewish law views Gentiles as only obligated to follow the seven Noahide laws; apostates are Jews and viewed as obligated to follow the laws that Jews must follow beyond those seven. Thus they are sinners to traditional Jewish thinking even if they would be considered good people viewed as Gentiles.
If Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews take the same underlying material and interpret it differently, then it is not a “law.” It’s something else: call it a tradition. Even “laws” are not absolute. The Ten Commandments have multiple interpretations, down to something as seemingly absolute as “thou shalt not kill.” Obviously, this is true for all religions, or ask the 98% of Catholic women of child-bearing age who use contraceptives what a “law” is.
The fact that religions schism over interpretations of scripture is proof that "laws’ aren’t really “laws” but can be interpreted and enforced differently by every body of believers. Which is why “How many generations before someone ceases to be considered Jewish?” is an unanswerable question. And an unenforceable “law” is not really a law.
If she’s legitimate and decent, she’s not nearly naughty enough
Yeah, I know it’s just a stupid typo* - but I’m pretty sure you meant descent.
More to the point, if I understand what you’re asking, no, it doesn’t have to be legitimate descent; that’s pretty much the whole point of matrilineal descent! The fact that, come Hell or High Water, while we may have no idea Who’s Your Daddy, we do know for certain (or for as certain as humanly possible) who one’s mother is. So “legitimacy” is moot.
If I had a dollar for every typo I’ve made on the internet, I could quit the day job!
Serious answer. By the Orthodox rulings “legitimate” means is Jewish, which could be by an acceptable conversion or birth to a mother who is Jewish by law even if she is an apostate. She can be as naughty as she wants, unmarried, married and adulterous, she’s still Jewish, a sinning Jew. By Orthodox standards most of us American Jews are.
Expanso’s take is an odd one. Individual bodies can and do differ about interpretations of laws all the time. If I am within the Orthodox jurisdiction then their interpretations apply and my adopted daughter, converted at one year of life but not in an Orthodox ceremony, is not Jewish. If she wanted to marry an Orthodox man she would need to reconvert before an Orthodox Rabbi would consent to perform the ceremony and in a community of Orthodox Jews she, without that, would not be considered Jewish nor would their children. With that they would be. In Conservative and Reform jurisdictions she is 100% Jewish. Different jurisdictions having different interpretations of the laws and developing different case law from the same source material does not make them any less “laws.” And by a Conservative jurisdiction her child is 100% Jewish even if she marries a Catholic boy and he or she is raised Catholic, while if my son (born to two Jewish parents and Bar Mitzvahed) marries a secular Christian girl has a child and raises him or her with a Jewish identity then that child is only Jewish within a Reform congregation’s jurisdiction. He or she would need to be converted before a Bar or Bat Mitzvah or as an adult before getting the honor of opening the ark (containing the Torah) if they were in a Conservative or Orthodox congregation.
The enforcement may not mean much and may be variable depending what temple you attend but it does exist.
IMHO the correct thing to do when saying “this is incorrect,” is to then go on to correct the incorrect statement with whatever you believe is more correct. I’d say that strictly speaking cites are optional, but they are usually appreciated and they lend more impact to the correction. Just saying “this is incorrect” with no additional information tends to add little to the conversation other than a dash of antagonism.
The Law of Return defines who’s allowed to immigrate to Israel, not who is a Jew. For that Israel follows the law of matrilineal decent. This has major implications for familiy in Israel.
Reform and Orthodox Jews both agree as to what Halakah is. They disagree about it’s origins (whether it’s divine or human) and as to whether or not it has any authority for modern Jews.
