Having problems with message search?
Karaite Insights: The Meaning of Mamzer
Melekh ben Ya’aqov the Karaite
© 2004 Melekh ben Ya’aqov. This article may be reproduced in full or in part on the following two conditions: (1) the source is cited as this article, (2) if quoted in part, no parts are quoted out of context. Any feedback, and especially additional information or sources, is much appreciated.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Q] How can the God be so unfair! He excludes a bastard child from the congregation of YHWH even until the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:3). What did that child ever do to deserve such a punishment?
[A] God is not unfair. Read on to understand the surprising reason why.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The word “Mamzer” is understood by the Rabbis as “bastard”, but not in the sense that it is used in modern English. Rather, by the Rabbinical definition, it refers to the child of parents who, by having intercourse, violated the laws laid down in Leviticus 18 and again in Leviticus 20. These can generally be referred to as the laws of incest and adultery:
“None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am YHWH.” [Leviticus 18:6]
“And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to defile yourself with her.” [Leviticus 18:20]
Thus, by the Rabbinical definition, a Mamzer is the child of an incestuous or adulterous relationship. Indeed, the Jewish Encyclopedia (1901-1906) renders Mamzer as:
“…Something worse than an illegitimate child. He is the offspring of a father and mother between whom there could be in law no binding betrothal: issuing either from adultery between a married woman and a man other than her husband, or from incest within the forbidden degrees of kinship or affinity…”
According to the Rabbis, such a child and his descendants are excluded from the congregation of Yehowah by Deuteronomy 23:3: “A Mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of YHWH.”
The problem with this definition of Mamzer is that it has no basis in scripture. In fact, upon careful examination of the Tanakh, it becomes clear that the word Mamzer probably has nothing at all to do with being the product of adultery or incest nor with being some form of bastard. Rather, Mamzer is most likely the name of a nation and, like Moav, Ammon and the Phillistines, is a proper noun. But don’t take my word for it; let’s examine the evidence.
The word Mamzer appears only twice in the entire Tanakh, first in Deuteronomy 23:3. (Surrounding verses are included for context, which, as we shall see, are important to understanding the issue of Mamzer.)
(1) A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt. (2) He that is crushed or maimed in his private parts shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH. (3) A Mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH; even to the tenth generation shall none of his enter into the assembly of YHWH. (4) An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH; even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of YHWH for ever; (5) because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when you came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse you. (6) Nevertheless YHWH your God would not hearken unto Balaam; but YHWH your God turned the curse into a blessing unto you, because YHWH your God loved you. (7) You shall not seek their peace nor their prosperity all your days for ever. (8) You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother; you shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a stranger in his land. (9) The children of the third generation that are born unto them may enter into the assembly of YHWH. [Deuteronomy 23:1-9][1]
The second and final appearance of the word Mamzer in the Tanakh is in Zakharia 9:6. (Once again, surrounding verses are included for context.)
(1) The burden of the word of YHWH. In the land of Hadrach, and in Damascus shall be His resting-place; for YHWH's is the eye of man and all the tribes of Israel. (2) And Hamath also shall border thereon; Tyre and Zidon, for she is very wise. (3) And Tyre did build herself a stronghold, and heaped up silver as the dust, and fine gold as the mire of the streets. (4) Behold, the Lord will impoverish her, and He will smite her power into the sea; and she shall be devoured with fire. (5) Ashkelon shall see it, and fear, Gaza also, and shall be sore pained, and Ekron, for her expectation shall be ashamed; and the king shall perish from Gaza, and Ashkelon shall not be inhabited. (6) And Mamzer shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines. (7) And I will take away his blood out of his mouth, and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God; and he shall be as a chief in Judah, and Ekron as a Jebusite. [Zakhariah 9:1-7]
Consider the following points:
1. In both occurrences of the word Mamzer in the Tanakh, adjacent verses talk about specific nations or their major cities. (Major cities are often used in the Tanakh to represent the nations living there.) In Deuteronomy 23, Ammonites, Moabites, Edomites and Egyptians are mentioned in a similar context to “Mamzer”. In Zekharia 9, the list includes Tyre , Zidon, Ashkelon , Gaza , the Phillistines, etc.
2. The linguistic style of Deuteronomy 23:3 (“even to the tenth generation”), which contains the word Mamzer, is parallel to that of 23:4 (“even to the tenth generation”) and 23:9 (“children of the third generation”), both of which are referring specifically to names of nations (Ammon and Moav in 23:4, and Edom and Egypt in 23:9). By contrast, Deuteronomy 23:3 is not parallel in style to the verse which precedes it, as 23:2, which refers to a physical blemish (“he that is crushed or maimed in his private parts”), mentions no specific number of generations.[2]
3. The rendering of Mamzer as “bastard” does not fit the context of Zekharia 9:6, which speaks about the defeat of nations when Yehowah redeems Israel . If translated as “bastard”, then the verse reads, “And a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines,” which is nonsensical. On the other hand, if Mamzer is understood as the name of a nation, then both Deuteronomy 23:3 and Zekharia 9:6 make perfect sense. As we shall see, the Rabbinical commentators pick up on this inconsistency and attempt, in a very contrived fashion, to reconcile the simple meaning of Mamzer with the traditional Rabbinical understanding.
To sum up, based on the evidence we have, the best explanation of Mamzer is that it is the name of a nation.
It is interesting to note that this traditional Karaite interpretation is even admitted to by a number of well-known Rabbinite exegetes. Ibn Ezra[3] on Zekharia 9:6 cites a Rabbi Yehuda ben Bila’am who says about the word Mamzer, simply, “This is the name of a nation.” The Ibn Ezra then goes on to disagree and attempts (feebly) to reconcile the text in Zekharia with the traditional Rabbinical understanding of Mamzer as “bastard”. His assertion: The bastard will indeed dwell in Ashdod because it is the bastards of Israel who will be settled in the vanquished cities of the Phillistines (i.e. Ashdod ), in order that they not mix with non-bastard Israelites.[4] The Radak, like the Ibn Ezra, cannot ignore the Karaite interpretation of Mamzer and comments that “there are those who understand this to be the name of a nation,” though he then tries to explain away this meaning much in the same way as the Ibn Ezra. Even the famous Rashi (arguably one of the most inept Bible commentators of all times) comments on Mamzer: “A foreign nation shall dwell in Ashdod .” Rashi then goes on to say: “This refers to Israel , who were strangers there[5],” again, seemingly a reference to the idea mentioned by Ibn Ezra and the Radak.
Well, then, let’s give the Rabbis a fair hearing. Why might they come to the conclusion that Mamzer means bastard? There are three reasons that I have been able to identify. The reasons are not only relevant to our discussion, but they also provide insight into the difference between the way the Rabbis interpret the Tanakh and the way the Karaites do.
1. The first reason is that the Rabbis probably paired Deuteronomy 23:3 (“Mamzer”) with the preceding verse, 23:2 (“maimed in his privy parts”), incorrectly concluding that Mamzer must also refer to some form of physical blemish - at least in their eyes: being the offspring of an incestuous relationship.
The specific problem here is indicative of a more general one: the Rabbis often impart too much importance to the fact that verses are adjacent to each other in the Torah.[6] While it is true that the Torah works associatively, it is not true that there are secret meanings to be learned from the juxtaposition of verses. Here, the reason that 23:2 and 23:3 are juxtaposed is clear and logical: both verses are speaking about groups that are to be excluded from the “congregation of Yehowah”. But one can not logically conclude from this that Mamzer, (whose meaning the Rabbis obviously weren’t quite sure of, hence the need to look for hidden meanings[7]), can be learned through the “hint” that it is juxtaposed with a verse describing physical blemishes.
Thus, the Rabbis see the Torah as a cipher, a string of words and letters which must be decoded in order to extract its hidden meaning. In their view, it is the rules of the Oral Law which allow them to do this decoding. In the Karaite view, there are no hidden meanings to the Torah, only the plain meanings intended by the text which were easily understandable to any ancient Israelite. Unfortunately, many of these plain meanings were lost when our nation sinned and was exiled from its land, and its culture and society ceased to function. Therefore, believe the Karaites, the only way to reconstruct these lost meanings is to become an expert in the one thing that remains from Israel ’s ancient heritage: the Tanakh[8]. This means immersing oneself in the Tanakh - becoming an expert in its grammar, its use of language, its subtle shades of meaning. Only by this method can we attempt to reclaim at least part of our lost heritage.
The Rabbis, dishonestly, claim that nothing has been lost: it was never there to begin with! The Torah was never meant to be clear and understandable by the average Israelite, rather its meanings must be extracted through the rules and traditions of the “Oral Law” by a competent practitioner of its methods, i.e. a Rabbi.[9] Conveniently, the myth of the Oral Law was invented and sold to the Nation of Israel at a time when the nation could no longer verify its truth since they themselves were distanced from their original language and culture – that of the Tanakh. (I am speaking about the middle Second Temple period, when the Pharisitic movement developed, up until this very day.) Examination of the “Oral Law” reveals that it employs many illogical means to arrive at lost meanings in the Torah, such as the one presented here. Taken to its logical (actually, illogical) extreme, these means manifest themselves in completely nonsensical techniques such as gematria and even the latest fad, the Torah Codes. Since the methods of the Oral Law are themselves illogical, the Rabbis had to sell it to the nation by inventing the myth that it was given on Mount Sinai by Yehowah to Moshe (whom they kidnapped for themselves, calling him, obscenely, Moshe “Rabbeinu”.) Finally, like any good cult, to keep the masses in line, the Rabbis threw in a healthy dose of unverifiable rewards for those who are loyal to their way as well as non-confirmable threats for those who violate their will. The result is the Rabbinical Judaism which plagues our nation until this very day and which prevents us from moving forward to our ultimate national destiny. There is a lot more to be said on this subject, but, unfortunately, not in the scope of this article. Let’s return to the subject at hand.
2. The second reason that the Rabbis may have assumed that Mamzer refers to a bastard is that Deuteronomy 23:1 speaks about an adulterous and incestuous relationship. (“A man shall not take his father's wife, and shall not uncover his father's skirt.”) The Rabbis probably saw this verse, seemingly out of place, as another hint that Mamzer was connected somehow to adultery and incest. The problem with this reasoning is similar to the problem with the first reason: the Torah doesn’t work by hidden secrets and encoded messages. Its style of language is very clear and to the point to one who takes the time and effort to understand its cadence.
3. The third reason, is that Mamzer in 23:3 is mentioned together with Ammon and Moav in 23:4 as being prohibited from entering the congregation of Yehowah, “even to the tenth generation.” Ammon and Moav were the products of incestuous relationships between Lot and his daughters, as recorded beginning in Genesis 19:30:
(30) And Lot went up out of Zoar, and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him; for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters. (31) And the first-born said unto the younger: 'Our father is old, and there is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth. (32) Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' (33) And they made their father drink wine that night. And the first-born went in, and lay with her father; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. (34) And it came to pass on the morrow, that the first-born said unto the younger: 'Behold, I lay last night with my father. Let us make him drink wine this night also; and you go in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father.' (35) And they made their father drink wine that night also. And the younger arose, and lay with him; and he knew not when she lay down, nor when she arose. (36) Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father. (37) And the first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab -- the same is the father of the Moabites unto this day. (38) And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-ammi - the same is the father of the children of Ammon unto this day.
The only problem with this explanation is that Ammon and Moav are not excluded from the congregation of Yehowah because their progenitors were the products of incestuous relationships. How do we know that? Because the reason for their exclusion is given explicitly in Deuteronomy 23:5:
(5) Because they met you not with bread and with water in the way, when you came forth out of Egypt; and because they hired against you Balaam the son of Beor from Pethor of Aram-naharaim, to curse you. (see Deuteronomy 2:19, Numbers 22:1-2)
To sum up, the Rabbis probably were not sure of the meaning of Mamzer. Using the illogical rules of their false Oral Law, they looked for hints to its meaning embedded in the text of the Torah. Reading too far into various coincidences, they arrived at the conclusion that Mamzer must somehow be related to adulterous and incestuous relationships, and thus invented an entire new category of Israelite which had never before existed and which was never intended by the Torah.
Contrast this with the Karaite method of understanding the word Mamzer. The Karaites also were not sure of the meaning of the word Mamzer. Admitting that this is the unfortunate situation due to the exile, they examined its use in the Tanakh and concluded that the most logical explanation is that it is the proper name of a nation. Nonetheless, the Karaites will consider any other explanation as long as it is based in logic. Further, they know that at a future time, when prophesy is restored, the meaning will once again become completely clear.
There are two other matters which should be touched upon in relation to the issue of Mamzer. One is related to a claim made by the Rabbis and the second to a claim generally made by secular Bible critics. I will touch on these issues only briefly here; each one can form the basis of an entire study in itself.
The first matter appears in Ruth 1:16. Here, Naomi tries to press her two daughters-in-law, Ruth (who was destined to become the great-grandmother of King Daivd) and Orpah, to return to their native Moab . Orpah eventually relents and returns to her native land, but Ruth persists: “And Ruth said: ‘Entreat me not to leave you, and to return from following after you; for wherever you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God my God.’ ” The question is asked, in light of Deuteronomy 23:4 (“An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of YHWH …”) how is this possible? After all, Ruth is a Moabite. The standard explanation given by the Rabbis is that the verse in Deuteronomy refers to “a Moabite, but not a Moabitess” That is, since the verse in Deuteronomy 23:4 uses the word “MoABi”, the male noun form, then it must be referring only to the males, and female Moabites are free to convert to Judaism. This Rabbinical interpretation is based on another common problem with Rabbinical exegesis of the Torah: over-literalization of the text.
Ironically, the Rabbis accuse the Karaites of over-literalizing the text of the Torah. This could not be farther from the truth. Karaites seek out the simple, straightforward understanding of the text (“p’shath”), not necessarily the literal one. Many times, the Karaite explanation is the figurative one and the Rabbinite explanation is the literal one. The classic example is that of Deuteronomy 6:8: “And you shall bind them for a sign upon your hand, and they shall be for frontlets between your eyes.” The Rabbis over-literalize this verse and therefore daily strap square black amulets to their forehead and arm (“tefillin”). By contrast, the Karaites interpret this verse figuratively as meaning that the Torah should always be close to one’s actions and thoughts. Despite the age-old lie spread by the Rabbis that Karaites wear tefillin directly between their eyes, the truth of the matter is that Karaites do not wear “tefillin” at all, and never have.
Returning to our issue, the conversion of Ruth, a major problem with the Rabbinical explanation is that when the Torah wishes to speak about both males and females together, it also uses the male noun form, the classic example being “Lo TiRZaH” (“Thou shalt not kill.” - Exodus 20:13) Is it plausible to assume that women may commit murder because the Torah doesn’t say “Lo tirzah v-lo tirzahi”, using both the male and female forms? While it is true that in the Torah, the male noun form sometimes does refer only to males (for instance, as we saw above in Leviticus 18:20 :“And you shall not lie carnally with your neighbor's wife, to defile yourself with her”), this must be derived from context and not from grammar. (In the verse in Leviticus it is impossible that the commandment be referring to women because the prohibited action can only be committed by a man.) Karaites have provided other explanations to the verse in Ruth. A common Karaite explanation is that Ruth, by saying the phrase that she did, in effect renounced her identity as a Moabite. (“Your people shall be my people, and your God my God.”) The question then remains, if one can renounce his or her being a Moabite merely by uttering a phrase, then what purpose is served by the commandment in Deuteronomy 23:4 which prohibits Ammonites and Moabites from entering the congregation of Yehowah? As the answer is not in the scope of this study, we leave it as an exercise for the reader, or to be touched upon perhaps in a later study.
The second matter, often raised by Bible critics, is that of King David’s patrilineal heritage (delineated in Ruth 4:18 ). Say these pseudo-scholars, since David is the descendant to the ninth generation of Peretz, the son of Yehuda and Tamar, who was born out of wedlock (see Genesis chapter 38), then David is a tenth-generation bastard. The first of their mistakes is simple: reading the translation of the Tanakh in English, they assume the word Mamzer means bastard in the standard English meaning of the word. However, some of the smarter ones, who understand a bit of Hebrew, know that the current translation of Mamzer (due to the misinterpretation of the Rabbis) is not “one born out of wedlock”, but “one born out of an incestuous or adulterous relationship”. Nonetheless, they claim, David is still a bastard to the tenth generation because Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Yehuda, and relations with one’s daughter-in-law is prohibited (Leviticus 18:15 , Leviticus 20:12 ). Once again, the response here is quite simple: Tamar was not married at the time that she had relations with Yehuda. Both her husbands, Er and Onan, had died and she was waiting in her father’s house to be called to marry Shelah. Even if she was engaged to Shelah, then no Torah prohibition can be said to have been violated, since the Torah had not yet been given to the Children of Israel. This is akin to Yaaqov’s marrying two sisters, Leah and Rachel, even though such an action is later prohibited by the Torah (Leviticus 18:18). Further, if these Bible critics had understood the definition of Mamzer as we have presented it in this study, then they would realize that their entire discussion is moot anyway.
[1] All English translations are from the JPS-1917 edition of the Tanakh, unless stated otherwise. Archaic English forms have been replaced with their modern counterparts. For the sake of this study, the word Mamzer has been left untranslated.
[2] This point is important because one of the probable reasons that the Rabbis interpreted Mamzer as “bastard” is by incorrectly pairing 23:3 with 23:2, thereby concluding that Mamzer must be some kind of physical defect. This point will be touched on further below.
[3] As a side note, Ibn Ezra often quotes Karaite commentators. For instance, he repeatedly cites the tenth century Karaite Yefeth ben Eli, whom he refers to as “Rabbi Yefeth”.
[4] If so, then why should not the Ammonite and the Moabite also dwell in Ashdod ?
[5] Rashi is clearly basing his explanation on Onkelos: “åéúåáåï áéú éùøàì áàùãåã ãäåå áä ëðåëøàéï”.
[6] This is expressed in rule no. 7 of the “Seven Middoth of Hillel”, one of the three main compendia of the methods of interpretation of the Oral Law. Called “ãáø äìîã îòðéðå”, or “a thing that is learned from its context”, it is, upon superficial examination, a proper method of interpretation of the Torah. In fact, Karaites constantly attempt to learn the meanings of words and concepts based on their context. However, the rule is often applied erratically by the Rabbis. For example, a braita in the Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 86a interprets “Thou shalt not steal” (Exodus 20:13 ) as kidnapping because it is surrounded by laws dealing with offenses against people. However, when almost the exact same exact same words appear in Leviticus 19:11, it is interpreted as theft of property. Taken to its logical extreme, this rule may be expressed by the dictum of R. Akiva that “every scripture which is close to another must be interpreted with respect to it.” Indeed, R. Akiva uses this dictum to arrive at farfetched expositions based on the accidental proximity of two terms.
[7] There are many examples in Rabbinical literature when the Rabbis actually admit outright that they do not know the meaning of words in the Tanakh. “If one who does not understand Hebrew has heard [the Megilah read] in Assyrian, he has performed his obligation. (Mishnah, Megilah 2:1) [Q] But he does not know what they are saying? [A] He is on the same footing as women and ignorant people. Ravina objected to this saying, ‘And do we know the meaning of ha-ahashtranim b’ne ha-ramakhim? (äàçùúøðéí áðé äøîëéí – Esther 8:10) But all the same we perform the precept of reading and proclaiming the miracle.’” [Babylonian Talmud, Megilah 18a] One may see this as great frankness on the part of the Rabbis, indicating that they are men of truth. But I see it differently: not even the false rules of their Oral Law were able to help them in this case!
[8] Two other tools assist us in understanding the Tanakh. The first is Comparative Semitic Linguistics, which involves looking at other Semitic languages (ancient and modern) to understand words in Hebrew whose meanings are unclear. The second is archaeological / historical evidence.
[9] In my opinion, this outright violates the statement in Deuteronomy 30:11-14: “For this commandment which I command you this day, it is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. … But the word is very near unto you, in your mouth, and in your heart, that you may do it.” It establishes a caste of indoctrinated intermediaries whose access to secret knowledge not obtainable by the masses is a prerequisite for coming close to Yehowah and his Torah. In this it is completely anti-Torah.
Be a PS3 game guru.
Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games.
Offline 
Send Email