Slavery and Halakha – An Answer To Why Ashkenazic Jews Often Have Blond Hair

Ashkenazim are more lenient with regard to bishul akum (food cooked by non-Jews) and pat akum (bread baked by non-Jews) than Sefardim are. Ashkenazim mandate that a Jew light the fire (or tun on the stove or oven) that is used for cooking. If a Jew has done this then the food is considered bishul yisrael and the bread is pat yisrael. Sefardim are stricter and consider food bishul yisrael and bread pat yisrael only if a Jew did the actual cooking or baking.

I recently found a historical reason for this difference, based not on theology but on practical need.

Jacob Katz in Exclusiveness and Tolerance: Studies in Jewish-Gentile Relations in Medieval and Modern Times points out that early Ashkenazi communities were very small – too small to produce all the food needed for many households. (One must remember that there were no prepared or pre-trimmed and cleaned foods, meat had to be butchered, soaked and salted, wheat had to be cleaned, ground and then kneaded and baked, wine needed to be made, meaning grapes had to be cleaned and crushed, the wine making process started, the wine aged, etc., and there was no refrigeration and no chemical means other than salt and smoking to preserve food.)

Ashkenazim got around this problem by using a ritual fiction – the idea that one moment of lighting a fire was equivalent to hours of food preparation work. Sefardim, who lived in what were then the centers of Jewish life, had no need for these leniencies – therefore, their rabbis did not codify them.

But Katz has something more interesting to say about the subject. From the earliest times of Jewish presence in Europe and commonly through the 10th century, Jews got around the issues of bishul akum, pat akum, yayin nesach, etc. by owning slaves. According to Katz (p. 41-42):

…Jews bought slaves who they then circumcised and converted into 'half' Jews. In the event of manumission the slave became, with certain very slight reservations, a full Jew, and even while he was a slave he was for ritual purposes regarded as a Jew. He could handle the wine of his owner and do his cooking. Not so the Christian servant, to whom the restrictions of the segregative laws applied.

Who were these slaves? Pagan Slavs, whose name, Slav is the actual source for the words in most European languages that mean "slave." The areas Jews lived in were ruled by Christians who viewed pagans as less human, so to speak, than both Christians and Jews, so Jews were allowed to own pagan slaves. (Christians, it must be pointed out, were the primary slave owners by far.) Although Katz does not mention this, I've seen elsewhere that occasionally Khazars would be captured and sold on the slave market. Jews would buy them and set them free – pidyon shvuyim in action in its primary, pre-Internet petition form.

Something else Katz does not mention is the genetic effect of these slaves on Ashkenazi Jewry. I would suspect that slaves were frequently set free so Ashkenazi men could marry them. In the times before Rabbaynu Gershom's ban on polygamy, this may have been even more common.

An estimated 40% of Ashkenazim are traced back genetically to four 'founding' matriarchs who lived in approximately the year 1000. But 60% of Ashkenazim are not traced to these four women. That means, I think (but let C-Girl correct me if I'm wrong on the genetics, just as I hope S. will if I've erred on the history), that the Ashkenazi matriarchal population was quite diverse before 1000 years ago. The bottleneck represented by the four 'matriarchs' occurs about when Jewish slave-owning becomes rare.

How did a Middle Eastern people with predominantly brown skin and dark curly hair morph into a fair-skinned nation of auburn, blond and red-headed members? Sure, maybe the old saw is true and your ggggggg-grandmother was raped by a Cossack or a Crusader. More likely, I think, is slavery.

Yes, as the Haggadah says, we really are descendants of slaves – just a bit more recently than most of us realize.

UPDATE – C-Girl sent a link to a great piece in this week's Forward, My Forefathers Were Yurt-Dwelling Siberians, by Uzi Silber, who describes himself as a "glatt Jew" and who is descended from a long line of known Jews:

…It seemed I’d finally be able to certify my kosher pedigree linking myself inextricably to King David and the prophet Isaiah. And so it came to pass that I sent away for what may be, at $100, the world’s most expensive swab, which I then rubbed inside my cheek and returned to a lab in Texas.

My test results appeared on the Genographic Web site three months later. The result? This glatt Jew was a member of a certain Haplogroup Q.

Who, you might ask, is a Q?

Q, it turns out, is a branch of humanity that arose about 20,000 years ago with “a man born in the savagely cold climate of Siberia.” In other words, I am a direct descendant not of a swarthy Judahite shepherd or Galilean Bronze Age fig farmer, but of a burly yurt-dwelling Siberian sharing tundra turf with herds of still-extant mammoths.…

So who, indeed, is a Q? While research is still ongoing, it is possible that Qs are descended from the Khazars, the mysterious Central Asian nation that converted to Judaism 1,200 years ago. Haplogroup Q would become one of the founding lineages of Ashkenazi Jewry, which emerged 1,000 years ago. So while several of these Ashkenazi lineages, such as Haplogroup J, link to ancient Israelites, mine does not.…

Of course the other theory Silber does not mention, probably becuase he does not know about it, is that Jewish Qs are in part descended from slaves owned by early Ashkenazi Jews, the slave in your grandfather's kitchen, so-to-speak.

Comments

[Yochanan Lavie]

Our peoplehood is based on the covenant. That is why converts can say Avraham, etc. are their "ancestors." It is the continuity of our religion and culture that matters, not race. But the persistence of the "Cohen gene," Jewish genetic diseases and even genetic links to Sephardim, Meditteranean people, and even Palestineans that have been found show that Ashkenazim have some Semitic content.

I am a pale skinned Ashkenazi. I am sure I have non-Semitic blood, along with some Semitic blood. Almond shaped eyes persist in some family members- Khazar? Tatar? But the land of my longing is Eretz Yisrael, not blood-soaked Europe.

Anti-Semites and Anti-Zionists (the 2 are not synonomous, but often overlap) have been trying for years to prove that Jews are not who we say we are. The addition of convert blood, even from slaves, does not change who we are. (Slavery was near-universal, anyhow).

[Yakir Pinchas]

This is very interesting. It is also interesting that you bring up the Khazars, because I believe that the Ashkenazim ARE the Khazars. Have you not heard this theory? See here for more info:
http://www.solargeneral.com/library/13tribe.pdf

I read Arthur Koestler's book The Thirteenth Tribe, and the argument is pretty airtight, and the book is very impressive. I also heard through a very long grapevine (third-hand source) that Koestler and his wife were assassinated by being burned to death in their sleep, most probably by Mossad, most likely for fear that the news would delegitimize the Ashkenazi religious claims to Eretz Yisroel.

[C-Girl]

Actually, Shmarya, the implications of four matriarchal mitochondrial DNA lineages is even more striking. A "bottleneck" theory supposes that all but 4 unrelated women were wiped out from an established population, and those four were left to carry on the genetic legacy.

However, these findings seem to indicate that, about 1000 years ago, 4 women went off as part of a fledgling population- a "founder event"- giving rise, in the past 1000 years, to nearly half of all Jews that claim Ashkenazic lineage and also to a statistically significant number of non-Askenazi Jews.

Of course, we know little about the lineage of those 4 women. Were they Semitic? Khazar? It will be interesting to follow this story as it unfolds.

What we seem to know thus far is that there's about a 25% chance that 40% of Ashkenazic Jews are cousins.

Good Shabbos to my extended family.

[zdub]

I believe that the Ashkenazim ARE the Khazars.

DNA evidence has essentially destroyed Koestler's thesis. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koestler#Judaism

[Yissachar]

You should stick to exposing corruption instead of discussing Judaism and in the process betraying your unbelievable ignorance. The vast majority of Poskim say it's enough for a Jew to throw a twig into the fire under a pot for the contents to be considered bishul yisrael. The Rambam says so; I suppose he was also an Ashkenazi slaveowner?

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya--I think you misunderstand the significance of the 4, there is not a bottleneck of 4 per se, but the reverse, over time only a small number of original mothers of a founding generation continue to be represented in populations, the 4 are the lines that *remain* not the lines that started out. Plus Katz doesn't seem to be speaking about women slaves or marriage and other findings have mentioned out-marriage to gentile women without reference to slaves (you can marry a girl without owning her first).

A poster on your story notes that there is not a reduction to 4 FOUNDERS at some point, rather matriarchal lines expand from many more female ancestors AND *die out* so the families left trace back to only a few of the maternal founders--but those female founders were not the only founders of their generation.

I have read other findings suggesting that there was one generation of marriage (not slavery) to gentiles as that other menfolk ancestors of that other 60% settled in the diaspora without wives. Afterwards the social ban on "marrying out" is resumed and the matriarchal mitochondrial DNA stabilizes.

There is a group of Jewish women who accompany their husbands into the diaspora and over time the genetic lines reduce as specific family groups (relating backwards towards common female ancestors) predominate over others. These women are supplemented by a generation of women who are married by single Jewish males and convert:

"Different women will have different numbers of daughters and there's a tendency for some lines to reproduce more prolifically than others. There's a neat little mathematical trick which demonstrates that if you take the total number of women in an isolated group, (say 40), within the same number of generations (40) every female in the group will most likely be descended from just one original female. Using that formula, a group of 160 women could reduce to just 4 lines in 1,000 years. Of course, in the article, it says 40% came from just 4 lines which means there were a lot more than 160 in the original migratory group and there's still plenty of reducing yet to go before you get down to just one line. It's estimated that every woman living today is descended from just one female who lived about 160,000 years ago."

[Ben Qor'ha]

Yissachar
can you give an actual quote of rambam? actually there is a difference in halakhic attitude to pat nokhri and bishulei akkum. could it be that you are reffering to the twig in bread making?

[Anon]

I don't understand Katz's connection to Bihul Akum etc. First you write there were not enough jews to prepare the food so the ashkenazin relied on just lighting the fire and then you say that they needed to buy slaves to prepare the food (not just to light the fires). Either they relied on heter of just lighting the fire and no slaves were necessary, or they didn't rely on this heter and his reasoning for the difference between ashkenazim and sefardim is wrong.

[Paul Freedman]

Also, Shmarya, I am a born Ashkenaz, all my family were Ashkenaz, and I spent some time in Israel. I've met about 3 blond Jews in my life. Again, the Katz quote cited speaks only of manservants.

[Paul Freedman]

Another note, Shmarya, you might consider that this is a survey of *surviving* Ashkenaz, a population that was subject to particular pressures spared the Sephardic heartland in the 20th century: in addition to the "mathematical" tendency of original lines to reduce over time as matriarchal lineages die out and flourishing lineages predominate. we'd need to consider the statistical anomalies introduced by the Holocaust and the possible exacerbation of the tendency of relative disparities in family success to reduce *surviving* original matriarchal lines by inequities in family groupings affected by the eradication of the Ashkenaz populations of Western Europe, Eastern Europe and Occupied Russia.

Although it may be that overall the effects evened out and that branches were sheared off from the founding 4 matriarchal trunks rather than entire matriarchal trees having been sacrificed.

In any event, the bottleneck "effect" is produced by reduction over time and is not indicative of an historical bottleneck *at the time of origin* of the founding generation.

Intermarriage, of course, has increased in modern times, following post WWII assimilation. Those blond kids you keep running into may be first generation born Jews.

[Paul Freedman]

In summary, according to the mathematical note on the article: a fairly large diverse group of patriarchal and maternal founders settle in the diaspora. Overall, these flourish but *even as the total population flourishes* given the relative disparity in offspring, over time, a few (4 in this case) distinct matriarchal lines come to predominate. In addition, it has been suggested that single Jewish men inter-married to get themselves started before the ban against exogonous unions was reimposed. I am suggesting that possible statistical inequities in lineages affected by losses to the Ashkenaz community during WWII might have possibly entirely eliminated one or more founding matriarchal lineages.

[C-Girl]

"...I am a born Ashkenaz, all my family were Ashkenaz, and I spent some time in Israel. I've met about 3 blond Jews in my life."

I've seen more than that many blond Jews just this morning!

And Paul, please note that we're not hearing about a reduction to four lines- this theory purports an *origin* from four lines. "Bottlenecks" and "founder events" are very different concepts in population genetics.

[Tarshisha]

The fact is, that the blond hair usually darkens with age. This why you can go to the ultra-orthodox Mea Shaarim in Jerusalem and see a lot of blond kids there, but only few blond adults.

[Lawrence M. Reisman]

Actually there is another explanation for light-skinned Ashkenazim. Poland, Lithuania, and the Ukraine were invaded by the Teutonic Knights in the Middle Ages and the Swedes in the 1600s, both of whom have large cohorts of blonds. Soldiers went raping indiscriminately, leaving their gene pool behind. This is why there are so many blonde Poles as well. A similar phenomenon happened in Transylvania with the Mongols in the 1100s and 1200s, which is why you have Hungarian (and Hungarian Jewish) populations with Oriental features. 40 years ago in Cleveland, there was a Marmarosher synagogue on Coventry Rd., the members of which came from that area, and most of them looked decidely Chinese. As did the concertmaster of the Cleveland Orchester, Daniel Majeske, who was of Hungarian descent.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Actually, Kievan Rus, the precursor state to Russia, Ukraine, and Belorus, was founded by Vikings. They married local Slavic women, and started a fusion culture. Both Nordic and Slavic gods were worshipped, until Christianity. The names Boris and Igor (Igvir, in Scandanavian) are examples of this. That would also explain blond Slavs.

[Shmarya]

See the update to the post for more …

[Paul Freedman]

C -Girl, doesn't the story only say that of those Jews remaining, their origin is traced back to 4 subjects--I don't see that this precludes more original founders and subsequent reduction of extant lines: the poster suggested the extant 4 is the result of original founders having given rise to offspring whose traceable lines gradually reduced to those 4 although there were originally more individuals in the cohort--I would appreciate, however, your explanation of bottleneck vs. origin as well as why 1000? This is the stumper for me: what is the relation between these 4 and the mitochondrial DNA of Sephardic: I had assumed that the identification of these 4 as dating from 1000 did not preclude their origination from the Middle East, that we could have, given other techniques, traced precursors behind them--but now I wonder--are we saying that virtually all Ashkenaz, the 60 as well as the 40 percent are the result of males "out-marrying"?

I've missed all these blonds.

I don't think there were any marauding Teuton's in my family--I wish

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya, given the common Middle Eastern origin noted by earlier genetic studies this is still a side-issue for the paternal line. And btw re non MEastern paternal inheritance noone but you seems to connect this to slaves, not Katz, not Koestler, not the descendant of gurts--these reference non-Jewish males (Khazars or gurtmen) who become Jews of their own free will.

Still, this is a red herring. You ignore that the story notes that the patrilineal lineage of Ashkenaz Jews is predominantly MIDDLE EASTERN not European:

"This is consistent with previous findings based on studies of the Y-chromosome, pointing to a similar pattern of shared paternal ancestry of global Jewish populations, originating in the Middle East."

Global Jewish populations share Middle Eastern paternal influence. This other stuff is, statistically speaking, a diversion.

[Shmarya]

It's not a diversion, Paul and it is not statistically insignificant. It shows clearly that Jewish males married non-Jewish females. The same thing happened in other parts of the world, as well.

As for why Katz did not mention it, he wrote long before genetic research was doable.

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya: I meant its a diversion re: the paternal line (not the maternal)--the Khazari story of mass conversion relates to paternal not maternal influences, no? (that is the Khazari guys converted, not that they raped Jewish women)--the anti-Zionists used this to "prove" that European Jews had no connection to Israel, not via mom or dad--I still don't see how Katz scenario of Jewish manservants directly ties in one way or the other with our Ashkenaz gentile great-great-great grand ma ma's.

[Shmarya]

Both male and female Khazars converted.

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya: may be so, and precisely the point of the old PLO propagandists that stated that the Ashkenaziim were totally European, but the genetic studies still show that the genetic inheritance for Ashkenaziim shared the paternal Middle Eastern ancestors of the Sephardiim.

Genetic studies show the common Middle Eastern ancestry on the father's side for Sephardic and Ashkenaz Jews. The contribution of gurtmen, Khazari's, raping Teutons, has not AFIK yet been demonstated to be a significant contribution to Ashkenaz paternal inheritance, the "shared paternal ancestry of global Jewish populatoins, originating in the Middle East".

To suggest otherwise is not scientific and a slur.

[Paul Freedman]

of course converts are 100% Jewish too

[Paul Freedman]

if not 1000%

[Yakir Pinchas]

ZDub,

You must be one of those people who believes everything that Wikipedia says. Big mistake. There is a very large desire to cover up this story, which I consider to be foolish and immature considering that Jews needn't resort to religion to argue for a Jewish state. There shouldn't say "we were there 2000 years ago; therefore we should be there today." That is NOT the argument for the Jewish state, and anyone who makes that argument only does Jews an injustice.

However, because most Jews don't know how to argue for their own Jewish state, you will find knee-jerk opposition to Koestler's hypothesis. And it's not convincing.

I don't buy into the "DNA evidence disproves Koestler's thesis" at all. That "DNA evidence" is doesn't exist. What is called "DNA evidence" in this case is what I call "bad science." Just as you mustn't believe everything you read on Wikipedia, you mustn't believe everything that is called "science."

I am familiar with the purported "DNA evidence" linking the Khazars to the ancient Middle East, but that is because the original Jews--the "Israelites"--are Sephardim, and a substantial Sephardim population migrated to Khazaria, which is one reason that the Khazars were converted to Judaism: because the dwelling Sephardim--who were exiled from Israel--didn't just migrate to Babylonia, where the Talmud Bavli was produced. They also migrated to Khazaria. And after the conversion took place, there was intermarriage between the Sephardic Jews and Khazarian Jews.

So it is not because of slaves that the Ashkenazi Jews are white. Besides, there would have to be a lot more mating with slaves to get the Ashkenazi Jews this white. Rather, it is because the Ashkenazim are the Khazars.

[Paul Freedman]

YP: but you are saying that the Khazars *are* the Sephardiim who then weren't Jewish and then were if I follow-you, if the Khazars are the Sephardiim then that does disprove Koestler if Koestler thought that the Khazars had no Jewish/Israelite/Sephardic blood--you are agreeing, I think, really, with those who use DNA evidence to disprove a theory of non-Israelite paternity for Ashkenaz--which is where I thought Koestler was going

[Yochanan Lavie]

Were the Khazars really white? I thought they were Turkic/Asiatic. Light-skinned to be sure, but not racially white. Someone who knows, please answer.

[Paul Freedman]

Oh, wait, I see, you say that the Khazars dug the Sephardiim--well, But we are talking about genetic studies not on Khazars but Ashekenaz Jews that link us paternally to Israel--doesn't matter what the Khazars were, the studies suggest they aren't our paternal ancestors if they weren't genetically kin to Sephardiim on the paternal line--our paternal DNA IS DISTINCT FROM NON-JEWISH POPULATIONS according to what I've read.

[C-Grrl]

Here: hash through this article yourselves when you've got the time. It's too complicated to explain.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJHG/journal/
issues/v70n6/013504/013504.html

Here's a ton of information if you've made it past the first link:

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/abstracts-jews.html

Still, none of this manages to explain why we like Chinese food so much.

[Yakir Pinchas]

Yochanan, the Khazars were white. They spoke a Turkish language.

Paul, there is no question that we have DNA that is distinct from non-Jewish populations, but the question is whether the DNA takes us to Israel. If and insofar as our DNA is Arabic/Middle Eastern, that would HAVE to come from either one of two places: intermarriage between Sephardim-Israelite and Khazar-Ashkenazim, or the Middle Eastern streak is intrinsic to the Khazars.

Now, had this been a REAL scientific study to disprove Koestler, then there would be DNA tests of Khazars and DNA tests of Ashkenazim, and the DNA would be different. But there can be no such test. Why? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO TWO GROUPS, ONE KHAZAR AND ONE ASHKENAZIM, BECAUSE THE ASHKENAZIM ARE THE KHAZARS.

Koestler is vouchsafe. The Khazars were a major empire that converted to Judaism. What happened to all those Khazars? Did they just disappear from the face of the earth? Of course not. We are they, and they are we. It's not a problem. There is nothing wrong with it. There is nothing wrong with not being the progeny the alleged Patriarchs. I don't care. It's just controversial because anti-Semites use it as a talking point, but it means nothing.

[Yakir Pinchas]

I misused the word "vouchsafe," but that's okay. I'm still alive. What I meant to say is "fail-safe."

Wait so you are saying that wee raised slave children as jews?

[R]

I am part sephardi and party ashkenazi, but on my ashkenazi side i have a direct line to Dovid Hamelech. So how can you say all ashkenazim are kazahrs???
Maybe alot of them are. Then again i am dark haired and my skin isn't as white as my husband's and the reason for his blond hair and light easy to burn skin is because his father is a convert.
This issue is interesting for those interested in where they come from, but i don't see how it relates to Israel being a land of the Jews?

[anonymous]

SEE:
Blond, tall, with honey-colored eyes: Jewish ownership of slaves in the Ottoman Empire
Author: Ben-Naeh, Yaron
Source: Jewish History, Volume 20, Numbers 3-4, December 2006 , pp. 315-332(18)

Abstract:
Hundreds of Hebrew written sources, dozens of official decrees, judicial records (sijillat), and reports of European travelers indicate that slaveholding - particularly of females of slavic origin - in Jewish households in the urban centers of the Ottoman Empire was widespread from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries. This halachically and legally problematic habit was an unparalleled phenomenon in any other Jewish community in the early modern period. The presence of slaves in Jewish households effected family life in many ways. I dealt with two of them: The first is cohabitation of Jewish men with female slaves, usually non-Jewish, who in effect served as their concubines and bore them legitimate children; the second is marriage with manumitted slaves who converted to Judaism and became an integral part of the community. These phenomena attest once again to the great extent to which Jewish society and its norms and codes were influenced by Muslim urban society, and the gap between rabbinic rhetoric ideals and the dynamic daily existence of Jews from all social strata.

[Shmarya]

"I am part sephardi and party ashkenazi, but on my ashkenazi side i have a direct line to Dovid Hamelech"

You don't. No one does. What you have is a direct line (perhaps) to a rabbi who traces his descent to another rabbi who, people claimed, is descended from King David.

[Neo-Conservaguy]

BTW, his name was Dowith. At least you damn Khazars get the first vowel correct, unlike the damn Sephardim with their simplified Ladino vowels.

;-)

[Shmarya]

anonymous –

Thanks for the citation.

[Treifalicious]

Personally, I think the whole Khazar thing is a moot question. Once you convert you are 100% Jewish as anyone else born Jewish and so attempts to delegitimize Ashkenazim by saying they are not really of the seed of Israel is bogus and tachlis, I think comes from a sort of anti-semititic misunderstanding (by means a concept of "racial purity" that is foreign to Judaism) of what it means to be Jewish.

Some non-Ashkenazim buy into this Khazar bullshit because it is a weapon to use against Ashkenazim whom they feel have them under the boot. But believe you me that those who try to delegitimize the Jewishness of Ashkenazim with this Khazar bullshit will find some way to delegitimize all Jews including Sephardim/Mizrachim.

Foolish, Foolish, Foolish. When are the Jewish people going to WAKE UP ALREADY!!!

[Paul Freedman]

Treifalicious--as an Ashkenaz, my impression had been that the Khazar thing was always considered legendary amongst Jews, including Yehuda HaLevi--a Khazar Jewish history educational website reproduces fragmentary/literary allusions to a conversion/event[s], Arabic historians I think with quotations along the lines of "there were Jewish kings" or "Jews came and the people converted" etc. (http://www.khazaria.com/khazar-quotes.html)--this brings to mind the old joke with the punchline

Rabbi: You've been pestering me for weeks. How many times do I have to tell you I just can't make you a Cohen!!! Why are so set on this anyways?
Shlomo: Well Rabbi, my father was a Cohen, his father was a Cohen, and his father before him. So I thought I'd like to be one too....

[Shmarya]

Nope. It really happened, Paul.

[Yochanan Lavie]

I find it a source of pride that the Khazars converted. It means we had kings, queens, and an army in post-biblical times. We weren't always schleppy victims. But the Syrians, I'm sure, wouldn't marry us JW's if they thought we are Khazars(LOL).

Treifo: I am sure leftwing Ashkenazim are happy to be Khazars, so that they can disavow Zionism and Eretz Yisrael. As for me, I agree that once the Khazars joined our nation, they adopted Israel as their spiritual homeland.

Speaking as an Ashke-Khazar (and not a chazar, I hope), there is no Khazaria anymore. It is now Southern Russia. There's no "there" there. There is no Khazar ethnicity anymore. Some have been absorbed into the Jewish people, the rest have converted further to Christianity and Islam, and joined those people.

There is only one homeland for the Jews- Israel (although America ain't bad either).

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya--bavakasah, cite one modern critical historical source that confirms a statistically significant mass conversion of the Khazars--again the genetic evidence would appear to rule out a fundamentral East-Asian genetic ancestral contribution to Ashkenaziim, which is AFIK Koestler's theory--that paternally Ashkenaz are primarily of medieval gentile origin. As far as I can tell the point of this myth is not to elevate the ideal of conversion but to denigarate European Jews.

[Paul Freedman]

The point of the exercise--Jews are not Semites, Jews are not really Jews. The Ashkenaz are deluded or self-conscous liars. If I have to choose between one deracionated Jewish intellectual or intellectual provacterus and the traditions of my family, I choose my family. Basically, Shmarya seems to be making the point that falasha are the real Jews, whites are imposters.

"Now, after many years of research, a well-known Jewish author, Arthur Koestler has published a 255 page book titled THE THIRTEENTH TRIBE in which he proves the same point; i.e. that these Eastern European "Jews" are neither Israelites nor "Semites," but are instead Khazars, Mongols, and Huns! Most major newspapers and magazines reviewed the book during 1976. Also, Random House, the publisher, advertised it extensively and began some of their ads with the following headline: WHAT IF MOST JEWS AREN'T REALLY SEMITES AT ALL? In addition, Random House quoted the following reviews:"

[Paul Freedman]

Same old same old

[Paul Freedman]

Cultural continuity would also argue against the Ashkenaz being significantly impacted by external conversion. Unlike the falasha, for example, whose culture is reported to lack evidence of familiarity with Hebrew texts, the Ashkenaz do not demonstrate in their traditions the suspect syncretism of the Ethiopian claimants.

[Paul Freedman]

But genetic testing might for devotees of science confirm Ethiopian traditions. The same studies cited originally by this blog, however, are precisely the science with a capital S that confirm the common family heritage (paternal) of Sephardiim and Ashkenaz Jewry, a finding that disproves Koester's exuberant theory that the Ashkenaz are the offspring, literally, of gentiles in the 7th century.

[Paul Freedman]

Shmarya: iot, given your championing of materialist science your apparent champioinng of a theory of gentile and literallly early medieval origins of Ashkenaziim en toto can does not parse with the scientific evaluation of the ancestral linkages of all wings of the worldwide Jewish community

[Paul Freedman]

unless you're talking about Reform....

[Shmarya]

Paul –

1. Ashkenazi Jews owned Slavic slaves.

2. Some of those slaves entered into Judaism either through conversion or through their children, conceived with the male slaveowner.

3. Science confirms this, at least in the sense of genetics and genetic origins.

4. Do scholars think the Khazars converted? Yes. There is ample evidence that, at the very least, the upper classes and a portion of the rest of the populace of Khazaria did convert to Judaism.

Here's a brief synopsis of the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazars#Conversion_to_Judaism_and_relations_with_world_Jewry

[Yochanan Lavie]

A conversionary community is just as valid as racial Jews, whether they are Ethiopian, Khazar, whatever. (My SY colleagues notwithstanding). Once you are a naturalized citizen of the Jewish nation (a convert), Eretz Yisrael is your homeland. Now that we have a political entity in our homeland (thank God- power is good as Ruth Wisse writes), we can express that with the modern instrument of citizenship as well.

[Yochanan]

" maybe the old saw is true and your ggggggg-grandmother was raped by a Cossack or a Crusader."

When I was researching my family history for a project in Junior High School, my mother told me that some ancestor of ours killed a cossak that was about to rape her with a knife hidden under her bed.

[Lev]

Shmarya, you know, 51 comment is too much even for me, but don't you forget that antisemites from Far East to England always portrayed Jews with Mideastern features...

[Yochanan]

Yeah, and even pasty blond Ashkenazim tend to have big semitic noses.

Maybe you could do a post on why it seems that the only peoples that have red hair are the Scottish, Irish, and Ashkenazi Jews.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Yochanan: There is a theory that the British Isles (including Ireland)has the 10 Lost Tribes. That's why only Celts and Jews have red hair. It is a totally unscientific theory, but it has a long history. Rabbi Sokolovsky has a link to a webpage about that.

[Yochanan]

More specifically Ashkenazi Jews.

[Rachel Abner]

The ignorance here is astounding, no evidence suggests the Ancient Judeans were all that swarthy and dark-this is more the characterisitc of the Arabs who arrived in the area later. Jews have always had some Blonde hair along with brown and red.

[khazar theory]

http://yahadot.blogspot.com/2011/11/jews-are-not-khazars.html

http://yahadot.blogspot.com/2011/12/jews-are-white.html

khazar theory is bullshit.khazars became muslim .only 500,upper class khazarians even converted to Yahadut!