Halakhah su Numeri 1:18

The problem of Jewish identity is by no means a new one; it is as old as Judaism itself. Yalkut Shim'oni¹Bemidbar, 684. reports that at the time of the giving of the Torah on Mt. Sinai the gentile nations became exceedingly jealous. They, too, wished to be the recipients of the revealed word of God and to share in the prophetic experience at Sinai. The Midrash depicts God as brusquely rejecting their claim with the retort, "Bring me the record of your pedigree as My children are bringing." This, declare the Sages, is the meaning of the verse "and they declared their pedigrees after their families …" (Num. 1:18). In order to be counted among the members of the community of Israel and to be granted recognition as a Jew it was necessary for each of the wanderers in the wilderness to present documentary proof or to adduce witnesses prepared to testify with regard to the genealogical purity of the petitioner's lineage. Apparently, even at that early date, there were individuals who sought to identify themselves as Jews but whose claims to lineal descent from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were spurious. An authentic claim with regard to genealogical identity, then as now, was the sine qua non for recognition as a member of the Jewish faith-community by virtue of birth. The sole—but crucial—condition which must be met by a claim to Jewish identity by virtue of birth is that it be predicated upon authentic Jewish parentage, i.e., birth into a family whose claim to Jewish identity is recognized as having already been confirmed, perhaps as far back in the family history as on the occasion of the original census taken by Moses when all families were required to "declare their pedigrees."

Rashi, in his commentary to Numbers 1:18, indicates that in the wilderness either of two modes of proof of genealogical identity was acceptable: a written document certifying the family pedigree or witnesses testifying to ḥezkat leidatam, i.e., witnesses presenting presumptive evidence with regard to birth. In Great Britain, prior to the reign of Queen Victoria, it was the practice for both the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord President of the Council to be in attendance at every royal birth in order to certify the identity of the newly-born princeling. Jewish law makes no such requirement. Witnesses are not required to be present at the moment of parturition in order to testify to the identity of the infant. A Jew is known and accepted as a Jew on the basis of ḥazakah, presumptive evidence based upon deportment and interpersonal behavior. Such presumptive evidence is, in the absence of contradictory evidence, accepted with absolute credibility.

Jacob of the city of Naburaya went to Tyre. They came and asked him, "What [is the law with regard to] circumcising the son of a gentile woman [born of a Jewish father] on the Sabbath?" [Jacob] thought to permit them [to do so] on the basis of this [verse]: "And they declared their pedigrees after their families, by their fathers' houses" (Numbers 1:18). R. Haggi heard [and] said, "Let him come and be flogged." [Jacob] said to [R. Haggi], "On what basis do you flog me?" [R. Haggi said to him, "From this [verse]: 'And now let us make a covenant to put away all the foreign wives and such as are born of them' (Ezra 10:3)." [Jacob] said to [R. Haggi], "And would you flog me on the basis of the [prophetic] tradition?" [R. Haggi] said to him, " '… and let it be done according to the Torah' (Ezra 10:3.)" [Jacob] said to [R. Haggi], "From which law?" [ R. Haggi] said to him, "From that which R. Yoḥanan declared in the name of R. Simeon ben Yoḥai, 'Thou shalt not make marriage with them…. nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. For he will turn thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods.' (Deuteronomy 7:3-4)." [Jacob] said to R. Haggi, "Flog me with your lashes for that is better than death."

A priest that has intercourse with a possibly licentious woman, such as a possible convert or freed [maidservant], or with a possible divorcee; and so [too,] a high priest who has intercourse with a possible widow - behold this is a doubtfully profaned woman and the offspring is a doubtfully profaned priest. It comes out that there are three [types of] profaned priests: a profaned priest from Torah writ; a profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis]; and a doubtfully profaned priest. And we give upon any doubtfully profaned priest or profaned priest from the words of [the Rabbis], the stringencies of the priests and the stringencies of the Israelites. He does not eat from the priestly tithe and does not become impure for the dead and he must marry a woman that is fitting for a priest. And if he ate priestly tithe or became impure or married a divorcee, a profaned woman [or a] licentious woman, we strike him with rabbinic lashes of rebellion. But behold, a certainly profaned priest from Torah writ is like a non-priest and marries a divorcee and becomes impure for the dead; as it is stated (Leviticus 21:1), "Speak to the priests, the sons of Aharon" - even though they are sons of Aharon, [not] until they are in the [their] priesthood. And they, may their memory be blessed, also received (Sifra, Emor, Section 1:2) as the explanation of that verse, "'The sons of Aharon,' and not the daughters of Aharon - from here that fit women are not warned (prohibited) from marrying disqualified ones." And so a priestess is permitted to marry a profaned priest, a convert and a freed [slave]. And therefore they, may their memory be blessed, said (Kiddushin 73a) that a convert is permitted to marry a priestess and a mamzeret: a priestess for the reason we said, that they were not warned from marrying ones disqualified; and a mamzeret on account that the congregation of converts is not called a congregation - and with the prohibition of the mamzer, it is written (Deuteronomy 23:3), "A mamzer shall not come into the congregation of the Lord." And that which they said (Kiddushin 77a) that all the seed of a profaned priest that married a fit woman are profaned priests and disqualified to the priesthood; since the offspring goes after the father in this matter, as it is stated (Numbers 1:18), "and they shall be pedigreed by their families [according to the houses of their fathers]." And any widow from a family into which a possible profaned priest was mixed is forbidden to a priest at the outset. But if she married [him], she should not leave (be divorced) - since there is a double doubt. And we are not concerned about a double doubt, even in a [law] of Torah writ. But if a certainly profaned priest is mixed into a family, every woman from it is forbidden to marry a priest, until he examines [her lineage]. And the rest of its details are in Kiddushin and Yevamot.