Responsa

TFN no.5755.4 91-96

CCAR RESPONSA

A Non-Traditional Sukkah

5755.4

Sh’elah

What is the liberal Jewish definition of the mitzvah of sukkah? Can a non-traditional structure (such as a tent) be considered a sukkah for us? Does eating meals outdoors suffice? (Rabbi Judith Z. Abrams, Houston, Texas)

T’shuvah

Like Pesach, the festival of Sukkot is the occasion for much detailed discussion in the halakhic literature. In particular, a plethora of information awaits anyone seeking instruction concerning the size, shape, structure, and material for the making of a sukkah.[1] Our task is to consider these rules in the context of contemporary Reform Jewish practice. Does Reform Judaism insist upon all the traditional requirements, or can the goals and purposes of sukkah observance be met through the use of structures that do not meet these requirements? Indeed, does the Reform Jewish idea of sukkah necessitate a physical structure of any kind?  

The Halakhah.  

We begin with the definition of a sukkah presented in the halakhic literature. The sukkah is a temporary structure (dirat ar`ai) which becomes the functional equivalent of one’s home during the festival.[2] Thus, the height of a sukkah may not exceed twenty cubits, since to build it that high would require that the walls be sturdy enough to support a permanent structure (dirat keva`).[3] Nor may the height be lower than ten handbreadths, for such a structure would be considered dirah seruchah, unfit for even temporary habitation.[4] The area of the sukkah must be sufficient to allow an individual to eat a meal within it.[5] The `ikar, or essence of the sukkah rests in the s’khakh, the material which serves as its roof or covering.[6] The s’khakh must consist of detached vegetation that cannot contract ritual impurity, and there must be enough of it so that the amount of shadow it casts exceeds the amount of sunlight which enters the sukkah.[7] The walls of the sukkah (there must be at least three), by contrast, may be constructed out of any material, so long as they are sturdy enough to withstand a normal wind.[8] The walls, if they are anchored in the roof of the sukkah, must extend to within three handbreadths of the ground.[9] The sukkah must have a roof; should the walls come together in the manner of a conical hut, the structure is not a valid sukkah.[10]  

Reform Perspectives.  

It should be obvious from the foregoing that the suggestions raised in the sh’elah are not halakhically acceptable. A tent, because it has neither roof nor s’khakh, is an invalid sukkah (sukkah p’sulah), and eating one’s meals outdoors hardly qualifies, since the minimal definition of a sukkah requires a structure with roof and walls. Yet the question asks us to look beyond the halakhic tradition and to reexamine the very parameters of this mitzvah. Reform Judaism, after all, has long championed the cause of “creative ritual” and has introduced many fundamental innovations into the corpus of Jewish religious observance. Perhaps there is good reason why we ought to do so in this case.  

For the sake of clarity, let us formulate the question as follows. It is a fact that many, indeed most Reform Jews, do not construct sukkot and thus do not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah in its traditional sense. On the other hand, these Jews might well be prepared to observe the festival in some other, arguably related manner. Though not everyone will wish to purchase or erect a sukkah, there are those (families with young children, for example) who would find it enjoyable to eat festive meals in their camping tents. And many who are unable or unwilling to build a sukkah would presumably be quite willing to eat outdoors, particularly if the early fall weather is pleasant. Though their practice would be decidedly non-traditional, these individuals would be willing to leave their permanent homes to take their meals in “temporary dwellings”. Would this not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah for liberal Jews? Would it not meet the intent, the essential purpose of the observance, by calling to mind the miracles which God did for us when we came out of Egypt?[11] Indeed, given that the rabbinic tradition is divided over whether God actually caused our ancestors to “dwell in booths” in the desert,[12] do we really need to construct huts in accordance with a long list of concrete halakhic specifications in order to remember the wilderness experience?  

The question challenges us to consider the meaning of ritual observance in Reform Judaism. Is ritual, in and of itself, ever a “necessity” for us? Does a traditional practice possess any obligatory force above and beyond the moral or religious meaning it conveys? Put in this way, we believe the answer to the question is “yes”. And that means that the answer to the present sh’elah is “no”: it does not fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah to eat outdoors, or in a tent, or in some other non-traditional manner.  

Jewish religious life, for us no less than for other Jews, expresses itself through the practice of concrete rituals and observances. These observances, to be sure, carry “messages” of universal moral significance, but the messages do not exist for us as Jews in the absence of the rituals. For example, Shabbat communicates the values of rest, of physical and spiritual refreshment, of human dignity, of appreciation of God’s creative labors and so forth. These values, which are hardly unique to Judaism, can be transmitted and taught in any number of ways. The institution of the Jewish Sabbath is our particular way of transmitting and teaching them. Marked off by kiddush and havdalah, colored by festive meals and songs that express `oneg and kavod, given content by a special liturgy and by a complex of permitted and prohibited activities, Shabbat not only allows us to rehearse its “message”; it stirs us to remember who and what we are as a people. The same is true with Passover. We could absorb the message of the holiday by simply contemplating the themes of slavery and liberation. But that does not suffice for us, because our Passover is not Passover without matzah, the haggadah, the seder and its special foods and spirit. It is through these concrete observances, rituals by which the Jewish people has come to express its understanding of itself as an historical religious community, that we identify ourselves with their experience. Surely we would not suggest that liberal Jews could somehow “fulfill” the mitzvot of Shabbat and Passover by stripping these special times of the very rituals that make them special, that make them Jewish. And just as surely, we do not think that liberal Jews can “fulfill” the mitzvah of sukkah by substituting some non-traditional approximation for the age-old Jewish observance.  

It is true that Reform Judaism has radically altered or done away with many traditional observances. When we have done so, however, we have tended to justify our decision on the grounds that the observance in question was fatally flawed, no longer in keeping with the spirit of modern culture and civilization, or objectionable on moral or aesthetic grounds.[13] We do not find the mitzvah of sukkah problematic by any of these considerations,[14] nor do we believe that the temper of the times demands a new, more “progressive” definition of this observance.[15] We know that it can be somewhat burdensome to build a sukkah or to travel to one, but this “burden” is hardly a crushing one. The availability of prefabricated sukkot in a variety of price ranges enables most households to erect such a structure with a minimum of muss and fuss. Moreover, synagogues and other communal institutions erect sukkot on their premises, making it relatively easy for those who do not have their own sukkot to observe the mitzvah.  

None of this is to say that there is no value in non-traditional styles of observance. On the contrary: Jewish tradition recognizes that even a less-than-perfect performance of a mitzvah can bring merit to its doer.[16] We would by all means encourage our people to mark the seasons of the Jewish year to whatever extent they can. If one cannot build a sukkah, one might purchase a lulav and etrog; if one cannot do that, one can attend festival services at the synagogue. In addition, our tendency toward creative approaches to liturgy should prove that we Reform Jews certainly do not oppose the search for new and innovative ways of celebrating Jewish life. In response to the present sh’elah, we might say that it is better for Jews to consciously and explicitly mark the occasion of Sukkot by eating outdoors or in a tent than for them to ignore the holiday entirely by doing nothing at all to observe it. But to repeat: this is not the mitzvah of sukkah, and it is better still for our people to come to fulfill that mitzvah in the way that Jews have over the course of many centuries come to fulfill it.  

The choice, as we see it, is between two definitions of rabbinic responsibility. On the one hand, we can decide that our role is to tell our people that they may be satisfied with ersatz Jewish rituals or with whatever level of observance they are able to reach at the moment. On the other, while we validate their good intentions, we can resolve to teach, to lead, and to encourage them to adopt into their lives those forms of Jewish observance that, while resonating with our modern temperament, have become emblematic of Torah, of our people’s particular religious experience in its search for God.  

We think that the second alternative is the better one.  

C.C.A.R. Responsa Committee

Gunther Plaut, Chair,
Mark Washofsky, Co-Chair
Joan S. Friedman
Jerome Malino
Richard Rheins
Daniel Schiff
Faedra L. Weiss
Moshe Zemer  

NOTES

[1] The texts are centered chiefly in the Talmudic tractate Sukkah; the law is codified by the Rambam in Yad, Hilkhot Shofar veSukkah veLulav, chs. 4-6, and by Karo and Isserles in Shulchan Arukh Orach Chayim chs. 625-669.

[2] Lev. 23:42 reads: “you shall dwell in sukkot for seven days”; from this, the tradition derives that one should live in the sukkah precisely as one lives the rest of the year in one’s home (teishvu ke`ein taduru; BT. Sukkah 28b).

[3] This reasoning follows the opinion of Rava, Sukkah 2a, who holds that the essence of a sukkah is that it is a temporary structure. R. Zeira, ad loc., offers a competing theory: a sukkah requires shade (cf. Isaiah 4:6), and if the height of the walls exceeds twenty cubits, one dwells in the shade of the walls rather than that of the s’khakh.

[4] M. Sukkah 1:1; BT. Sukkah 2a; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:1; SA, OC 633:1.

[5] “The sukkah must contain one’s head, the major part of one’s body, and one’s table”; this area is generally rendered as “seven square handbreadths” (BT. Sukkah 3a; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:1; OC 634:1).

[6] Rashi, BT. Sukkah 2a, s.v. v’shechamatah.

[7] M. Sukkah 1:1 and 1:4; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 5:1; SA, OC 629 and 631. A sukkah may not as a rule be built under a tree, since its shade will derive from that tree and its branches (M. Sukkah 1:2; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 5:12. For special circumstances see SA, OC 626:1.).

[8] M. Sukkah 1:1 and 1:5; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:2 and 4:16; SA, OC 630:1ff.

[9] M. Sukkah 1:9; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:4; SA, OC 630:9.

[10] See M. Sukkah 1:11 and BT. Sukkah 19b; Yad, Hilkhot Sukkah 4:7; SA, OC 631:10.

[11] See Sefer Ha-Chinukh, # 325.

[12] See BT. Sukkah 11b. The dispute concerns the meaning of the sukkot mentioned in Lev. 23:43. R. Akiva reads the word in its concrete sense: “booths”. But R. Eliezer understands it to mean `ananei kavod, “clouds of glory.”

[13] Much could be said about all of these; this is not, however, the occasion for detailed discussion. We would mention only that the phenomenon of “adjustments” in ritual practice did not start with Reform Judaism. It is in fact the very history of Jewish tradition. Our own subject is a case in point: while the original definition of the commandment to dwell in the sukkah required that one sleep in the sukkah during the entire festival, the climatic conditions of northern and eastern Europe led to the removal of this requirement. See Arukh HaShulchan, OC 639, pars. 11- 13.

[14] That a sukkah is not a terribly aesthetic or “nice” place for modern, upper-middle-class Jews to dine is hardly a valid objection; the whole point of “living” in a temporary dwelling is to leave our comfortable lifestyles behind, however briefly.

[15] This is not to say that we do not believe in the possibility of a progressive understanding of our tradition. Rabbi Solomon B. Freehof taught us that Reform responsa ought to be written in a “liberally affirmative” spirit. We do not share the passion of many contemporary Orthodox poskim to forbid new ideas or to insist upon ever-increasing levels of ritual stringency, absolute precision in measurement, etc. We interpret broadly rather than narrowly, and proudly so. In this case, however, a “broad” construction of the kind discussed would mean altering the mitzvah of sukkah beyond recognition.

[16] See M. B’rakhot 1:2: one who recites the morning Sh’ma later than its appointed time nonetheless receives the reward “of one who reads (the Sh’ma) in the Torah.”

CARR 272-273

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

182. Decoration of Sukkah with Fruit and

Vegetables

QUESTION: Are there any specific requirements about

decorating a sukkah? Need it be decorated with fresh and perishable fruits and vegetables? It seems that this is an inappropriate waste in a period when many individuals go hungry, and the food should be given to poor people. Would it be equally appropriate to celebrate the festival by insisting the fruit and vegetables, normally used in this fashion, simply be donated to the poor? (Rabbi M. Soifer, New Orleans,

LA)

ANSWER: The

decoration of sukkot with fruit and vegetables goes back to Talmudic discussions. There is, for example, a statement whether “branches of fig trees on which there are figs, vines with grapes, palm branches with dates, and wheat with ears on it, may be used for a sukkah covering.” Though there is some discussion, they are considered valid (Suk. 13b). More directly, it is simply stated that a wide variety of fruit and vegetables were used to decorate the sukkah. This included nuts, almonds, peaches, pomegranates, grapes and ears of corn along with phials of wine, oil, fine flax and embroidered work (Suk. 10a, also 31b). In another place in the same tractate, there is a discussion of using other decorations (Suk. 28b). Some later authorities mention nuts used for beautification. It is clear, therefore, that there is some warrant for decorating the sukkah in this fashion, using fruit and vegetables as well as nuts, from Talmudic times onward. We find this mentioned, incidentally, in prescriptions for the sukkah given by Maimonides, Caro and other codifiers, as well as an occasional reference in the responsa. There is, however, no requirement that the sukkah be decorated in this fashion. For that matter, any type of decoration seems to have been acceptable. Some sukkot of wealthy European families in the last century contained painted walls. Few of those survived and one is exhibited in the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Others were decorated with pictures made by various younger members of the family. There are no stipulations about this in the legal halakhic literature and we are dealing with minhag in this matter.

As there are no stipulations for the decoration of the

sukkah, it would be a mitzvah in time of need to use the funds normally expended upon such items of food for the direct alleviation of poverty. In place of the fruit and vegetables usually hung, inedible items could be hung as decoration, such as gourds, acorns, chestnuts, etc., along with pictures made by children in the religious schools.

October 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 271-272

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

**181. Sukkah as a**

Huppah

QUESTION: May a sukkah be used as a

huppah? Is it possible to use a sukkah in this fashion in the courtyard of a

synagogue? May it be used in the case of a symbolic sukkah on the bimah of a

synagogue? (L. P, Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: Traditionally a wedding is not

conducted, except under emergency conditions, during hol hamoed sukkot

(Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 64.5; Orah Hayim 524.1). Yet, if we intend to do so,

and are not constrained by the earlier prohibition, we should then inquire about the nature of the

huppah in general. Although the term huppah has been used in the

Talmud, its meaning there was quite different from the meaning which we have given it.

In the Talmud it referred to the marriage chamber, often beautifully and generously

decorated by the groom’s father (San. 108a). Subsequently, there was considerable difference of

opinion as to what huppah actually meant as indicated in the comments by Joe Sirkes

(Tur Even Haezer 61). Huppah may have meant the isolation of the groom with

the bride, or the mere fact that she entered his house (even in the company of others according

to Rabbanu Nissim), or that some cloth, possibly a portion of the groom’s coat, was placed over

the girl’s head during the blessings, or that the father gave the girl to the husband. These and

others are all possible definitions of the huppah. None of them have anything to do with

the small canopy which we now erect for a wedding ceremony. The canopy was probably first

mentioned by Moses Halevi Mintz in the fifteenth century (Maharam Minz #109). There it

stated that the community provided a kipah, or canopy, for the couple in which they were seated

outside the synagogue before the ceremony. This, of course, had nothing to do with the

ceremony itself. Moses Isserles first mentioned the huppah as used by us (Shulhan

Arukh to Even Haezer 55.1), and it is clear that this was a novelty, symbolic of the room in

which the bride and groom were later alone together. Solomon B. Freehof has concluded

(“Huppah,” In the Time of Harvest, pp. 192 ff) that this symbolic home was arranged

during the period of poverty in Poland and Russia in which one could hardly expect a young

student to be able to provide a home or even a room for the bride. Instead, they often resided in

the home of the girl’s parents. The huppah served to meet the ancient requirements, and

the community arranged for this symbolic room on neutral ground, i.e., the courtyard of the

synagogue. As the huppah stood for the sexual union of the bride and groom, it was

considered inappropriate to bring the huppah into the synagogue. For that reason, the

ceremony previously held within the synagogue was moved to the exterior into the

courtyard. Any kind of symbolic hut may be used, and there would be no reason for

excluding a sukkah. The construction of the sukkah would not interfere with such a

use. All the regulations which deal with the construction of a sukkah are quite specific.

They treat its dimensions, the nature of its sides and the roof. The main concern, however, is the

visibility of the sky through the roofing material, which may not be solid. For that reason, a

sukkah may not be placed under a tree, does not become a permanent part of a home,

etc. (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 426 ff). The sukkah is to be used as much as

possible during the week of the festival. The family should live in it and minimally take one meal

in it (Shulhan Arukh Orah Hayim 439). All of this makes it clear that the sukkah is

the equivalent of a home for that week. The symbolism of the huppah would fit to a

sukkah if (a) the sukkah belongs to the groom, and therefore, demonstrated his

intention of providing a home for his newly established family; (b) the sukkah belongs to

the synagogue, and therefore, to the entire community. It would provide the same symbolism as

the communal synagogue huppah. For these reasons, it would be perfectly

possible to use an outdoor sukkah as a huppah if a wedding is permitted at this

time. For that matter, it would be equally appropriate to use the interior huppah placed on

the bimah of many synagogues. As the huppah is symbolic, we may use it in this

manner.February 1979

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 306-307

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

90. A Eulogy for a Suicide

(1980)QUESTION: May a eulogy be delivered for an individual who has committed suicide?ANSWER: An answer has already been provided by my honored predecessor. We might add that tradition has always considered depression, mental derangement, or other illness as removing some of the taint of suicide. Under these circumstances, it would certainly be permissible to provide a eulogy and to treat the death as any other in regard to the funeral ritual. Our tradition saw the death of King Saul (I Samuel 31:4; San. 74a; Git. 57b) as suicide which occurred under mental duress and, anyhow, realized that Saul had suffered from depressions. King Saul saw himself falling into the hands of the Philistines, which meant a cruel death, so he sought to end his life. Solomon Kluger, in the last century (Ha-elef Lecha Shelomo, Yoreh De-a 301), dealt with an individual who committed suicide because of great indebtedness. He insisted that the man had been depressed and under mental stress. Similarly, others dealt with Jewish criminals who had been sentenced to death and committed suicide while awaiting the sentence (Mordecai Benet, Parashat Mordechai, Yoreh De-a 25). All of these unfortunate individuals were to be given a normal funeral. This also was the point of view adopted by Epstein in his code (Aruch Hashulchan, Yoreh De-a 345) It is possible to trace the development of the law regarding suicide from the Talmudic tractate Semachot through Maimonides to modern times. We then see that a greater understanding of mental derangement slowly evolved. Semachot and Maimonides insisted that no mourning be observed (Yad, Hil. Evel). A little later, Solomon ben Adret (Responsum #763) stated that we should provide shrouds and a normal burial, while Moses Sofer (Responsum, Yoreh De-a 326) added the permission to recite Kaddish. Many modern Orthodox authorities would still hesitate about a eulogy, but in the eighteenth century Ezekiel Katzenellenbogen (Keneset Yechezkel, #37) felt that a eulogy was also permissible. We would follow that more liberal statement and provide a eulogy (of course, adapted to the specific circumstances).Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 135-136

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

81. Huntington’s Disease and

Suicide*

QUESTION: I am writing about a young woman who has been

definitely diagnosed as having Huntington’s Disease (sometimes called Huntington’s Chorea). It is a genetic disease which is incurable and results in inevitable, severe neurological deterioration causing loss of mental and physical facilities. She has told me that she is contemplating taking her own life when she feels that the disease will rob her of control over her own life and before she deteriorates completely. She asks what would be the Jewish response to her decision? (Rabbi J. Miller, Rochester, NY)

ANSWER: All of the material relevant to this

question has been presented in previous responsa directed toward slightly different questions; the answers were provided by Israel Bettan, Solomon B. Freehof, and Walter Jacob (American Reform Responsa #76 ff). In each instance, the writer of the responsum felt that despite the severe problems involved, euthanasia could not be encouraged. This would be equally true of suicide here.

The path of this disease is clearly known and the

degenerative affects are terrible, both for the individual involved and those dear to her. Although we can empathize with her wish to commit suicide, it would be difficult for us to approve of this act as Judaism has and continues to object strongly to suicide. The problems which arise under slightly different conditions with other diseases or other circumstances do not make it possible for us to assent to her wish, but we understand it.

June 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 238-239

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

150. Sterilization

QUESTION: A married couple is physically capable of procreation but prefers to adopt children rather than to produce their own biological children. Their motivation is altruistic and demonstrates a strong sense of ethical obligation to give a good home to a Third World child. Under such circumstances may the the couple undergo sterilization? Would adoption be considered equivalent to fulfilling the mitzvah of peru urvu?(Rabbi Dena A. Feingold, Kenosha WI)

ANSWER: It is, of course, noble and highly commendable that this young couple will provide a home for some Third World children and thus help those children who otherwise would have a doubtful future. That should be encouraged, however, it need not be connected with sterilization especially as the Jewish tradition feels so strongly on this subject. The halakhah which prohibits sterilization is based upon a Biblical verse (Lev 22.24). That was subsequently amplified by the rabbinic tradition (San 70a; Kid 25b; Hag 14b; Shab 10b; ff). The various codes as well as recent works continue to discuss sterilization and rejected it (Yad Hil Issurei Biah 16; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer #20; Noam Vol 1 pp 257 ff; Otzar Haposqim Even Haezer Vol l #68 ff). Our Reform tradition has also emphasized the need to have children, but has approved temporary methods of birth control (W. Jacob (ed) American Reform Responsa#156) which would be helpful to the couple. For a discussion of adoption, see other responsa in this and previous volumes.

We should consider another sad factor; it is realistic to note that the instability of marriage today and the rate of divorce may lead the present family unit to collapse and each partner may regret his/her sterilization in the future. For that added reason it would be wrong to move in the direction of permanent sterilization. The Reform Jewish tradition therefore would congratulate the couple on what they plan, but sterilization is inappropriate.

August 1989

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

NARR 212-213

CCAR RESPONSA

New American Reform Responsa

134. Pretending to Be Jewish

QUESTION: A Russian Jewish family arrived in this country a decade ago. They lived a Jewish life, the family belongs to a synagogue and the two children continue to be educated in the Religious School. Now the woman, in order to clear her conscience, has stated that she was not born of Jewish parents, never informed her husband of this fact and pretended to be Jewish in order to preserve family harmony in Russia and to simplify immigration. She has considered herself Jewish for more than a decade and a half. What does she need to do to change her status? (Paul Simon, Boston MA)ANSWER: We should treat this woman with considerable understanding when she pretended to be Jewish for the sake of family harmony in the Soviet Union. This was not an easy choice. She has since, along with her husband, lived a Jewish life and obviously intended to become part of the Jewish community. We should now accept her with only a minimal amount of additional study and proceed with the usual conversion ceremony. As the couple was married in the Soviet Union and therefore did not have a Jewish wedding ceremony, they wish to have the wedding ceremony or something akin to it now, but this is certainly not absolutely essential. There is no question about the status of the children as their father was definitely Jewish at the time of their birth and they are receiving a Jewish education. This is in keeping with the resolution of the Central Conference of American Rabbis. “The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who participate in them, both parents and child, to Jewish life. “Depending on circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.” We should wish this family well and will gladly accept the woman formally into the Jewish community.February 1991

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 93-94

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

57. Russian Immigrant Couple with Mixed

Background

QUESTION: A Jewish man from the Soviet Union married a

non-Jewish woman simply for the purpose of enabling her to emigrate from the Soviet Union.

They also brought a teen-aged child along, who is really not their child but needed to leave the

Soviet Union. During the period that this family has lived in the United States, they have

identified with the Jewish community, although neither wife nor daughter are Jewish. The young

lady has fallen in love with a Jewish man and wishes to marry him. What is her

status?ANSWER: It is not our concern that her entrance to this country may have

occurred under somewhat cloudy circumstances. She has maintained herself within this country,

has been of no trouble to the authorities or the community. And as the general status of

immigrants in this country is currently under debate, that matter need not be

discussed. It is clear that this young woman should be considered as a non-Jew who

wishes to join us. Although her adoptive parents are reluctant to say much about her background

or her parents in the Soviet Union for fear of the authorities, their influence on this young

woman, and the fact that they have led a Jewish life for several years during the period of

transition in their lives, has brought her to Judaism in an informal manner. It would be

appropriate now to formalize this through converting the young woman as we would convert

anyone else. Many of us have experiences with individuals who have been attracted

to Judaism through Jewish friends, customs, practices and ideas. Some of them have moved in

Jewish circles for a long time, yet we would not consider them Jewish without some more formal

instruction and an official acceptance into the Jewish community. The same path should be

followed by this young woman. This would resolve all questions about her identity on her part or

that of her family.September 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 94-95

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

58. Intermarried Russian Jewish

Family

QUESTION: A Russian Jewish man has been married twice. His

first wife was not Jewish and a daughter resulted from that union. The second wife is also not

Jewish. They have a son and a daughter. All five have immigrated to the United States. The

oldest daughter is twelve; the second is six and the third child is three years old. The husband

has joined a synagogue and has now inquired about the status of his

children.ANSWER: We would answer this inquiry in keeping with the Resolution of

the Central Conference of American Rabbis of March 1983: “The Central Conference of

American Rabbis declares that the child of one Jewish parent is under the presumption of Jewish

descent. This presumption of the Jewish status of the offspring of any mixed marriage is to be

established through appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the

Jewish faith and people. The performance of these mitzvot serves to commit those who

participate in them, both parent and child, to Jewish life. “Depending on

circumstances, mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will

include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bat

Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation). For those beyond childhood claiming

Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation

with their rabbi.” These children would need to perform acts of Jewish identification to

be considered as Jews. In this instance, it would mean their enrollment in religious school and

subsequent Bar/Bat Mitzvah, as well as Confirmation. As the twelve-year-old girl can not

fulfill the normal requirements for Bat Mitzvah before her thirteenth birthday, we would

suggest that she undertake an intensive program, or better yet, delay her Bat Mitzvah

until such a time as she has fulfilled those requirements. If these children are raised

as Jews and receive a Jewish education, we will consider them as Jews.March 1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 70-71

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

41. Status of a Child Genetically Not

Jewish

QUESTION A Jewish woman is married to a Gentile. She is

unable to conceive. However, doctors are planning to fertilize an egg from another woman, in vitro, with the husband’s sperm, and then implant the fertilized ovum in the wife. Since genetically neither the father nor the ovum donor is Jewish, although gestation will take place within the womb of a Jewish woman, would the child require conversion? (Rabbi B. Lefkowitz, Taunton, MA)

ANSWER: The issues raised by this question are not akin

to anything else which has been discussed in Jewish literature. The traditional material which has some bearing on the subject has been cited in an earlier responsum on surrogate mothers (W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa, #159). Somewhat akin to the question is the situation of adoption in which the child has been born to Gentile parents, or a child whose origins are not clearly known, and raised by a Jew from early infancy. In that case, we have decided that the child should be treated as any other Jewish infant with an option of tevilah (W. Jacob, An American Reform Responsa,”Adoption and Adopted Children,” #63).

Our

questions differ from adoption as the child has been part of the mother throughout the period of gestation. The intent of this procedure is to provide the parents.with a child which is as much theirs as possible. It, therefore, goes one step further than adoption and means that the child should never feel the anxieties of an adopted child. As the Jewish community has always placed a strong emphasis upon family and upon children as an essential part of the family, this technique, which raises other questions also, will enable a large number of families to have children and will certainly be utilized.

As this child has been part of the mother

throughout the period of gestation, we should consider this child born of a Jewish mother as potentially Jewish without any formal act of conversion. The child, of course, will need to participate in “positive acts of identification,” and just as in the case of any other child of mixed marriage, this would be in keeping with the resolution of the Central Conference of American Rabbis of March, 1983 (W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa, Appendix). This child is, therefore, considered as potentially Jewish and no act of conversion is necessary.

February

1984

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.