On the "internally enforced criterion of Spirituality, both the Mazdayasnian partners should be spiritually compatible.
- And finally, we ask the intriguing FIFTH QUESTION: What is the REAL ROLE OF THE JAHI who figures so prominently in Vendidad XVIII-62?
Let us first quickly recall some points we had analyzed earlier:
- A jahi is an immoral or licentious person, who happens to be a male in XVIII-62.
- The operative verb is hânm-raethwayeiti, signifying the complete and contaminative mixing of things - of procreative seeds in this instance.
- The copulative particle cha inseparably unites each of the three mixed couples: e.g., daevayasnanânm adaevayasnanânmcha = Daevayasnians and non-Daevayasnians.
Hânm-raethwayeiti is a Causal Verb, formed by appending the standard causative suffix aya to the root. A Causal Verb indicates that "a person or thing causes or makes or orders another person or thing to perform the action." This helps to answer our question - the jahi is a catalyst who "causes or makes or orders" others to "perform the action." The "action" is the sex act in which procreative seeds get mixed; and the "others" who are prompted by the jahi to perform this action are the mixed couples defined in the three Classes of people. Thus, the jahi of XVIII-62 is definitely NOT a direct participant in the sexual union, which occurs exclusively between the two partners making up the mixed couple (unless, of course, we would like to believe that there can be three partners in the sex act!). This is further confirmed by the use of the Inseparable Copulative Particle cha. Thus, the jahi acts as a promoter who causes the religiously or spiritually unmatched couples to enter into sexual unions and "mix seeds," with resultant "contamination" of lineage.
In addition to being Causal, hânm-raethwayeiti is found to be conjugated in the Parasmaipada ("Active") Voice, formed by appending the standard termination ti for the third personal singular in the present tense. The Parasmaipada is used "when the fruit or consequence of the action expressed by the verb accrues to a person or thing other than the agent." How revealing! The "fruit or consequence" (i.e., children, progeny) of the "action expressed by the verb" (i.e., the procreative sex act or "mixing of seeds") does NOT accrue to the "agent" (i.e., the jahi)! This provides double confirmation that the jahi is only a promoter who influences the mixed couples to unite and beget children - these being the "fruits" of their union, belonging to themselves alone and not to the jahi.
The grammatical evidence conclusively clarifies the role the jahi plays in XVIII-62. He is an influential third-party who acts as a PROMOTER or agent to advocate, instigate and generally aid and abet mixed sexual unions, thereby misleading OTHERS to knowingly or unknowingly engage in a practice prohibited in the Zarathushtrian Religion.
In the specific context of Vendidad XVIII-62, it is unimportant whether the jahi is a libertine in his own personal life, at least in the narrower sexual meaning of the term. He is, however, an immoral person and a libertine in the broader sense, inasmuch as he exerts influence on others to flout Zarathushtrian religious law, tradition and custom - thereby causing dissension, discord, distrust, disruption and degeneration in the socio-religious fabric of the Zarathushtrian community. We gather from Vendidad XVIII-62 that jahis of this type did exist in ancient times. It is up to the reader to ponder whether their modern-day counterparts are to be found in our own times.
Before leaving our discussion on the jahi of Vendidad XVIII-62, we need to clear up two related misunderstandings which have unfortunately led to confusion and bitterness in the Parsi community.
- First, it has been opined by certain scholars that, on the basis of this passage, intermarried Parsis/Iranis are JAHIS. This, however, is not correct.
Our in-depth study demonstrates that in Vendidad XVIII-62 the mixed couples are not considered to be jahis, and that the term "jahi" is not employed there to designate these couples. In XVIII-62, the appellation "jahi" is reserved EXCLUSIVELY for the influential third party who causes the mixed couples to enter into procreative unions. This is perfectly clear from the grammatical fact that the word "jahi" is the SUBJECT of the Causal verb hânmraethwayeiti.
- Second, it has also been opined by these scholars, on the basis of this passage, that intermarried Parsis/Iranis (the so-called jahis) are engaged in ADULTERY. This too is not correct. Our in-depth analysis finds this particular word inadmissible for Vendidad XVIII-62, for the reasons explained below.
A jahi is a person, not a thing or a concept. "Jahi" is a common noun, whereas "adultery" is an abstract noun. The real term for "adultery" happens to be jaesh, although its usage in the Avesta is obscure. Clearly, "adultery" is NOT "jahi" in Avesta. In short, the word "adultery" DOES NOT EXIST in Vendidad XVIII-62.
In normal English usage, the established dictionary meaning of "adultery" is: "violation of the marriage-bed, whether one's own or another's." In short, sexual INFIDELITY in marriage. Self-indulgent sexual liaisons of this sort are at complete VARIANCE with the true purport of XVIII-62, which, as we have thoroughly established earlier in this study, has to do with procreation and progeny and NOT merely with sexual self-indulgence. It may also be pointed out that in adulterous affairs, getting pregnant is avoided like the plague!
In specialized English usage, one finds that the word "adultery" can also be "applied opprobriously, especially by theologians, to marriages disapproved of"; or that in Biblical language it signifies "unchastity generally"; or that it indicates "image-worship"; or that in its obsolete usage it once meant "adulteration, falsification." Some of these meanings may be thought to bear some relationship to XVIII-62 in a general way. But that is not good enough for the scholarly rigour of a literal translation. None of these specialized usages denotes "a licentious person," which is what is meant by the term "jahi." Moreover, none of them denotes sexual faithlessness in marriage, which is what adultery is normally understood to indicate.
Considering the consternation that it has created, one cannot help but wonder how the inflammatory term "adultery" came to be wrongly applied to Vendidad XVIII-62 and thence to intermarried Parsis. It would appear that this arose from trying to seek an English equivalent for the Gujerati word vyabhichâr, which had been used in a classic 1884 translation of XVIII-62 into Gujerati. A standard Gujerati-to-English dictionary shows that vyabhichâr can take one of various meanings: "going away or deviating from the right course; adultery; unchastity; lapse from duty; anomaly; [logic] absence of invariable concomitance." It would seem that the word "adultery" was chosen from this array of meanings as the English equivalent of Gujerati vyabhichâr. Having seen and understood the semantic complexities of the term "adultery" in the English language itself, this does not appear to have been the happiest of choices; one of the other meanings, such as "going away or deviating from the right course," would have been far less problematic.
It has been contended that If "adultery" were to be viewed in a FIGURATIVE SENSE as an act of infidelity towards the Religion, it would appropriately reflect the apostatical conduct depicted and denounced in XVIII-62 - since the jahi and the mixed couples are, after all, involved in a breach of faith towards the Zarathushtrian Religion by disobeying its matrimonial laws. This may be so. But scholarship cannot possibly depend on hypothetical figurative meanings - especially for words which do not exist! - in a passage that is being subjected to the rigours of literal translation.
Our research into Vendidad XVIII-62 shows that although the mixed sexual unions entered into by the mixed couples are certainly prohibited for all those who profess the Mazdayasni-Zarathushtri faith, neither does the grammatical nor the conceptual evidence support the view that these Mazdayasnians are jahis or that they are engaged in adultery.
Summation
The principal conclusions from the new translation and interpretation of Vendidad XVIII-62 are very briefly summarized below for purposes of clarity and convenience.
- The passage deals neither with prostitution nor with other general sexual transgressions which are casually undertaken for erotic self-indulgence.
- Instead, it deals with conception and procreation through the steady and serious sexual union of religiously or spiritually mixed couples.
- Since these relationships are indicated as falling under the sway of a jahi and are stated to be contaminative, they cannot be sanctioned, sanctified or recognized under Zarathushtrian Religious Law.
- The Zarathushtrian Religion therefore seeks to prevent their occurrence and prohibits Mazdayasnians from forming such unions.
- No discrimination is found to be made between men and women in the application of this prohibition.
- A Zarathushtrian Marriage is considered to take place only when it occurs (under the prescribed marital sacraments) within the Mazdayasnian religious community and between Mazdayasnians of comparable spiritual calibre.
- The jahi - a male in this passage - is a distinct and separate entity, a third-party who is not one of the partners in the mixed union.
- However, he plays a role of influence in advocating and encouraging mixed unions, thereby causing their occurrence and grieving Ahura Mazda.
- Although these mixed unions - nowadays called "mixed marriages" - are prohibited, the view that intermarried Mazdayasnians are jahis or that they are engaged in adultery is untenable.
Conclusion
In any field of scholarly endeavour, there is always the freedom to dissent, but never the licence to distort. Intellectual integrity and moral courage demand that commentators first verify what a scriptural text really has to say, and then disagree if the scriptural viewpoint happens to be unpalatable to them.
Unfortunately, we increasingly find the reverse, with some writers first twisting the real meaning out of shape either deliberately or through want of sufficient care, and then flashing that distorted image before the world to "prove" a preconceived notion. In matters of religion this is obnoxious - especially on sensitive religious topics with serious and widespread ramifications, where often it is even necessary to go directly to the original text rather than relying blindly or uncritically on existing translations. Vendidad XVIII-62 is a case in point, and Pak Vendidad a prime target of scholarly vandalism.
It is hoped that our research into XVIII-62 will serve to establish the religious authenticity of our community's strong and age-long disfavour of mixed marriages. Although this passage leaves nothing unsaid, its complexities take some doing to unravel. Therefore, for those who may prefer to have the Zarathushtrian Religion's unwavering insistence on marriage within the fold spelt out in a short, simple and self-explanatory way, we conclude with the following excerpt culled from Vendidad IV-44:
If a man of the SAME FAITH (narô hâmô-daena)
Approaches [you], wishing for a wife (nâiri chinanghô),
Give [him] a bride in MARRIAGE (nâirikânm vâdhayaeta).
Roni K. Khan
Meher/Hormazd 1361 A.Y. February 20, 1992 A.C.
[Slightly revised from the original published in The Jam-e-Jamshed Weekly
in five parts from April 19 to May 17, 1992.]
Traditional Zoroastrianism Home Page
Chapters of the Saga
Saga of the Aryans Home Page
How to get the Saga in book form