💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Ramban%20on%20Leviticus%20… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:31:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
10 [1] AND THE SON OF AN ISRAELITE WOMAN, WHOSE FATHER WAS AN EGYPTIAN, WENT OUT, etc. This means that he went out *among the children of Israel*, similar to the expression: *and he went out into the midst of the city*, meaning that he [Mordecai] went out from his house or from where he was abiding into the city. Similarly, this [son of an Israelite woman] went out from his tent or from his place, and came into the midst of the people, and they strove there. The meaning of the word *bamachaneh* [“in the camp” — *and the son of the Israelite woman and a man of Israel strove together ‘in the camp’*], is that the quarrel took place in the camp and many people heard it, and [when they heard the son of the Israelite woman blaspheming the Name], they took hold of him *and they brought him unto Moses* into [his] tent. And the reason why Scripture mentions this episode here, is as the words of the Sage who says: “He ‘came forth’ from the section above [i.e., he began his argument by speaking contemptuously of a law mentioned in the above section], for he sinned with his lips concerning *the fire-offerings of the Eternal*, and an Israelite man rebuked him, whereupon they strove and he became angered and then blasphemed “himself.”
The intention of the expression *the son of an Israelite woman and a man of Israel*, is to teach that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is not deemed Jewish. And although we have rendered the final decision in the Gemara that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman whether she is single or married, the child is a fully-qualified Jew, yet they have said, “the child is ‘rejected,’” meaning that it is disqualified for the priesthood; and certainly it is not considered a fully-qualified Israelite by name as far as genealogy is concerned, with respect to the standards [i.e., as to where he was to take his place under one of the four main standards that were set up], and inheriting of the Land, for it is written of them, *according to the names of the tribes of their fathers*. And that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “*Among the children of Israel*, this teaches that he had become a proselyte,” does not mean that he needed conversion, for he was like all Israelites who entered into the covenant by circumcision, immersion, and the expiation by blood, at the time of the Giving of the Torah. But the intention of the Rabbis [in this text of the Torath Kohanim] was to state that he was reared by his mother and became attached to Israel, this being the meaning of the expression *among the children of Israel*, that he was with them and he did not want to go after his father to be an Egyptian. Similarly, that which the Rabbis have said in the Torath Kohanim: “Although there were no *mamzerim* at that time, he was like one,” this text follows the opinion of a single Sage [who says that if a non-Jew has sexual relations with a Jewish woman, the child is deemed a *mamzer*], but the final decision of the law is that the child is a fully-qualified Jew.
And the French Rabbis say that the reason why this son of the Israelite woman required conversion [according to the Torath Kohanim mentioned above], was because he lived before the Giving of the Torah, and his status was determined by that of the male parent, as is to be deduced from what the Rabbis have said: “Where [the parents of a child are of] non-Jewish nations, we go [as far as the status of the child is concerned] by that of the father.” And when this [son of the Israelite woman whose father was an Egyptian] was born, they did not circumcise him, for his status was that of an Egyptian, but when he grew up he voluntarily converted and was circumcised. But such is not my opinion, for since the time that Abraham entered into the covenant [with G-d], they [i.e., his descendants through Isaac and Jacob] were Israelites *and were not to be reckoned among the nations*, just as the Rabbis have said with respect to Esau: “Perhaps the case of an Israelite who is an apostate is different!” [Thus the Rabbis referred to Esau, who was long before the Giving of the Torah on Sinai, as an “Israelite.”] And is it not an argument from minor to major! “If after the Giving of the Torah when a Cuthean has sexual relations with a daughter of Abraham, and he is forbidden to her by a negative commandment and his betrothal to her is not valid, yet she is the source of purification of the nations, so that her child becomes fully-qualified and of her own standing — does it not follow all the more so that before the Torah was given, she purifies her child to be of her own standing, so that circumcision be incumbent upon him as upon the seed of Abraham, and that he be part of the community of the children of Israel!”
Version: Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH002108945/NLI
License: CC-BY