NON-ISRAELITES IN THE BIBLE
Defining identity is no easy matter. The meaning of this term encompasses various notions, more or less objective, situated at the boundary between the sociological and the psychological. Individual identity is often subjective, insofar as it is above all a relationship between our individuality and the rest of society. Social identity, which is more objective, is expressed for example through criteria of belonging to a profession or a social class. As for cultural and religious identities, they are defined around the sharing of a core of rules and values by a community. Thus, personal “identity” lies at the confluence of all these identities, which makes it even more difficult in our time to answer the question: “Who is a Jew?”
From the perspective of Orthodox Judaism, the answer is simple: Jewishness is transmitted through matrilineal descent or acquired through a conversion recognised by the Consistory, which itself represents only 45% of French synagogues (and does not, moreover, recognise American Orthodox conversions either). It is worth noting that this conception of matrilineal transmission in no way presupposes any particular level of religious practice or knowledge. Furthermore, it is etymologically inaccurate to speak of “Jews” in the Tanakh, the term originally referring to an inhabitant of Judea. The term is used for the first time in reference to Mordechai. It would be more accurate to speak of the Israelite people, although this designation itself only truly makes sense from the time of the sons of Jacob.
Non-Israelites are mentioned in the Bible in two distinct ways: first, through the legislation applicable to the ger (the resident foreigner), and secondly through the exemplary value attributed to certain individuals among them. Many Non-Israelites joined the Israelite people through intermarriage or by voluntary choice. The Bible mentions numerous wives of biblical figures who did not belong to the Bnei Israel. Perhaps the most significant reference to this voluntary aggregation is found in the Book of Exodus: (Exodus 12:38) “A mixed multitude also went up with them, along with flocks and herds, a very great number of livestock.” This verse bears witness to a clear form of universalism, through liberation from unjust oppression not only of the Hebrew people, but also of those who accompanied them in their ordeal. Moreover, the law applies without distinction to Hebrews and to foreigners residing among them. Exodus 12:49: “The same law shall apply to the native-born and to the foreigner who resides among you.”
The Torah proclaims strict equality of treatment towards one’s fellow human being, whether or not that person belongs to the Israelite people. Leviticus states this unambiguously in the words: “Ve’ahavta lere‘akha kamokha” (Leviticus 19:18), “You shall love your neighbour as yourself.” In the same spirit of universalism, two non-Israelite biblical figures deserve particular attention: Job and Ruth the Moabite.
Job embodies the persecuted righteous man and has been the subject of numerous commentaries, both regarding his historical existence and his belonging to the people of Israel. The Zohar does not doubt his existence and presents him as an adviser to Pharaoh. Job’s fidelity to the Eternal is such that he serves as a model both for Jews and for Gentiles.
The figure of Ruth, whose Megillah is read during Shavuot, is equally rich in teaching. This book teaches, on the one hand, that the Davidic lineage proceeds from a mixed marriage, and on the other hand introduces the institution of the goel, intended to prevent the extinction of a family name. Unlike the Book of Job, Ruth the Moabite embodies integration into the people of Israel through personal will and adherence to the principles of the Torah.
Thus, many figures external to the Bnei Israel are described in the Bible, either for the exemplary nature of their conduct, for their personal choice to join the Israelites, or for their fidelity to the principles of the Torah. Another noteworthy case of aggregation is that of the Nethinim, who according to tradition descended from the Gibeonites (Joshua 9:27). They were spared by the Hebrews and given by David to the Levites (Ezra 8:20) to become hereditary servants of the Temple.
If the Bible is the book of the people of Israel, it is also the bearer of a long tradition of openness to the Other, insofar as humanity is one, in the sense that all human beings originate from the primordial couple. It also presents human behaviour as universal, regardless of origin or lineage.
While the Bible ultimately considers fidelity to the principles of the Torah as the defining mark of belonging to the people of the covenant, and as a duty to transmit these principles to future generations, it also invites reflection on two possible distortions arising from the blind application of these principles. These distortions are embodied by two non-Israelite peoples: the Moabites and the Ammonites, representing familialism on the one hand and nationalism on the other.
These two distortions give rise to unethical behaviour. Familialism, taken to its extreme, may disregard temporal laws, while nationalism leads to hatred of the Other. The episode of Lot’s two daughters intoxicating their father is particularly illustrative in this regard. From this incestuous union were born two sons: Moab (“from the father”), symbolising the excesses of familialism, and Ben-Ammi (“son of my people”), symbolising nationalism.
Jean-Marc CAVALIER LACHGAR
2005