A Mother’s Influence: Why Is Jewish Identity Matrilineal?

🖨 Print

Ever since matan Torah, the answer to the question of who is a Jew has been straightforward and unanimous: one who was born to a Jewish mother. There was no motivation, nor reason, to contest the status quo, and until the 20th century there is no record of such a challenge. The religious discourse that evolved from the Reform effort to broaden the definition, and its political implications for the Law of Return, remain a blight upon the collective Jewish identity and an awesome halachic pitfall. In this article, we’ll review the sources and proofs for matrilineal Jewishness as the only standard.

Halachic Consensus

The halachic literature on the subject is conclusive. The Mishna¹ indicates that while one’s category of Jewish identity is handed down from the father, such as with the status of kohen, levi, or yisrael, the question of Jewishness is determined by the mother. Shulchan Aruch rules that only someone born to a Jewish mother can be considered Jewish², and cites no discussion or alternative opinions.

Long before the law was ever recorded, we see in the book of Ezra that matrilineal descent was taken for granted as the halachic standard. While readying Yerushalayim and the local Jews for building the second Beit Hamikdash, Ezra discovered that Jewish men had taken wives from foreign nations. He gathered the Jews and admonished them, bringing the congregation to a state of teshuva. The pasuk states, “Now then, let us make a covenant with our God to expel all these women and those who have been born to them…” Clearly, the children of non-Jewish wives were considered a part of their mothers’ nations and needed to be expelled with them.

The Gemara’s scriptural source for this law is a fascinating subtlety.

You shall not intermarry with them; you shall not give your daughter to his son, and you shall not take his daughter for your son. For he will turn away your son from following Me, and they will worship the gods of others, and the wrath of G‑d will be kindled against you, and He will quickly destroy you.³

Who is “he” who will turn away your son? Rashi explains: “he” is your son-in-law, while “son” refers to your grandchildren. (In many places in Tanach, grandchildren are called sons.⁴) So the pasuk is concerned that he, your non-Jewish son-in-law, might turn his child away from you – which is a travesty because he is your son, i.e. a Jewish child. The same is not stated in reverse, because a child born to a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman is not Jewish and is not at risk of being “turned away”.

Before we were a people, naturally, peoplehood was differently defined. The fact that matrilineal descent didn’t apply before the giving of the Torah should offer no challenge to its current legal validity. For one, we were collectively chosen as Hashem’s people right there when we accepted the Torah; the question of how we got there from Avraham is not halachically relevant.

Other commentators understand the verse differently, but the conclusions are all the same. Rabbeinu Tam’s interpretation is that “he” is your son’s non-Jewish father-in-law, who will turn away your son from following Hashem because his children will not be Jewish.

This is also the analysis of the Rambam. He then sets down the law. “This is the general rule: The status of an offspring from a gentile man or from a gentile woman is the same as the status of his mother; we disregard the status of the father.”⁵

Another helpful pasuk we find is in Devarim 24:10. “The son of an Israelite woman went out – and he was the son of an Egyptian man – among the Bnei Yisrael…” Here we have an explicit case of a Jewish mother, non-Jewish father, and their son referred to as “among the Jewish people.”

It should be clear that if there isn’t robust discussion on the subject among the earlier or later commentators, it is because the principle of matrilineal descent was always taken for granted as the obvious determinant factor on Jewish identity. Indeed, in the remote case reported in the Yerushalmi where a certain Yakov allowed a child born to a non-Jewish mother to be circumcised, his opinion was absolutely rejected across the board and he was roundly penalized.⁶

Prior to Sinai

Before we were a people, naturally, peoplehood was differently defined. The fact that matrilineal descent didn’t apply before the giving of the Torah should offer no challenge to its current legal validity. For one, we were collectively chosen as Hashem’s people right there when we accepted the Torah⁷; the question of how we got there from Avraham is not halachically relevant.

Notably, Jewishness before matan Torah was not hereditary to begin with. One opted in or opted out based on their beliefs and lifestyle choices: Yaakov wanted part of the Divine covenent, Eisav did not. Yitzchak wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps, Yishmael chose not to. Our imahot are every bit Jewish founders as the avot are, even though they were not mother and daughter. Rivka left her father’s house to live by Avraham’s mandate, and effectively became part of the tribe this way.

Once we were chosen as a nation, there was a necessity to protect the spiritual identity of Judaism by containing it with a hereditary principle. Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch describes the importance of keeping Jewish lineage contained and strictly defined. “Not because of hate toward the other nations have we been commanded not to intermarry with them, only out of concern for the state of Judaism, the Jewish Torah and Jewish survival⁸...”

Finding Reason

The simplest reason for matrilineal descent is a practical matter. As Rabbi Immanuel Jacobovitz writes, “A child from a mixed marriage could not legally be a 50% Jew, growing up with a half commitment or a double faith. A choice must be made, and once made, it must be consistently applied in all cases, since no law can be arbitrary or subject to personal variations. Now, in making this choice, the certainty of maternity must be set against the doubt of paternity, however small this doubt may be. In such cases Jewish law invariably invokes the rule “a doubt can never over-rule a certainty”⁹.

Most people assume the connection between a mother and her child to be more primary than that between the father and his child. The mother is the first zone the child occupies from conception, and in which the fetus is taught all of Torah. She is the child’s sole influence as it evolves during those pivotal nine months. She is also, biologically speaking, the child’s anchor in this world through and after birth, providing sustenance and comfort until he is able to be self-sufficient.

The father, to be sure, has his own set of responsibilities. It is his duty to provide for his children¹⁰, to educate them in the right path¹¹, and to see that they learn a trade so they can earn a living¹². The father’s duty imposes, tweaks, models, and demands; the mother’s role is creating the very core.

In the morning berachot, men specifically thank Hashem for creating them not as women, but as men. Women don’t give thanks for being women; we say instead “Blessed are You…who has made me according to His will.” This is the feminine superpower: strong and comfortable in our identity, stable and confident in just being where He wants us to be. What we give our children is their fundamental identity, the gift of being. We define who they are; all else is secondary.

Women are the carriers of the Jewish gene. What an awesome responsibility we were entrusted with; gatekeepers of the faith in the most basic, literal sense. May we rise to the occasion with vision and valor and be zoche to raise our families with pride and love for our heritage.