Father is Jewish, mother is Russian. Jewishness is passed down through the father

Speaking generally about the problem of non-halachic Jews, I believe that it is wrong that the children of a Jew are not considered Jews here, if the child is the son of a Jew, he should be considered a Jew. Moreover, there are mixed marriages everywhere. And it is more correct in case of mixed marriages to consider the child a Jew, no matter from the father or mother.

In Russia, I really wanted my children to know and understand that they are Jews.

They were also recorded in the passport as Jews, they knew their history, national holidays, Jewish dishes. There, they were all considered Jews, because both their surname and patronymic and their appearance are Jewish.

And here everything is so unpredictable, it is difficult to understand who is a Jew and who is not a Jew. Here is Halacha, and if the mother or even the grandmother is Jewish, then the children are Jews, and if the father is Jewish, then the children are non-Jews, and this annoys me very much. I believe that children in the first generation from a Jewish father should also be considered Jews, because today there are so many second, third, fourth generations, no matter from whom: father or mother, and I believe that they can no longer be considered Jews. Paradox: if the grandmother is Jewish, and the rest are not Jews, then both grandchildren and great-grandchildren are considered Jews, but the children of a Jewish father are considered non-Jews.

When I was young - it was the 60s, in my circle it was desirable for a Jew to marry a Jewess. After many years, I learned that this has always existed, despite the revolution and all the difficulties of the 20th century. Because the inner state of mind suggested that the chosen one of the same nation would understand better and it would be better this way. And the environment also influenced, if you were surrounded by a Jewish environment, then it pushed you to the idea that you need to marry a Jewess. Of my large group of Jewish friends, 30% married Jewish women, so this is not so much, but they are still together, for more than 50 years, and those who married Russians almost all divorced. And the generation of my children, so there were even fewer of those who married Jews. But it was in Siberia, maybe in other regions, there were more Jewish couples. My mother always wanted me to marry a Jewish woman. She told me all the time about someone, but she never specifically introduced me. I had a Jewish girlfriend, but we did not succeed. I was from a very poor family, and many girls preferred to look for richer suitors. Then I met my future wife, she was Russian. My mother did not dissuade me, my wife learned how to cook Jewish dishes and adopted the traditions that we had in the family.

I did not even suspect that in Israel they treat the children of Jewish fathers so negatively. When I arrived here, at first I did not understand what was happening, and then I felt very sorry that my children, who grew up in a Jewish environment and considered themselves Jews, and here it turned out that my daughter had nothing to do with Jews.

Conversion - maybe I wanted my daughter to convert, but only because of her children. And here the situation is even more absurd, because many Jewish girls by father marry halakhic Jews, and their children are 7/8 Jews by blood, here they are also considered non-Jews.

Israel is ruled by the religious. The fact that there are many baptized Jews among the Russian-speaking halachic Jews is so religious turn a blind eye to this, because people do not shout about it, otherwise half of the Russian-speaking aliyah could not be allowed here. But there are formally non-halachic Jews, and all the bumps are pouring on them.

I am Jewish, my wife is not. Who is our son?

Rabbi V. Belinsky answers your questions.

Dear Rabbi Belinsky!
I am Jewish myself, and my wife is non-Jewish. This does not bother me at all, because I sincerely believe that nationality does not determine anything - the main thing is to be a good person. And for me, a better person than my wife does not exist in the world!
But suddenly we are faced with a problem that angers me and worries me to the point of pain in my heart! The fact is that when we wanted to do a Bar Mitzvah for my son, the synagogue refused to hold the ceremony. They said that since my wife is non-Jewish, our son is also non-Jewish, and therefore Bar Mitzvah is out of the question. Does Judaism still believe that the nationality of a child's mother is its main characteristic?
Paul R. Owings Mills, MD

Answer: Pavel, you touched on a very sore subject. I understand your indignation. However, unfortunately I cannot help you. According to Jewish tradition, Jewishness should be transmitted only through the maternal line - this is written in the Torah itself.

Once the Lubavitcher Rebbe was asked why the nationality is transmitted to the child from the mother? He replied: “Can the Almighty be so cruel as to take away her child from the mother, after she carried him, gave birth in pain and suckled him?” Everyone understands (even from a purely biological point of view) that a woman plays a predominant role in the birth of a new life. However, most of the cultures of the world are based on male dominance, and according to their tradition, a woman was considered the property of a man, and the children born to her belonged exclusively to their father. The fact that today many traditions still believe that nationality is transmitted through the male line is an echo of dark antiquity.

Judaism, from time immemorial, has honored a woman in all her guises, especially a woman-mother. Therefore, in the Jewish tradition, nationality is given to the child on the maternal side. However, there are situations in which the realization of this can be very painful for us men. And, regrettably, the problem you are writing about concerns very many people. In the Soviet Union, some did not even know that Jewishness depends on the mother, and now their soul hurts because their children cannot be considered Jews.

But, on the other hand, if we approach the issue from a purely logical point of view, then there should be no place for indignation and chagrin. If, as you sincerely believe, a person's nationality does not determine anything, then why are you "painfully in your heart" worried that your son cannot be a Jew? Does nationality mean anything? If "the main thing is that he be a good person," then you can raise your son to be a good person without a Bar Mitzvah. Why then do you need this ceremony?

"Good" and "bad" is a very important, but far from the only scale by which people are characterized. Judaism has never claimed that Jewish women are the best wives and Jewish men are the best husbands. Judaism has never claimed that Jews are more moral people. It is possible that you will find situations in which the opposite is true.

The Torah believes in the uniqueness of each person and each group of people. And therefore the religion given to the Jews is prescribed only to them. The Torah believes that a person cannot forget about his roots and origin.

However, Judaism never closes its doors to those who want to enter - anyone can convert to Jewry. To do this, you need to get acquainted with the Jewish tradition, want to live according to the laws of the Torah and go through conversion - the formal acceptance of Jewry. After that, the person is one hundred percent Jewish. But conversion is a serious and long process. It is quite possible that when your son grows up, he will want to do this, and then he will be, like you, a Jew.

Having been brought up in the spirit of Soviet leveling, it is hard for us to believe that we Jews are somehow different from other peoples. However, this can be seen by studying world history. You can verify this by looking around you. You can see this when you see a Jewish father who claims that nationality does not determine anything, but whose soul hurts because his son is a non-Jew.

According to the Talmud, Jewishness is passed down through the mother. However, this contradicts the Torah (Bible). In the Torah, the Jews are called the sons of Israel. By the name of the forefather of the Jewish people of Israel (previously his name was Jacob). If Jewishness is passed on through the mother, then why is the people not once in the Torah called the sons of Rachel, or Leah (Leah) (both wives of Israel)?

It is not possible to count ALL peoples by their father, but only Jews by their mother. It turns out a "conflict" of nationalities and religions in one person. Especially if the pope, for example, is a Christian. According to the father, the child is Russian Orthodox, and according to the mother, the child is Jewish. Some are right from their point of view, others from theirs. A child is baptized according to the father, circumcised according to the mother. According to the father, Jesus Christ is God, and according to the mother, Yoshka is a bastard and the son of a harlot. On Saturday with my mother in the Shema Yisrael synagogue, and on Sunday - in the church, she bows to the icons. And who is he after that? Abram Nikolaevich Necheporenko? The porridge is obtained.

In the Bible, and in Judaism, it is called to follow the faith of the fathers, not the mothers. So what about the son of a Russian and a Jewess? Both in Orthodoxy and in Judaism they are called to follow the faith of the fathers, but according to the Talmud it is necessary to follow the faith of the mothers? After all, this is absurd.

Or vice versa. Mom is a Karaite, dad is a Jew. Jews do not recognize a child as a Jew, and Karaites do not recognize a Karaite. How to be a child? Who is he - Karavrey Evraim? It is highly doubtful that the Jewish God would allow such a thing.

If both parties do not determine the status of these children according to the same criterion, then a conflict will arise that will be resolved in favor of the strongest of them. If the legitimacy of marriage was recognized by non-Jewish authorities, then it was they who had the decisive vote in determining the ownership of children from these marriages. No children of Jewish fathers and mothers felt any Jewish soul. Until they were reminded "very tactfully" by Hitler equally.

Until the 19th century mixed marriages were almost always accompanied by baptism. In the 19th century in many countries mixed marriages were already allowed without the obligatory preliminary baptism of Jewish brides and grooms, but the children of both Jewish fathers and Jewish mothers from these marriages were baptized in almost 100% of cases.

Of course, in a dispute between father and mother, the father wins - the head of the family by definition, because we live in a patriarchal society. The most famous and typical example of this is the decision of the US Court. When a daughter was born to a Jewish Klein and his non-Jewish wife, her father insisted on raising her as a Jew. But the Klein family broke up, the daughter began to live with her mother, and the child's mother now wanted her daughter to be brought up both as a Jew and as a Christian. As a result, the girl was on the verge of a nervous breakdown, not knowing how to behave. The father went to court demanding that the girl stay with him and be brought up as a Jewess. The court proceeded from the equality of the rights of the father and mother to convey their faith to the child, however, guided by the rule "the interests of the child come first", satisfied Klein's claim. The faith of the father "won".

Many historians and authorities in non-Orthodox Judaism argue that Jewishness was originally passed down through the father. The rule "by mother" was finally established after the Khmelnytsky region, when many women gave birth after rape. Until the 16th century, there is no scientific evidence to support this new rule. This is stated, for example, in the full Hebrew version of the History of the Jewish People, edited by prof. Etinger. It is used as a textbook in Israeli universities. Not the one in Russian two-volume from the "Aliya" Library, but four-volume. There is no stated fact or precedent in the entire Talmud that a certain Jew is Jewish because his mother is Jewish. (for a discussion of this point, see ).

Jews explain the transition to Jewishness through the mother by the obvious and accessible establishment of motherhood and the difficulty of obtaining convincing evidence of paternity.

But why did only Jews switch to motherhood? Other peoples also faced such a problem but did not abandon paternity.

This artificial principle of facilitating the determination of nationality corresponds to the saying "They are not looking for where they lost, but where it is light and easier to search." That is, objective criteria are replaced by subjective and moral and ethical ones.

But in our days, Jewish women voluntarily combine with non-Christians, including atheists. Even if both parents are Jews, and the child is an atheist, then he is not actually a Jew. And earlier, Jews expelled atheists from the community and treated them as dead, as well as converted to another faith. For example, this happened to one of the founders of modern atheism, the outstanding philosopher Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza. He was severely beaten by the orthodox and excommunicated for his atheism. Even though his parents are Jewish.

However, all the wives of the patriarchs were non-Jewish. Pharaoh himself gave Joseph as his wife "Asnat, daughter of Potifer, the priest of On." At the same time, both of their sons from a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father became Jews and even ancestors of the tribes of Israel! Both of Moses' wives were non-Jewish.

2 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a thornbush

6 And he said: I am God father your

9 And behold, a cry sons of Israel has come to me...

10 Now go, and I will send you to Paro; and bring out my people, sons Israelites, from Egypt.

13 And Moses said to God, Behold, I will come to sons Israel, and I will say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you." And they will say to me: "What is His name?" What should I tell them?

15 And God said to Moses, Say so sons Israelites: Lord, God fathers yours, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob sent me to you.

16 Go, gather the elders of Israel and say to them: The Lord God fathers yours, appeared to me. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying: I remembered you and (saw) what is happening to you in Egypt.

17 And he said: I will bring you out from under the yoke of Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, the Heites, the Emorites, the Pyrizeans, the Khivvites and the Jebusites, in a land flowing with milk and honey. (Shemot (Exodus) 3)

1 When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and you possess it, and you dwell in it;…

5 say: father mine was a wandering Aramean, and went to Egypt and settled there with a few people, and there sprang from him a great, strong, and numerous people;

7 And we cried out to the Lord God fathers ours;

15 look down from your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless your people Israel, and the land that you gave us, just as you swore fathers our [give us] a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deuteronomy 26)

What do we see? Moses mentions only his father, not his mother, and mentions that all the people came from their father, not from their mother. God is called the "God of the fathers", not of the mothers. God calls the Jews the sons of the fathers. The female gender is not mentioned at all. Only men.

Consider the biblical example of the son of a Jewess and a non-Jew. Leviticus (24:10-22):

and went out son of an Israelite and (aka) son of an Egyptian on Wednesday sons of Israel and quarreled in this camp son of an Israeli woman with an Israeli (in the Hebrew text literally "with the son of Israel" ).

And the son of the Israelite insulted the Name, and cursed ... and God said: “Bring the one who curses outside the camp, and the whole society will stone him. And say this to the children of Israel: everyone who curses his God will bear his sin. will be betrayed, the whole society will throw stones at him: both a ger (alien), and resident of the country (ezrah), whoever curses the name will be put to death. You will have one law for a stranger and for a resident of the country".

The "son of an Israelite and an Egyptian" is NOT called a "son of Israel"! But in contrast to this son of a Jewess all other Israelites are called children of Israel in the same passage! It is contrasted with the milieu of the "sons of Israel" ("Bnei Yisrael" in the original Hebrew). Not "sons of Israel", but "sons of Israel". “Son of Israel” is a synonym for the word “Jew”, for Israel is the spiritual and physical forefather of all Jews. Israel refers to the entire nation, and "son of Israel" refers to each individual Jew, the son of the nation. It is symbolic that it was the son of a pagan father who became a blasphemer. Maternal Jewish roots did not affect him in any way.

Even more interesting is the interpretation of this moment by the most authoritative sage Rashi in Orthodox Judaism:

"and the son of the Israelite and the son of the Egyptian went out into among the children of Israel",

"among the children of Israel"

Rashi:"Teaches that he became a proselyte ( joined to the people of Israel)[Sifra]"

Rashi emphasizes that the son of an Israeli woman became a proselyte, that is, he converted to Judaism from paganism. Accordingly, from the birth of an Israeli woman, he was not a Jew, as is now customary in Judaism, but only once joined the people of Israel!!!

Thus, none other than the great Rashi himself admits that Jewishness was not transmitted through the mother before. Moreover, Rashi himself was not the first to notice this. He refers to "Sifra" (in Aramaic סִפְרָא, corresponding to the Hebrew sefer, "book") - a halachic midrash on the book of Leviticus - a collection of Tannai baraits.

Thus, Rashi scored an own goal. To refute the fundamental postulates of Judaism, better than any Christians, the Jews themselves manage, and even the most revered in Judaism.

The period of Jewish statehood also provides many examples of mixed marriages, including the mixed marriages of David, Solomon, and Ahab.

During this period, from the Bible, I know only one Jewish woman who married a non-Jew - this is Queen Esther. And it is hard to believe that the children of this Jewish mother and the father of the KING OF THE GENTIANS, who himself was probably considered a deity, became Jews.

The key passage in the Bible, from which the Jews begin discussions about the inheritance of Jewishness through the mother and the prohibition to be related to other peoples, is the 7th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy (according to the Christian tradition, Deuteronomy).

Here is how the modern Jewish venerable Rav Eliyahu Essas does it:

In the Written Torah, in the fifth book - Dvarim it is said, what cannot be created family with non-Jews:

"Do not enter into family relations with them. Do not marry your daughter to his (non-Jewish) son. And do not take his daughter for your son" (ch. 7, v. 3). http://www.evrey.com/sitep/askrabbi1/q.php?q=answer/q66.htm

So, Rav Essas is talking about non-Jews in general and not about some ancient peoples. Now let's see what the Torah says:

A sane reader-truth seeker will immediately think, "Who is "with them" with?" With Russians or Chinese? And he realizes it's bullshit. Therefore, he will open the text of the Torah and see to whom the pronoun “with them” corresponds.

This is calculated on the fact that people trust the sages and do not check the quotes. But it is not so much the wise men who are to blame, but the gullible readers and listeners themselves. If a person wants to know the truth, then he will check the quote, but if he wants to hear what he wants to hear, because he is a Jew, then this is his problem.

As Christ said, “they are the blind leaders of the blind; but if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into the pit” (Matthew 15:14).

Here is an example of how Leya Livshits, a graduate of a Jewish school, "fell" into the same "pit". (pictured right). Her the request article is called"Please marry a Jewess!" :

Leya Livshits
The Torah expressly forbids marriage with members of other nations. This prohibition is one of the 613 commandments, and can be traced historically from the moment of the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai more than 3,000 years ago. The source of the prohibition is in the verse: “And do not be related to them:You shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter to your son” (Deuteronomy 7:3)

As you can see, Leia snatched out a fragment of a quote from the Torah, leaving the main thing behind the scenes - the prohibition not to be related not with all non-Jews, but only with 7 peoples who inhabited the promised land.

And the reader mistakenly thinks that we are talking about all peoples. Thus lies become "great wisdom given orally from Sinai." Once again I will emphasize for the inattentive reader. In the Bible, Jehovah personally speaks of only 7 nations. Jehovah does not speak of all nations. There is no such thing in the text of the Bible (Torah).

And the Jews do not quote the words of Jehovah only about the 7 peoples, but start quoting after these words and instead of the words of Jehovah about the 7 peoples listed by name, they substitute their own words about ALL peoples. And if the reader does not check, like me, the text of the Torah, then he will never know that Jehovah does not speak about all, but only about 7 separate peoples.

Pay attention - after the article by Leya Livshits, a certain Andrey commented that she was deceiving, hiding that it was forbidden not to be related to all, but only to some peoples.

To which a certain Miriam replied:

You can only judge the context by reading Hebrew.In the Torah, every letter, every vowel, every common root has a meaning.So you can not draw conclusions from the Russian translation

But the same thing is written in Hebrew. Leya Livshits, proving the Jewish point of view, refers to the Russian translation - this is correct, but if she is objected to on the basis of the same translation made by the Jews, What are you! How can you object to a graduate of a Jewish school!

In some Christian editions of the Bible, before each chapter, a summary of the chapter is written, and before this chapter it is correctly indicated "the prohibition to be related to the 7 peoples who inhabited the promised land." But how often Jews criticize Christians for pulling quotes out of context. As the Christian Christ said, "They see a speck in another's eye, but they don't notice a club in their own."

Rabbi mathematician and popularizer of Judaism, Pinchas Polonsky, manipulates the transmission of Jewishness through the mother in the Bible as follows:

The first story in the Torah that describes the process of marriage is the story of how Abraham was looking for a wife for his son Yitzhak. And this is the instruction Abraham gives to his servant:

"I conjure you that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters Canaanites among which I live. But you will go to my land and to my kindred, and from it you will take a wife for my son Isaac" (Genesis 24:3)

Hocus pocus. I twist and turn, I want to confuse. In which thimble is the ball? The Canaanites are one of those 7 peoples with whom it is forbidden for Jews to be related. But, Polonsky cites this example as proof that Jewishness is transmitted precisely through the mother - they say the mother of future grandchildren was sought among Abraham's relatives - the Jews. But, Polonsky ignores the fact that Abraham emphasizes " you will not take a wife for my son from among your daughters Canaanites among which I live ".

Abraham simply had no other choice - only 2 options. Either his relatives or the Canaanites. There is no third. Not to Japan to send a slave for his wife. And nearby are only the Canaanites forbidden by God, "among whom I live."

This is due to the particularly disgusting moral traditions in these peoples - human sacrifice, homosexuality, witchcraft rituals and other abominations.

The erroneous explanation of the transmission of Jewishness through the mother is most clearly explained by Rav Michael Koritz (he is most often referred to when discussing this topic):

The basis of this law is taken from the following Torah verses:

"And DO NOT BE RELATED TO THEM: DO NOT GIVE YOUR DAUGHTERS FOR HIS SON, AND DO NOT TAKE HIS DAUGHTERS FOR YOUR SON. HE WILL GET YOU SOON" (Dvarim, 7, 3 - 4)

Rashi gives the following commentary on this verse: “If the son of a pagan takes your daughter as his wife, he will turn your son (i.e. grandson), whom your daughter will bear him, (from following) Me. This teaches us that your son daughter of a Gentile is called "your son", but the son of your son from a Gentile is not called "your son", but "her son"; for in connection with "do not take his daughter" it is not said "for she will turn your son away from following me "(Talmud, tractate Yevamot 23a)

In other words: there are two prohibitions in verse 3 when the non-Jewish side is male or female. In verse 4, only one case is given, and the action "turn away" is used in the masculine gender. This causes the sages to explain that it is a question of a non-Jew, and the son mentioned further is not a son, but a grandson. The use of the word son in relation to more distant descendants is often found in the Torah. Thus, the daughter's son will be a grandson, but the son's son, if he married a non-Jew, will not. Seems too complicated? But careful analysis of the text inevitably leads us to such conclusions. However, one should not forget that the written text was always accompanied by an oral tradition containing its exact understanding.

"- BECAUSE IT WILL TURN YOUR SON FROM [FOLLOWING] ME - the son of a non-Jew, when he marries your daughter, will turn away your son, whom your daughter will bear him, from [following] me. [Thus] we learned that the son of your daughter by a non-Jew is called "your son", but the son of your son by a non-Jew is not called "your son", but [is called] "her son""

On the contrary, in the example of the son of an Israelite and an Egyptian from Leviticus (24:10-22), the son of a Jewess is not called the son of Israel! and the son of an Egyptian! By father! Everything is exactly the opposite of what the sages say!

And in general, the sages say a completely unreasonable thing. If someone is called the son of a Jew or Jewess, this does not mean that this son is necessarily a Jew. He is simply his (her) son. For perfectly normal physiological reasons. Isn't the son of a Jewess and a Russian now a son of a Russian? But even if we proceed from the logic of the sages, then the son of a Jewess is not called the son of Israel, but the son of an Egyptian - after his father! While other Jews are called sons of Israel.

But even if we agree with the opinion of the sages that we are talking about the son of a Jewess, then God does not mention the son of a Jew, because he does not worry. Why should He worry, because he made a Covenant with his father, which he must pass on to his son:

these are the commandments, ordinances, and laws that G-d commanded you to be taught, that you should do them in the land into which you are going, in order to possess it, so that you fear G-d and keep all His ordinances and His commandments, - you and your son and your son's son ". (Deuteronomy 6:1,2)

May these words that I command you today be on your heart. And repeat them to yours sons(Deuteronomy 6:6,7).

When your son Then tell your son(Deuteronomy 6:20,21).

(In Hebrew, "you" is in the male form (in Russian there is no difference), "SAY" - THE SAME - GOD SPEAKS ONLY TO MEN AND SPEAKS ONLY ABOUT SONS).

The only thing that is said unequivocally and undoubtedly is that it is the SON that will turn away, and not the daughter. God is not at all interested in the disgust of a daughter - a descendant of a mixed marriage. It follows that God recognizes that the father, not the mother, has an influence on the self-identification of children from a mixed marriage. And accordingly, future children from the son of a mixed marriage will follow in the footsteps of their father and not their mother. And if the son of a mixed marriage turns away from God, then so will his descendants.

Rav Michael Koritz continues to argue:

for in connection with "do not take his daughter" it is not said "for she will turn your son away from following me" (Talmud, tractate Yevamot 23a)

The mistake of the sages is that they write "the son of your son from a non-Jewish [called] "her son"", but he is not called "her son" anywhere in this passage of the Torah. The sages were mistaken. And then they explain why he is supposedly called "her son." called "her son", but he is not named as such. It's like proving 2X2 = 5 because in connection with "2X2" it is not said that "2X2 is not 5".

Torah commentators continue to argue:

In other words: there are two prohibitions in verse 3 when the non-Jewish side is male or female. In verse 4, only one case is given, and the action "turn away" is used in the masculine gender. This causes the sages to explain that it is a non-Jew, and the son mentioned next is not a son, but grandson.

Please note that the verb "repel" is without the pronoun "he". And according to the context, the impersonal form “it will turn away” and not “he will turn away” is suitable. Since the previous 3rd verse ends "and do not take his daughters for your son" and therefore in the following sentence the verb can either refer to her or to no one in particular, but to the entire previous verse. But, since the verb is in the masculine form, the second option remains.

In an impersonal form, neither masculine nor feminine, through "this" is translated in the most authoritative Russian-speaking Jewish Soncino's translation, and in another Jewish translated by David Yosefon -- also in the impersonal plural form "For turn away your son from me". Therefore, it does not make sense to make all the reasoning based on the premise "he will turn away."

But it is precisely from this premise that the sages conclude that we are talking about the son of a Jewess, whose pagan husband "he will turn away."

But even if "he" turns away, then who is he? For some reason, the sages believe that "he" is precisely the husband of a Jewess. But after all, in the 3rd verse, a certain "he" already appeared, for whose children Jewish children should not be given: " And do not be related to them: do not give your daughter for his son, and do not take his daughter for your son. For he will turn away..."- we see from the third verse that "he" is just any non-Jewish people. That's all! Just like "you" - the one to whom God addresses - this is the Jewish people. That is, "he will turn away" - the pagan people will not turn away the grandson, but the Jewish husband of a non-Jewish woman from 7 nations.It's very simple.

Furthermore. The Hebrew word for "your son", "benha" can be translated not only as "son", but also as "child" of either sex. By analogy with the Russian language.

I remind you that this is a fragment from the book "Dvarim", where the laws set forth earlier in the book "Shemot" are repeated. Even if we follow the logic of traditional interpreters, and consider that we are talking about a grandson, then we will pay attention to the corresponding verse of Shemot (34:16):

ולקחת מבנתיו, לבניך; וזנו בנתיו, אחרי אלהיהן, והזנו את-בניך, אחרי אלהיהן

And you will take from his daughters for your sons, and his daughters will corrupt, following their gods, and they will corrupt your sons by their gods.

Here, it is precisely the children of non-Jewish women (and the “grandchildren” of the Jews) that are NOT called “her sons”, as the sages erroneously claimed in their interpretation of Dvarim (7:4), but "your" (Jewish) sons who are corrupted by "their daughters." The father is Jewish, and the mother is non-Jewish, “their daughter”, and their son is a Jewish father, “your son”.

And what is said in both passages unambiguously is that SON turn away, not the daughter. This corresponds to my version that it is the son of the "bearer" of Jewry. Not only kind. Because here Moses is speaking to all the people of Israel, and not to any tribe.

All his descendants came to Egypt with Jacob -

3 And He said: I am God, God father yours; do not be afraid to go down to Egypt, for I will make you a great people there.

5 And Jacob got up from Beirsheba, and they carried sons Israel's Jacob, father his own, and his little ones, and his wives...

7His sons and his sons' sons what is with him, daughters their and daughters sons his own, and he brought all his kind with him into Egypt (Genesis 46)

Note! The sons of daughters are not mentioned among the Jews, but the sons of sons and the daughters of sons are mentioned. Again, because Jewishness from daughters is not passed on to granddaughters or grandchildren. Only from sons!

Only his grandchildren and granddaughters remained with Yakov male lines (sons and daughters of his sons). The female lines did not remain among the Jewish descendants of Jacob. Only his unmarried daughters came to Egypt with Jacob, otherwise their husbands and children would have been among those who entered. Whom they married in Egypt and what is the fate of them and their children, whether they remained in the tribes of Israel - the Torah is silent. The children of those who remained became the sons of Israel, and the children of the departed became Egyptians. In the Torah, everything is only in the male line, but the Almighty does not reject the Jews in the female line with the only condition that the non-Jewish father does not turn away the son of a Jewess (Dvarim 7: 4), in other words, if the son of a Jewess wishes to be a Jew and feels like a Jew, also like a Russian - a Russian, a Chinese - a Chinese, etc.

And in favor of Jewishness through the mother, separation from non-Jewish wives and "their" children is given in the book of Ezra. Let's read what is written there. Ezra (9:1):

the rulers came up to me and said, The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the foreign nations WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, from the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites,

Firstly, the people of Israel, the priests and Levites are reproached not so much for taking pagan wives, but for not separating themselves from their abominations (pagan traditions and foreign gods). Secondly, we are talking only about these above-mentioned peoples, and NOT about any peoples! But why are these nations listed here? Because God not forbids Jews to marry from ALL peoples, namely only those listed above, that is, those peoples who lived in the promised land!

These are the peoples with whom you cannot be related, listed in the book of Deuteronomy (7: 1): “When the Lord your God brings you into the land where you are going to possess it, and drives out many nations from before your face: The Hittites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Perzeans, and the Khivites, and the Yebusites, seven nations. . . do not be related to them.” Almost all of these peoples are listed in the book of Ezra, which the sages do not quote at all. Another 2 nations that are on this list of Ezra were included in the list of "forbidden peoples" in Dvarim (23:3) - these are the Ammonites and Moabites. And another people - the Egyptians. These cannot be related by definition. That's why they left Egypt.

And with the rest of the peoples, be related as much as you want. Take them as wives without any conversion to health. Devarim (21:10–14):

When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers (everyone) into your hand, and you take a prisoner from him, and you see a beautiful-looking woman among the captives, and you desire her, and you want to take her to your wife, then bring her into your house... and she will be your wife. If it happens that you do not want her, then let her go wherever she wants, but do not sell her for silver, do not turn her into a slave, for you forced her.

“For you forced her” says that no conversion was even close. Giyur is a voluntary act.

In the book of Ezra in the same chapter 9, Ezra himself explains on the basis of which he separated the wives from precisely these peoples, mentioning that these are precisely the peoples who lived in the territory of the promised land, about which Moses spoke earlier:

1 The people of Israel and the priests and Levites did not separate from the foreign nations WITH THEIR ABOMINATIONS, from the Canaanites, Hittites, Perizzites, Jebusites, Ammonites, Moabites, Egyptians and Amorites... 10 we have departed from your commandments, 11 which you commanded ... saying: the land you are going to in order to take possession of it, the land is unclean, it is defiled by the uncleanness of foreign peoples, their abominations, with which they filled it from edge to edge in their defilements. Therefore, do not pass off your daughters as sons them , and daughters them do not take for your sons 14 shall we again break your commandments and enter into kinship with THESE disgusting peoples?

Ezra lists the nations and emphasizes what he says ONLY ABOUT THESE disgusting peoples, about which Moshe spoke 1000 years before him, and not about all! No need to pull the phrase out of context!

But even more interesting is Ezra (10:3):

וְעַתָּה נִכְרָת-בְּרִית לֵאלֹהֵינוּ לְהוֹצִיא כָל-נָשִׁים וְהַנּוֹלָד מֵהֶם
Let us now make a covenant with our God let go of all wives and born by them

Note that the pronoun מֵהֶם – “from them, by them” stands in male plural gender. That is, you need to let go of non-Jewish women and children born from them (from men). (This is a common expression in the biblical text when a man "begotten" a child: "Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob." etc.).

What kind of men are we talking about, children born from whom should be released?

So by "them" are meant foreign men. So again, children from non-Jewish husbands are not considered Jews.

It may also refer to the children of pagan women from their previous marriages with pagan men. But this is unlikely and does not change the essence of the matter - in any case, nowhere is it said to release children born of Jewish fathers. So the children of the fathers of the Jews are Jews. For Jews are not expelled from Jewish society.

There are some exceptions in the Hebrew Bible when plural feminine words are used with a masculine pronoun. At Kuraev's forum, Rav Michael Yedvabny objected to me: "I still believe that the meaning of the verse is 100% transparent." But the problem is that the meaning is transparent only in translation into Russian, in which there is no difference between the masculine and feminine in the plural, but in Hebrew there is. Yes, there are individual exceptions, but building a Jewish theory on the fact that in this case, too, is an exception to the rule is not serious.

So far, by working together, we have been able to find one exception - Ecclesiastes 2:10

"Whatever my eyes asked (eynai - a feminine word), I did not refuse them (me-hem)."

So who does Ezra separate from his people? Non-Jewish mothers and children from non-Jewish fathers (and, accordingly, Jewish mothers).

If children from non-Jewish fathers were considered non-Jews, then they would be released. And it was non-Jewish women and children from Jewish mothers (respectively, non-Jewish fathers) that were released.

From this it is concluded that nationality is determined by the father.

The book of Ezra ends with another interesting expression. Ezra (10:44):

כל-אלה, נשאי (נשאו) נשים נכריות; ויש מהם נשים, וישימו בנים

All of them (took) foreign wives, and among them (took) foreign women, and put sons.

Please note that these foreign wives DID NOT HAVE BIRTH!!! sons, but "put". And put in the masculine plural. This is a literal translation. The meaning is “planted” or possibly “thrown”, “brought”. But the main thing is that these women did not give birth to children for Jews. A completely different verb is used in this case. That is, these children are not from the fathers of the Jews. Perhaps the Jews took wives with children from previous marriages, or took women pregnant from non-Jews as wives.

For comparison - when in the 3rd verse of this chapter it was said about the children born of the Gentiles, the verb "gave birth" was used. In short, it turns out that foreign women gave birth to children from the Gentiles and “planted” them to the Jews. It was precisely these women and their children that Ezra ordered to be released - "born" from non-Jews and "planted" to the Jews. And about the expulsion of children born by Jewish fathers - not a word. So the children of Jewish fathers are Jews, and the children of non-Jewish fathers are non-Jews, and they had nothing to do among the Jews. Therefore, they were released along with their mothers.

With the expression “veyasimu banim,” the Tanakh mocks those men who have taken other people’s wives, saying: וישימו – added, imposed, otherwise they would have said: יולדו (yolidu) – “begotten”. Ezra does not recognize the legitimacy of such a birth.

Moreover, again Ezra worries that the pagans "lay" sons, and not children in general or daughters. Again, because non-Jewish descendants will come from non-Jewish sons. And Ezra does not care about putting daughters in, because they do not affect the Jewishness of the descendants.

Genesis 46th chapter:

8. Here are the names sons of Israel who came to Egypt, Jacob and his sons. Jacob's firstborn Reuven.

9. Reuven's sons Hanoch, Palu, Hezron and Karmi. 10. Shimon's sons Hemel, Yamin, Oad, Yachin, Tzohar and the son of the Canaanite Shaul

So, Saul is the son of a Canaanite woman. The man Yaakov Shaul is the grandson. But he is also called "the son of Israel" - that is, a Jew, although his only father, Shimon, is a Jew. Jewish father!

But who is this Canaanite mother?

Soncino's comment:

the "son of the Knaanite" Luzzatto explains that she was Dinah's daughter. She is here called a Canaanite because Shechem was her father.

This is an absolutely amazing comment.

Let me remind you that Shechem is a Canaanite. The one who slept with Jacob's daughter Dina and because of which Shimon and Levi then struck down the entire male population of the city.

So. Attention! From a Jewish mother Dinah and a non-Jewish man Shechem was born ... a Canaanite, that is, a non-Jewish woman!

Mother is Jewish, daughter is not! Because the nationality of the father is transmitted. What I said at the very beginning - it cannot be that for all peoples belonging to the people was determined by the father, and for the Jews by the mother. She is called "Canaanite" by whom? God Himself in the Torah! It was written by the hand of Moses! Canaanism was passed down from the father, not the mother. Although this is contrary to Halakha. The mother is Jewish, but the Jewish daughter is not named Jewish!

Shaul is Jewish by father. Why is he Jewish - because he is listed among all 33 " souls of the sons and daughters of Israel” in verse 15 of this chapter.

See what an interesting story this is. Shaul's mother is non-Jewish, and her son's father is Jewish. And Dinah, the mother of Shaul's mother, is Jewish, but her daughter is not Jewish, but a Canaanite. The Jewishness of Dinah's daughter was not transmitted through the mother, but the Jewishness was transmitted from the father (Shimon) to Shaul, although his mother is a Canaanite!

Let's bear the irons. Briefly. The error of the sages in the definition of Jewry:

1. In the commentary on Deuteronomy 7:4, the error is that no son of a non-Jewish woman is called “her son”!!! This is stated in the commentary of the sages, but it is not in the Torah. They were wrong.

2. But, even if he had been named, this would not mean that he was not the son of the Jewish people. There is no logic. Ishmael, for example, is called the son of Abraham - but this does not make him a Jew. (If a mule is the son of a mare, then this does not mean that he is not the son of a donkey. All hares have big ears. But this does not mean that everyone with big ears is hares). In order not to recognize the son of a Gentile as the son of the Jewish people, it is necessary that the son be called "not the son of the Jewish people." And everything else is speculation.

3. In the book of Ezra, the Jews did not separate themselves from all non-Jewish wives, but from wives only from those nations that are forbidden in the book of Deuteronomy (7:1) and (23:3) and, as it was predicted, they seduced their husbands and children with ABOMINATIONS them.

4. In the book of Ezra, they separated not from children born by Gentiles from Jewish fathers, but from children from non-Jewish fathers. The pronoun "them" is masculine. Therefore, Ezra released the women and not their children, as it may seem from a foreign translation, but children from the fathers of non-Jews

5. Other nations can be taken as wives without conversion "for you forced her" (Deut. 21:10-14)

I have compiled a table ordering the list of nations with which Jews are forbidden to be related according to the books of Deuteronomy and Ezra.

Sons of Canaan Gen (10:15-18)	forbidden peoples, Deut (7:1, 23:3)	forbidden peoples, Ezra (9:1)
	Hittites	Hittites
Jebusiah	Jebusites	Jebusites
Amorites	Amorites	Amorites
Gergesei	Gergesei
Evey	jevea	Moabites
		Egyptians

There is no complete clarity, but it is obvious that these peoples are the descendants of Canaan. Of the 7 descendants, the names of five are included in the names of the five peoples in both lists. Why the names of the other two sons do not coincide with the names of the other forbidden peoples is not yet clear. There are only assumptions. Most likely, because the names of peoples do not always come from the forefather. A people may be called by the name of the locality in which it settled, or by the name of the deity whom it began to worship. Plus, in those days there were double names. Jacob, for example, became Israel. Jews could be called Jews and Israelis, and even "eshurun", which, presumably, comes from the word "yashar" (straight) (In the Tanakh in Hebrew it is used 4 times: Devarim 32:15; 33:5,26; Yeshayahu 44, 2 ).

Note that in both lists of prohibited peoples appear "Canaanites", the name comes from the name of Canaan. Which does not look logical, since the lists already contain peoples descended from the sons of Canaan, who, anyway, are automatically Canaanites. Perhaps these are the descendants of Arkay or Sinei, who remembered or glorified their grandfather more than their father. The father, perhaps, died early or simply stepped aside from raising children, and their grandfather took over their upbringing.

There is another hypothesis. It is possible, and even very likely, that Canaan also had daughters, but the Bible does not mention them. And the descendants from the daughters are named after the grandfather. According to the theory of probability, 7 daughters should be born for 7 sons, but they are not mentioned. In general, in the Bible, for some reason, daughters are rarely mentioned among the descendants. It cannot be that girls are born much less often than boys. It's just that their importance is insignificant to mention them. And it started with Adam and Eve. The names of the sons are given, Abel, Cain and Seth, while the daughters are not mentioned at all until the fifth chapter. With whom, then, did the sons of Adam give offspring?

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and going out told his two brothers.

Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laying it on their shoulders, they went backwards and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned back, and they did not see the nakedness of their father.

Noah woke up from his wine and found out what he did to him his younger son and said: Cursed Canaan(Gen. 9:21-25)

As it is not difficult to see, Ham seems to be guilty, and his son Canaan is cursed. What is the connection? Moreover, this is the main opinion of different religions that it was Ham who did something bad.

To understand this passage, one must decide whether Canaan was cursed for his own transgression or for the transgression of his father, as it may seem at first glance.

If Ham is to blame, it is only that he brought information about his father's nakedness to the brothers and did not do what they did when they covered the sleeping Noah with clothes. Ham is not seen in anything else. If a son was cursed for a father, why only one, when there are three more besides Canaan.

The sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Fut and Canaan. (Gen. 10:6)

Could it be that Canaan was the elder and those three had not yet been born when it all happened? On the contrary, he is the youngest. Although the reverse order of listing genealogical chains is found in the Bible, here it is chronological, starting with the oldest. Because this is how the genealogy was set from the very beginning: “Here is the genealogy of the sons of Noah: Shem, Ham and Japheth ... Shem, the elder brother of Japheth, also had children.” The answer to the question - why is Canaan cursed? - is in the next verse: "Noah ... knew what his younger son had done to him, and said: Cursed is Canaan."

In the actions of Ham, the father of Canaan, during the entire incident with Noah, nothing is visible that falls under the description of "did OVER him." Moreover, it is said that less the son of Noah, and Ham is the middle one.

Then who is this son of Noah, if not Ham and Japheth? This is Canaan himself. Grandson. He is called the lesser son of Noah.

This conclusion has a serious justification: any direct descendant of a biblical character could be called his son. Zacchaeus is called the son of Abraham, although he is far from being a son. Jesus is called the son of David, although it is more correct to say great-great-great-great-great-grandson. In this sense, the grandson is called the lesser son.

But if Canaan suffered for his own sin, then what is his sin? It is said that Noah knew what his younger son had done to him. Canaan TAKE ACTION, not just watch the forbidden, like his father.

Without deciphering the transgression itself, the Bible nonetheless points out its severe consequences, thereby making it clear that Canaan had to do something out of the ordinary. And such an act could be a sexual act on a naked sleeping grandfather. What does the phrase "over it" correspond to?

“And the limits of the Canaanites were towards Sodom, Gomorrah” (Gen. 10). Sodom and Gomorrah will become the borders of the borders of the land of Canaan. Entire cities of homosexuals! Here is the result!

Alexander Dov
(Medvedenko) On February 13, 2013, an important event took place in the State of Israel. The State of Israel has a public radio. State radio broadcasts 24 hours a day with several interruptions in Russian. Once a week on Wednesdays from 17:00 to 18:00 there is a Hyde Park broadcast, which Russian-speaking people call and say whatever they want, and Alexander Dov, a civil servant, broadcasts. Periodically there are discussions, including on the question of whom to consider a Jew. Alexander Dov decided to look into this topic himself, and, at the beginning of the next program, as an opening speech, expressed his position after a thorough objective study of the issue, rummaging through the Internet. And the result of his research completely coincided with mine. He especially liked Rashi's comment, where Rashi himself admits this.

Horrible. Rabbis and their students receive maintenance from the state budget and are exempted from military service for studying the Torah, but they make mistakes and sin there, and because of them, not Jews (by father) but non-Jews (by mother) are considered Jews. Accordingly, non-Jews, who are considered Jews, came to the State of Israel, created for Jews. And many Jews cannot repatriate because they are considered non-Jews.

Jewishness is actually passed down through the father 2016-12-11 11:23 15559

It is not possible to count ALL peoples by their father, but only Jews by their mother. It turns out a "conflict" of nationalities and religions in one person. Especially if the pope, for example, is a Christian. According to the father, the child is Russian Orthodox, and according to the mother, the child is Jewish. Some are right from their point of view, others from theirs. A child is baptized according to the father, circumcised according to the mother. According to the pope, Jesus Christ is God, and according to the mother, Yoshka is a bastard and the son of a harlot. On Saturday with my mother in the Shema Yisrael synagogue, and on Sunday - in the church, she bows to the icons. And who is he after that? Abram Nikolaevich Necheporenko? The porridge is obtained.

Jews explain the transition to Jewishness through the mother by the obvious and accessible establishment of motherhood and the difficulty of obtaining convincing evidence of paternity.

But why did only Jews switch to motherhood? Other peoples also faced such a problem but did not abandon paternity.

But in our days, Jewish women voluntarily combine with non-Christians, including atheists. Even if both parents are Jews, and the child is an atheist, then he is not actually a Jew. And earlier, Jews expelled atheists from the community and treated them as dead, as well as converted to another faith. For example, this happened to one of the founders of modern atheism - the outstanding philosopher Benedict (Baruch) Spinoza. He was severely beaten by the orthodox and excommunicated for his atheism. Even though his parents are Jewish.

2 And an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a thornbush
6 And he said: I am the God of your father
9 And behold, the cry of the children of Israel came to me...
10 Now go, and I will send you to Paro; and bring my people, the children of Israel, out of Egypt.
13 And Moses said to God, Behold, I will come to the children of Israel and say to them, "The God of your fathers has sent me to you." And they will say to me: "What is His name?" What should I tell them?
15 And God also said to Moses, Say thus to the children of Israel: The Lord, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.
16 Go, gather the elders of Israel and say to them, The Lord God of your fathers has appeared to me. The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying: I remembered you and (saw) what is happening to you in Egypt.
17 And he said: I will bring you out from under the yoke of Egypt into the land of the Canaanites, the Heites, the Emorites, the Pyrizeans, the Khivvites and the Jebusites, in a land flowing with milk and honey. (Shemot (Exodus) 3)

1 When you come into the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, and you possess it, and you dwell in it;…
5 Say: My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down to Egypt and settled there with a few people, and there sprang from him a great nation, strong and numerous;
7 And we cried out to the Lord God of our fathers;
15 look down from your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless your people Israel and the land that you gave us - as you swore to our fathers [to give us] a land flowing with milk and honey. (Deuteronomy 26)

What do we see? Moses mentions only his father, not his mother, and mentions that all the people came from their father, not from their mother. God is called the "God of the fathers", not of the mothers. God calls the Jews the sons of the fathers. The female gender is not mentioned at all. Only men.

Consider the biblical example of the son of a Jewess and a non-Jew. Leviticus (24:10-22):

and the son of an Israelite and (he is) the son of an Egyptian went out into the midst of the children of Israel, and in the camp this son of an Israelite quarreled with an Israelite (in the Hebrew text literally "with the son of Israel").

And the son of the Israelite insulted the Name, and cursed ... and God said: “Bring the one who curses outside the camp, and the whole society will stone him. And say this to the children of Israel: everyone who curses his God will bear his sin. will be betrayed, the whole society will throw stones at him: both the ger (stranger) and the inhabitant of the country (ezrah), cursing the name, will be put to death. You will have one law for the stranger and for the inhabitant of the country.

The "son of an Israelite and an Egyptian" is NOT called a "son of Israel"! But in contrast to this son of a Jewess, all other Israelites are called sons of Israel in the same passage! It is contrasted with the milieu of the "sons of Israel" ("Bnei Yisrael" in the original Hebrew). Not "sons of Israel", but "sons of Israel". “Son of Israel” is a synonym for the word “Jew”, for Israel is the spiritual and physical forefather of all Jews. Israel refers to the entire nation, and "son of Israel" refers to each individual Jew, the son of the nation. It is symbolic that it was the son of a pagan father who became a blasphemer. Maternal Jewish roots did not affect him in any way.

Even more interesting is the interpretation of this moment by the most authoritative sage Rashi in Orthodox Judaism:

"and the son of an Israelite and (he is) the son of an Egyptian went out into the midst of the children of Israel,"

"among the children of Israel"

Thus, Rashi scored an own goal. To refute the fundamental postulates of Judaism, better than any Christians, the Jews themselves manage, and even the most revered in Judaism.

The period of Jewish statehood also provides many examples of mixed marriages, including the mixed marriages of David, Solomon, and Ahab.

By mother, not by father. One such people is the people of Moses. Residents give many reasons why the Jews pass on their nationality through the mother. The article will consider the most popular versions.

How is the nationality of a child determined?

Before considering the above question, it is worth learning about how a person's nationality is determined. Nationality is the conditional belonging of a person to a certain ethnic group, whose representatives speak the same language, have a common history and culture, and observe the same traditions. How is Jewish nationality determined - by father or mother?

Logically, a child from birth belongs to the nationality to which his parents belong. If they are representatives of different nationalities, then the nationality is determined in accordance with the traditions. For example, in Russia, if the father, for example, is Jewish, then the child will be Russian in Russia and a Jew in Israel.

Why do Jews define nationality by their mother, and Russians by their father? In many nations, a man is the successor of the family, and the wife and child adopt the traditions and customs by which he and his family live. And since representatives of the same people observe the same customs, it is natural that the child takes over the father's nationality. There is another explanation: thanks to a man, a new life is born, and it is quite logical that his child is a representative of the same nation with him.

There is another way to determine nationality - physiological, according to which a person's belonging to any ethnic group is determined by appearance - the type and color of hair, skin, eye shape and physique. But this method will not work if the person's parents are representatives of not one, but several nations. But in this case, he has the right, having become capable, to choose the nationality to which he refers himself, or even become a representative of several ethnic groups, a multinational.

But there are times when a child does not know his parents. Then he belongs to the ethnic group in whose territory he lives and whose traditions he observes.

It is also worth noting that the issue of nationality in European countries is less important than in Russia and Israel, where it means citizenship. So how is the nationality of the Jews determined? Consider below the most popular versions.

biological

The first answer to the question of why the Jews determine nationality by mother is that, according to the representatives of this people, the body and soul of the child are formed in the womb. Therefore, a woman who is not Jewish from birth cannot give her child a Jewish soul.

sociological

Similar to the previous version is the one according to which it is believed that the main feature of the Jewish people is its culture. And since the mother is more involved in the upbringing of the child than other members of the family, then his nationality is transmitted through the mother.

religious

According to the Halacha, a set of laws based on the Torah, the Talmud and other rabbinical literature, a Jew cannot marry a woman of another nationality. This is explained by the fact that for a long time it is the mother who influences the formation of the personality of the child, and therefore a non-Jewish woman will not be able to raise a true representative of the people who observes all traditions and customs. Therefore, marriage with a foreigner was not only condemned in society, but was also considered a crime before God. But it is worth noting that if a woman accepted Judaism and complied with all its requirements, she and her children were recognized as Jews.

Demographic

Another answer to the question "Why is the nationality of the Jews determined by the mother?" sounds like this: Jews, like other peoples, took part in wars and, as a result, many men remained on the battlefield. In order for the nation not to disappear from the face of the Earth, the Jews decided to consider the children of Jewish women from representatives of other nations as their compatriots.

Political

This version is similar to the previous one, but the reason was the wars with the Romans. During the conflict, many Jewish women were captured by the Romans and were their concubines. In order for children born from the union of Romans and Jews to be considered representatives of the Jewish people, a law was passed according to which the nationality of the child was determined by the mother.

Legal

Another answer to the question "Why is the nationality of the Jews determined by the mother?" - this is a legal version, according to which, the law adopted by the rabbis is a reflection of the law from Roman law. According to it, if a marriage was not concluded between the spouses, then the child inherited the nationality of the mother, and not the father.

Alternative

The ancient Jews treated women of other tribes with distrust and apprehension, as they believed that even if a child was born in marriage, one cannot be completely sure that he is yours, since there is always a minimal risk that a woman can change. And in motherhood, on the contrary, there is no doubt. Therefore, those who are interested in why Jews determine nationality by mother should also know about this version.

How to become a Jew?

If suddenly a person discovered that among his relatives there are representatives of the Jewish people, and he wanted to become one of them, then he must go through a special rite - conversion, which includes four stages:

a conscious and sincere desire to become a faithful Jew and keep the commandments sent by the Almighty - mitzvot;
be tested for sincerity and knowledge of the Torah by a rabbi;
be circumcised if it is a man;
immerse yourself in a mikvah - a special pool of water, which is filled according to religious requirements.

If a person has passed all these stages, then he becomes a Jew.