Reform Voices of Torah is the new weekly online Torah commentary provided by the Union for Reform Judaism. It is distributed as part of 10 Minutes of Torah. To receive the commentary in a weekly e-mail, subscribe to 10 Minutes of Torah.
Noach, Genesis 6:9?11:32 Shabbat,
November 1, 2008 / 3 Cheshvan, 5769 The Torah: A Modern
Commentary, pp.57–91; Revised Edition, pp.57–83; The Torah: A Women’s
Commentary, pp. 35–58 Haftarah, Isaiah 54:1–55:5 The Torah: A
Modern Commentary , pp. 326–329; Revised Edition, pp.85–87
Family Trees, Branches, and
Identity David H. Aaron
The Book of Genesis involves a
patchwork of stories. These are held together by an overarching framework that I
refer to as "the ideological overlay."How are we to understand this structure?
Picture eggs in an eggcrate. When open, the box is flimsy, and the eggs all sit
there as discrete and unconnected entities. When closed, such that the eggs are
touching the top and bottom surfaces of those spaces specially designed to hold
them, the structure becomes rigid, and you relate to the sum of the parts—the
crate and the eggs—as a solid whole. In this analogy, the eggs are the discrete
stories that make up the Book of Genesis, and the crate constitutes the
structural framework that holds the individual stories together. As noted, when
closed, an eggcrate feels pretty solid, and the same is true of the Book of
Genesis—looked at as a whole, its narratives flow "solidly"from one part to the
next. However, when we peel back the ideological overlay—analogous to opening
the egg crate—we become conscious of the distinctive stories, which do not share
either a thematic or even a chronological unity. That is, just like you can have
an eggcrate with eggs that didn’t start out together, so it is that the stories
in Genesis did not start out clustered together as they currently are. Rather,
the sense of unity was created by the book’s editor.
The stories the editor decided to
include address a great array of concerns, but two main thematic elements lend
the entire work narrative and ideological unity. The first element consists of
those periodic genealogies we read; the second is what we will refer to as "the
covenant."We will meet the second element in next week’s Torah portion (
Parashat Lech L’cha ). Here, toward the end of Parashat Noach , we
have a very important genealogy, one that traces the regeneration of humanity
after the devastating Flood of Noah’s era—a regeneration through Noah’s sons
that leads to the ancestry we identify with ancient Israel.(1)
The
Genesis genealogies define both the lineage of the world’s nations as well as
Israel’s place in that world. Identity in antiquity was frequently developed
around two notions, blood relations and land. When it came to familial or tribal
units, establishing what was meant by "we"frequently involved defining some
"other"group. In effect, people declared what they were by articulating what
they were not. "We"form a group; they are not part of our group.
This approach to self-differentiation is not without certain inner
paradoxes. The Bible seeks to show that all human beings derive first from Adam
and Eve, and then from Noah’s sons and daughters-in-law. In other words, we are
all, in some sense, related . Consequently, differentiation among peoples
proves to be a tricky business. The paradox, then, lies in the notion that the
writers were moved to valorize some groups and villainize others, despite the
fact that heroes and villains may only have had a few degrees of bloodline
separation between them.
Then there is the problem of ever-shifting
attitudes toward discrete ethnic groups. One generation’s villains may prove to
be another’s heroes. Some genealogies report matters in relatively neutral
terms, while others involve characterizations that reflect deeply held
prejudices. It would be a serious mistake to think that the perspectives on the
various nations in the Book of Genesis were universally held by all ancient
Israelites at any given moment in history. To illustrate this point, we’ll
consider a brief passage in Parashat Vayeira , which provides a scathing
parody of the origins of the Moabites and Ammonites. Toward the end of Genesis
19 (vv. 31–38), Lot’s daughters seduce their father to become pregnant. The
story unfolds as follows:
"Come, let us make our father drink
wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our
father."So they made their father drink wine that night, and the first-born
daughter went in and lay with her father, but he did not realize that she had
either lain there or gotten up. . . . [The next] night also they made their
father drink wine, and the younger one went and lay with [Lot]; but he did not
realize that she had either lain there or gotten up. Thus both of Lot’s
daughters became pregnant by their father. The first-born daughter bore a son
and named him Moab; he is the father of the Moabites of today. And the younger
also bore a son, and she called him Ben-ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites
of today.(2) (Genesis 19:32–33, 19:35–38)
What could be more insulting than
to have your origins attributed to an act of drunken intercourse between a
father and a daughter, schemed by the daughters no less? Obviously, the author
of this passage did not think well of the Moabites or the Ammonites (not to
mention Lot himself). But this pejorative depiction of Moab was not shared by
all. The genealogy at the end of the Book of Ruth conveys a rather different
attitude:
So Boaz [the Israelite] married
Ruth [the Moabite]; she became his wife, and he cohabited with her. The Eternal
let her conceive, and she bore a son. And the women said to Naomi, "Blessed be
the Eternal, who has not withheld a redeemer from you today! May his name be
perpetuated in Israel!". . . And the women neighbors gave him a name, saying, "A
son is born to Naomi!"They named him Obed; he was the father of Jesse, father of
David. (Ruth 4:13–14, 4:17)
Hardly a more astounding contrast
could be imagined. In the Genesis story, the Moabites emerge from the most
debased of sexual pairings. In the Book of Ruth, a Moabite woman
conceivesbecause of God’s intercession , and her progeny include Israel’s
redeemer , King David. That Ruth is not born a Jew hardly hampers her
ability to bear Israel’s future political and military savior.
We could
point to a number of other biblical passages that parallel this odd contrast in
attitudes toward a single nation. But let me here summarize what has been said
thus far. First: identity contingent on distinguishing the "we"from "the
other"is rooted in genealogies, ostensibly because "blood"can be construed as an
objective marker of identity. And second: any particular attitude regarding a
specific nation found in one part of the Bible should not be taken as having
been universally accepted in any given period or even over time.
Both of
these facts tend to leave "we/they"identity politics rather contentious. This
has not hindered an ongoing engagement with this approach; indeed, many Jews
even today still find these ideas to be powerful elements in their own sense of
self. In his book The Beginnings of Jewishness , Shaye J. D. Cohen
[Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999]) delineates how because of
constantly changing historical circumstances Jews were constantly revisiting the
question Who is a Jew? Perhaps the best-known adaptation in identity
politics remains the shift from patrilineal to matrilineal descent (apparently)
during the Roman era. But while this is the best known, it is hardly the most
profound adaptation. More consequential would be the identity politics created
by authors throughout our history who saw the content of one’s Judaism as
more important than any particular inherited trait. This approach to identity
emerges from the Torah itself.
At some very fundamental level, biblical
writers beyond the Book of Genesis recognized that blood lineage could
never adequately establish the grounds for distinctiveness or allegiance. Some
understood that distinctions between peoples who were originally next of kin
(such as Ishmael and Isaac, or Jacob and Esau), were at best, artificial. They
recognized that the most significant elements of Jewish living—the cultural
content and religious practices that constitute its distinctiveness—contribute
to a form of self-definition that is superior to vague claims that we are
simply other than someone else.
This was not, however, an insight
held by the authors of Genesis. The Book of Genesis does nothing to foster the
content of Jewish identity beyondclan association. The writers of other
biblical passages (in the Torah and elsewhere) would take it as their task to
remedy what they saw as Genesis’s limited utility in the formation of Jewish
identity. While they sustained aspects of "we/they"politics in their own
writings, they ultimately transcended them with the laws, customs, ethics, and
ideological positions that dominate their literary legacy.
The challenge
of the Book of Genesis for liberal Jews starts in that otherwise
innocent-sounding genealogy of chapter 10. For there we have set in motion a
cultural paradigm for self-differentiation that cannot, in my opinion, be
sustained by those of us seeking a vibrant Judaism through cultural creativity
and ongoing spiritual renewal. It is in our power to assert that no one is a Jew
by historical fiat, but that all Jews are Jews-by-choice. This is the conviction
held by the Books of Exodus and Deuteronomy, and the closing section of the Book
of Joshua. The covenant scenes in these books require that each individual
affirm his or her allegiance; no individual is simply part of the covenant
unless they have actively affirmed their commitment. In Exodus 24:7 we read:
"Then he [Moses] took the record of the covenant and read it aloud to the
people. And they said, ‘All that the Eternal has spoken we will faithfully
do!’"Another covenant scene appears in the Book of Joshua (24:22): "Joshua said
to the people, ‘You are witnesses against yourselves that you have by your own
act chosen to serve the Eternal.’ The people replied, ‘We are [free]
witnesses.’"Such sentiments dominate the entire narrative of Deuteronomy, where
being a Jew is about making a choice to choose life! These authors saw a
covenant entered voluntarily as more powerful than any notion of
birth-into-a-covenant. In fact, these passages undermine the notion of
Jew-by-birth.
Too often, when the politics of identity are rehearsed in
the modern world among Diaspora and Israeli Jews alike, this profound insight of
Torah is subordinated for the sake of reactionary, shallow notions of clan. It
is time for us to consider the meanings of our identity through freewill
affirmations of commitment, rather than acquiesce to customary medieval,
halachic notions of who is a Jew that violate the more profound insights
of Torah.
Some might hold that birth into a Jewish family makes this
choice easier to come by than for others. But given well-documented
assimilationist trends, no one should assume that "ease"constitutes a
significant factor in the creation and sustaining of a Jewish identity and life.
Only identities that involve active choice lead to meaningful engagements with
Jewish living. If we only had the Book of Genesis, birth might constitute a
sufficient criterion for establishing who is a Jew; but as it is, Torah
transcends the mere sum of its parts. Meaning is created, not born. And so it is
with each and every Jew. That I am taking direct aim at all theories of identity
by descent—maternal or paternal—should be blatant enough. Reform Judaism should
rethink its own politics of identity and, in the process, reaffirm its
commitment to the more profound insights of Torah.
While the ideology of
genealogically-based identity may prove to be increasingly irrelevant to Reform
Jews over time, this does not detract at all from the Book of Genesis as a
whole. The discrete stories in this book address many core concerns of the human
condition beyond that of identity, including faith, justice, destiny,
appeasement, dislocation, abandonment, and vulnerability. And these are the
concerns with which we will be occupied over the coming weeks.
(1) Genealogies in Genesis occur in
the following chapters: all of 5; 6:9–10; all of 10; 11:10–32; 25:1–18; all of
36.
(2)This is my translation. Most
published translations use softer idioms that neutralize the crassness of the
event. For instance, JPS renders verse 36 as "the two daughters of Lot came to
be with child by their father,"but "with child"is to my ears quite a bit softer
than the literal meaning, "pregnant by.”
David H. Aaronreceived his doctorate from Brandeis University and ordination from the
Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion, Cincinnati. He is professor
of Hebrew Bible and History of Interpretation at HUC-JIR, Cincinnati. His most
recent book is Etched in Stone: The Emergence of the Decalogue (T & T
Clark, 2006).
The challenging vision of Dr. David
Aaron as to what constitutes the formal nature of Jewish identity demands of us
a serious and prolonged debate. Dr. Aaron properly notes how the Genesis
genealogies set the stage for self-differentiation, and that
self-differentiation (we/they) cannot be explored without at the same time
trying to understand the very nature of the covenant or covenants said to bind
humanity in general, and the people of Israel in particular, to the God of the
Creation and of Sinai.
The existence of multiple and
distinct ethnicities is intended to be explained by the events surrounding the
construction of the Tower of Babel. As a result of a treacherous challenge by
united humankind against the rule of God, men and women were scattered across
the earth, scattered not as individuals but rather as ethnic clusters. The
Edenic vision of a unified humanity is then further shattered by the unique
relationship that soon emerges between God and the descendants of Abraham.
Henceforth, and throughout the Torah in all of its strands and fragments, the
notion of unified humankind is subordinated to the relationships between the
descendants of Abraham and God.
This privileged relationship
between the people of Israel and God was constituted within a bilateral
relationship. Even as peoples who encounter the numinous must necessarily
abandon the view that they are the unequivocal center of God’s concern, so there
arose a singular faith that asserted it possessed insight into aspects of God
not known by others and not available to them. For the people of Israel, the
covenantal relationship would always be conditional: their response to the
unique demands that God made upon them determined the extent to which God’s
promises to them would be fulfilled.
It therefore matters greatly who
"we"and "they"are. And it most certainly is true that the understanding of who
"we"are has continued to evolve and, at times, to change radically.
Patrilineality and matrilineality came to represent divergent tests of
affiliation, reflecting shifting patterns of Jewish existence. While recognizing
such shifting conditions and understandings, it is neither possible nor accurate
for us to limit notions of a "clan"linked in covenant with God just to the Book
of Genesis and thus, by implication, isolated in a primitive period of Jewish
history. The content of that identity surely is more significant than its
familial base no matter how configured, but that does not negate the enduring
nature of a relationship that Dr. Aaron refers to as merely "shallow"and
"reactionary.”
My understanding as to how Torah
came to be written and edited has been strongly influenced by the writings and
lectures of Professor Israel Knohl, as summarized most recently in his volume
The Divine Symphony: The Bible’s Many Voices (Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society, 2003). For Knohl, the processes set in motion by the
authors of the biblical strands were complex, controversial, and often
harmonious, but at times markedly discordant. The editing of Torah during the
time of Ezra brought no end to these processes; rather they became an
ever-evolving midrash that emerged in response to our people’s march through
history and our encounters with a rich variety of other peoples and of other
voices.
But to the best of my knowledge,
never did our teachers, writers, philosophers, poets, and dreamers set aside a
definition of the "we"that somehow involved aspects of family (or ethnicity or
people or clan)—a family that could be joined, a family that could be abandoned,
but a family that carries with it text and traditions, as well as a unique sense
of in-group belongingness that exists even as it fails of easy description.
Dr. Aaron’s critique moves freely
among the anthropological, genealogical, theological, and personal. His distaste
for any sense of Jewish identity emerging out of descent is clear and governs
his analysis. My perspective embraces the reality and necessity of some form of
descent or identity that creates and sustains a core community. It is from the
wrestling of that core community with the texts, values, and demands of Jewish
life that the most profound products of Jewish creativity emerge.
We cannot be compelled to be Jews
or to embrace our family. We cannot compel others to be Jews or to embrace our
family. But we are a family, a people if you will, and we are bound together not
only in a pattern of behavior and by a vision of a world redeemed, but also by
an inner sense that there is always more to being a Jew than a matter of "a
meaningful engagement with Jewish living.”
Rabbi Stanley M. Davidswas ordained from the Hebrew Union College–Jewish Institute of Religion
in 1965 and was subsequently awarded his doctor of divinity from HUC-JIR. His
most significant commitments have been to ARZA, the Association of Reform
Zionists of America, which he served as national president 2004–2008. It was
through ARZA that Rabbi Davids founded the Reform Zionist Think Tank, an
endeavor that led to the historic adoption of the CCAR's Reform Zionist Platform
(Miami, 1997), which among other issues embraced for the first time aliyah
as a Reform mitzvah. Rabbi Davids is currently a member of the Board of
Governors of the Jewish Agency for Israel, and in April 2008 he was elected to
the Executive Committee of the World Zionist Organization.
Tzevet
Mitzvot:Young Adult
New Orleans Mitzvah Corps, December 20-25, 2008. Do you know someone who
is 25-35 years old and ready to roll up their sleeves in the Big Easy for an
intensive week of social action, study, worship and fun? If so, please invite
them to join us as we rebuild the city, helping victims of Hurricane Katrina.
Visit www.urj.org/csa/mitzvahcorps.
RJ.org : News and
Views of Reform Jews. Join the conversation on the new Reform blog at http://www.rj.org
Take your study of 10
Minutes of Torah to the next level by signing up for Eilu V'Eilu .
Each month, two scholars will debate an issue and answer questions raised by
you, the learner. Additional textual information will be available through
the Eilu V'Eilu webpage. For more information and to sign up, go to the
Eilu V'Eilu
webpage.
Sign up today for
The Weekly Briefing, an email of Jewish news from Reform Movement
and the greater Jewish world. www.urj.org/subscribe
Listen to
this commentary
Read
preliminary comments on the Book of Genesis
Multimedia: 