Mixed marriage

MRR 108-115

MIXED MARRIAGE ON TEMPLE PREMISES

QUESTION:

A Jewish girl in our community is engaged to marry an unconverted Christian. The girl’s family, who are members of the congregation, ask that we permit the marriage to take place on Temple premises. Should we permit this? (From Rabbi Philip Bernstein, Rochester, New York.)

ANSWER:

THE SPECIFIC question asked, whether or not to permit a mixed marriage to be solemnized on the Temple premises is analogous to a number of other requests from our congregants, all with regard to mixed marriage. Sometimes the rabbi is asked to officiate jointly with a Ghristian clergyman. This particular request is increasing nowadays, owing to the modern ecumenical mood. Sometimes the rabbi is asked to follow the Christian service with a Jewish service, either at the same location or elsewhere. Sometimes the rabbi is asked to come to the dinner following the marriage ceremony and, at the dinner, to bless the couple. All these requests which come to us with disturbing frequency from our congregants involve the basic question: To what extent, if at all, should we participate in a mixed marriage? This question actually involves the whole matter of the relationship of Judaism in general and Reform Judaism in particular to mixed marriages.

As far as traditional law is concerned, mixed marriages are clearly forbidden. The law in Deuteronomy 7:3 reads, speaking of the seven Canaanitish nations: “Thou shalt not intermarry with them. Thou shalt not give thy daughter to his son, nor take his daughter for thy son.” This prohibition was obeyed by our people and, in fact, they went even beyond the law, at least emotionally. The custom became widespread that when such marriages occurred, the family would sit shivah for their child, as if by this mixed marriage the child had actually apostasized. Of course this sitting shivah for an apostate (and so for a child who married an unconverted Gentile) is based upon a folk misunderstand-ing of the report in the Or Zoruah 11:428 about Rab

benu Gershom. The report seems to read that he sat shivah when his son apostasized, but that the other rabbis disagreed with his action. The difficulty with the report is: Why should they have disagreed with him for sitting shivah for a son who apostasized? It is clear that the text was misunderstood. It really meant that Rabbenu Gershom sat shivah for his apostate son when the son died. The rabbis disagreed with this, since an apostate should not receive Jewish burial (Yoreh Deah 345:5, “en mitaskin ho”) . However, the fact that the people developed a widespread ceremony of sitting shivah for an apostate (and for a mixed marriage) indicates the depth of Jewish folk-feeling when such events occurred. One might say that the people themselves were even stricter than the law. While the law, of course, prohibits mixed marriage, nevertheless a child who is born of it is Jewish if the mother is Jewish. (Yevamot 23a) and even if the mother is Gentile, the child bears no stain of mamzerut and, if converted, may enter completely into the Jewish community. But as we have seen, the Jewish folk-feeling added a bitterness to the law because of the feeling of heartbreak involved.

With us in our Reform Jewish life, there is also a divergence between our law (to the extent that we consider it law) and the feeling of the people. But it is an entirely different sort of divergence than exists in Orthodoxy. It is this relationship or, rather, this disagreement between our people and ourselves that creates the problems that are involved in the specific question which we are discussing. We must consider first the attitude of Reform Judaism to mixed marriage and then try to understand the attitude of our people.

As to the attitude of Reform Judaism and its rabbis, that in itself is not as sharp and clear-cut as in Jewish Orthodoxy. The reason for the degree of vagueness which exists in our attitude is that an entirely new element entered into Jewish life (and modern life in general) after the French Revolution. Hitherto, all marriage was religious marriage, but now for the first time it was possible to have civil marriage. In fact, in some countries there could be no religious marriage at all unless civil marriage took place first. Therefore, it became necessary for the first time for various religious bodies to come to a decision about civil marriage: To what extent is it valid in itself?

It was this question which was placed before the Sanhedrin by Napoleon. Their answer, while frequently considered evasive, was virtually the only one they could give. They could hardly have declared civil marriage to be invalid, especially at the time when Jews were seeking emancipation and, therefore, needed the friendship of the state. They therefore said that the marriage was valid in civil life, but was not religious marriage. Then they added that a civil marriage would not or should not be subject to public religious disapproval (cherem) . Evidently they added the last statement because they considered the Biblical prohibition of mixed marriage to refer only to the idolatrous na tions. In fact, the Scriptural passages does speak of the seven Canaanitish nations.

Much the same attitude was taken under analogous circumstances by the Reform Rabbinical Conference in Brunswick in 1844. They were somewhat more positive, and said that marriage between monotheists (i.e., between Jews and Christians) is not forbidden. Yet it is noteworthy that when Rabbi Hess offered an amendment or addition to the resolution to the effect that “a rabbi is permitted to officiate at such mixed marriages,” he did not find a single supporter, and his suggestion was rejected out of hand. Moreover, an amendment was added to the resolution, namely, that such marriages are not forbidden, provided the laws of the state permit the children to be raised as Jews. Our own Conference was somewhat more positive on the matter. As for civil marriage (when it was not a mixed marriage), we decided (1947) : “We consider civil marriage to be completely valid but lacking the sanctity which religion can bestow upon it. We recommend that whenever a civil marriage between Jews has taken place, it be followed as soon as possible by a Jewish religious marriage ceremony.”

As for mixed marriages, in 1909 the Conference declared as follows: “The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that mixed marriages are contrary to the tradition of the Jewish religion and should therefore be discouraged by the American Rabbinate.” In the report of 1947, we strongly reaffirmed this stand. During the debate in 1947, some of the rabbis wanted the statement, “should therefore be discouraged,” to be supplanted by a statement absolutely forbidding us to participate in mixed marriage. However, since a few of our members did in fact participate occasionally in mixed marriages (especially, for example, if it were an older couple) and since, also, the Conference does not consider itself a legislative body with the power to control its membership, the Conference decided to keep the slightly vague terminology of the 1909 resolution and was content to say merely that mixed marriage is contrary to Jewish tradition and should be discouraged. This chain of statements from the Sanhedrin to the CCAR in 1947 constitutes a fair description of our attitude, namely: We are all generally opposed to mixed marriages. A few rabbis will, under certain circumstances, officiate at a mixed marriage, but the majority of us refuse to do so.

Just as in Orthodox life, there is a divergence between our people and ourselves on this matter. It is not that they favor mixed marriage. On the contrary, they are generally greatly saddened when it occurs. But instead of the Orthodox attitude of sitting shivah as a symbol of complete separation (as if it were death) our people try to keep the mixed couple close to their hearts. They make strong efforts to add some Jewish element to the young people’s lives so as not to lose them altogether. That is why they make these various requests of us. They will ask us first of all to officiate at the marriage (that is, if the Christian partner consents to it). Or if the Christian partner insists upon a Christian marriage, they will ask us to be co-officiant with the minister. Often it is the priest himself or the minister who, in the new ecumenical spirit, will invite us to be co-officiant. Or the family may ask us to join in the wedding dinner and bless the couple there. Or they will ask, as they ask in this case, that the marriage at least take place in the Temple.

What can we say to them? We understand their bewilderment. We sympathize with their feeling of not wanting to cut the bond completely with their chil-dren. The change in attitude between Orthodox folk and our folk is one of which we highly approve. Yet, this is not a Jewish marriage and as long as one partner is not Jewish, it cannot be a Jewish marriage. What, then, shall we do? If, of course, the rabbi is one of the few who, for reasons satisfactory to himself, officiates sometimes at mixed marriages, the problem with which we are confronted does not exist. Since he officiates anyhow, he can officiate anywhere, in the Temple or elsewhere. But to the majority of us who do not officiate at mixed marriages, our stand on the matter necessarily runs counter to the rather pathetic requests of our people. We do not wish to hurt them—they are hurt enough already —but we cannot do anything that will encourage them to believe that the marriage is in some ways a Jewish marriage. Also, we cannot allow such procedures as will lead other young people to believe that such marriages are somehow countenanced by the rabbi and by Judaism. We must find some way in which we can maintain our stand, which we believe is essential for the maintenance of Judaism and Jewry, and yet at the same time, keep from hurting decent people who, in regard to their requests of us, are decently motivated.

One possible solution of the problem is the one that is followed here in Pittsburgh. Our congregation has a rule (adopted, I believe, at the rabbi’s request) that no marriage may take place on Temple premises unless a rabbi of the congregation officiates or assists another rabbi in officiating. Since, therefore, the rabbi will not officiate at a mixed marriage, such a marriage cannot take place on the Temple premises. In this way the rabbi does not brush aside a specific family with its specific request, but he says “no” because he is guided by a rule of the congregation of which he approves. In this way, and in other ways that may perhaps be devised, we must avoid hurting decent people, and yet maintain our responsibility as to the maintenance and strengthening of Judaism.

ARR, APPENDIX

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

APPENDIX

Report of the Committee on Patrilineal Descent

on the Status of Children of Mixed Marriages

Adopted by the Central Conference of American Rabbis

at its 94th Annual Convention, March 15, 1983

The purpose of this document is to establish the Jewish status of the children of mixed marriages in the Reform Jewish community of North America.

One of the most pressing human issues for the North American Jewish community is mixed marriage, with all its attendant implications. For our purpose mixed marriage is defined as a union between a Jew and a non-Jew. A non-Jew who joins the Jewish people through conversion is recognized as a Jew in every respect. We deal here only with the Jewish identity of children born of a union in which one parent is Jewish and the other parent is non-Jewish.

This issue arises from the social forces set in motion by the Enlightenment and the Emancipation. They are the roots of our current struggle with mixed marriage. “Social change so drastic and far reaching could not but affect on several levels the psychology of being Jewish…. The result of Emancipation was to make Jewish identity a private commitment rather than a legal status, leaving it a complex mix of destiny and choice” (Robert Seltzer, Jewish People, Jewish Thought, p. 544). Since the Napoleonic Assembly of Notables of 1806, the Jewish community has struggled with the tension between modernity and tradition. This tension is now a major challenge, and it is within this specific context that the Reform Movement chooses to respond. Wherever there is ground to do so, our response seeks to establish Jewish identity of the children of mixed marriages.

According to the Halacha as interpreted by traditional Jews over many centuries, the offspring of a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is recognized as a Jew, while the offspring of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is considered a non-Jew. To become a Jew, the child of a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father must undergo conversion.

As a Reform community, the process of determining an appropriate response has taken us to an examination of the tradition, our own earlier responses, and the most current considerations. In doing so, we seek to be sensitive to the human dimensions of this issue.

Both the Biblical and the Rabbinical traditions take for granted that ordinarily the paternal line is decisive in the tracing of descent within the Jewish people. The Biblical genealogies in Genesis and elsewhere in the Bible attest to this point. In intertribal marriage in ancient Israel, paternal descent was decisive. Numbers 1:2, etc., says: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (lemishpechotam leveit avotam), which for the Rabbis means, “The line (literally: ‘family’) of the father is recognized; the line of the mother is not” (Mishpachat av keruya mishpacha; mishpachat em einah keruya mishpacha; Bava Batra 109b, Yevamot 54b; cf. Yad, Nachalot 1.6).

In the Rabbinic tradition, this tradition remains in force. The offspring of a male Kohen who marries a Levite or Israelite is considered aKohen, and the child of an Israelite who marries a Kohenet is an Israelite. Thus: yichus, lineage, regards the male line as absolutely dominant. This ruling is stated succinctly in Mishna Kiddushin 3.12 that when kiddushin (marriage) is licit and no transgression (ein avera) is involved, the line follows the father. Furthermore, the most important parental responsibility to teach Torah rested with the father (Kiddushin 29a; cf. Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 245.1).

When, in the tradition, the marriage was considered not to be licit, the child of that marriage followed the status of the mother (MishnaKiddushin 3.12, havalad kemotah). The decisions of our ancestors thus to link the child inseparably to the mother, which makes the child of a Jewish mother Jewish and the child of a non-Jewish mother non-Jewish, regardless of the father, was based upon the fact that the woman with her child had no recourse but to return to her own people. A Jewish woman could not marry a non-Jewish man (cf. Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 4.19, la tafsei kiddushin). A Jewish man could not marry a non-Jewish woman. The only recourse in Rabbinic law for the woman in either case was to return to her own community and people.

Since Emancipation, Jews have faced the problem of mixed marriage and the status of the offspring of mixed marriage. The Reform Movement responded to the issue. In 1947 the CCAR adopted a proposal made by the Committee on Mixed Marriage and Intermarriage:

With regard to infants, the declaration of the parents to raise them as Jews shall be deemed sufficient for conversion. This could apply, for example, to adopted children. This decision is in line with the traditional procedure in which, according to the Talmud, the parents bring young children (the Talmud speaks of children earlier than the age of three) to be converted, and the Talmud comments that although an infant cannot give its consent, it is permissible to benefit somebody without his consent (or presence). On the same page the Talmud also speaks of a father bringing his children for conversion, and says that the children will be satisfied with the action of their father. If the parents therefore will make a declaration to the rabbi that it is their intention to raise the child as a Jew, the child may, for the sake of impressive formality, be recorded in the Cradle-Roll of the religious school and thus be considered converted.

Children of religious school age should likewise not be required to undergo a special ceremony of conversion but should receive instruction as regular students in the school. The ceremony of Confirmation at the end of the school course shall be considered in lieu of a conversion ceremony.

Children older than confirmation age should not be converted without their own consent. The Talmudic law likewise gives the child who is converted in infancy by the court the right to reject the conversion when it becomes of religious age. Therefore the child above religious school age, if he or she consents sincerely to conversion, should receive regular instruction for that purpose and be converted in the regular conversion ceremony.” (CCAR Yearbook, Vol. 57)

This issue was again addressed in the 1961 edition of the Rabbi’s Manual:

Jewish law recognizes a person as Jewish if his mother was Jewish, even though the father was not a Jew. One born of such mixed parentage may be admitted to membership in the synagogue and enter into a marital relationship with a Jew, provided he has not been reared in or formally admitted into some other faith. The child of a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, according to traditional law, is a Gentile; such a person would have to be formally converted in order to marry a Jew or become a synagogue member.

Reform Judaism, however, accepts such a child as Jewish without a formal conversion, if he attends a Jewish school and follows a course of studies leading to Confirmation. Such procedure is regarded as sufficient evidence that the parents and the child himself intend that he shall live as a Jew. (Rabbi’s Manual, p. 112)

We face today an unprecedented situation due to the changed conditions in which decisions concerning the status of the child of a mixed marriage are to be made. There are tens of thousands of mixed marriages. In a vast majority of these cases the non-Jewish extended family is a functioning part of the child’s world, and may be decisive in shaping the life of the child. It can no longer be assumed a priori, therefore, that the child of a Jewish mother will be Jewish any more than that the child of a non-Jewish mother will not be.

This leads us to the conclusion that the same requirements must be applied to establish the status of a child of a mixed marriage, regardless of whether the mother or the father is Jewish.

Therefore:

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,l mitzvot leading toward a positive and exclusive Jewish identity will include entry into the covenant, acquisition of a Hebrew name, Torah study, Bar/Bar Mitzvah, and Kabbalat Torah (Confirmation).2 For those beyond childhood claiming Jewish identity, other public acts or declarations may be added or substituted after consultation with their rabbi.

NOTES:

1. According to the age or setting, parents should consult a rabbi to determine the specific mitzvot which are necessary.

2. A full description of these and other mitzvot can be found in Shaarei Mitzvah.

NYP no. 5758.14

CCAR RESPONSA

5758.14

May a Jew Married to a Gentile Serve as a Religious School Teacher?

She’elah

A Jewish woman, who is married to a Christian man, has applied for a teaching position in our religious school. Should our synagogue even consider her (or anyone in a mixed marriage) as an eligible candidate to teach our children Judaism? (Rabbi Seymour Prystowsky, Lafayette Hill, PA)

Teshuvah

The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) discourages mixed marriage.[1] We have written that “Judaism resists mixed marriage because it weakens the fabric of family relationship and the survival potential of the Jewish community,” and because it is more difficult for a religiously-mixed couple than for a Jewish couple to establish a truly Jewish home, one dedicated to the religious values of our people and our tradition.[2] A marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew is not a Jewish marriage; it is not defined in our practice as kiddushin, as marriage contracted “according to the law of Moses and Israel” (kedat moshe veyisrael). For this reason, most rabbis will not officiate at a wedding ceremony of a Jew and a non-Jew. The CCAR has long been on record as opposing rabbinic officiation. In its most recent statement (1973), the Conference declared “its opposition to participation by its members in any ceremony which solemnizes a mixed marriage.” It is true, of course, that a number of Reform rabbis do officiate under certain circumstances and conditions at mixed marriages; thus, the 1973 resolution recognizes “that historically its members have held and continue to hold divergent interpretations of Jewish tradition.”[3] Yet this does not alter the fundamental position of the Conference, one that is shared by all of our members, that the best and most desired marital choice for a Jew is Jewish marriage, a commitment made with one’s Jewish spouse to build a Jewish home and family.

Given this emphasis, it might be thought that a Reform synagogue should not consider engaging a Jew married to a Gentile as a religious school teacher. A teacher of Torah, after all, ought to be a positive role model for our children, one who embodies the Jewish values we wish to inculcate in them, who has made the sorts of Jewish choices that we hope they will make for themselves. As we care deeply about the marriage choices our children will someday make, we might argue that you should not engage this person as a teacher, lest in doing so you signal wrongly to your students that we are somehow indifferent to mixed marriage.

Yet we would caution, for several reasons, against drawing that conclusion. First, we should remember that our response to the phenomenon of mixed marriage is and ought to be one of loving outreach to the couple. The 1973 resolution mentioned above calls upon us “to keep open every channel in Judaism and Kelal Yisrael for those who have already entered into mixed marriage.” This involves educating the children of these couples as Jews; providing “the opportunity for conversion of the non-Jewish spouse”; and encouraging “a creative and consistent cultivation of involvement in the Jewish community and the synagogue.”[4] We are required, in other words, to practice the mitzvah of keiruv, to “bring near those who are distant” from Judaism.[5] It may well be that having her teach in our school is the best way to encourage her own continuing Jewish growth, along with her family’s involvement in Jewish life. Conversely, we are forbidden to erect unnecessary barriers to their participation in our community. A policy which automatically rejects this person as a teacher on the grounds that she is married to a non-Jew erects just such a barrier and therefore runs counter to our goal of outreach.

Second, we should keep in mind the practical implications of our decision. It is difficult even under the best of circumstances for our congregations to find qualified teachers who can communicate knowledge effectively to our young people. It is far from inconceivable that a Jew married to a non-Jew may be the best teacher available to us. Our smaller communities, in particular, may find this frequently to be the case. To reject such persons in principle as religious school teachers is to place a heavy burden upon our schools and synagogues, as well as to deny our children the opportunity to learn from talented teachers.

Finally, let us consider how we are to define “positive role models.” We certainly want our religious leaders to adhere as closely as possible to the ideal of Jewish life as we understand it. This ideal must take into account one’s marriage choice and the manner in which one constructs a Jewish home. And we surely expect and demand that our professional religious leadership-our rabbis, cantors, and educators–will realize this elemental standard in their own lives. We make this demand because in our view a Jewish religious professional, whose very life is dedicated to setting an example of Jewish commitment to which our people should aspire, cannot serve as a “positive Judaic role model” if he or she is married to a non-Jew. On the other hand, we do not customarily say the same concerning our laity, from whose ranks we draw our religious school teachers. While we hope that all our people will make Jewish marriage choices, we do not believe that marriage to a Gentile serves as incontrovertible proof that a Jewish layperson does not and can not live a life of Jewish quality. Our experience teaches us that many mixed-married couples do affiliate actively with our congregations, lead lives of Jewish substance, and raise their children as Jews; our Resolution on Patrilineal Descent, which confers Jewish status upon the child of one Jewish parent when that child is raised with an exclusively Jewish identity, is built upon the lessons of that experience.[6] Accordingly, we do not use mixed marriage as a reason for automatically disqualifying a Jew from positions of lay leadership within our congregations.[7] Given these perceptions, we would not use marriage to a non-Jew as the reason to reject an individual as a religious school teacher. Mixed marriage may be evidence that an individual is not the sort of Jew we want as a religious school teacher, and then again it may not. Each case must be judged on its own merits.

Conclusion

. Our synagogues are entitled and indeed required to ask that those who teach our children be “good Jews,” “positive Judaic role models.” And since marriage choice has a great deal to do with the quality of one’s Judaic commitments, you are certainly entitled to consider this applicant’s marriage to a non-Jew as part of your determination of her fitness to teach. From our perspective, though, a point of view shaped by the experience of our contemporary North American Reform Jewish communities, we do not believe that the fact of her mixed marriage is an automatic indicator of her lack of fitness. The important concern is whether her personal practice and family life are characterized by Jewish depth and quality. If such is the case, then she might well prove to be a qualified and talented teacher for you. By hiring her, you may be doing a favor to your students, and you may help to fulfill the mitzvah of bringing this person and her family ever closer to Jewish life.

 

 

NOTES

 

  • For earlier statements by the Conference, see CCAR Yearbook (CCARY) 19 (1909), 170, and CCARY 57 (1947), 161.
  • Gates of Mitzvah

, 37.

  • CCARY

83 (1973), 97. On all the above see Gates of Mitzvah, 82-3 and Rabbi’s Manual (New York: CCAR, 1988), 242-243. For a historical essay on the subject of mixed marriage, see American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 146.

  • CCARY

83 (1973), 97.

  • See Bereishit Rabah, ch. 39, on the words “you shall be a blessing” in Gen. 12:2: Abraham is described as mekarev rechokim, one who brings “under the wings of the Shekhinah” those who are estranged from God.
  • See the discussion in Teshuvot for the Nineties (TFN), no. 5755.17, 251-258.The resolution (CCARY 93 [1983], 157-160) states that a child of a Jewish and a Gentile parent enjoys a presumption of Jewish status which may be established through “appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.” These acts testify to the child’s “positive and exclusive Jewish identity.” From this, it follows that a mixed-married household is capable of transmitting a firm Jewish identity to its children.
  • Membership in our congregations is restricted to Jews; the non-Jewish family members of a Jew are affiliated with us through that person’s membership. A non-Jewish spouse may not serve as an officer of the congregation or as the chair of a committee which exercises important religious functions. See Suggested Constitution and By-Laws for Congregations, Joint Commission on Synagogue Administration, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, April, 1984; Contemporary American Reform Responsa (CARR), nos. 163-164, and R. Solomon Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 53. These restrictions, however, do not apply to the congregant who is married to a non-Jew.

 

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5754.10 237-238

CCAR RESPONSA

“Blessing” a Mixed Marriage

5754.10

She’elah
I have been asked to give a “blessing” to a couple following their civil intermarriage. Would you advise me to do so?

(Rabbi Mark J. Mahler, Pittsburgh, PA)

Teshuvah
When rabbis officiate at marriages they are not engaged in the dispensation of their own blessings. Any

berachah they pronounce are prayers that God might issue a blessing.

Yet, in the day-to-day parlance of our people, “giving a blessing” has a less precise meaning. It means also “to approve”,

as in the phrase, “I give my blessing to that kind of arrangement”.

Therefore a rabbi who officiates at mixed marriages is not asked merely to pronounce a blessing. By officiating, rabbinic

approval (however hesitant it might be) is implied. On the other hand, a person like yourself, who does not so officiate,

can certainly give no approval and hence no “blessing” in either a religious or popular sense. In fact, to say so would

constitute an oxymoron.

But having said all of this, we recognize that there is also a legitimate desire which underlies the very question that has

been asked of you: to have the rabbi — even the one who refuses to perform the ceremony — participate in some fashion. If

s/he cannot do so by participating in the marriage ceremony itself, then perhaps there is some other way in which the

rabbi can show that the people who have engaged in this act are not excluded from the community. We believe that

Reform rabbis have no hesitation in supporting that desire. We do want to draw them in, even if we did not officiate.

One member of our committee recounts his own practice: “After having explained to the couple that I personally could

not, as a representative of the community, agree to officiate, I tell them that I have no prejudice against the non-Jewish

partner as a human being. I therefore counsel them — seeing that they are definitely committed to proceeding with the

marriage — to have a civil marriage and afterwards, if they so choose they may come to me privately, and I will pray for

their personal welfare in their relationship. In this way I show my respect for them as human beings and my desire to

remain close to them without transgressing my traditional role as representative of the community. I do not reject them as

human beings, and I invite them to stay close to the synagogue.

“Thus I do not give them a “blessing”, and I make that perfectly clear, A number of those to whom I make this suggestion

choose to come to me afterwards and ask me to pray for their welfare. Many others do not. But I make the offer and that

is as far as I would go.”

We transmit this to you for your consideration.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 193-195

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

60. Children of Mixed Marriages

(Vol. XXIX, 1919, pp. 76-77)

On January 1, 1919, I received the following sheela: “A member of my congregation approached me with the following difficulty. His wife was a Christian (Methodist), and a New York rabbi had married them. The woman is now pregnant, and the man wanted me to advise him in what faith the expected child is to be raised. His wife never accepted Judaism, though she attends services more regularly than many of my Jewish women, but she goes to her Methodist Church frequently also. Her mother is a strict Methodist; his mother is a Jewess, and each want the child in her respective faith. I have made inquiry of the New York rabbi who married them, and he assures me that he never married a couple under such circumstances without getting the promise of the alien party to raise the children in the Jewish faith and to study (by himself or herself) some guide of Jewish instruction. He also tells me that they abjure their old faith in his presence and promise to cast their lot in with our people. He remembers marrying this couple and is certain that he exacted such a promise from this woman. I have not spoken to this couple since I saw the rabbi in question. I will, when I am ready to give my answer, even if she denies or forgot the promise under those circumstances. (This rabbi does not go through the formality of issuing a paper of conversion in the presence of witnesses.)

I feel that I would not be justified in saying that the child should be raised a Jew, if the mother is and intends to remain a Christian. It would be dividing the home and the child would hardly be Jewish. It would be a mockery and hypocrisy. On the other hand, how could I, a Jewish teacher, tell the parents to raise the child a Christian? If the child is to be raised in the Christian faith, the father cannot remain a Jew without–in later years–taking the consequence of having children who would mock and scoff and deride him. If this is not a certainty, it is–to say the least–a possibility and a probability. Again, then, how can I, or how dare I, advise this man who wants to remain a Jew (or he would not belong to a congregation and be a frequent attendant at services) to become something else? I will, of course, urge the mother to become a Jewess. But if she refuses, what shall my advice be? This is my she-ela. I remember the passage in Kiddushin: ‘Bincha haba miYisre-elit karuy bincha, ve-ein bincha haba min hanochrit karuy bincha, ela benah.’ Likewise, the passages in Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer: ‘Yisra-el sheba el achat me-elu, havalad kemotah,’ and ‘Velad shifcha ve-akum kemotan.’Do the passages have their force with us?”

To this I reply:

The Talmud (Kid. 68b; Yev. 23) and the Shulchan Aruch (ch. 44) you refer to are certainly in force, and consequently the child of a non-Jew has its character determined by the mother. The Christian wife of your member should, therefore, be persuaded as far as possible–especially for the sake of the husband who wants to have a Jewish home–to become a Jewess in order to have her expected child born as a Jew–leidato bikdusha. The mode of her conversion and adoption into Judaism might in this case be facilitated. Of course, when raised as a Jew, the child could afterwards, through Confirmation, be adopted into the Jewish fold like any proselyte. On the other hand, it must be stated that the rabbi who solemnized the marriage of a Jew to a non-Jewess did not act in conformity with the Jewish law, no matter whether she promised to raise her children as Jews or not. Mixed marriages belong before the civil magistrate, who is to give them legal sanction. The Jewish religion cannot consecrate a home divided by two different creeds, as you well state.

it. Kohler

 

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5751.7 267-269

CCAR RESPONSA

Funeral of a Child of Mixed Marriage

5751.7

She’elah

A rabbi has been asked to co-officate with Christian clergy at the funeral of a 16-year old boy who died tragically in an automobile accident. His mother is Catholic and his father Jewish. The boy was enrolled for a few years in religious school, but was never called to the Torah as a bar mitzvah. His parents are not currently members of the congregation. The clergyman has assured the rabbi that, at the request of the family, the service would be non-sectarian and that nothing would be said to offend Jewish ears. The cemetery too is non-sectarian.

 

The rabbi has been was invited to lead the mourners’ Kaddish and has asked whether it was proper for him to co-officiate in this manner.

 

Teshuvah

The following questions arise:

 

1. Is this the funeral of a Jewish or Gentile child?

 

2. When should rabbis agree to co-officiate with non-Jewish clergy?

 

3. What other considerations should be addressed?

 

1. The religious status of the child is not in doubt. The Halakhah would consider him a Gentile since he was born of a Gentile mother and was not converted. Neither would the boy meet the requirements of the patrilineal definition of the CCAR, for while he attended a Jewish religious school for a while he did not affirm his Jewishness in a “timely public and formal fashion,” as required of him in order to be acknowledged a a Jew.1

 

2. If the rabbi had been asked to be the sole officiant at the funeral, the propriety of his/her accepting this task would not have been in question. That constellation was first discussed with regard to non-Jewish spouses, and there were no obstacles to the rabbi’s participation.2 Rabbis have also officiated on other occasions in keeping with the Talmudic dictum to keep peace with the gentile community, mipnei darkhei shalom, a rule which has been incorporated in the codes.3 Nor is there an objection with regard to reciting the Kaddish for a Gentile.4 The whole matter was explored in detail by R. Solomon B. Freehof in a responsum published in 1957.5 We see to it that the dead are buried with dignity and that the mourners are consoled.

 

Does the matter of co-officiating alter these conclusions?

 

A funeral is not an “interfaith service” of a civic nature, in which Reform rabbis generally participate.6 Rather, it is a service which performs a specific religious rite and thereby focuses on the identity of the deceased.

 

In the case of the burial of a non-Jewish spouse the deceased’s identity is not at issue, and the rabbi’s participation is understood as an act of comforting the surviving partner. Here, however, the dead boy’s religious identity is unclear and the rabbi’s co-officating gives rise to the impression that the boy had two religious identities, the existence of which we have declared inadmissible.7

 

Further, another long-established principle comes into play. What we do must not only be right, but should also be perceived as being right. We should not act in a manner which will create falso impressions (mipnei mar’it ayin). The rabbi’s participation would appear to affirm the Jewishness of the child, along with his Christian identity. Therefore, even if the service does not contain specific christological references the rabbi should not co-officate. We draw a definite line between ourselves and Christian practice. In an age in which boundaries were not as blurred as they increasingly tend to be in our time, it might have been possible to arrive at a different answer, but for us the setting of boundaries has become an important aspect in the maintenance of our Jewish identity. Participation in the ritual would give the appearance that the child was considered Jewish.

 

3. However, we do not counsel the rabbi to turn away from a family that is in the throes of bitter tragedy. On the contrary, we believe that there is a meaningful role for Jewish spiritual guidance and participation. Responding to the invitation to participate in the ritual, the rabbi might give the following answer: I find myself unable to co-officiate in the ritual, but I will assist the father in fulfilling his own religious duty to say Kaddish for his son. I will sit with him in the pew and help him to perform the mitzvah.

 

In this way, religious boundaries are observed, as are the two principles of mipnei mar’it ‘ayin and mipnei darkhei shalom. The presence of the rabbi provides a measure of consolation to the father, and the father himself is encouraged to express his feelings in a Jewish way.

 

Notes

See Rabbi’s Manual (1988), p. 226. American Reform Responsa , ed. Walter Jacob, # 95. Based on BT Gittin 61a;Tur Yoreh De’ah 367 rephrases the law to read: mishtadlim bikevuratam kemo she-mishtadlim bikevurat yisra’el, “we participate in their burials as if they were Jews.” See also Rambam, Mishneh Torah , Hilkhot Avel 14:12, and Melakhim 10:12, supporting his position with references to Ps. 145:9 and Prov. 3:17. There is some speculation on the meaning of Rashi’s interpretation of the Gittin passage; see Rashba and R. Nissim Gerondi (commentary on Alfasi, folio 28a). Oshry,, pp. 69 ff. American Reform Responsa , #124. See Contemporary American Reform Responsa , ed. Walter Jacob, # 167. Ibid., # 61.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

RR21 no. 5758.14

CCAR RESPONSA

5758.14

May a Jew Married to a Gentile Serve as a Religious School Teacher?

She’elah

A Jewish woman, who is married to a Christian man, has applied for a teaching position in our religious school. Should our synagogue even consider her (or anyone in a mixed marriage) as an eligible candidate to teach our children Judaism? (Rabbi Seymour Prystowsky, Lafayette Hill, PA)

Teshuvah

The Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR) discourages mixed marriage.[1] We have written that “Judaism resists mixed marriage because it weakens the fabric of family relationship and the survival potential of the Jewish community,” and because it is more difficult for a religiously-mixed couple than for a Jewish couple to establish a truly Jewish home, one dedicated to the religious values of our people and our tradition.[2] A marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew is not a Jewish marriage; it is not defined in our practice as kiddushin, as marriage contracted “according to the law of Moses and Israel” (kedat moshe veyisrael). For this reason, most rabbis will not officiate at a wedding ceremony of a Jew and a non-Jew. The CCAR has long been on record as opposing rabbinic officiation. In its most recent statement (1973), the Conference declared “its opposition to participation by its members in any ceremony which solemnizes a mixed marriage.” It is true, of course, that a number of Reform rabbis do officiate under certain circumstances and conditions at mixed marriages; thus, the 1973 resolution recognizes “that historically its members have held and continue to hold divergent interpretations of Jewish tradition.”[3] Yet this does not alter the fundamental position of the Conference, one that is shared by all of our members, that the best and most desired marital choice for a Jew is Jewish marriage, a commitment made with one’s Jewish spouse to build a Jewish home and family.

Given this emphasis, it might be thought that a Reform synagogue should not consider engaging a Jew married to a Gentile as a religious school teacher. A teacher of Torah, after all, ought to be a positive role model for our children, one who embodies the Jewish values we wish to inculcate in them, who has made the sorts of Jewish choices that we hope they will make for themselves. As we care deeply about the marriage choices our children will someday make, we might argue that you should not engage this person as a teacher, lest in doing so you signal wrongly to your students that we are somehow indifferent to mixed marriage.

Yet we would caution, for several reasons, against drawing that conclusion. First, we should remember that our response to the phenomenon of mixed marriage is and ought to be one of loving outreach to the couple. The 1973 resolution mentioned above calls upon us “to keep open every channel in Judaism and Kelal Yisrael for those who have already entered into mixed marriage.” This involves educating the children of these couples as Jews; providing “the opportunity for conversion of the non-Jewish spouse”; and encouraging “a creative and consistent cultivation of involvement in the Jewish community and the synagogue.”[4] We are required, in other words, to practice the mitzvah of keiruv, to “bring near those who are distant” from Judaism.[5] It may well be that having her teach in our school is the best way to encourage her own continuing Jewish growth, along with her family’s involvement in Jewish life. Conversely, we are forbidden to erect unnecessary barriers to their participation in our community. A policy which automatically rejects this person as a teacher on the grounds that she is married to a non-Jew erects just such a barrier and therefore runs counter to our goal of outreach.

Second, we should keep in mind the practical implications of our decision. It is difficult even under the best of circumstances for our congregations to find qualified teachers who can communicate knowledge effectively to our young people. It is far from inconceivable that a Jew married to a non-Jew may be the best teacher available to us. Our smaller communities, in particular, may find this frequently to be the case. To reject such persons in principle as religious school teachers is to place a heavy burden upon our schools and synagogues, as well as to deny our children the opportunity to learn from talented teachers.

Finally, let us consider how we are to define “positive role models.” We certainly want our religious leaders to adhere as closely as possible to the ideal of Jewish life as we understand it. This ideal must take into account one’s marriage choice and the manner in which one constructs a Jewish home. And we surely expect and demand that our professional religious leadership-our rabbis, cantors, and educators–will realize this elemental standard in their own lives. We make this demand because in our view a Jewish religious professional, whose very life is dedicated to setting an example of Jewish commitment to which our people should aspire, cannot serve as a “positive Judaic role model” if he or she is married to a non-Jew. On the other hand, we do not customarily say the same concerning our laity, from whose ranks we draw our religious school teachers. While we hope that all our people will make Jewish marriage choices, we do not believe that marriage to a Gentile serves as incontrovertible proof that a Jewish layperson does not and can not live a life of Jewish quality. Our experience teaches us that many mixed-married couples do affiliate actively with our congregations, lead lives of Jewish substance, and raise their children as Jews; our Resolution on Patrilineal Descent, which confers Jewish status upon the child of one Jewish parent when that child is raised with an exclusively Jewish identity, is built upon the lessons of that experience.[6] Accordingly, we do not use mixed marriage as a reason for automatically disqualifying a Jew from positions of lay leadership within our congregations.[7] Given these perceptions, we would not use marriage to a non-Jew as the reason to reject an individual as a religious school teacher. Mixed marriage may be evidence that an individual is not the sort of Jew we want as a religious school teacher, and then again it may not. Each case must be judged on its own merits.

Conclusion

. Our synagogues are entitled and indeed required to ask that those who teach our children be “good Jews,” “positive Judaic role models.” And since marriage choice has a great deal to do with the quality of one’s Judaic commitments, you are certainly entitled to consider this applicant’s marriage to a non-Jew as part of your determination of her fitness to teach. From our perspective, though, a point of view shaped by the experience of our contemporary North American Reform Jewish communities, we do not believe that the fact of her mixed marriage is an automatic indicator of her lack of fitness. The important concern is whether her personal practice and family life are characterized by Jewish depth and quality. If such is the case, then she might well prove to be a qualified and talented teacher for you. By hiring her, you may be doing a favor to your students, and you may help to fulfill the mitzvah of bringing this person and her family ever closer to Jewish life.

 

 

NOTES

 

  • For earlier statements by the Conference, see CCAR Yearbook (CCARY) 19 (1909), 170, and CCARY 57 (1947), 161.
  • Gates of Mitzvah

, 37.

  • CCARY

83 (1973), 97. On all the above see Gates of Mitzvah, 82-3 and Rabbi’s Manual (New York: CCAR, 1988), 242-243. For a historical essay on the subject of mixed marriage, see American Reform Responsa (ARR), no. 146.

  • CCARY

83 (1973), 97.

  • See Bereishit Rabah, ch. 39, on the words “you shall be a blessing” in Gen. 12:2: Abraham is described as mekarev rechokim, one who brings “under the wings of the Shekhinah” those who are estranged from God.
  • See the discussion in Teshuvot for the Nineties (TFN), no. 5755.17, 251-258.The resolution (CCARY 93 [1983], 157-160) states that a child of a Jewish and a Gentile parent enjoys a presumption of Jewish status which may be established through “appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.” These acts testify to the child’s “positive and exclusive Jewish identity.” From this, it follows that a mixed-married household is capable of transmitting a firm Jewish identity to its children.
  • Membership in our congregations is restricted to Jews; the non-Jewish family members of a Jew are affiliated with us through that person’s membership. A non-Jewish spouse may not serve as an officer of the congregation or as the chair of a committee which exercises important religious functions. See Suggested Constitution and By-Laws for Congregations, Joint Commission on Synagogue Administration, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, April, 1984; Contemporary American Reform Responsa (CARR), nos. 163-164, and R. Solomon Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 53. These restrictions, however, do not apply to the congregant who is married to a non-Jew.

 

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 465-466

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

147. Prayer for Couple Contemplating Intermarriage

(1979)QUESTION: May a rabbi recite a prayer at the regular synagogue service for a couple contemplating intermarriage? One of the parties is Christian.ANSWER: Intermarriage is not normative within Judaism. Some deem such marriages as a sinful act regardless of who conducts them (Deut. 7:2; San. 82a; Sh.A., Even Haezer 16.1), or as not being Kiddushin (Yad., Hil. Ishut 15; Sh.A., Even Ha-ezer 154.23). All Reform Jews discourage them to the best of their ability. We could not then, in good conscience, offer public prayer for such a couple in advance of the wedding, as it is done for the marriage of two Jews at a public synagogue service, because such action would lend public approval to such a marriage lechatechila. We may, however, be willing to recognize such a marriage bedi-avad: accept the Jewish partner as a member of the congregation, do everything possible to make the non-Jewish partner feel at ease and at home in our midst, and raise their children as Jews. It is our duty to continue warning against the contemplated intermarriage. This is our task in this matter as in all other areas in which “warning” plays a major role. Judaism disapproves of intermarriage, and we should do everything possible to strengthen this position.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzEugene J. LipmanW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 466-467

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

148. Rabbi Officiating at Mixed Marriages

(Vol. XXIX, 1919, pp. 75-76) On October 30, 1918, I received the following letter: I have been asked by a Jewish gentleman of my congregation to unite him in wedlock with a Gentile. Is it compatible with Judaism for a rabbi to perform such a marriage when the Gentile does not accept the Jewish religion? And is it in keeping with his position and dignity as rabbi to perform such a marriage when the Gentile does not accept the Jewish faith? Secondly, can a rabbi consistently perform such a marriage in the capacity of a layman without lending it the religious sanction as a rabbi? To this I replied: “Unless the person whom a Jew or Jewess is to marry adopts in some form the Jewish religion–after having learned its tenets in order to know what the steps taken by him or her mean, no rabbi who wants to be true to the tradition of Judaism can perform the marriage ceremony, as may be learned from Dr. Mielziner’s book, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, pp. 45-54, and from my Jewish Theology, p. 446, in which the resolutions passed by the Conference of 1909 are referred to. As to the question whether a rabbi can in the capacity of a layman consecrate mixed marriage, let me simply say that neither Judaism nor the State law acknowledges such a marriage as legal.” In a second letter, which stated that the gentleman in question expressed his surprise at the narrowness of Judaism and contemplated going to a Christian minister to be married by him, the writer asked whether there was “no possibility of performing the marriage when the assurance is given that the non-Jew will accept the Jewish faith after the marriage and whether a rabbi can perform the marriage of both non-Jews.” To this I answered: “No matter whether said member thinks Judaism is too narrow for him or not, the question is whether religion or he who represents it stands for a certain principle or not. Certainly the Jewish home, which is the object of marriage, must be conducted according to the Jewish principles. A Christian minister cannot consecrate a Jewish home, nor can a Jewish minister consecrate a Christian home; and if man and wife belong to two different religions, it will be a house divided against itself. Without harmony of views in a matter so vital to the future there is no real unity. For those who think that the Jewish home needs no religious consecration the State law provides that they may apply to the civil magistrate to perform the marriage and have the sanction of the State for their union.”K. Kohler

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 467-470

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

149. Rabbi Officiating at a Mixed Marriage

(Vol. XCII, 1982, pp. 213-215)QUESTION: Would there be any halachic justification for a rabbi officiating at an intermarriage? (What reasons halachic and non-halachic, for refusal can be cited? (Mr. R. B. I., New York, New York)ANSWER: It is clear from the committee’s earlier responsum on “Reform Judaism and Mixed Marriage” that there can be no halachic basis for a mixed marriage. That responsum (CCAR Yearbook, 1980) presents a long and detailed history of mixed marriage and the halachic arguments. The last resolution of the Conference, passed in Atlanta in 1973 (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 83, p. 97), clearly states the position of the Conference: The Central Conference of American Rabbis, recalling its stand adopted in 1909 “that mixed marriage is contrary to the Jewish tradition and should be discouraged,” now declares its opposition to participation by its members in any ceremony which solemnizes a mixed marriage. The Central Conference of American Rabbis recognizes that historically its members have held and continue to hold divergent interpretations of Jewish tradition. In order to keep open every channel to Judaism and K’lal Yisrael for those who have already entered into mixed marriage the CCAR calls upon its members: 1. to assist fully in educating children of such mixed marriage as Jews; 2. to provide the opportunity for conversion of the non-Jewish spouse; and 3. to encourage a creative and consistent cultivation of involvements in the Jewish community and synagogue. The position of the Halacha and its development through the ages is outlined in the earlier responsum. However, as this question is interested in the contemporary arguments which might be useful in a discussion of this matter, let us suggest the following: 1. The rabbi, as Mesader Kiddushin, acts in a legal capacity not only for the State but also for Judaism. Judaism has always held that only two Jews can be married to each other through a religious ceremony performed by a rabbi. This would not preclude a civil ceremony nor a ceremony performed by the couples themselves (as permitted in Pennsylvania). Such ceremonies can, and frequently do, contain prayers but they are obviously not Kiddushin, nor could they be even if performed by a rabbi, as Kiddushin between a Jew and a non-Jew would be a contradiction in terms. 2. A Jewish ceremony performed for one individual who is Jewish and another who is non-Jewish violates the conscience of the rabbi and infringes upon the rights of the non-Jewish party and his/her religious affiliation. Furthermore, even if he/she would agree to such a ceremony he/she could not in good conscience say, “Be consecrated unto me as my wife/husband according to the laws of Moses and Israel,” as he/she has not accepted these laws. 3. It is the task of a rabbi to strengthen Judaism and the Jewish community. Mixed marriage tends to weaken these ties. It raises doubts about the couple’s will to remain a Jewish family or to assure that future offspring will be Jewish. Even if their children are circumcised, named in the synagogue, or some effort is made to raise them as Jews, this is still not as effective as raising children in a Jewish household in which both parties actively participate in Jewish ceremonies. Judaism is a religion of the home and the family, with emphasis upon the atmosphere of the home and upon the influence of extended family; therefore, it is important that there be a minimum of confusion between the couple and their in-laws about the Jewishness of the home. After a mixed marriage, the couple certainly may agree to raise their children as Jews. A Reform congregation would encourage such an agreement, permit these children to attend the religious school, and encourage the Jewish partner to join the congregation. Most Reform Jews would consider the children Jewish as long as they affiliate in some fashion and do not accept another religion. Yet we also realize that their Judaism might well be diluted through the problems of a religiously mixed home. 4. The agreement to officiate at intermarriages would be a clear signal to others in the community, especially children, that this is a matter of indifference or less than paramount concern to the rabbi. 5. Religious considerations in marriage do not seem paramount to young couples, but they are necessarily of primary importance to the rabbi. The young couple should be prepared to make a decision on their religious future at this point, or, if they are not prepared to do so, should remain on neutral ground until such a decision can be properly made. 6. The statement by a rabbi that he will not marry a young couple in which one party is Jewish and the other non-Jewish is not a rejection of that couple. The request made of the rabbi to marry them is improper and betrays insensitivity to the rabbi’s feelings and integrity. To the extent that identity is expressed through choice and commitment, it is the out-marrying Jewish individual who is doing the “rejecting.” This should be explained as gently as possible to the family. 7. The anger of parents and grandparents sometimes displayed when the rabbi refuses to officiate at a mixed marriage is misdirected when turned toward the rabbi in the synagogue. The problems lie with the couple, not with Judaism, its institutions, or its leaders. This needs to be made clear to them. 8. Many couples nowadays want to be fair to both religions and both sets of parents; therefore, they ask that a rabbi and priest/minister participate in the ceremony, or that there be two separate religious ceremonies reflecting the two religious traditions. Such an effort must be rejected, for it demonstrates religious indifference or syncretism. 9. A mixed marriage conducted by a rabbi may have the semblance of a Jewish wedding but it cannot be Kiddush in by definition and will not be accepted as Kiddushin by most Jews, be they Orthodox, Conservative, or Reform. 10. In times of family tension and difficulty, everything which leads to further division within the family will make the marriage more unstable. Common religious bonds will enable the couple to face adversity better than divided religious allegiances. 11. In times of prejudice and anti-Semitism, families with a mixed marriage will be subject to greater pressures and will have fewer resources through which they can withstand such pressure. 12. Rabbis officiating at mixed marriages create a further and very basic division in the Jewish community, both in the United States and in Israel. 13. At the present time, the American Jewish community gains approximately 10,000 converts a year, mainly from non-Jews who contemplate marriage to Jewish partners. Some of these conversions would probably occur under any circumstances, but a large number would not. Through officiating at mixed marriages we will lose that large number of converts. At present, the number of converts to Judaism roughly balances those who are lost to us through mixed marriage and indifference. 14. Later conversions of the non-Jewish partner is possible and should be encouraged. But experience has taught us that early family patterns generally continue. Tensions which may later develop in the family make such a religious change even more difficult and unlikely. 15. It is clear that mixed marriages will continue and that the percentage will rise and fall depending upon circumstances beyond our control. That is a risk of living in an open society. Some non-Jewish partners will convert, others will not. Some children will be raised as Jews, others will not. But we have never depended upon numbers alone. It is far more important to have a strong commitment from a smaller group than a vague commitment from a large number who are at the very periphery. For all the foregoing reasons we reaffirm the position taken by the Central Conference of American Rabbis, “that mixed marriage is contrary to Jewish tradition and should be discouraged; it now declares its opposition to participation by its members in any ceremony which solemnizes mixed marriage.”Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzIsaac NeumnaHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

✕