Responsa

CARR 165-166

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

104. Burial at Sea

QUESTION: An individual has died on a cruise ship, and as he had a great love for the sea his wife has decided to bury him at sea. This avoided international complications as the ship was ten days from port. What is the attitude of Jewish tradition to burial at sea and to the subsequent mourning rites? (M. G. S., Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: Jewish tradition takes the obligation of burial in the earth for granted; burial in the ground was considered part of the process of atonement.When Gesher Hayim discussed the question of death on the high seas, it permitted embalming to preserve the body until land had been reached. Embalming is generally prohibited by Jewish tradition (Gesher Hayim 1.73). It is true that burial is usually required to take place immediately following death, i.e., on the same day or the following day (San. 46b; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 357.11). Tradition permits the family to wait in order to do proper honor to the deceased and to permit individuals who may live at a distance to attend the funeral services (M. K. 22a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 357.2). Burial in the ground, however, takes precedence over the need to bury immediately. There have been occasions in the past when immediate burial was not possible. Rashi mentioned a siege in which bodies could not be buried; they were placed in coffins and stored (Rashi to Shab. 152a). Similar situations occurred when our forefathers were faced with various government regulations (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 375.5, 7), or in wartime. In our instance, it would have been proper to hold the body until burial on land could have taken place. However, as the burial has taken place, the normal mourning rites should be carried out as with any other deceased. Burial at sea is prohibited by Jewish tradition and is not appropriate except under emergency conditions.November 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 158-160

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

96. Burial of a Teenager of Doubtful

Descent

QUESTION: A couple has recently joined a congregation. The

man is Jewish; the wife is Christian. They had two children, one sixteen and one eleven. Both

have been raised in “a vaguely religious small town atmosphere” with attendance at various

Protestant Sunday schools. Neither child has been baptized or formally entered into a Christian

church. Now, as the parents live in a large city with a Jewish community, they wished to raise

their children as Jews. Unfortunately, the older daughter was killed in an automobile accident.

May she be buried in the congregation’s cemetery? (D. M., Los Angeles,

CA)ANSWER: Most of our congregations have been lenient about the burial of an

unconverted spouse of a Jew. They have done so by considering each individual plot in the

cemetery as a separate family section, akin to the caves or small plots of land which were

originally used for burial in the land of Israel (B. B. 102a). This meant that although the entire

cemetery is considered as holy, sanctity actually lies with each section of graves. A non-Jewish

burial in one section would, therefore, not impinge on the sanctity of any other grave. It is also

clear that occasionally non-Jews have been buried in Jewish cemeteries throughout our history

beginning with the Mishnaic period (M. Git. 5.8, 61a). For both of these reasons, most Reform

Congregations have granted permission for the burial of a non-Jewish spouse or any other non-

Jewish family member. On these grounds alone, we may readily grant permission for

burial in the sad case of this young woman. The specific rules of the local cemetery should, of

course, be consulted.March 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 216

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

144. Naming a Building After a Non-Jew

QUESTION: The non-Jewish widow of a prominent member of a community wishes to provide a new wing for the synagogue; it will contain administrative offices and a portion of the religious school. The wing is to bear her name and that of her deceased Jewish husband. Is it appropriate for a building connected with a synagogue to bear the name of a non-Jew?ANSWER: It is clear from the Biblical sources which dealt with Solomon’s Temple that non-Jews were welcome to worship in the temple (I Kings, 8.41 ff) and participated in its construction as did Hiram, King of Lebanon. Furthermore, non-Jewish sacrifices were acceptable (Meg. 73b), as were gifts by pagans unless made with idolatrous intent (Ar. 7b). Much later the famous Bevis Marks synagogue (1702) in London contained a roof beam which was the gift of Queen Anne. There is no mention of specific memorials requested with these gifts, but they were publicly acknowledged as the gift of non-Jews. So, gifts by non-Jews to the synagogue are acceptable as long as they are used in accordance with the desires of the congregation (Yad Hil. Matnat Aniyim 8.8; Tur Yoreh Deah 258; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 254.2 and Isserles, 259.4). As far as the name of the wing is concerned, such buildings have in the past been named for individuals, for the district in which they were located, or the street on which they were found, and these were often not Jewish names. The fact that one donor is a Gentile would not preclude naming the building for this couple. This gift surely demonstrates that the generous widow is one of the hasidei umot haolam, and we should grant her appropriate honors.April 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5752.3 123-126

CCAR RESPONSA

Practicing Judaism and Buddhism

5752.3

She’elah

A couple, who have a Jewish background and are currently practicing Buddhism as well as Judaism, want to join the temple and enroll their child in the religious school.

The wife was born Jewish; her husband was converted to Judaism as a teenager. They are presently members of a Conservative synagogue (where their Buddhist practices are apparently unknown), but now want to join a Reform temple because they consider its religious education program superior, and also because Reform Judaism seems more compatible to them.

The woman is an ordained priest in the Zen tradition. Her husband states that, by adding Tibetan Buddhist practices to his life, he has enhanced his Judaism. The two consider their Buddhism as basically non-theological and permitting synchronous religious practice. They do not missionize. (Rabbi Sheldon Ezring, Syracuse, NY)

Teshuvah

The relationship between Judaism and other religions has often been dealt with in halakhic literature. While since the days of Maimonides Christianity (like Islam) was removed from the category of idolatrous faiths, responsa have nonetheless consistently taken the view that Judaism and Christianity or Islam are mutually exclusive and that Jews — whether or not born or converted to Judaism — practicing and affirming these faiths are to be considered apostates.¹ If they would wish to return to the synagogue it would be necessary for them to abjure any other faith.²The question arises: Is Buddhism different in this respect?

Buddhism originated in the 6th century B.C.E. and has developed into an extraordinarily variegated stream of philosophies and practices. Centered in eastern Asia, it has spread all over the globe, and national subdivisions have created additional variations.

The most popular form of later Buddhism has been the “Pure Land” or Amitabhist doctrine, which teaches salvation through grace in the Buddha Amitabha. There can be little question that in this form Buddhism is in fact a religion, as we use that term and concept.

While at one end of this religious spectrum one finds theistic and even clearly polytheistic beliefs, other types of Buddhism may however be called non-theistic, in that they emphasize ethics and contemplative practices. Thus, Zen Buddhism (of which there are also various streams) may generally be assigned to the latter category in that it stresses meditation and self-discipline as the path to individual enlightenment and spiritual growth. Yoga is one of its best known practices.

Tibetan Buddhism is in some respects quite different from Zen, since it has incorporated forms of the pre- Buddhist Bon cult and knows of oracular priests and concepts like divine kingship. However, it too stresses spiritual development and has developed distinct practices to achieve it.

As indicated, when Jews profess Christianity or Islam they are considered apostates. Is such judgment appropriate also when it comes to Buddhism, and is it appropriate in view of the circumstances of the present case?

If we were to deal solely with the husband we might be inclined to interpret his statement as meaning that he is engaging in meditative practices which enhance his spiritual awareness. The fact that he learned them from Buddhist teachers would seem indeed not be in competition with his Jewish identity and practice. Many Jews experiment in this fashion, which would not expose them to the charge of apostasy.

The matter is however complicated by the admission of the wife that she is a Zen Buddhist priest. Depending on the type of Zen she affirms, that could have various meanings, but we will for the moment assume that “priest” here means (like “rabbi”) primarily a teacher, for Zen — the word means meditation — favors the master-to-pupil or mind-to-mind method of teaching contemplation.

But being a priest in any religion demands a special type of identification and commitment, which suggests that the devotee has embraced not only teaching practices like Yoga but also the underlying deeper philosophy.

Without in any way denying the depth of Buddhist philosophical and ethical doctrines, there are fundamental differences between them and the teachings of Jewish tradition. The latter clearly affirm this world rather than, as the majority of Buddhist traditions would, denigrate its importance. Reform Judaism especially has downplayed the salvational aspects of our religion and has taught that we have an obligation to perfect this world in all its from the environment to its social structures. Judaism is a deed-oriented rather than a contemplative religion, and while the merits of the latter are great, it reflects a basically different approach to the needs of everyday life, and therefore Rabbi Leo Baeck took the view that Judaism and Buddhism are complete opposites, “two religious polarities.”³

To be sure, there is no conflict between Judaism and meditative practices — after all, Jewish tradition itself is familiar with it. But we see a conflict when it comes to the world-affirming view we hold and that of a world-denying Buddhism. It is therefore inappropriate to consider a Buddhist priest as eligible for membership in the congregation. The husband alone might qualify, but as a family the couple do not, as long as the mother maintains her status as a Buddhist priest.

There is also the matter of appearance (mar’it ayin).⁴ The Jewish community would be confused by what it would conceive as an experiment in religious syncretism and a watering down of Jewish identity. The couple must be brought to realize that with all the respect we have for their Buddhist practices and beliefs, the enlargement which they think they have brought to their Judaism may fit their own personal needs but does not fit the needs of a congregation. Their request to join the congregation should therefore not be accommodated.

Yet, there is also a pastoral aspect to their situation. Since they want to be Jewish and do in fact practice Judaism on some levels, we must be sure not to push them away. In view of their meandering search for religious meaning — from Christianity (in the husband’s case) to Judaism to Buddhism to Conservative and now Reform the rabbi should engage them in counseling and help them to find their way.

As for the child, halakhic tradition would consider it Jewish, even if the mother were to be considered an apostate. This view has been affirmed by a CCAR responsum.⁵ In view of this, should the child be admitted to religious school?

Assuming that the congregation’s by-laws permit enrolling the child of non-members, the rabbi’s judgment will have to prevail. We would counsel against admitting the child if it appears that it is to be brought up in two religious traditions. R. Walter Jacob affirmed, for instance, that a child could not be a Bar Mitzvah if he is also to have a Christian confirmation.⁶ The rabbi will have to evaluate the possibility that other children in the religious school may be thoroughly confused if they learn that a fellow student professes two identities. It is difficult enough to teach our children the uniqueness of Judaism and its essentials.

Notes

American Reform Responsa , ed. R. Walter Jacob, p. 241; idem , Contemporary American Reform Responsa, # 68, pp. 109-112, where references to earlier halakhic material will also be found. American Reform Responsa , l.c., p. 241; see also the responsum “Gentile Membership in Synagogue,” by R. Solomon B. Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time , # 47, pp. 221-224. Essence of Judaism, rev. ed. (New York, 1948), pp. 60 f. The concept relates to a practice which is discouraged because, though by itself permissible, gives people a wrong impression in that it appears to be un-Jewish. American Reform Responsa , l.c. Contemporary American Reform Responsa, # 61, pp. 98-99.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 149-151

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

93. A Circumcision without Parental Consent

QUESTION: A baby boy born to Jewish parents required a one week hospitalization due to a serious illness. The parents indicated that they wished to have the child circumcised but did not want a berit. The grandmother inquired about a berit. The physician who is a trained mohel subsequently circumcised the child. As he performed the medical procedure on the eighth day, he decided to recite the blessing for a berit milah, reasoning that a berit is a mitzvah central to Judaism and that in this case the recital of the blessing was known only to the individual and to God. Was this an appropriate act? (Stanley Berkowitz, Los Angeles CA)ANSWER: As you have appropriately indicated in your letter the berit milah does not affect the Jewishness of this child who is the offspring of two Jewish parents and is Jewish by birth. The obligation of berit milah rests upon the father. It is the duty of the father, or in some instances of the mother, to circumcise the child or to delegate the responsibility to their agent (shaliah). Under some special circumstances a bet din may perform this task for the father. (For full references see W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa #54). We might argue that the berit milah performed by the physician/mohel benefits the child and one may benefit a person even without his consent. That is true only when the individual or those responsible for that person would consent if the situation became known. That is not the case here. We might also follow another line of reasoning which would state that berit milah is a mitzvah which is incumbent upon every Jew and which if not accomplished by the father may be enforced by a bet din (Kid 29a; Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 261.1) or by the entire Jewish community in the absence of a bet din (Arukh Hashulhan Yoreh Deah 261.2 and Shulhan Arukh 265.1 and commentaries). In other words, one could look upon this mohel as a delegate of the entire Jewish community upon whom the obligation of berit milah rests even without parental consent. This line of reasoning is the one used by the haredi group in Israel for all mitzvot. As they are obligatory upon all Jews they consider it their obligation to enforce the mitzvot with or without the consent of those for whom it is being done. We reject this line of reasoning and have always felt strongly that no form of religious coercion can be permitted. The Jews have fought many battles against religious coercion. In the Middle Ages and in modern times we have struggled against baptisms carried out without the consent of parents by well intentioned Christian maids. In our own century we have fought against Sunday legislation, obligatory prayer in the schools, mandatory attendance at baccalaureate service, etc., so we can certainly not condone religious coercion in this instance either. We would like to persuade the parents in this instance as well as many others to follow the mitzvot and encourage them to provide this minimal beginning of a religious life for their child. The mohel/physician may feel strongly that berit milah is an absolute obligation. Therefore he has good grounds for refusing to do this circumcision unless it is to be done as a berit milah and it may be wise for him to take this road so that his own integrity is not violated. Discussion with the family may change their attitude toward berit milah especially if they had only vague objections to the ritual. The ritual is fundamental to Jewish life and that should be explained fully. If they have strong objections we should honor them, although we believe the parents to be wrong. The physician should not have performed this berit milah.July 1988

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 49-51

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

30. Role of a Godfather in the Circumcision

Ceremony

QUESTION: What is the role of the godfather in the

circumcision ceremony? Is it possible for a godfather to withdraw his consent for this act some

years later? (Rabbi J. Folkman, Columbus, OH) ANSWER: The primary role of

godfather is that of helping at the time of the circumcision. Among oriental Jews where a table

was not used for the circumcision, someone specially designated simply held the child upon his

knees. The Midrash (to Ps. 36.10) stated that each portion of the body was designated for

a mitzvah, and the knees were for holding a child during circumcision (Roqeah

108). This was the practice during the many centuries when the circumcision was held at home

and also subsequently when the ceremony was moved to the synagogue, which seems not to

have occurred before the ninth century in Persia, and probably reflected an imitation of the

Muslim custom to circumcise in the mosque. This custom was then followed by both rabbinic and

Karaite Jews (L. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der Jüdischen Literatur). From there

the custom was introduced to Europe and is mentioned in northern France in the eleventh

century and in Germany in the thirteenth. The Hebrew term used for godfather,

sandeq, is from the Greek and later Latin syndicus. (French,

comprère, German or Yiddish, gevatter, Spanish, padrino,

Hungarian, koma, Hebrew, baal berit). Various midrashim refer to the

sandeq, as did Or Zaruah Hil. Milah in the thirteenth century (for example,

Midrash to Gen. 18.1; Ps. 35.10; Neh. 9.8). The office was discussed by Isserles at length

in a note (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 65.11). As the office is considered an

honor, the individual fulfilling it has to be of good character and pious. He, in turn, possesses

certain rights, as that of being called to the Torah on the day of the circumcision if it fell

on the day when the Torah is read (Maharil 84a). He, of course, sits in the special

chair provided in many synagogues if the circumcision is customarily held there. It

seems that the sandeq was also responsible for certain financial contributions to the

festivities of the circumcision. Usually the meal connected with it was prepared at his expense. In

order to prevent this from becoming an unusual burden, the Tosafists, Peretz De Corbeil and

Judah, the Pious, stated that an individual was only permitted to serve in this capacity once

(Maharil Hil. Milah). Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793) disagreed with this and stated that the

same individual could be asked a number of times. He also reported that in Poland in his time

the rabbi was often appointed as the permanent sandeq and participated in this fashion in

each berit (Nodah Biy’hudah, Vol. I #86). Moses Sofer rejected Landau’s

interpretation and cited astrological reasons for having a sandeq officiate only once in this

role (Hatam Sofer, Orah Hayim #158, 159.) Various opinions were cited by Elijah Gaon

(Beer Hagrah to Yoreh Deah 265). It is possible for women to participate in this

role, although Isserles suggested that this not be done (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah

265.11). Women participated among German Jews, while other Jewish communities

discouraged it. Christians also have assisted in this fashion, as for example, in 1484 in

Castrogiovanni, Sicily (L. Zunz, Zur Geschichte und Literatur, p. 499). Several medieval

councils tried to prohibit such Christian participation (Council of Terracinana in 1330). Similar

prohibitive statements are found in Protestant ordinances. In modern times, the role of

sandeq and godfather has sometimes been separated, but there is no basis for this in the

earlier tradition. In all the traditional material there is no discussion whatsoever of any additional

responsibility on the part of the sandeq beyond the circumcision. In other words, his

privileges and his responsibilities end with the ceremony. Therefore, it would not be possible for

the individual to withdraw his participation at a later time.July 1978

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 157

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

97. A Minyan and Berit Milah

QUESTION: Is a minyan required for a berit? (Morris F. Rosenberg, El Paso TX)ANSWER: Reform practice follows the Orthodox tradition in regard to the minyan. It is preferable to have the berit in the presence of ten adults (of course, for us, men or women), but this has not been considered essential (Tur and Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 265.1, see also Itur and Maharil). It is considered of primary importance to have the berit on the appropriate eighth day unless the illness of a child prevents that. This takes precedence over the ability to gather a minyan, and so even if the berit is held only in the presence of the mother and father without any of the other attendants, this is considered perfectly acceptable. Without doubt the custom of having a berit in the synagogue, and even setting aside a special chair for Elijah for this purpose is a way of assuring the attendants of a minyan at the service. So the berit is frequently held in conjunction with the shaharit or minhah service and all those in attendance formed a minyan for both the service and for the berit. For us in the United States it should usually be easy to get a minyan except in the more isolated small communities. If it is possible we should do so. If not, the berit should be conducted in as festive a manner as the circumstances permit.December 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 170

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

**107. A Berit Milah Plate**

QUESTION: A family which has seen some berit milah plates in a museum would like to commission one for their grandson, soon to be born. Is there a specific design which tradition suggests? (Allen Levy, San Francisco CA)ANSWER: There is nothing in the traditional halakhic literature which deals with this subject. It is interested in the problems of the berit itself and the various individuals involved. As we turn to the literature on Jewish art objects, we will find a variety of silver plates designed for the berit (A. Kanof Jewish Ceremonial Art, Isaiah Shachar Jewish Tradition in Art, Beverly R. Cohen The Cofeld Judaic Museum, Cissy Grossman A Temple Treasury, etc). Some depicted the berit itself with a large group in attendance, while others dealt with the theme of Elijah and the Messianic Age. Some of the other plates appear to be more personal and referred to family events which were to be stressed for the next generation. Any of these themes or others which the family many suggest would be appropriate.June 1990

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 143-144

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

55. Circumcision Other Than the Eighth Day of Birth

(Vol. LXIV, 1954, pp. 78-79)QUESTION: It is common practice now for hospitals to discharge mother and baby within a week after birth. Since doctors and parents prefer to have the circumcision performed in the hospital, I am getting an increasing number of requests to conduct the service before the eighth day. I discussed this matter with one of our leading obstetricians who performs many circumcisions shortly after birth. He has written a paper on the subject in which he seeks to prove by facts and figures that the immediate circumcision of the newborn male is followed by no ill effects. He further states that the procedure is now endorsed by seven-eighths of the community’s pediatricians and all but one of the obstetricians and gynecologists. Is it permissible to have the Berit before the eighth day? ANSWER: It would appear from the approach to the question that, in the mind of the correspondent, there is a close relationship between the testimony of the men of science and the specific question posed. Yet, in reality, the two are in no way related. To the physician, circumcision is a surgical operation indicated by hygienic factors; in Jewish tradition circumcision is a religious rite prescribed in the Mosaic law and designated as a sign of the everlasting covenant between God and Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 17:11-14). The day on which the rite is to be performed, the eighth from birth, is also specified in the law, although the reason for it is not given and is still unknown (ibid., 17:12; Lev. 12:3). Hence, it is that on the eighth day the Berit Mila is solemnized with a special religious ceremony which–though neither of Biblical nor Talmudic origin–has been scrupulously practiced by our people for many centuries and has served to enhance the significance of this ancient symbolic rite. The question, therefore, is not whether it is physically safe to perform the act of circumcision before the eighth day. The answer to such a question, even if it proves inconclusive, must be left to the men in the medical profession. The real question for us to answer is whether it is wise in this instance to depart from the Biblical law which is universally observed by the Sons of the Covenant. Will circumcision shortly after birth, to which our neighbors presumably submit for hygienic reasons, retain its symbolic significance for us? Shall we not be running the risk of converting a religious rite into just another surgical operation? Have we more to gain from turning hygienists than from remaining religionists? Viewed in this light, the question raised by the correspondent must be answered in the negative. The proposed change is bound to alter, in time, the character of the rite, and it would be sheer folly to persist in an ancient practice and yet have it divested of its religious meaning and purpose. The slight inconvenience involved in returning the baby to the hospital on the eighth day, where the traditional Berit Mila could be properly solemnized, need hardly enter into our consideration of the question. No religious discipline could long endure were we to consult at every step our personal convenience, whether it be of parents, physicians, or hospital superintendents.Israel Bettan

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 167-169

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

105. A Gentile as a Kevater at a Berit Milah

QUESTION: May a Gentile sister of a convert serve as a kevater or kevaterin? The tradition requires the kevater or kevaterin to present the child in the place of circumcision. Is it appropriate for a Christian to participate in this ceremony? (Rabbi Leonard Winograd, McKeesport PA)ANSWER: Generally three individuals are honored through a special participation in the circumcision ceremony. They are the kevater, and kevaterin and the sandeq. All of these may be appropriately designated as godparents of the young lad. The usual procedure is for the kevaterin to bring the child into the place of circumcision and hand him to the kevater who in turn gives the baby to the mohel. The mohel continues with a brief prayer and then presents the child to the sandeq who may hold the child upon his knees during the circumcision or on a table (Midrash to Ps 36:10; Roqeah 109). The same procedure was used whether the circumcision was held at home or in the synagogue. The custom of having the berit milah in the synagogue may have originated in Persia in the ninth century and may reflect Muslim influence as Islam required circumcision. This custom then spread among both Karaite and Rabbinic Jews (L. Löw Die Lebensalter in der Jüdischen Literatur). Subsequently it was also followed partially among Northern European Jews. The kevater and kevaterin are not mentioned in the early sources at all. Later they play an extremely limited role in the ceremony. They also have no responsibility for any of the social aspects connected with the ceremony which frequently fell upon the sandeq. He provided a meal and other refreshments connected with the berit. In order to prevent this from becoming an unusual burden, some authorities like the Tosafists, and Peretz De Corbeil stated that an individual could serve in this capacity only once. Much later Ezekiel Landau (1713-1793) disagreed and felt that the same individual could be asked any number of times. Landau mentioned that it was the custom in Poland of his time to appoint the local rabbi as the permanent sandeq. He participated in every berit presumably without obligations for the festivities (Nodah Biyehudah I #86). This and later debates on these matters deal only with the sandeq mention no kevater or kevaterin. Christians participated in the ceremony as sandeq in the Middle Ages. The literature also stated that it was inappropriate for a woman to be a sandeq (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 265.11) which confirmed that women filled this role. A Christian as a sandeq was reported in Castro Giovanni in Sicily in 1484 (L. Zunz Zur Geschichte und Literatur p.499). Several medieval church councils prohibited such Christian participation as for example the Council of Terracinana in 1330. Similar statements of prohibition were found in Protestant ordinances; Christians obviously acted in this capacity. The kevater or kevaterin represented an Eastern European tradition as the words indicated and found no echo in the earlier literature. Both of these individuals are incidental to the circumcision itself. As Christians have been honored with the position of sandeq in the Middle Ages there would be no reason to prohibit a Christian from serving as kevater or kevaterin. In this instance it honors a members of a family. Furthermore, participation in the ceremony indicates recognition and acceptance of the fact that this child will be raised as a Jew.July 1987

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.