Is "Conversion" Biblical?
In this week's parashah we read in 24:10-14 a peculiar story:
10. The son of an Israelite woman went out, and he was [also] the son of an Egyptian man, among the Children of Israel, and they quarreled in the camp, the son of an Israelite woman [against] the son of an Israelite man.
11. The son of the Israelite woman pronounced "the Name" and blasphemed [it]. So they brought [the blasphemer] to Moses. The name of [the blasphemer's] mother was Shelomit, the daughter of Dibri, of the tribe of Dan.
12. They placed [the blasphemer] under guard [while they waited on Moses] to clarify for them [what was to be done] according to YHVH.
13. YHVH spoke to Moses, saying:
14. "Remove the blasphemer to the outside of the camp, and all those who heard shall lean their hands upon his head. The entire assembly shall stone him."
The story goes on, and they do pelt him with stone. The simple interpretation is that each person pelted with one stone. The Rabbinical interpretation is that they toss him from a cliff, and if he survived, they crush him with one giant stone!
The Rashi on the highlighted portion of verse 10, "among the Children of Israel", says "This teaches us that he converted."
The term he uses "התגיר" ("he converted"), is not Biblical Hebrew, and there is no such concept in Scripture. You won't find that verb anywhere in the Tanach.
Becoming a convert or proselyte was a later concept, one that the House of Hillel embraced, but the House of Shammai rejected (but would eventually be forced to accept). There are several fun legends about people wanting to convert, where one is rejected by Shammai, only to be accepted by Hillel.
Rashi's error on verse 10 is a common one that many commentators make, who assume that the way that Judaism operates in his time is the way that it has always been. The apologist overlays his or her view of Judaism upon the ancient text and then comments on that, not the actual text.
There are a couple of related verses in this week's parashah that go along with this.
In verse 22:11, we are told that the Priest, as the owner of a slave (while not used in that verse, an owner, lord, master, or husband all have the same term: ba'al) that the slave inherits a minor status upgrade, meaning, his position is based upon that of his master, and while not a Priest himself, he can eat the priestly food. If he is sold to a non-Priest, he does not retain that status.
That same verse tells us that this is also true for a woman. If she is the daughter of a Priest, her status is based on that of her father. But if she is acquired by her husband/owner who is not a priest, then her attributes changed and are based solely on those of her husband, and she cannot eat the priestly food.
However, as the next verse (22:13) tells us, if she is no longer owned, and has no master that defines her attributes, than her attributes default back to those of her father, and she can eat the priestly food.
It should be noted that a woman, as property, owns no property of her own except vicariously through her master/husband. She owns nothing, not even her word, for her vow can be cancelled by her male guardian. (The trick that Moses did with the daughters of Zelophehad doesn't actually contradict this, but requires a post of its own, and I'll do that when we get to that story).
As we saw in the Book of Genesis, you would have someone acquiring a woman, but there was no mention of any conversion. The sons of Jacob took women from Canaan, and their offspring, by virtue of the status of the men, became part of that genetic family. Even Judah, who had sex one time with his widowed daughter-in law, who had twins by her, his non-wife, the twins were considered to be part of the same Israeli race, even though the woman was a Canaanite.
And the Canaanite women that Judah's brothers married, or the Egyptian woman whom Joseph married, they were were considered part of the family. It was their inheritance as being the property of the men, and the offspring, sired by these men, were part of the Israeli race.
Coming soon will be the holiday of Shavuot, where the Book of Ruth is read.
The common fable told is that she was a convert, even though it doesn't say that anywhere in the book (I'll write about that further when that holiday comes). She had a Jewish husband, and so she was Jewish, since that was her inheritance. Because she was childless, her dead husband's brother was required to perform chalitzah (a severing of the obligation to marry her which utilizes a show and a bit of spittle. This is only done between a Jewish man and a JEWISH woman!) The act of chalitzah dismisses any claim that she was a convert.
The idea that she was a convert is just an overlay that has been applied to the legend.
In the Book of Ezra, he not only is unaware of the idea of converts, but he declares that Jewish men must cast away their gentile wives, and the offspring that came from them, defining being a Jew as a racial position - an extreme position that would be undone a few generations later.
What about the geyr?
The geyr (גר or sometimes spelled ger), is sometimes translated as "convert" or "proselyte" in Scripture in some verses, but not all, and by some translations, but not all. The translator who does this is attempting to impose a specific view - that being an Israelite was a group that could be joined.
There is something called a geyr toshav, or an outsider who dwells with the Jews. and sometimes this is abbreviated to simply geyr, an outsider. And in the verse, near the end of the parashah (24:16), when Moses tells the people that anyone who blasphemes his Elohim or the name of YHVH will be stoned to death, he adds that the citizen and the outsider (geyr) will both participate, and in 24:22, that the laws kept by the members of Israel are also to be kept by the geyr.
You see these distinctions so many times throughout scripture, that a geyr can dwell with Israel, but they are not Israel. And as we read about Solomon, he in order to proceed on his mad scheme to build a Temple, immense palaces, stables, and other structures, he forced all of the dwelling-geyr to become permanent slaves (once a non-Jew is made a slave, and since the Torah prohibits freeing gentile slaves, they are slaves forever).
Today, the term geyr refers to a convert. The meaning of the term as it is used today is not how Scripture uses it, and that's an important distinction.
After all, Judaism is no longer a race, but a religion, and without the converts, who knows if it would have survived at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment