The Roman Senate: An Assembly of Rome’s Citizen-Elite. Cicero Denounces Catiline, Cesare Maccari, 1889. Wikimedia
The Prohibition of Joining the Assembly of the Lord
Deuteronomy prohibits certain groups from “enter[ing] the assembly of YHWH,” לא יבואו בקהל י־הוה, which likely reflects a ban on citizenship. Nevertheless, the oldest and most commonly known explanation for the term is as a prohibition against marriage, an interpretation already found in Kings and Ezra-Nehemiah.
Published: August 25, 2015
|
Last Updated: October 28, 2026
See J. H. Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy(Philadelphia: JPS, 1996), p. 210; J. R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), p. 646. For more on the subject of citizenship in the Ancient Near East, see Thorkild Jacobsen’s classic article, “Primitive Democracy in Ancient Mesopotamia,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2:3 (1943), 159-172.
In priestly literature, this body is also referred to as the ‘edah – see for example Num 27:21; 35:24; Lev 4:13–15 for the three aforementioned spheres, respectively. It should be noted, though, that the term ‘edah has more than one meaning, and can also refer to the entire nation, including women and children, or to all adult males. See J. Milgrom, “Priestly Terminology and the Political and Social Structure of Pre-monarchic Israel,” Jewish Quarterly Review 69/2 (1978), p. 70.
As Tigay, The JPS Torah Commentary: Deuteronomy, pp. 210–211 explains: “Deuteronomy may exclude emasculated men from the Assembly because of the association of emasculation with paganism or because of revulsion against mutilation. Since emasculation disqualifies priests from officiating, and invalidates animals for sacrifice, such defects may have been considered incompatible with the holiness demanded of Israelites.”
There is a cognate word in ancient Ethiopic with the same meaning. See s.v. “mamzer,” Encyclopedia Mikra’it vol. 5 (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968), cols. 1–2.
See Mishnah Yevamot 4:13; Sifre Deuteronomy 248.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that the Deuteronomic legislator had the text of Leviticus 18 in front of him, but he was certainly aware of priestly traditions in broad strokes.
The singular form of שכר in verse 5b may be intentional to signify that only the Moabites were guilty of this second crime (of hiring Balaam).
For this gradation, see Z. Falk, “Those Excluded from the Congregation,” Beit Mikra 20, issue 62 (1975), pp. 342–343 [Hebrew].
עמוני ומואבי אסורים ואיסורן איסור עולם אבל נקבותיהם מותרות מיד מצרי ואדומי אינם אסורים אלא עד שלשה דורות אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות רבי שמעון מתיר את הנקבות מיד אמר ר’ שמעון קל וחומר הדברים ומה אם במקום שאסר את הזכרים איסור עולם התיר את הנקבות מיד מקום שלא אסר את הזכרים אלא עד שלשה דורות אינו דין שנתיר את הנקבות מיד אמרו לו אם הלכה נקבל ואם לדין יש תשובה אמר להם לא כי הלכה אני אומר ממזרין ונתינין אסורין ואיסורן איסור עולם אחד זכרים ואחד נקבות:
See the groundbreaking work of M. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985) and the more recent survey of B. D. Sommer, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation,” in The Jewish Study Bible(2nd ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 1835–1841.
Already Y. Kaufmann described Ezra 9’s exegesis as reflecting a type of early halachic midrash. See Y. Kaufmann, Toledot HaEmunah HaYisra’elit vol. 8 (Jerusalem and Tel Aviv: Mosad Bialik and Dvir, 1976), pp. 291–293 [Hebrew]. Ironically, though, Ezra 9 clearly undercuts the well-known Rabbinic explanation for how Boaz could have married Ruth the Moabitess (namely that Deut 23:4 supposedly excluded only Ammonite and Moabite males). In modern scholarship, the Book of Ruth itself is often taken as a critique of the strictures found in Deut 23 and in Ezra-Nehemiah. See G. Braulik, “The Book of Ruth as Intra-Biblical Critique of the Deuteronomic Law,” Acta Theologica 19 (1999), pp. 1–20; Y. Zakovitch, Ruth: Introduction and Commentary (Mikra LeYisra’el; Tel Aviv and Jerusalem; Am Oved and Magnes Press, 1990), pp. 19–20 [Hebrew].
See G. N. Knoppers, “Sex, Religion, and Politics: The Deuteronomist on Intermarriage,” Hebrew Annual Review 14 (1994), pp. 121–141.
There is a vast amount of scholarly literature on the issue of foreign women in Ezra-Nehemiah. For just one recent provocative discussion, see B. Becking, “On the Identity of the ‘Foreign’ Women in Ezra 9–10 in his book Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Construction of Early Jewish Identity(Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), pp. 58–73.
לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה כנף אביו
The associative logic of the arrangement of Deut 23:1 and the verses following it was already noted indirectly by the Rashbam (ad loc.):
לא יקח איש את אשת אביו – הוכפל כאן לומר שהנולד ממנה הרי הוא, בלא יבא ממזר
J. Milgrom, “Religious Conversion and the Revolt Model for the Formation of Israel,” Journal of Biblical Literature 101 (1982), pp. 173–174.
See Lundbom, Deuteronomy, pp. 649–650.
M. Cogan, “The Other Egypt: A Welcome Asylum,” in M. V. Fox et al (eds.), Texts, Temples, and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran(Winona Lake, In.: Eisenbrauns, 1996), p. 70. For a moving, personal meditation on Deut 23:8 written in the wake of the Yom Kippur war, see H. M. I. Gevaryahu, “Thou Shalt Not Abhor an Egyptian [Deut 23:8],” Dor leDor 3/1 (1974), pp. 6–9.
