Specifically, we're diving into a passage from Sifrei Devarim, a legal commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy, where things get, shall we say, a little… exclusive.
The passage states rather starkly, "There are only three." What "three," you ask? The passage is referring to who cannot enter the congregation of the Lord. And what’s conspicuously missing from this short statement? The congregation of proselytes – converts to Judaism.
It all revolves around a verse in Deuteronomy (23:3): "A mamzer may not come into the congregation of the L-rd." Now, what exactly is a mamzer? It’s not a term we use in everyday conversation, is it? The text itself offers a bit of a definition, breaking down the word mamzer into "mum zar," which roughly translates to "a foreign blemish." This refers to someone born from a forbidden relationship, a union that's considered illegitimate according to Jewish law, whether the child is male or female. The text explicitly excludes the mamzer. Okay, that's difficult enough. But where are converts in this reckoning? Why are they omitted from this tally of those excluded?
This omission sparks all sorts of questions, doesn't it? Is it an oversight? Is it intentional? What does it say about our understanding of inclusion and exclusion, of who gets a seat at the table – or, in this case, in the congregation? Are we saying that converts are automatically "in" and so don't need mentioning? Or is something more complex at play?
Perhaps the sages, in their commentary, were so focused on clarifying the definition of mamzer that they simply didn't feel the need to reiterate the already understood status of converts. Or perhaps, just perhaps, the silence speaks volumes. Maybe it's a reminder that the path to belonging isn't always straightforward, and that even within ancient texts, there's room for interpretation, for discussion, and for a deeper understanding of what it truly means to be part of the community. Food for thought, wouldn't you say?