(no subject)

[teddywolf]

Today I was in my Imperialism class. The discussion went around the pre-modern empires and the notion of tribe. Historical tribe, by my professor's definition, is bound by bonds of blood. He brought up the Jews as the first historical pre-modern empire and, among other things, said that this was based on Jewish tribal notions which had no conversions until the modern era.

I decided I had to speak up at this point. I mentioned we had a strong history of conversions, even though they were less common before the modern era. I brought up Ruth, I brought up the Khazars, and mentioned that a number of converts were notable in our history. He then said, "Then why are you a tribe? You can't be G-d's Chosen People by blood while allowing others to join your tribe, it's not logical." I mentioned the distinction between religiously Jewish and Jewish by birth; he said the notions were still incompatible.

Do bear in mind I like my professor. He makes me think and is academically rigorous.

His definition of tribe is as something immutable, you are born to it or not, or might get forced into it by conflict.

I want to present to him examples of tribes that accepted in outsiders to become "of the tribe". I will be doing some research into this because I want to present it to him - yes, I have been looking. If any of you know of an historical example, off the top of your head, something not involving a marriage or slavery, I would appreciate a pointer. It could be somebody joining a Native American tribe, or brought into a particular African tribe, or a Chinese family, a Germanic village, what-have-you - in fact, the more diverse the better. I want to show that a tribe may have been primarily about blood but also could be something a person chose and, under exceptional circumstances, be accepted into.

Please feel free to signal boost this.

Comments

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

If he's not accepting Ruth, I'm not sure that any logical argument will work - she's pretty much the classic example.

[cellio]

And if he won't accept Ruth because of some perceived vagueness, the talmud is pretty specific and Maimonides, a prominent medieval scholar, answered questions about conversion without seeming to blink. (The famous one is the convert who asks him if he should refer to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov as "our" fathers when they aren't his ancestors. The Rambam replies that when you join the people you get the ancestors.)

The professor has a peculiar-sounding definition of tribe. If he means bloodline only, well, he's free to structure his world-view that way, but it doesn't have much to do with Judaism.

[avram]

The Rambam was clearly familiar with the works of Gilbert and Sullivan.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

But he enjoyed it more than all the rest of us because only *he* got to hear it in the original Klingon.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I did mention that his definition might not fit the reality that well for Jews. I need to write a paper for him, I think, and this one won't even be for credit; but I want to make my point and I want it to be a solid point.

[teddywolf.livejournal.com]

I was not able to describe Ruth to him very well.

[dichroic.livejournal.com]

Hm.... there's a beautiful and accessible exegesis of Ruth specifically as a conversaion story, but I can't remember where I read it. Somewhere sort of pop-sociology, but most of my books are in storage right now. Does anyone have a copy of Harold Kushner's To Life: A Celebration of Jewish Being and Thinking handy? It might be there.

Meanwhile: ELimelich, a wealthy man moved to Moab to escape a famine in Israel. Her sons grew up and married Moabite women - both good women. The father and sons died, and Elimelich's widow Naomi decided to go back to her home, where she'd lost all her possessions but would be among her own people. Her daughters-in-law Ruth and Orpah, said "We love you and want to go with you, " but Naomi answered, "I have no children, no money and no friends there - there is nothing for you. Go back to your own families. Orpah agreed, parting with tears - there is nothing at all to say Orpah wasn't a good ad dutiful DIL, but Ruth was something more. She answered in the famous words, "Whither thous goest, I shall go; where thou dwellest I shall dwell. Thy people shall be my people and thy God my God."

They lived a poor life; Ruth supported Naomi by gleaning, gathering the wheat dropped behind the harvester (reserved for poor people by Torah commandment). One day, Boaz, the wealthy landowner and distant kin to Naomi notices Ruth, ends up marrying her (in a levirate marriage, so their sons can be counted to her first husband). Ruth's descendant was King David, which in Jewish tradition means that she will be an ancestress of the Messiah.

That's the basic story, but if you do a quick google, you will find any number of articles (here's one (http://www.jewishmag.com/124mag/ruth/ruth.htm)) describing how the story of Ruth is actually the *basis* for the rules of conversion to Judaism. The Book of Ruth is read on Shavuot, the time when the entire Tribe of Israel received the Torah and thus became converts to its precepts. Prospective converts are questioned three times about the sincerity of their intentions, as Naomi questioned Ruth.

ANother part relating to your class is that in some ways Ruth converted upon her marriage, but it wasn't counted as a 'eral' conversion (or Orpah could not have been told to return to her own people and idol worship). There weren't codified conversion practices at the time, but clearly Ruth expressed her sincere intentions to convert when she followed Naomi, and clearly she was accepted into the tribe because she was 'rewarded' by getting to be the great-great-gradmother of David.

[magid.livejournal.com]

Tiny possible nit to pick:
in a levirate marriage, so their sons can be counted to her first husband

I believe that it is only the first son who is counted to the deceased first husband, not all sons.

[sethg]

Unlike many parts of the Bible, the Book of Ruth is written in straightforward prose, and the book is fairly short. Look for it in any English translation of the Bible.

(I prefer the new JPS version; since Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative folks served on the translation committee together and actually did their job without bludgeoning one another to death, the result must be the work of Divine Providence. But for this purpose, any translation will probably be adequate.)