At the end of our portion, we read a story about a man described as the son of an Israelite woman and Egyptian man. This half-Israelite man gets into a fight with an Israelite and blasphemes the holy name of God. The community detains him so they can inquire of God what to do. The penalty for this infraction is death. God clarifies to Moses that this punishment applies to native and stranger alike, and there will be only one law regardless of the individual’s ethnic background (Lev. 24:10-23).

The word stranger is just one possible translation of the Hebrew word ger. In later periods, this is the word the rabbis used for converts to Judaism, and it is still used in this way. My conversion certificate, for example, refers to me as a ger. But it can also simply mean foreigner, immigrant, or resident alien, which are probably closer to what the Torah intends. The Torah differentiates between the native-born Israelites and everyone else in Israelite society with this word. What is interesting in this passage is the implication that the son of the Israelite woman is not considered an Israelite himself, something that clearly goes against the idea of matrilineal descent that Judaism has held for at least the last two thousand years. In other words, the Torah is saying that a man with a Jewish mother was not Jewish! He was a ger: a foreigner, a stranger.

Verse 22 says, “There shall be one law for you, it shall be for ger and native alike, for I am Hashem your God.” While the context of this law is not ideal, the egalitarian and inclusive sentiment behind it is praiseworthy. All members of the community are equal under the law because we are united by our covenant with God rather than our ancestry. And this is not the only time we see this sentiment. In last week’s parsha we read, “When the ger dwells among you in your land, do not taunt him. The ger […] shall be like a native among you, and you shall love him like yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. I am Hashem your God” (Lev. 19:33-34). The Torah is clear, gerim must be treated as equals to native born Israelites, and the son of an Israelite woman was considered a ger rather than an Israelite.

I believe this understanding of the half-Israelite’s identity is very pertinent for the Jewish community today. More Jews marry gentiles than ever before, which of course often leads to children. Unlike our biblical story, today the children of Jewish women are considered Jewish, and the identity of the father is irrelevant. Which leaves a large population of children with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers who aren’t considered Jewish. Nor are they automatically considered gerim, since this term has primarily taken on the connotation of a convert. Some do convert, or are “converted” shortly after birth, but not all. But this isn’t always the case for patrilineal Jews who are often simply seen as not Jewish. This bars them from having a bar mitzvah or Jewish wedding, receiving aliyot, the honor of leading prayer, and membership in some synagogues.

No one knows exactly where the matrilineal principle of identity came from, but the earliest, unambiguous evidence we have comes from the Talmud in tractate Kiddushin 68b. The rabbis found evidence for matrilineality in Deuteronomy 7:3-4, which deals with the prohibition on intermarriage with Canaanites when the Israelites were settling the land. In my opinion, the reasoning behind it is convoluted, and it’s a very strained reading that relies on a number of assumptions that must be inserted into the text. The book of Ezra (chapter 10) offers much stronger evidence of matrilineality, but even here, the thrust seems to be primarily against intermarriage rather than determining the Jewish identity of children.

Meanwhile, there is ample evidence of the Torah’s assumption of patrilineal descent such as the passage we just read, the fact that tribal affiliation was determined by the father, and that the priesthood was passed from father to son; not to mention the many lists of genealogies in the Tanakh that only trace father to son. We also have the evidence that Moses’s children were clearly considered Israelites even though the two wives of his we know of were gentiles. In an odd story in Exodus, Tziporah saves Moses’s life by circumcising their son, and of course, circumcision is one of only two signs of the covenant with God. (The other is Shabbat.) Similarly, Joseph married an Egyptian, and his sons Ephraim and Menashe became the fathers of half-tribes in Israel, received a blessing from their grandfather Jacob, and are the names parents invoke when blessing their sons at Shabbat dinner.

Obviously, Judaism is more than just the written Torah, and appeals to my own understanding of this text aren’t going to make much difference in the halakhic structure Judaism has taken. But I believe that this is something that should change, and it is something that could change. We have ample historical and theological precedent for respecting both matrilineal and patrilineal descent, and accepting both sits better with our moral commitments to inclusion and gender egalitarianism.  

We are a tiny people that faces a lot of animosity, as events since October 7^th have shown. Does it really make sense to continue differentiating between children based on which parent happens to be Jewish when they will face hatred for being Jewish from antisemites regardless of halakha? Do we want to be a community that puts up barriers to participation and membership, or do we want to include as many people as we can? Do we want Judaism to be based on an accident of birth, or do we prefer a Jewish community based on covenant and living a Jewish life?

You may be saying at this point that conversion for an infant isn’t onerous, and you are correct. You could also point out that both the Reform and Reconstructionist Movements recognize patrilineal descent, and so these families have options to be involved in the Jewish community. That is also true. But I don’t think this is something that should be based on denominational affiliation, nor do I think we should require a pro-forma “conversion” by dunking a child in a mikveh. The mikveh isn’t magical; it’s just water. What really imparts a Jewish identity to a child isn’t water; it’s living a Jewish life in a Jewish community.

Even though we divide ourselves up by denomination, we are in reality one people and one community. The Torah requires a common law for native born and resident foreigner alike. Arguably, the non-Jewish women married to Jewish men, raising Jewish children qualify as metaphorical “resident foreigners”, even if they choose not to convert to Judaism. The passage in the Talmud I referenced earlier states that the mother’s “offspring are like her.” Ergo, the child of a resident alien receives the same identity, i.e. the child would also be a ger. The son of the Israelite woman was automatically considered a ger under the principle of patrilineal descent, so maybe we should consider the children of Jewish men to be gerim under the same principle and therefore equal members of our community.