The myth of a “Race” in Judaism, Black Hebrew Israelitism and the the Land of Israel as central to Yahadut, not race…

“The naturalized [member of the Jewish nation] who naturalizes (הַגֵּר הַגָּר) with you shall be to you as the native-born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you lived as gerim in the land of Egypt. I am Ha’Shem Eloheikhem.” (Leviticus/Vayiqra 19.34)

The Torah speaks of the naturalized members of the Jewish nation (am) 24 times. As unorthodox an idea as it might sound, the reality is that everyone not raised as a Jew is in some way, what the Torah calls, a ger. One might think that in an attempt to ensure that the Jewish people would not grow haughty, the Torah tells us that “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is Mine; for you stand as gerim v’toshavim with me.” (Leviticus/Vayiqra 25.23) This passage, however, goes much deeper.

Why did the Torah say gerim v’toshavim and not even gerim tzadiqim, the term for “naturalized” proselytes? Because we read further that Joshua had to “Make flint knives and circumcise the Israelites again.” (Joshua 5.2) Why was this necessary? We read that “this is why he did so: All those who came out of Egypt – all the men of military age – had died in the desert on the way after leaving Egypt.” (Joshua 5.4) Thus, those new B’nei Yisrael were treated no differently than gerim toshavim at that point, until undergoing the same rites of gerut as any other member of any other nation wishing to become a Jew.

In other words, they had not kept the mitzvah of circumcision on the eight day, and since they had not been raised in Yahadut, they were viewed as gerim toshavim to Ha’Shem; they were viewed as what some today call “Noachides.” Thus, they had to undergo the same requirements as those not born from Jewish ancestors, before they could eat of the Pascal meal. Afterwards, we read that: “On the evening of the fourteenth day of the month, while camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, the Israelites celebrated the Passover.” (Joshua 5.10)

This hints at a related topic, addressed elsewhere, that the Children of Israel were called such because of their upright actions, just as Israel was (see Rabbi Shlom Yitzhaqi: His Life and Approach to Justice in the Torah). Thus, the Talmud teaches that Israel, even when it sins, is still Israel. Ultimately, however, Sanhedrin 44a tells us that Israel is the name of honor for a people faithful to Ha’Shem, ala: “And He said unto me: ‘You are My servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'” (Isaiah 49.3) Failure to hit the mark does not make one no longer part of Israel, but neither does failure change the mark that Israel, as a name, is reflective of. In the same way, we would not say that an iniquitous man is the son of Abraham, or else we would not read: “Whoever has compassion on all sentient beings is clearly of the seed of Abraham. Whoever does not have compassion on all beings clearly is not of the seed of Abraham.” (Betzah 32b) If this sounds like a bold claim, that is because the Talmud claims some bold things.

Beyond this, we read that the Kenites, the Gibeonites, the Cherethites, and the Pelethites were admitted to levels of Israelite privileges as gerim toshavim. We also hear of individual proselytes – gerim tzaddiqim – who rose to positions of prominence in the Kingdom of Israel, as of Doeg the Edomite, Uriah the Hittite, Araunah the Jebusite, Zelek the Ammonite, Ithmah and Ebedmelech the Ethiopians (1 Chronicles 22.2; 2 Chronicles 2.17-18).

Judaism Was Founded by Proselytes and the Children of Proselytes

Most will regard Abraham as the first Jew in history. But we see from the Torah that Abraham left with many companions in his company, as well as their families. The Torah tells us that Abraham not only circumcised himself and Ishmael when he received this commandment, but that he did the same to all men in his company. Rabbinic Judaism and Karaitism differ on which parent must be Jewish for the child to be regarded as Jewish. Rabbinically, the mother must be Jewish for the child to be. There are various reasons given for this; some cite Roman law, while the Talmud speaks of the influence of a woman over her husband. Karaites cite that throughout the Tanakh we see Jewish men marrying non-Jewish women. Both positions, however, seem to miss the point. There is absolutely no reason to imagine these woman as non-Jews, simply because they were from non-Jewish families. Instead, this tells us that it was quite normal for outsiders to make gerut and for the Hebrews, then Israelites, to marry freely with them.

The objections of Ezra-Nehemiah, in fact, dealt with women who refused to make gerut, not with those who did. The ancients held to the Lamarckian notion that parents pass on traits acquired during their own lifetimes. Thus, the “holy seed” was mingled with “peoples of the lands”, the amei ha’aratzot, plural of am ha’aretz. The phrase am ha’aretz was a euphemism that paralleled the Greek term “pagan” meaning “rural” – was not merely saying that the worship of the mother was literally creating a substandard child, but that the “seed” of the father was weakened by his wayward practice. We know this to be true, because otherwise all of the prophets who married women from other nations would have been denounced as well. None of the rabbis have ever taken the text of Ezra-Nehemiah to mean this, and none of them have thus responded to the problem that this text would raise if it was in fact criticizing genetic intermarriage. This not only tells us that the text is not saying such a thing, but it tells us that those women who married the ancient prophets in fact had become Jews themselves.

According to the Books of Chronicles, in the time of Solomon (c.971-931 BCE) there were 153,600 gerim in the land of Israel (1 Chronicles 22.2; 2 Chronicles 2.17-18). According to Ezekiel, when reinstated to Eretz Yisrael, the gerim would be allotted a portion of Land, along with the returning tribes. Rashi tells us that these would be those who made gerut during the Galut, the Exile (Ezekiel 47.22). We see that this is nothing new, as Caleb was allotted a portion of land amongst the tribe of Judah, while he was from the `erev ravwho left Egypt with the B’nei Yisrael.

It surprises many to discover that upwards of 10% of the Roman Empire had embraced Judaism as proselytes in the Second Temple Era. Proselyte (προσήλυτος) itself is just Greek for “Hebrew.” That is to say that it is the Greek equivalent for “one who crosses over”. `Obadyah was an Edomite who became a Jew and was a Prophet. Many of the Talmudic heavy weights were gerim themselves: Onkelos, Sh’mayah and Avtalyon who were both descendants of King Sancheriv of Assyria, even Rabbi Meir Baal Hanes was said to be descended from Nero of all people. Rabbi Akiva was either a proselyte or the child of parents who were (it is alternatively reported). He had twenty–four thousand students. What this tells us is that Rabbinic Judaism is literally the product of people who came to Judaism from non-Jewish backgrounds. There should there be no shame in this. This is a miracle of the Torah.

Onkelos, the famous commentator on the Torah who is still widely used today, was a Proselyte, a Greek Hebrew, who had “crossed over” to Yahadut. Judaism was born of proselytism and sustained by it as well. Norman Golb writes about the continuation of proselytism in Europe during the Middle Ages, in spite of threats of severe repercussions. In fact, it was only when such penalties came to bear upon the Jewish community that it became contrary to the norm to proselytize Judaism. What ramifications does this have for us in the Modern world, when there are – by and large – not such repercussions in most regions where Jews live?

Does this mean that we follow a custom that was contextual to circumstances we no longer find ourselves in, in spite of the fact that to do so is contrary to the historical practices of Judaism. Obviously this does not mean Jewish proselytism in the sense that the word is today used – imposing one’s beliefs and customs on others – but instead extending again the offer of the Covenant to the nations. We are told to be a “light unto the nations,” an aur l’goyyim (Isaiah 42.6). Thus, the Rambam says: “How do we fulfill the Mitza of loving Ha’Shem? By sharing hi with the rest of the word.”

What this matter should really compel us to do is reevaluate what it means to be Jewish and how notions of Jewish identity were molded by Christian persecutions, demands and imposed beliefs about us. We have come to believe that we are supposed to keep our ideas and practices to ourselves. Certainly there is no question that Judaism is not mandatory upon the nations. The Talmud teaches us that Ha’Shem offered the Torah to all of the nations first, and they rejected it. Knowing this would be the case, Ha’Shem then offered the Torah to the tribes in Egypt, who had descended from the ancient Hebrews, the Haberu or Apiru in Kemetic.

“Born Again” Jews

Now when the B’nei Yisrael accepted the Torah, we read they were like gerim! But not only that, the Torah tells us that in Egypt, we were indeed gerim. Thus, we read: “Do not oppress a proselyte (ger), for you have known the nefesh (soul) of the proselyte (ger) when you were proselytes (gerim) in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 23.9). The Zohar tells us that this denotes a mystical interaction between the souls of the Children of Israel and the gerim, an intimacy denoting sexual union (Zohar, Mishpatim, 98b-99a). The nefesh of the ger is likened therein to a clean slate, like a new born baby. Thus the Talmud teaches us that a proselyte is like one newly born (Yebamot 62). We see thus that the activity of various branches of Judaism, in the first century was not a matter of creating a new religion like Christianity, nor a new branch to be broken off, it was simply Yahadut, the praising of Yah. Accordingly we see the discussion of Jesus, a Jewish proselytizer who was little known in his day – less so than his brother James, who was engaged in the same proselytism – tell those who came to hear him that they “must be born again” to enter the Kingdom, a term for the Messianic Era.

In that same vein, there is a common scholastic belief that John the Baptist was an Essene missionizer. As you can see in another discussion on the Essenes and proselytism, this sect regarded gerim so much as full Jews that they – like Karaites later – did not even regard one who became a Jew as a ger, but simply as a Jew. This understanding can be seen in the story of Esther, where “many” of the Persian people “became Jews” (mityahad), with no mention of this term or designation of gerim. The Essenes, in fact, required all people to make a type of gerut to their community, whether raised in a Jewish family of another branch of Judaism or raised in another nation. To do justice to this topic, however, would take us away from the topic at hand.

We see in a critical encounter recorded by the Christian Testament, that John said if the native born Jews would not fulfill the mitzvot – apparently as his sect understood them – then Ha’Shem would “raise up from these stones Children of Abraham.” We see that in Hebrew the term for “stones” (אבנים) is derives from the term for “children” (בנים). Thus, it might be that the Christian authors misunderstood the word in translation, or it could simply be a pun of the sort that we find throughout the Torah. This Essene Jew was actually making a statement that if those raised in Judaism could not muster a commitment to the mitzvot, then Ha’Shem would raise up new Children of Abraham, from those hearkening to the message (as those who had gathered to hear John the Essene “baptizer” speak). One could imagine the deliberate ambiguity were someone to make a statement like this, and gesture towards the surrounding geography, covered in both rocks and potential “sons” of Abraham listening. The irony is that no one would deny that it is within the Power of Ha’Shem to raise up from the stones sons and daughters of Abraham, and yet this highlights just how inappropriate it would be to question the same with regards to proselytes.

Indeed, we see that this is the case throughout history; that the Jewish people have intermarried freely with those who were added to our numbers. We are all descendants of both those who came out of Egypt and gerim from the `erev rav (mixed multitude), and those who were added later. There is no shame in this for Jews who understand Judaism. Indeed, this is a miracle of the Torah.

The idea that how one LOOKS, skin color, nose shape, texture of hair, cheek-bones, etc. is born of WHITE EUROPEAN AND AMERICAN RACISM. The language being used by people who speak this way – whether “white” or “black”, the problem is the same – can be traced directly back to racist pseudo-science and eugenicist. Their ideas about a Jewish “race” come directly from Christianity, not from Judaism (as do any ideas of a Jewish “race”). Indeed, today in order to help refugees from Europe, the state of Israel adopted a policy of mirroring the Nazi definition for who is a Jew. If the Nazis defines you as a Jew, then you were a Jew, even if you had never seen yourself as one. Now in the period of the Yishuv this made sense, but in terms of how this idea has disseminated in all directions of Jewish thought – particularly amongst those who do not practice – the idea is reshaping Jewishness.

Are Africans the Only “Real” Jews? and the Land of Israel as central to Yahadut, not race…

Now today we might hear various people from Black Hebrew Israelitist groups speaking of how Black Jews should not regarding white Jews, Arab Jews and pretty much any Jews other than those as dark as them as “family.” This is contrary to the Torah and to Judaism. Even if, as they say, the only Jews in ancestry were Africans – a bizarre view, from a historian’s standpoint, since there are no sources that suggest this, let alone say it, and it is contradicted by over two millennia of historiographical data – being naturalized into a nation makes one a full member of that nation. If you adopt a child, do you say that this is not your child? Do you say “You are not my REAL kid?” Not unless you do not understand what it means to be a parent. Similarly, anyone who would say this to another Jew, white or black, does not understand what it means to be a Jew.

Finally, as this relates to the current contentions and debates raging over the nation which has identified itself as a “Jewish state”. We must not allow this conversation to be reduced to a discussion of ancestry. This is a ploy of those born of Jewish families who have no love for the Jewish tradition and faith. These are those who want to take the cultural elements emanating from a spiritual tradition and detach them from the source of their emanation. This is a new phenomenon in Judaism and Jewry and it is truly alien to the Torah.

Eretz Yisrael, and Jerusalem in particular, are central to Judaism in the same way that Mecca is central to Muslims all over the world. Now imagine if Hajj were a regular requirement for Muslims, or if any number of commandments could only effectively be carried out in the city of Mecca or at the Ka`bah. It would certainly be logical that many Muslims would want to live in Mecca. Indeed, almost 2 million people today live in the city of Mecca alone, compare this with approximately 750,000 in Jerusalem. Is this so strange?

The Torah tells us that Eretz Yisrael is a land for those who do “Justice, justice” in order that those who do justice, those doers of the Torah “shall inherit the land.” (Deuteronomy/Devarim 16.20) Throughout Jewish history, tradition and scriptures, we see an emphasis on doing not on any notion of race or skin color. It is time for those who profess love for the Torah to return to it, pay attention to it, and discard the surrounding societies’ baggage that has been improperly ascribed to it.