Talk:Matrilineality in Judaism

2010 comment

I wouldn't (and won't) touch this page with a barge pole. But having read the first half of it oh, dear, system fail.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:04, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, the matrilineal tradition has no basis in the Tanakh. It is based entirely on a socio-historical incident, the 2nd fall of the Roman Temple. Whoever cited that quote from Deuteronomy should provide an explanation of the quote's relevance or the quote should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.194.64 (talk) 01:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC) As I previously noted, that quote should be removed if no one provides an explanation of its relevance -- its relevance is not implied within itself. I will take the liberty of removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.138.142.185 (talk) 04:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matrilineality in Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081224205847/http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=318 to http://www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=318

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Jewishness of Jesus

If Judaism was patrilineal at the time of Jesus' birth this means he may have not been Jewish (since his paternity is unknown and the area was full of non-Jews at the time, including Romans).Historian932 (talk) 03:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

sentence in lead

In this edit of December 20, 2017, it was added to the lead that "All denominations of Judaism have protocols for conversion for those who are not Jewish by descent." I think that was a good edit. But today, December 31, 2017, that material is being removed. Can we have consensus on whether that should stay or be removed? Bus stop (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Matrilineality in Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304114546/http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=840313&ct=1051515 to http://www.ajc.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=ijITI2PHKoG&b=840313&ct=1051515

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war about NPOV

WP:NPOV says "A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized." My understanding of this is that facts presented in an article need not be shown to be false in order to still be considered inappropriate in the way they are presented (contrary to anonymous user 148.75.232.17's call for "a scholarly, adequately-sourced counterargument/clarification").

This article already presents the historical context, as well as the positions of modern denominations. Going beyond this by presenting one denomination's position as doing "as virtually all Jewish communities have for at least two thousand years" represents a non-neutral tone, even if it does not contain anything factually false.

The anonymous user also mischaracterizes my statements elsewhere and my motivations. S/he writes that "User Mahrabu indicated in a Facebook discussion that he found the original wording personally upsetting to his religious sensibilities and had decided to "fix" it." My actual comments in that Facebook discussion (in response to someone else referring to this article) consisted of the following: "Wow, WP:NPOV." "Fixed it."

Mahrabu (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Historical Origins of Matrilineality in Judaism

This page would be greatly enhanced by a section about the history of matrilineality in Judaism, with historical sources rather than rabbinic ones. The article by Shaye J.D. Cohen, which is an important source, is buried in a section about Conservative Judaism. The problem here is that it treats the article as part of a debate within Conservative Judaism, whereas in actual fact it is part of the wider debate about when and where Judaism became matrilineal. This Wiki article as it stands states that the origin of matrilineality is uncertain in the opening paragraph, but then side-steps scholarly attempts to explain the origin, spending many paragraphs detailing current rabbinic debates rather than historical ones. A section on the origins of matrilineality in Judaism should be front and center, to help the reader understand that there was actually a shift in practices from the pre-Exile period to what came after. Coolazice (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely right. Trying to do it. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

USELESS ARTICLE from a scholarly point of view

... for the reasons politely put forward by the previous editor, Coolazice, who obviously missed to touch anyone's heart - because of being polite? The fact remains: TRULY USELESS ARTICLE for anyone who's not a rabbi. People who know a thing or two about when, why and how did matrilineality enter Judaism, please do something. Arminden (talk) 20:19, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Sadly, I concur. I was expecting the moon and the stars when I decided to look at this article but was left disappointed. I am very interested in matrilineality/maternal clans, but this article is so full of irrelevant quotes I don't know where to begin. Quotes after quotes after quotes which added nothing to this article. I've learned nothing about the subject reading this article. Very disappointing. The Serer maternal clans article, a West African ethnic group is even better than this, and in fact, is the best article I have seen written about this topic so far. So disappointing. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it isn't an article, it is a bunch of Bible quotes (and conveniently references to "Jewish tradition" that "supersede" the Bible when convenient, such as in the case of Zilpah and Bilhah, matriarchs of most of the tribes of Israel, actually not being Jewish in the Bible) trying to fool readers into believing Judaism was always matrilinear, when the truth is - it wasn't. Dan Palraz (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This article is nonsense

This is polemic by orthodox Jews trying to retroactively show the historical authenticity of matrilineal descent retroactively. Not a scholarly or honest article. The rule dates from the 20th century. Prior to that there was no one definitive rule. The Talmudic quotes on the matter are generally taken out of context. They don't state a general rule but rather give examples as to where a matrilineal is a Jew. 49.186.225.209 (talk) 06:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Absence of Jews having non-Jewish fathers in the Torah

In the Torah, there does not exist any case where a Jew (Hebrew or Israelite) has a non-Jewish father. The Torah explicitly identifies children of foreign fathers and Israelite mothers as being half-Israelites, as is mentioned in Leviticus 24:10-16. The man with a non-Jewish father is being contrasted with “Israelites” is clear from the opening verse Leviticus 24:10-16. It identifies one of the men is not “fully” an Israelite but half-Egyptian, in stark constast and opposition with the Israelites, and also emphasizes the half-Israelite as a foreigner (גר). This confirms that half-Israelites were not considered Israelites, even if the mother was Jewish.

References

Suggested deletion of "Biological arguments" subsection

While the reverted edit made on Jan. 5, 2025 by an anonymous user appears to have been inappropriate in its form, it did highlight the virtually incomprehensible nature of the "Biological arguments for/against matrilineality" subsection at the end of the "History" section.

The subsection starts with the sentence, "Some matrilineal advocates have hypothesized that DNA may carry a specific genome from the mother that transmits Judaism." The word "some" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, particularly without any citation at all, and whoever wrote this sentence clearly confused the word "genome" with either "gene" or "genetic marker."

The second sentence (which actually has a citation) reads, "However, NIH researchers have sought but found no evidence that Judaism is transmitted genetically from either the mother or the father." The lone author of the cited paper is not an "NIH researcher." Whoever wrote this sentence appears to be under the misimpression that all scientific papers hosted on the website of the National Institutes of Health are written by employees of that U.S. agency. In fact, the cited paper was neither written nor edited by anyone affiliated with the NIH and was originally published in 2015 by the journal Frontiers in Genetics. The paper, itself, makes no mention of any research directly conducted by the NIH.

Additionally, the incorrect usage of the term "Judaism" in both these sentences is truly wild (which I can only assume is what prompted the anonymous editor to insert that incredulous "what?"). "Judaism" is not synonymous with "Jewishness," "Jewish identity" or "Jewish ethnic descent." Judaism is a multi-denominational religion that many (though not all) ethnically and culturally Jewish people adhere to. So, as that particular paragraph is worded, it is both saying that a significant number of people have posited that one's religion can be determined by DNA analysis and that U.S. Government researchers set out to test such a hypothesis. This is an extraordinary pair of claims that is not supported by the paper cited.

While the second (and last) paragraph in the subsection is somewhat more cogent than the first, it appears to be an uncited primer on sex-based genetic inheritance in humans followed by an uncited hypothesis that a verse in Genesis corresponds with that scientific knowledge. The sentence that begins, "Thus, in a sense a brother and sister from the same mother are closer than a brother and a sister from just the same father...," is also blatant editorializing and could be interpreted as original research.

I suggest this entire subsection be deleted. It contributes nothing of value to the article and fails to meet some of the most basic standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and deleted the subsection in question. It was too flawed to save (see my justifications above). If anyone disagrees with this change, feel free to explain why here.

As a sincere piece of advice to future editors of this article, please maintain an encyclopedic tone (not a conversational one), cite your work and always ensure that you have at least a basic understanding of what you are writing about if you are making a substantial edit to an article (including a basic understanding of commonly used terms).

For anyone who feels this article would benefit from a section or subsection related to genetic research, I suggest visiting the article titled Genetic studies of Jews for an idea of how that information can be presented and cited in a way that generally meets Wikipedia's editing standards. However, please make sure any information you incorporate into this article directly relates to its subject (namely, matrinlineality in Judaism). Please do not veer off into a general discussion of DNA studies conducted on ethnically Jewish populations or a general discussion of sex-based genetic inheritance. Those topics are largely, if not completely, irrelevant to this article, which is primarily focused on how Jews of varying religious traditions have viewed and currently view the concept of inheriting one's Jewish identity or status through one's mother. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)