Thread by @JustSayXtian

There's this thing that happens whenever we discuss generally applicable things about Jewishness where the halacha-heads show up with edge cases and technicalities, and it's an example of what I think is a deep misunderstanding of what halacha is and what it's for.

As @N_S_Dolkart puts it here - halacha means the way of walking. The idea that it's a static, monolithic thing that can be referenced as an Eternal Truth is counter to the whole way (I think) it was meant to be used in the first place.

https://twitter.com/N_S_Dolkart/status/1430568545323192322?s=20

Throughout the Talmud, rabbis do exactly what we do on Twitter today. Someone says "Here's the rule" and someone else says "Okay, but what about X example that clearly contradicts your rule" and the answer is "Well that's different."

My personal favorite example:
In Moed Katan 18a we're given the rule that one may only trim their mustache above the mouth, where it would interfere with normal eating. Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak immediately says "Okay, but I'm different."
sefaria.org/Moed_Katan.18a…

Or Berakhot 16b where Rabban Gamliel himself taught that one does not bathe while in mourning, but when he himself does so he says "well, but I am delicate".
sefaria.org/Berakhot.16b.5…

These are fun examples, I think, because they're amusing and they humanize our revered sages, which I personally love. But they're far from isolated. And the point, I think, is that what we are laying out in halacha are *general rules*, not ironclad decrees without exception.

There's an acknowledgement built in to the whole process that we can't footnote and annotate every single law to catch the whole gamut of cases for all time. We have to be able to apply our own common sense and reasoning to determine the limits of rational application.

And we have methods for doing that! We have published opinions and rulings by rabbis and movements that help define the moving borders of the general rules. We have a vast sea of discourse that we can use to draw inference from.

We're not *supposed* to just doggedly hold on to the simplest, least nuanced rules stated in the shortest possible sentences. We're supposed to apply the rules in a way that makes sense for us in the changing world and in our disparate communities.

I see this come up a lot with matrilineal descent. Regularly someone will discover a great-to-the-nth-power-grandmother was Jewish, or take a DNA test and find mtDNA results that imply a direct maternal line to a Jewish ancestor.

And then they'll ask a Jewish forum if that means they're Jewish too, and a bunch of people will be like "Yup, absolutely, no exceptions, that's the halacha"

[Side note here: I personally affirm patrilineal descent as well, and streams that do are 100% valid. I'm not going to address that much here because that's not the point I'm focused on in this thread. End of side note.]

But the thing is, there ARE exceptions. One of them is that Rabbis, by overwhelming consensus, don't accept DNA tests as evidence of maternal descent. What's required is evidence of a maternal ancestor's *participation in Jewish community*

And that's an excellent rule to apply in terms of meeting the *intention* of the law and not just the *word* of the law. I think we can pretty much guarantee that the rabbis didn't intend Jewishness to be defined by traces of DNA, but by connection to Am Yisrael.

Identifying a maternal haplogroup doesn't demonstrate that connection. Being able to access your great-grandma's ketubah does, even if the connection has gotten a little tenuous.

Really, honestly, I think the first answer to "does this mean I'm Jewish?" should be "why do you want to know?" If someone wants to know because they *feel* Jewish and they want to pursue their own inclusion in Jewish community then by all means, let's celebrate that connection.

If someone wants to know because they think it's a cool way to make themselves feel more exotic and to distance themselves from Christian hegemony and privilege without actually involving themselves in Jewish life in any significant way, maybe not so much.

Maybe, in that case, it's more important to make note of the limited inclusion in Jewish community that applies to meshumadim and b'nei anusim. Maybe it's better to emphasize that we welcome and celebrate a return to Jewish peoplehood, but actually returning matters.

ESPECIALLY if someone has every intention of continuing to identify themselves as Christian, and wants to be able to weaponize their Jewish ancestry to excuse supersessionism and replacement theology, maybe we should answer first on why that's not okay.

And to bring this back around, this is exactly why I find it frustrating when people talk about "according to halacha" when putting forth simplistic, universal takes on things like matrilineal descent. Because it's actually *not* simplistic. How it's applied practically matters.

And, not for nothing, I really think the second answer to "does this mean I'm Jewish" should be "it doesn't matter." If someone is asking because they *want* to be Jewish then they can be, whether they have a Jewish ancestor or not.

And if they're asking because they want to be able to call themselves Jewish without involving themselves in Jewish life and Jewish community in any way, then there are other factors at play that are far more important than the technicalities of halacha about Who Is A Jew.

This is an excellent encapsulation.

https://twitter.com/Delafina777/status/1443982854937989120?s=20