Home › Forums › Controversial Topics › ashkenaz
- This topic has 71 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 3 months ago by WinnieThePooh.
December 7, 2017 11:48 am at 11:48 am #1421963icemelterParticipant
Gaon- I know at the end of the day it is better to cover the hair I am just bringing these examples where with nowadays luxurious appealing sheitels it is very questionable what is doing more good since the hair covering comes with a lot of side effects. A woman with a natural flat ponytail or a lavish “all men look at me” sheitel?December 7, 2017 12:42 pm at 12:42 pm #1421984mdd1Participant
Gaon, if they violate pretty much everything, it’s not much better. It’s called a mumar for all of the Torah. Plus, I explained already where those Ashkenazim come from, and the Sefardi way of being frei is also based on a major chesoron.December 7, 2017 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #1422571☢️ Rand0m3x 🎲Participant
Actual hair has a din of ervah – wigs do not.December 7, 2017 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1422575Elmo6Participant
Litvish, to answer your question, no, 1500 years is not enough time for physical features the change “naturally” as a result of climate or other environment factors it’s not even close. The reason ashkenazim have European features is certainly due to intermarriage. However, I don’t think you have to be “very disappointed” as a) intermarriage from a genetic perspective can actually be geirei tzedek b) it would take a very small amount (~1%) over the course of many years to produce the phenotypical changes we observe in ashkenazim.
The those denying that ashkenaz Jews are of Middle Eastern decent(slonimer), what?! Not only is it scientifically irrefutable it’s also Torah l’moshe misinai – read sefer beraishis. Our closest genetic relatives are the Lebanese. The avos and for hamidbar etc most definitely looked Middle Eastern. Probably, ou have internalized Western values that white is better which is why it’s hard for you to admit.December 7, 2017 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm #1422609
The Jews in Eretz Yisroel 3,500 and 2,000 years ago, did not look like the non-Jews in Lebanon, Syria, Morocco, Eretz Mitzrayim, or Iraq.
So to compare Jews to the non-Jews today living in the Middle East has no meaning or value and does not demonstrate anything about the historical look or facial or skin features of Jews from thousands of years ago.December 7, 2017 9:15 pm at 9:15 pm #1422607
Elmo, absolutely no one said that Ashkenazim aren’t from the MidEast. All Jews are originally from Eretz Yisroel, of course. That has nothing to do with the points made and no one said otherwise.
What was said, accurately, is that Jews from 3,500 years ago and Jews from 2,000 years ago were not darker skinned. No evidence has been offered, other then personal supposition based on nothing, that you could tell the difference between Jews in Eretz Yisroel 3,500 or 2,000 years ago from Jews today who came from Germany, Syria, Iran, Poland, Spain, Portugal, Russia or France.December 7, 2017 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #1422631emunah247Participant
Slominer- you are making a lot of faulse accusations. If you didn’t want “to go there” you should’ve have gone there at all.December 7, 2017 10:40 pm at 10:40 pm #1422633emunah247Participant
Sorry I meant to write that to MDD1December 10, 2017 8:04 am at 8:04 am #1423083
I think there’s also confusion in this discussion between real Sephardim (who came from the Iberian peninsula) and Mizrachim (who mixed into the Sephardic communities when many Sephardim moved from Spain/Portugal to the Middle East/Arab and African countries.
The real Sephardim are as much European as the Ashkenazim. There’s no evidence to suggest that Sephardim accepted less Geirim than Ashkenazim accepted. Additionally, there’s nothing wrong with or anything to be embarrassed about having accepted Geirim, as Geirim are as Jewish as any Jew-by-descent. If a blonde-haired blue-eyed Ger from Germany had children with those attributes, it is no more or less shameful than if a black African from Somalia became a Ger or an Arab from Syria or Morocco became a Ger, and had children with similar physical traits as themselves.December 10, 2017 9:46 am at 9:46 am #1423179Neville ChaimBerlinParticipant
Lighter skin is a weaker trait. A tiny percentage of gerim would not explain an entire race changing skin tone.December 10, 2017 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm #1423403
1) What evidence do you have how Jews looked before the exile and 2) what evidence do you have that either Sephardim, Ashkenazim or Mizrachim look differently or changed from that look?
Is the best trait the black skin that is found in Africa? We know that Chom was given a klula regarding these traits while Yofes and Shem were given a brocho regarding these traits.December 11, 2017 2:46 am at 2:46 am #1424036☢️ Rand0m3x 🎲Participant
I think “weaker trait” is a genetics term (it doesn’t
mean that those who have that trait are weaker).December 11, 2017 2:54 am at 2:54 am #1424044icemelterParticipant
so if you say that ashkenazim might be a result of geirim, then really where does ashkenaz originate from? That strengthens the argument that originally everyoen was from middle east countries with sephardi traits and some of those sephardim intermarried or married geirim in europe and hence the ashkenazi people were born? Does that mean ashkenaz is just made up? Unless there were ashkenaz Jews living in europe at the same time as Avraham Avinu which wouldnt make sense since creation started in the middle east-Iraq/Gan Eden?December 11, 2017 7:52 am at 7:52 am #1424118
Who said Ashkenaz might be a result of Geirim? Maybe Sephardim are a result of Geirim. Who said originally Yidden had Sephardic traits; perhaps originally Yidden had Ashkenazic traits.
Yidden were in Sephard from the time of the destruction of the first Beis HaMikdash. Whereas the Ashkenazim only came to Europe later after the destruction of the second Beis HaMikdash. So the Ashkenazim were in Eretz Yisroel together with most Yidden longer than the Sephardim, who were in galus much longer.December 11, 2017 3:16 pm at 3:16 pm #1424487WinnieThePoohParticipant
the proper terms for genetic traits would be recessive and dominant, not weaker and stronger.
For skin color, it is not all or none, there are several genes involved in making the pigment melanin, and their expression is incomplete dominance, meaning if you cross white with black you don’t get black, but something in between. There is a wide range of skin color. Environment also affects pigment production- like tanning. It would be interesting to see if Ashkenazim and Mid-eastern Jews had similar skin color genetics, but if environmental factors influenced the actual melanin production.December 11, 2017 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #1424527
Read Jon Entine’s Abraham’s Children. The closest genetic relatives to diverse Jewish populations, both Ashkenazi and Sefardi, are Levantine Arabs, from Lebanon, Syria, Israel. Another issue, which we will have to reconcile with our received history, is that genetic evidence shows remarkable continuity among male inherited genes in Jewish communities over the last 2000 years, but significantly less on the female side, indicating that matrilineal descent has always been a command or demand, but not always been followed in practice especially in medieval and pre-medieval times, with significant conversion and influx of non Jewish women into the gene pool. Another thing that is delicate but we must understand is that there is a reason for chezkas kashrus among a community that was ravaged and assaulted over so many generations, and whose women were often subject to the worst depredations. If you are looking for a reason why non-“Semitic” features entered our gene pool, that’s a good place to start.December 11, 2017 7:34 pm at 7:34 pm #1424544JosephParticipant
Yichusdik, you’re making contradictory points. You’re saying the male gene pool is intact while the female isn’t as much. Then you’re saying that the females were attacked, introducing non-semitic male genes into our pool. You have to decide which story line you want to follow.
What I would submit is that you not pay attention to these gentile and secular genes professors’ theories about Jewish heritage and DNA. They keep changing their storyline, depending on who is looking to make a name for himself with the latest theory. They’re mostly not worth the academic papers they’re printed on.December 11, 2017 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #1424559mdd1Participant
Yihusdik, what kind of an outrageous claim is this – that matrilineal descent was not followed?December 12, 2017 9:03 am at 9:03 am #1424825
Joseph. Genetics indicate to us what is inherited from the male side and the female side. It is not only possible, but indeed likely that traits like hair and eyes could be and were inherited from both male and female sides. There is no contradiction.
And DNA is DNA. it is HKBH’s building block for living things. It isn’t about some professor or another. It is willful blindness like you seem to be advocating here that leaves Jewish women carrying the BRCA genes who are more likely to develop breast cancer and other cancers without adequate knowledge, access to early diagnosis and early treatment, and ultimately a higher mortality rate than could have been avoided, because a professor is trying to make a name for himself with the latest theory. My mother z’l was such an individual.
Mdd1, that is not what I wrote. I wrote that the admixture of non-originally Jewish female DNA (as evidenced through mitochondrial analysis, which only passes from the female side) would have been accomplished through conversion. I did not make the claim that matrilineal descent was not followed. Read carefully, quote properly, and if you can’t do either, please reconsider your participation in the discussion. The only thing that is outrageous is your willful misreading of my post in a lackluster attempt to discredit what you don’t like.December 12, 2017 9:04 am at 9:04 am #1424826
Actually, Mdd1, I should clarify. though I indicated matrilineal descent wasn’t always followed in practice, I meant that Jewish men apparently did not always look only to originally Jewish women to marry, and in that respect didn’t always follow what we would expect. I did indicate that the evidence in mitochondrial DNA proves this, but I also said that these women would have converted, which didn’t and doesn’t impact matrilineal descent. I thought that was clear and it wasn’t. I apologize for my reactive post above.December 12, 2017 9:57 am at 9:57 am #1424874
There’s no basis to assume that either conversions or attacks on women were more prevalent for Jews in either Spain, Germany, Persia, France, Iraq, Yemen or Morocco more than by or on Jews elsewhere.
In fact, Jews were despised and persecuted that there was little incentive, and much to lose, for a non-Jew to become Jewish. And as a historical reality there was relatively very little conversions to Judaism in the Middle Ages when Jews were being severely persecuted and converts to Judaism often faced execution at the hands of the gentiles for converting.
What is interesting is that several years ago scientists determined that 20% of modern Spain’s population descends from Spanish Jewry.December 12, 2017 9:57 am at 9:57 am #1424865WinnieThePoohParticipant
A bit of simple genetics lesson may be needed here:
male is XY, the X comes from mother, Y from father. Female is XX, receiving one X from each parent. All other chromosomes undergo recombination and are a mixture/combination of the genes of each parent. Since the Y chromosome only comes from the father, it can be used to trace patrilineal lineage. The X cannot be used since it comes from both parents. Instead, mitochondrial DNA is used, since it is inherited from the mother.
What yichisdik is saying is that if one follows mitochondrial DNA, one sees non-semitic traits at a higher percentage than when one follows the Y chromosome. That can be explained by non-Jewish women joining the Jewish gene pool at a higher rate than non-Jewish men. Assuming that they converted k’din, there is no problem with matrilineal descent, mdd1. Academic papers do not care if they did, but I think we can be dan l’kaf zechus that the influx was due to conversion, if there really was such as significant influx.
The second point- if a non-Jew ravaged a Jewish woman, he would be introducing his non-semitic genes – for example eye and skin color- equally to daughters (if he also gives over his X chromosome) or his sons (if he gives over his Y chromosome). Following the Y chromosome would indicate the presence of “foreign” genes, but following the mitochondrial DNA would not show this, even among the daughters who would be inheriting non-semitic traits. For the argument presented above to hold about the purity of the lineages, one would have to conclude that this type of genetic “pollution” was much rarer than female conversion. Perhaps this was true, because the assaulted women were probably also murdered by their assailants, R”L. But it could still be a source of non-semitic traits within the Jewish gene pool, which I think is the point yichusdik was making.
Joseph, I agree with you that these sort of studies should be taken with a grain of salt, but not because of their academic quality (not being a geneticist, I can’t judge), but because they are often over-interpreted by eager laymen and Halacha is not determined by gene analysis. Anyway, most papers these days come out in digital form- theoretically there is a print version, but most people are not reading it. So you have to change your metaphor of “not worth the paper they’re printed on”. 🙂
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.