Debating (2019.08.23) Trump’s intentions regarding Jews being disloyal by their silence in the face of Congressional Democrat Reps Tlaib’s and Omar’s miso-Judaism, anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism, Ms. Tarlov huffed to the effect (paraphrasing from memory), “I’m the only one sitting on this couch who is Jewish. So I’m best qualified to profess on this matter.”
So I decided to look into her claim.
First, it’s essential to know what to look for. Today’s preconceptions often stray significantly from the historical record, especially when it comes to “Abrahamic religions”. One must review the historical definition versus the post-1500 A.D. and even more recent 20th century redefinitions. After all, the definition of Israel is set forth, and delineated, in the Ta•na”khꞋ itself as the am of the bᵊrit of Ta•na”khꞋ (Shᵊm•ōtꞋ 19.5-8).
This is nailed down and welded shut in the birth, ca. B.C.E. 1921, of twin boys born to the same father and mother: Yaaqov-Yisraeil and Eisav-Edom the Arab born to Yitzkhaq and Rivqah. (Generations later, King Herod, a descendant of Edom, would argue that he was also Yisraeil, qualifying to be “King of the Jews”, but Jews (Judeans) are firmly documented denying that claim.) Eisav-Edom is incontrovertible Ta•na”khꞋ-documented proof that Israel (later Judeans/”Jews”) were not originally defined in Ta•na”khꞋ by race (paternal or maternal genetics/DNA).
So when and where did the racist idea of maternal (and-or paternal) descendancy originate? More than two millennia later, a dispute arose whether minor children, who haven’t reached the age of accountability (12 for girls, 13/Bar–Mi•tzᵊwâhꞋ for boys) to make any decision about embracing the bᵊrit yet: if they die before attaining the age they can make a decision embracing Ta•na”khꞋ, are they part of Israel, or not?
Ta•lᵊmudꞋ records that the Sages ruled that the mother has more influence over minor children than the father; ergo, minor children of an intermarriage with a maternal Jew would be assumed, until the age of accountability, to become a Jew while minor children of an intermarriage with a paternal Jew would be assumed, until the age of accountability, to become a non-Jew. But not even this was the origin of the racist definition popular among Jews today. Upon attaining the age of accountability, the child either opted to embrace the bᵊrit Ta•na”khꞋ, becoming a Jew, or not.
The reform that introduced today’s racist definition was incompetently (i.e. illogically) derived by “losing” the child’s self-responsibility to embrace the bᵊrit Ta•na”khꞋ upon attaining the age of accountability. Circumventing the bᵊrit entirely, illiterate casuist rabbis perverted the Ta•na”khꞋ definition, by rabbinics (DBT; death by tweaking) into the racist—genetic/DNA—definition popular today.
Thus, Ta•lᵊmudꞋ itself preserved the original definition as am bᵊrit Ta•na”khꞋ; merely admitting minor children in cases where it seemed more likely the minor child was on the Path to embracing the definitional bᵊrit Ta•na”khꞋ.
So it was not Ta•lᵊmudꞋ that defined “descendants” of a maternal Jew to be Jews. Later commentators illogically expanded—reformed—the Ta•na”khꞋ definition to a displacement definition: the popular racist arguments (of maternal v paternal genetics and DNA) between Orthodox and non-Orthodox today.
Now, let’s look at Ms. Tarlov in light of Trump’s accusations that American Democrat Jews are being disloyal to their heritage (before hypersensitive Jews perverted his words into the old miso-Judaic trope of “disloyalty to America, which Trump never intended).
Researching Ms. Tarlov’s religious Heritage online turns up a typical American Democrat “Jew”: no Judaic or Ta•na”khꞋ heritage at all. One site lists her religion as Christian. Q.E.D. she fails to honor her Tanakh Heritage; i.e. she is disloyal to her claimed Ta•na”khꞋ Heritage. Her sole (soul?) stated claim to being a Jew was based on the post-Ta•lᵊmudꞋ racist reform claim.
As long as Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox rabbis continue to teach their Christian-era reform, racist definition (parental genetics/DNA—which contradicts Tanakh, BTW), then no one can blame any such race-defined “Jew” for recognizing that neither Judaic Heritage nor Israel is any part of, nor even relevant to that purely racist definition.
In contrast to the–disloyal–abandonment of Judaic heritage among mostly-Democrat liberal American Jews, in Israel even marginally-religious, traditional Jews, mislabeled “secular”, live, work and function in a Tanakh-centric nation and environment where our Tanakh (i.e. Judaic) Heritage predominates.
It’s long overdue that non-Jews shed their Stone Age superstitious, Judeophobic, exaggerated reverential fear of a Divinely “Chosen Race” one dare not challenge. The Creator of our universe, י‑‑ה, is Immutable. His Ta•na”khꞋ definition has never been based on race. Rabbinic reform of the Ta•na”khꞋ definition is inconsequential. Israel and Jews have, and will, always be defined exclusively by the bᵊrit Ta•na”khꞋ — and EVERY PERSON who wishes to join us in walking the Path of the bᵊrit Ta•na”khꞋ is welcome by Authority of י‑‑ה and His Ta•na”khꞋ.
(Republishing my articles and short quotations from the Netzarim website (www.netzarim.co.il) is encouraged as long as proper citation credit is prominently noted to Paqid Yirmeyahu, this blog, and referring further information to http://www.netzarim.co.il)