When Pinchas saw a Israeli sleeping with a Midianite woman, he killed them both as is related in Parshat Pinchas
[In that place God agreed with Pinchas and gave him an everlasting covenant.]
The major problem there I think is that of idolatry, not DNA or nationalism. I mean to say that intermarriage seems to be subject to an argument between Shimon ben Yochai and the Sages. To Shimon Ben Yochai the problem is with anyone that serves idols. That is because he goes by the reason for a verse, not the literal meaning. But the sages confine the verses that forbid intermarriage to their literal meaning --that is the seven Canaanite nations and any other that are mentioned. The verses about Pinchas I think are related to this issue. But it is hard to tell because of the censors.
In any case, after thinking about it I would have to say that the Bible is mainly interested in the problem of idolatry in that place, not so much nationalism. [There is another issue which is if the children are counted as one's own--even if marriage is permitted. After all a Jewish slave is allowed to sleep with a non Jewish slave woman as it says in Exodus in Parshat Mishpatim, but the children are not counted as his.]
I mention this because the blog http://amerika.org brought this up about nationalism. However a friend of mine who learns in a kollel in Jerusalem mentioned to me that Rav Kook defends nationalism.\
[This came up because he was in a mixed kollel in which some people were more on the Religious Zionist side, and others on the reverse side. He asked me about this. I said the nationalism side had support from the Zohar.}
[I have heard a defense of nationalism from Hegel and that makes sense to me. He was not thinking of every state or every nation, but one that had a kind of higher ideal. That is his kind of combination of Platonic forms that participate in the particulars.
From the aspect of Darwin, there is a kind of process of Nature which begins to separate races into different species-- and that is more based on biology more than nationalism.]
[I am not really sure what to say about Christians. The prohibition of intermarriage is an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages but in that argument the only question that comes up is either just the seven Canaanite Nations [That is the opinion of the Tur ] or all idol worshipers (that is the opinion of the Rambam). In the context it is clear that the issue is idolatry. And Christianity itself is subject to debate on this issue. The opinions range all the way from the Rambam to most strict until the Meiri and the Abravanel. Tosphot I once tried to work on with David Bronson, but in the exact same Tospot [In Avoda Zara I forget the page number] there seems to have been a few opinions. I never got very far with the issues of idolatry. The most I can say is that Christianity does not seem to be idolatry to me. In terms of a legal decision all I can say is I usually go by the most lenient opinions of the Rishonim or opinions in the Gemara which are not pushed out of Halacha. [That is to say in the Gemara itself we have a few different ways of deciding. The Rambam and Rif always go by the לישנא בתרא. Other Rishonim go by לישנא קמא. That is to say to make a decision anywhere it is needed to know the actual sugia in the Gemara itself. In any case I am usually lenient a long as there is at least one Rishon that backs me. (A Rishon means Tosphot, Rif Rosh, Tur, Rambam etc.)
Someone sent to me a few volumes of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and I see he has an essay on this subject of the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages. I have not figured out what he is saying exactly but he does have away of getting the decision of the Rambam to fit with the Sages {that are not דורשים טעמה דקרא}
The Tur goes with the simple way of understanding the halacaha that since in deciding a law we do not look at the reason for the law לא דורשים טעמה דקרא;-- so only the seven Canaanite nations are forbidden. [That is the Tur decides plain and simple like R. Yehuda. The Rambam decides like the sages in the law of the king not to have wives above number 18. That is like R. Shimon when the reason for the law is stated in the verse, and like R. Yehuda when it is not. ]
Nationalism I should mention is best dealt with with Richard Epstein -who is a kind of Libertarian. Thus he has a similar problem as does the Talmud which is this: what is the status of a nation? Obviously the Talmud does not deal with that. At most it gets up to the collective level of the Sanhedrin. The most it can do is דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the country is the law. Obviously libertarians have a great deal of trouble also in recognizing the existence of any state. As far as they are considered, it is a non existing entity. Richard Epstein does deal with this problem. Mainly he does this by means of the Constitution which is more or less the approach of the Rashbam in Bava Batra חזקת הבתים where he considers government to a kind of contract. Thus Richard Epstein agrees with the existence of government, and it is not the same thing as a collection of individuals, but he puts limits on its power because of the Constitution. See for example this review.
Also look right at the beginning of the Tur חושן משפט the argument between Rav Joseph Karo and the Bach concerning שותפות. Joining. Partnership. That is a bunch of people put together a collective "purse" of money to do business with. Is it nothing more than a collection of individuals, or is a new entity created?
This is relevant to the State of Israel. Halacha has had for a long time great difficulty in dealing with any State. So people that learn Gemara as a rule have great difficulty in seeing any validity in the rules created by any state. All the more so in the USA where Richard Epstein believes every piece of legislation from 1937 [the New Deal] until now is invalid.
See this debate between Epstein and Huemer Epstein you will notice does justify the existence of government and recognizes it as a separate entity. But he does believe in limited government. That is Epstein is not depending on the Constitution. As far as he is concerned even a monarchy or any kind of government needs to be limited.
How does he justify government? Epstein says contract does not help unless there is a force to enforce contract. It is a Kantian idea of a "ground" of validity.
A libertarian state is by definition unstable and a gang will automatically take over in which a small group of elites enslave everyone else. This is not an a posteriori argument but a a priori argument and thus Epstein wins the debate. Epstein depends of the Just restitution clause a lot. Not restitution but just restitution--the amount the person would be willing to sell his property for to another individual not the government.
[In that place God agreed with Pinchas and gave him an everlasting covenant.]
The major problem there I think is that of idolatry, not DNA or nationalism. I mean to say that intermarriage seems to be subject to an argument between Shimon ben Yochai and the Sages. To Shimon Ben Yochai the problem is with anyone that serves idols. That is because he goes by the reason for a verse, not the literal meaning. But the sages confine the verses that forbid intermarriage to their literal meaning --that is the seven Canaanite nations and any other that are mentioned. The verses about Pinchas I think are related to this issue. But it is hard to tell because of the censors.
In any case, after thinking about it I would have to say that the Bible is mainly interested in the problem of idolatry in that place, not so much nationalism. [There is another issue which is if the children are counted as one's own--even if marriage is permitted. After all a Jewish slave is allowed to sleep with a non Jewish slave woman as it says in Exodus in Parshat Mishpatim, but the children are not counted as his.]
I mention this because the blog http://amerika.org brought this up about nationalism. However a friend of mine who learns in a kollel in Jerusalem mentioned to me that Rav Kook defends nationalism.\
[This came up because he was in a mixed kollel in which some people were more on the Religious Zionist side, and others on the reverse side. He asked me about this. I said the nationalism side had support from the Zohar.}
[I have heard a defense of nationalism from Hegel and that makes sense to me. He was not thinking of every state or every nation, but one that had a kind of higher ideal. That is his kind of combination of Platonic forms that participate in the particulars.
From the aspect of Darwin, there is a kind of process of Nature which begins to separate races into different species-- and that is more based on biology more than nationalism.]
[I am not really sure what to say about Christians. The prohibition of intermarriage is an argument between R. Shimon Ben Yohai and the Sages but in that argument the only question that comes up is either just the seven Canaanite Nations [That is the opinion of the Tur ] or all idol worshipers (that is the opinion of the Rambam). In the context it is clear that the issue is idolatry. And Christianity itself is subject to debate on this issue. The opinions range all the way from the Rambam to most strict until the Meiri and the Abravanel. Tosphot I once tried to work on with David Bronson, but in the exact same Tospot [In Avoda Zara I forget the page number] there seems to have been a few opinions. I never got very far with the issues of idolatry. The most I can say is that Christianity does not seem to be idolatry to me. In terms of a legal decision all I can say is I usually go by the most lenient opinions of the Rishonim or opinions in the Gemara which are not pushed out of Halacha. [That is to say in the Gemara itself we have a few different ways of deciding. The Rambam and Rif always go by the לישנא בתרא. Other Rishonim go by לישנא קמא. That is to say to make a decision anywhere it is needed to know the actual sugia in the Gemara itself. In any case I am usually lenient a long as there is at least one Rishon that backs me. (A Rishon means Tosphot, Rif Rosh, Tur, Rambam etc.)
Someone sent to me a few volumes of the Avi Ezri of Rav Shach and I see he has an essay on this subject of the argument between R. Shimon Ben Yochai and the Sages. I have not figured out what he is saying exactly but he does have away of getting the decision of the Rambam to fit with the Sages {that are not דורשים טעמה דקרא}
The Tur goes with the simple way of understanding the halacaha that since in deciding a law we do not look at the reason for the law לא דורשים טעמה דקרא;-- so only the seven Canaanite nations are forbidden. [That is the Tur decides plain and simple like R. Yehuda. The Rambam decides like the sages in the law of the king not to have wives above number 18. That is like R. Shimon when the reason for the law is stated in the verse, and like R. Yehuda when it is not. ]
Nationalism I should mention is best dealt with with Richard Epstein -who is a kind of Libertarian. Thus he has a similar problem as does the Talmud which is this: what is the status of a nation? Obviously the Talmud does not deal with that. At most it gets up to the collective level of the Sanhedrin. The most it can do is דינא דמלכותא דינא the law of the country is the law. Obviously libertarians have a great deal of trouble also in recognizing the existence of any state. As far as they are considered, it is a non existing entity. Richard Epstein does deal with this problem. Mainly he does this by means of the Constitution which is more or less the approach of the Rashbam in Bava Batra חזקת הבתים where he considers government to a kind of contract. Thus Richard Epstein agrees with the existence of government, and it is not the same thing as a collection of individuals, but he puts limits on its power because of the Constitution. See for example this review.
Also look right at the beginning of the Tur חושן משפט the argument between Rav Joseph Karo and the Bach concerning שותפות. Joining. Partnership. That is a bunch of people put together a collective "purse" of money to do business with. Is it nothing more than a collection of individuals, or is a new entity created?
This is relevant to the State of Israel. Halacha has had for a long time great difficulty in dealing with any State. So people that learn Gemara as a rule have great difficulty in seeing any validity in the rules created by any state. All the more so in the USA where Richard Epstein believes every piece of legislation from 1937 [the New Deal] until now is invalid.
See this debate between Epstein and Huemer Epstein you will notice does justify the existence of government and recognizes it as a separate entity. But he does believe in limited government. That is Epstein is not depending on the Constitution. As far as he is concerned even a monarchy or any kind of government needs to be limited.
How does he justify government? Epstein says contract does not help unless there is a force to enforce contract. It is a Kantian idea of a "ground" of validity.
A libertarian state is by definition unstable and a gang will automatically take over in which a small group of elites enslave everyone else. This is not an a posteriori argument but a a priori argument and thus Epstein wins the debate. Epstein depends of the Just restitution clause a lot. Not restitution but just restitution--the amount the person would be willing to sell his property for to another individual not the government.
