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 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.

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.

ARR 445-465

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

146. Reform Judaism and Mixed Marriage

(Vol. XC, 1980, pp. 86-102)

QUESTION: May a Reform rabbi officiate at a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew? What is the attitude of Reform Judaism generally to such a marriage?

ANSWER: Reform Judaism has been firmly opposed to mixed marriages. This was true in the last century and in this century. At its New York meeting in 1909, the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed the following resolution: “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” (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 19, p. 170). This resolution was reaffirmed as part of a lengthy report in 1947 (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 57, p. 161). A considerably stronger resolution was passed in Atlanta in 1973. Its text reads as follows:

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 Yisraelfor 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 the synagogue. (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 83, p. 97)

These resolutions clearly state the position of the Reform rabbinate in this matter. They reflect only the latest steps in the long struggle against mixed marriage which began in Biblical times and will now be traced as background for this resolution.

The Bible and Mixed Marriage

If we review the marriages of the Patriarchs, we can see that they went to considerable trouble to obtain wives within the family circle, presumably with individuals who would be friendly to the religious ideals which the Patriarchs held. It is clear that endogamous marriages were preferred to exogamous marriages: Abraham married his half-sister (Gen. 20:12); Isaac married Rebecca, the granddaughter of Abraham’s brother and niece, his double first cousin once removed (Gen. 24:5); Jacob married Leah and Rachel, who also were his first cousins, the daughters of his mother’s brother (Gen. 29:12); and Esau married Mahalat, the daughter of Ishmael, his uncle, also a first cousin (Gen. 28:9). It is quite clear that Abraham wished Isaac to marry someone not a Canaanite; later Esau understood that the daughters of Canaan would not please his father, Isaac. There were many instances which demonstrated that endogamous marriages were preferred for religious, family, and national reasons.

It would be appropriate to look at the Biblical legislation against mixed marriage more closely. A prohibition against marriage with Edomites and Egyptians appeared in Deuteronomy 23:8-9. Children of such unions were not to be admitted into the congregation until the third generation. The Bible reported no marriages with Edomites, but mentioned a number of marriages with Egyptians and two involved problems. Leviticus 24:10-11 dealt with the son of an Israelite woman and an Egyptian father who became a blasphemer. Solomon married many foreign wives for the purpose of political alliance, and among them was a daughter of Pharaoh (I Kings 3:1, 9:16, 11:1). The Book of Kings specifically warned against these foreign wives: “You shall not enter into marriage with them, neither shall they with you, for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods” (I Kings 11:2), which happened in the case of Solomon. Finally, there is a reference to Sheshan who married his daughter to Jarha, an Egyptian slave (I Chronicles 2:34). These three isolated incidents indicate that such marriages involved both male and female Egyptians.

Moabites and Ammonites were prohibited from being “admitted to the congregation of the Lord…even in the tenth generation” (Deut. 23:4). This statement contains no reference to mixed marriages. Negative references connected with mixed marriages to Ammonites were associated with Rehoboam, who was considered an evil king, and his mother was Ammonite (II Chronicles 12:13); in addition, Joash was slain by assassins whose mothers were Ammonite and Moabite (II Chronicles 24:26). While the Israelites were in the desert, they consorted with Moabite women and were led astray after their gods (Num. 25:1ff). In that same section we have a report of an Israelite who brought a Midianite woman into camp and was slain by a zealot. In both these instances the danger of other religions was decried. Ruth, a Moabite woman, demonstrated an opposing point of view, as she became the antecedent of David (Ruth 4:18).

The most thorough Biblical injunctions were directed against mixed marriage with the seven Canaanite nations; so the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites (Deut. 7:1; also Exodus 34:11) were prohibited. “You shall not intermarry with them and not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons” (Deut. 7:3). A clear exception was made for a woman taken as prisoner of war (Deut. 21:11ff). After a period of delay, her captor could marry her; and the legislation made no comments of a religious nature, nor did it mention conversion. The Bible contains few references to proselytes as well (Is. 14:1; Esther 10:27).

When the Israelites entered Canaan, they intermarried with the local inhabitants and served other gods (Judges 3:6). The most striking example of such a mixed marriage was that of Samson and Delilah (Judges 14:1). She was a Philistine, and became responsible for his downfall. Later Solomon married many foreign women as part of royal alliances (I Kings 11:1ff), and they, too, led him astray in his old age. If we look at the subsequent record of the kings of Judah and Israel, we may be surprised at the paucity of mixed marriages. Among the nineteen kings of Israel who ruled for two hundred forty-one years, we find only Ahab, who was married to Jezebel (I Kings 16:31). Among the twenty kings of Judea who ruled for three hundred ninety-three years, we have only Jehoram (II Chronicles 21:6), and possibly Jehosaphat (II Chronicles 18:1), whose mother’s name may have been omitted because she was not an Israelite (Leopold Loew, “Eherechtliche Studien,” Gesammelte Schriften,vol. 3, pp. 138ff.

The Book of Proverbs contains a number of references against associating with loose or foreign women (Prov. 2:16-17, 5:3-20, 7:5-27). These are hortatory statements, not prohibitions. The prophet Malachi denounced such marriages (Mal. 2:11).

The clearest statements against mixed marriage appeared at the end of the Biblical period in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, when we find specific legislation prohibiting such marriages and demanding that Israelites separate themselves from foreign wives (Ezra 9:12, 10:10ff). Ezra scrutinized the marriages of the citizens of Jerusalem and neighboring villages. Considerable time was taken to complete this task against some opposition. A list of priests, Levites, and other Israelites who had intermarried and relinquished their foreign wives was provided (Ezra 10:18ff). Among those listed by Ezra as having engaged in intermarriage we find many among the High Priests’ families, thirteen among other priests, ten Levites, and eighty-six Judeans. The problem was not entirely solved, as the same difficulty arose again in the days of Nehemiah, who railed against those who had taken wives from Ashdod, Ammon, and Moab. Nehemiah did not advocate the dissolution of these marriages, although he removed the son of a High Priest who had entered such an alliance.

Each of these statements prohibiting mixed marriage was subjected to detailed Talmudic discussion, which provided a totally different interpretation. We should remember that all of these Biblical statements which dealt with mixed marriage or prohibited it, did not declare such a marriage invalid. That thought was foreign to the Bible and did not appear until a later period

Hasmonean and Hellenistic Period

Mixed marriages were discussed by the Book of Jubilees,which opposed them with the same vigor as Ezra and Nehemiah earlier. In it Abraham, and later Rebeccah, condemn marriages between Israelites and Canaanites (Jub. 20:4, 25:1). This theme also continued in later portions of the book (Jub. 22:16ff). Those who permitted their daughters to marry Gentiles were to die through stoning and the daughters through fire (Jub. 30:7ff). There could be no atonement for this sin, and the act was considered akin to presenting the child to Molech.

The Book of Maccabees reported mixed marriages as part of the general pattern of assimilation to the Hellenistic culture and condemned them (I Macc. 1:5, 11:18). The Prayer of Esther, an interpolation to the Biblical Esther, stressed her detestation “of the bed of the uncircumcised and of any alien.” It was only necessity which brought her into the palace and into her position (Prayer of Esther, 115f). Charles considered this and other additions as dating from the first century of our era or earlier.

The same reluctance to engage in public intercourse or marriage with non-Jews was reflected in Josephus’ tale of Joseph, who loved a pagan actress (Josephus, Antiquities XII, 4.6); he was eventually tricked into marrying the Jewish daughter of his own brother. Further evidence of mixed marriage is provided by some of the papyri (Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, p. 70). Those who left Judaism and probably were motivated by the desire to marry Gentiles were also vigorously denounced in Egypt by Philo (MosesI, 147) and by the author of III Maccabees (7:10ff).

Talmudic Period

The vast literature of the Talmud contains few discussions concerning mixed marriage. Each of the Biblical statements cited in the earlier section provided a basis for further development. Every effort was made to create a protective wall against the outer pagan world and to shield Jews from contact with non-Jews. During the most restrictive periods, non-Jewish bread, wine, and oil were prohibited, and anything cooked by non-Jews could not be consumed by a Jew (Avoda Zara 35b-38a); virtually all contact with non-Jews was prohibited (Nid. 34a; Shab. 16b; Avoda Zara 36b). Naturally, this prohibition extended to casual sexual contact, and those who violated this injunction faced punishment without trial in the same fashion as imposed by Phinehas (Num. 25:7f; Avoda Zara 36b). If the parties involved went further and actually married, they were subject to whipping (Avoda Zara 36b; Kid. 68b; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 12.1).

Not all the Talmudic authorities and not all periods were as restrictive as those previously cited, and the exchange of food, as well as social intercourse, with non-Jews was allowed, but the basic wall of separation remained (Avoda Zara 57a, 58b, and 59a).

The most significant change made during this period was the declaration of invalidity of mixed marriages. This remained a dictum of Rabbinic literature (Mishna, Kid. 6b, 68b). This Talmudic tractate provides a long list of marriages which are null and void for a variety of reasons, as well as marriages which are valid but interdictive. Marriages which involve Gentiles are declared void as no Kiddushin is possible. This new view may have reflected an internal Jewish development, or it may have been influenced by Roman law (Boaz Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law,vol. I, pp. 339f).

The Biblical laws against intermarriage were reinterpreted sometimes more strictly, and on other occasions leniently. The Schools of Hillel and Shammai expanded the list of nations excluded from intermarriage beyond the seven peoples of Canaan, to include all pagans. Simeon ben Yochai agreed with this interpretation (Avoda Zara 36b).

A very strict view was taken by Rava, who felt that the prohibition against the seven nations continued after their conversion. This was one of the many attempts to maintain absolute family purity. It meant that intercourse or marriage with pagans was seen as prohibited from a biological or racial point of view; it was Zenut, and would be punished through whipping (Yev. 76a; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 12.1).

Part of the strong feeling against mixed marriages was reflected in a general emphasis on family purity. It existed from the time of Ezra and Nehemiah to the destruction of the Temple. The loss of records at that time and in the later revolt of Bar Kochba made such genealogical practices difficult. The long genealogical lists in Chronicles reflected the mood, as did the Mishnaic concern with Mamzerim and Netinim. Degrees of family purity were established for various Israelites (Kid. 71b, 75aff). Such laws of purity were especially enforced for the priesthood (Kid. 66a, 76a, 77a).

The Tannaitic interpretation of the prohibition against marrying Ammonites and Moabites was limited to males, and did not extend to females–provided that they converted to Judaism. They could marry a native Israelite in the third generation (M., Yev. 8.3; Yev. 76ff). Rabbi Simeon sought to apply the same principle to Egyptians. Another mishna simply declared that Ammonites could no longer be clearly identified since the days of Sennacherib (M., Yadayim 4.4; Ber. 28a; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 12.25).

Deuteronomy had prohibited Egyptians and Edomites until the third generation, and in this case there was no tradition to make marriages with females possible after conversion, while excluding males. Although Rabbi Simeon sought to establish such a practice (M., Yev. 8.3; Yev. 76b, 77b), his view was not accepted. If the Egyptians and Edomites converted, they were not permitted to marry born Jews until the third generation (Yad, Isurei Bi-a 12.19).

Others rejected these interpretations, so Rav Asi stated that the century-long mingling of pagans and Jews in Babylonia meant that many might be descendants of the ten lost tribes. One could marry them without conversion or any other step, as they were Jews of doubtful status (Yev. 16b, 17a).

Similarly, Sennacherib so mixed the nations that it was no longer possible to tell who belonged to the seven prohibited peoples. This meant that they were eligible for conversion and acceptance as Jews (M., Yadayim 4.4). Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Johanan simply stated that Gentiles outside of the Land of Israel were not idolaters, but blindly followed the habits of their fathers, so matters of belief were no longer at issue, nor was there a danger of being led astray by them (Avoda Zara 65a; Chulin 13b). The principle of population mixture could be applied to Egyptians and Edomites also, and there was some Talmudic discussion about this (M., Yadayim 4.4; Tos., Kid. 5.5; Yad, Isurei Bi-a 12.25).

In general, the Talmudic period expanded the prohibition against intermarriage so that it included all pagan peoples. Restrictions against specific nations were eliminated. This meant that they, as well as any other pagan, could convert to Judaism and thus become part of the Jewish people. If this occurred without ulterior motive, but simply because of an attraction to Judaism, then the convert–no matter what his national origin–was treated as any other Jew.

The Talmudic invalidation of all mixed marriages meant that an insurmountable wall had been erected between the Jewish and pagan communities. As marriage to a pagan was simply not recognized (“Einam tofesin”),that family unit did not exist as far as the Jewish community was concerned, and was effectively excluded from the community. The union had no Jewish legal status in the various Christian communities. It was then unlikely that such unions would occur with any degree of frequency.

The Middle Ages

The discussion of mixed marriage continued into the Gaonic period. The responsa of the Geonim show some incidence of mixed marriage. The prohibitions of the Talmudic period were extended with further discussion about their implications, but without substantial changes (B. Lewin, Otzar Hage-onim;Yev. 48b; Kid. 22b, 66b, 68b, etc.). In these instances both casual intercourse and long-term relationships with servants, concubines, or wives were contemplated. We should recall that interdictions toward mixed marriage were expressed with equal vigor by Christians; this occurred frequently during the Middle Ages. The statements generally followed the pattern of those of the Council of Orleans, adopted in 538 C.E., which declared:

Christianis quoque omnibus interdicimus, ne Judaeorum conjugiis misceantur: quod si fecerint, usque ad sequestrationem, quisquis ille est, communione pellatur. Item Christianis convivia interdicimus Judaeorum; in quibus si forte fuisse probantur, annuali excommunicationi pro hujusmodi contumacia subjacebunt. (Ephraim Feldman, “Intermarriage Historically Considered,” CCAR Yearbook, vol. 19, p. 300).

Similar prohibitions can be found throughout the Middle Ages (Toledo, 589; Rome, 793; etc.). Their constant renewal may point to a continuing series of mixed marriages, or it may indicate the Church’s desire to re-emphasize its hostility toward Jews and Judaism.

The highest rate of mixed marriage in the Middle Ages occurred in Spain, and we find reports of Gentile wives and concubines. Such relations were already reported in Visigoth Spain in the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries. The Arian Christian Church did its best to halt them and frequently adopted statements of church councils, most to no avail (Georg Caro, Sozial und Wirtschaftsgeschichte der Juden, vol. I, 85ff, II, 225ff). Various forms of illicit relationships between Jews and Christians are reported (Adret, Responsa I, 1187, IV, 257; Asher, Responsa VIII, 10; Baer, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien, Urkunden und Regesten I, 171, 442). We should remember that there were stiff penalties for such illicit intercourse imposed by Christians; it could mean death by fire (Baer, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien, Urkunden und Regesten II, 125, no. 72; Asher, Responsa VIII, 10; Baer, ibid., I, 456, 10371038, II, 63, p. 48). As such transgressions could endanger the entire Jewish community, they were dealt with severely by Jewish authorities (Zichron Yehuda, #80, 91). There is a considerable number of cases of adultery and intercourse between Gentiles and Jewish women (Adret, Responsa I, 1187, 1250, IV, 257; Asher, Responsa VIII, 10, XVIII, 13). We also find intercourse between master and slave, presumably non-Jewish (Adret, Responsa I, 7.10, 6.28, 12.05, IV, 3.14; Asher, Responsa XXXII, 13, 15). The medieval authorities, like their Talmudic predecessors, made some distinction between relationships with Gentiles in private and in public. Although they prohibited such relationships in either direction, they tended to be a little more lenient if it was between a Gentile and a Jewess, as the possible offspring of such a union would be Jewish (Rashba to Kid. 21a in Otzar Haposekim, p. 253). An anonymous Spanish rabbi commanded, “You should proclaim a ban with the sounding of a horn against anyone who would have intercourse with a Gentile woman. He that is found to have done so should be severely punished, since many children have been born to Jews by their non-Jewish maid-servants” (Zichron Yehuda, #91). Zakuta reported that some Jews killed during the persecution of 1391 were actually slain by their own Christian sons born to Christian women (Yochasin, ed. Filipowski, 225a). These conditions were endemic to Spanish Jewry and continued after the expulsion in the lands to which Jews fled (David ben Zimri, Responsa I, 48, 409, III, 443, 520). Moses of Coucy succeeded in getting a number of Spanish coreligionists in about 1236 to set aside their Christian or Moslem wives (Semag, Lo Ta-aseh 112). Loew has suggested that these marriages probably referred to concubines (Loew, op. cit., vol. III, p. 176). Isaac Aramah (Akedat Yitschak,#20, etc.) denounced irregular sexual unions in his sermons. He may have painted an excessively gloomy picture, but was certainly dealing with a real problem.

Among the Spanish authorities we should also mention Simon of Duran, who dealt with Jews who had more casual relationships with Gentile women (Radbaz, Responsa III, 158), and Solomon Adret, who reported relationships and concubinage with Moslem women (ResponsaV, #242). In Adret’s case it seems that this condition was quite frequent.

Medieval Egypt seems to have been an exception to the continuing problem of mixed marriage. S.D. Goitein (A Mediterranean Society, vol. II, pp. 2277f) reported no such marriages in the Geniza material; when they did occur, then one partner converted. Marriages between Karaites and Jews were mentioned, but none between Moslems and Jews.

Mixed marriages also occurred in Northern Europe although there are fewer data available (G. Caro, op. cit., I, 57, 70, 94, II, 224). There were also numerous instances of mixed marriage and sexual relationships with non-Jews during the Renaissance in Italy (Cecil Roth, The Jews and the Renaissance,pp. 45ff, 344ff).

The halachic literature of the Middle Ages which prohibited mixed marriage had to concern itself with the status of Moslems and Christians, who were not pagans. The pattern for a new attitude toward these monotheistic religions had already been set by R. Johanan (third century), who stated that Gentiles outside the Land of Israel were not to be considered as idolaters, but merely as people who followed the practices of their ancestors (Chul. 13b). Non-Jews could, therefore, be subdivided into three categories: (a) idol worshippers, (b) Gentiles outside of Israel, who simply continued the habits of their ancestors, and (c) Gentiles who observed the seven Noahide commandments, which included the prohibition of idol worship. Maimonides considered Christians and Moslems in the second of the above categories (Commentary on M., Avoda Zara 1.3; Zimmels, p. 208. On other occasions he went even further and categorized Christians and Moslems as Benei Noach. In that category they assisted the preparation for the messianic era (Yad, Hil. Melachim XI.4). The Tosafists of Northern Europe generally included Christians among the Benei Noach (Tos. to Avoda Zara 2a), but occasionally also saw them as simply following the practices of their ancestors (responsum by Gershom b. Judah Meor Hagola). Rashi had come to a similar conclusion, quoting the Geonim about the same time (Tos., Avoda Zara 2a, 57b). There were some variations in the outlook adopted toward Christians or Moslems, depending on the economic and social circumstances of the Jewish communities, as well as on the distinction between Ashkenazim and Sefardim.

This new and friendlier outlook towards Christians and Moslems had definite limits. Sometimes they were set to cover commercial transactions; others dealt with items which could be connected with the religious ritual of these religions (Tos. to Avoda Zara 57b; Yad, Hil. Ma-achalot Asurot XL.7; Ribash, Responsa, 255, 256; Moses Schick, Responsa, Yoreh De-a 15). The restrictions definitely prohibited both sexual relations with non-Jews and mixed marriage. Marriages of Jews with Christians or Moslems were clearly prohibited by Maimonides and others (Yad, Hil. Ishut 4.15; Hil. Isurei Bi-a 12.1; Hil. Melachim 8.7; Tur, Even Ha-ezer 16.1; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 16.1, 44.9). All the medieval codes contain the Talmudic prohibition against mixed marriage. The codes differed in their interpretation as to whether the prohibition represented a Biblical or Rabbinic ordinance (based on Yev. 76a). Maimonides considered it Biblical, while Jacob ben Asher in his Tur invalidated such marriages on Rabbinic grounds. The codes, like the Talmud, indicate definite punishment for intercourse with Christians or for mixed marriages. Thirty-nine lashes were prescribed for such intercourse, and if a man lived with a Gentile concubine, then the punishment was to be tripled (Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 16.1-2). In addition, the sinner was also to suffer divine punishment. Maimonides’ code mentioned the Talmudic teaching that the slayer of a Jew engaged in intercourse with a non-Jew was not liable for punishment (Yad, Sanh. 18.6).

Rabbi Simon of Duran reported that the government permitted the Jewish community to stone Jews who had illicit sexual relations with a non-Jewess (Responsa III, 158). The responsa not only reported a variety of forms of such relationships, but also tried to discover solutions. So, when unions between Jewish masters and Gentile slaves were reported (Zichron Yehuda, 91, p. 44a; Baer, Die Juden im Christlichen Spanien, Urkunden und Regesten, I, 164, #6), this was sometimes used to compel a master to liberate such a slave and convert her to Judaism. In those instances, she may have become his Jewish concubine (Adret, ResponsaI, 12.19).

In the 18th century, when social barriers between Jews and non-Jews decreased in England, intermarriage increased. Conversions to Judaism were rarely permitted, so such individuals usually married in the church. Intermarriage did not necessarily mean that the party wished to leave the Jewish community, but they had little choice, as they were inevitably expelled from the synagogue. Sometimes the children of such unions later converted to Judaism, and were brought back into the community. Although no numbers are provided, it seems to have been a noteworthy group (Albert M. Hyamson, The Sephardim of England, pp. 176ff). We find a similar phenomenon in France before and during the great French Revolution (Z. Szajkowski, “Marriage, Mixed Marriages and Conversions among French Jews During the Revolution of 1789,” Jews and the French Revolutions of 1789, 1830 and 1848,pp. 826ff). We can see from this essay that a goodly number of individuals who entered mixed marriages subsequently converted to Catholicism. All of these incidents have been cited to demonstrate the reality of the problem throughout the medieval period. The codes and legal literature attempted to halt the process, and generally succeeded, but the same incidence continued throughout the period.

Conversion for the Sake of Marriage

Many non-Jews joined the Jewish community in the Biblical and early post-Biblical periods. Formal conversion was first discussed by the Talmud, which required sincere motivation as a prerequisite. Sincere converts could, of course, marry Jews (Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 4, 8-10). Those who converted for the sake of marriage or for the sake of wealth or power, or those who were prompted by greed, were not considered proper proselytes (Yev. 24b, 76a; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 268.12), but the matter is not quite as clear cut as it might seem, since various Biblical texts were interpreted as referring to conversion for the sake of marriage. This is how the captive woman (Deut. 21:13) was seen (Kid. 68b; Yev. 48a). Furthermore, prohibition against marriage with the Ammonite or a Moabite was limited to males, while females were permitted to be married immediately after conversion (Yev. 76b). Another statement in the same tractate held that we do not question the motivation of converts if they joined us during persecution or if they could gain no improvement of status by doing so (Yev. 24b). Others went even further; thus Hillel converted a Gentile who sought to become a High Priest (Shab. 31a), while Rabbi Hiya converted a woman who wished to marry a Jew (Men. 44a).

In the Middle Ages a major distinction concerning converts developed between the Spanish authorities and the Franco-German rabbis (B.Z. Wacholder, “Proselytizing in the Classical Halakhah,” Historia Judaica, vol. 20, pp. 77ff). The former, represented chiefly by Alfasi and Maimonides, emphasized purity of purpose, and did not recognize any injunction to seek proselytes, a matter questioned by Simon ben Zemah of Duran (Entsiklopedia Talmudit VI, p. 426). Therefore, only those who came with noble and lofty purposes were to be accepted (Yad, Hil. Isurei Bi-a 13.14ff). The Tosafists, on the other hand, stressed the commandment of seeking converts and were willing to do so even if not all the technical requirements could be met (Tosafot to Kid. 62b; Git. 88b, 109b; Yev. 45bff; Or Zarua II, 26a, 99). There were a fair number of converts during the Tosafist period despite the Church injunctions against conversions. So, Wacholder found twenty-five converts in the responsa of the 12th and 13th centuries (B.Z. Wacholder, “Cases of Proselytizing in the Tosafist Responsa,” Jewish Quarterly Review, vol. 51, pp. 288ff). A number of them were due to mixed marriages and were cited by R. Tam (Tos. to Ket. 3b; Yoma 82b) and Yehiel of Paris (Mordechai, San. 702; Toledot Adam VeChava23.4). In addition, there were numerous converts among slaves of Jews, which in some cases involved sexual unions and concubinage.

Social relationships, mixed marriage, and conversion remained a factor in Jewish life even in the most difficult periods of the Middle Ages. They led to conversions in both directions, with probably a larger number leaving Judaism than joining it. Any conversion could endanger the life of the convert, his family, and in some instances the entire Jewish community (Jacob ben Moses, Maharil, 86b; J.R. Rosenblum, Conversion to Judaism,pp. 74ff)

The issue of converting for marriage is discussed at length by Caro and Joshua Falk in their commentaries to the Tur (Yoreh De-a 268). Caro concludes that some proselytes who convert for the sake of marriage may, nevertheless, be sincere; all depended on the judgment of the court (“Hakol lefi re-ut beit din”). Falk concludes that such conversion would be accepted bedi-avad.There are, therefore, good grounds in tradition for accepting such converts.

Modern Times

Mixed marriages occurred with increasing frequency beginning in the latter part of the 18th century. This was true in all lands of Western Europe and in the United States. Szajkowski has shown that such marriages occurred among the obscure and the prominent during the French Revolution (Z. Szajkowski, op. cit., pp. 826ff). Mixed marriages increased rapidly during the succeeding century as a number of careful studies have indicated (E. Schnurmann, La population juive en Alsace, pp. 87ff; N. Samter, Judentaufen im Neunzehnten Jahrhundert,pp. 86ff).

The largest incidence of mixed marriage and conversion to Christianity, in many cases, was found in the German-speaking lands of Central Europe. This began in the generation after Moses Mendelssohn, and occurred in the fashionable circles of the upper class as well as among those who sought upward mobility. Much has been written about Rachel Varnhagen and her intellectual circle, but we should note that the phenomenon also existed among those further down the social ladder. Eastern European Jews who settled in Central Europe in large numbers throughout the 19th century were equally involved in this phenomenon. If we look at the entire l9th century, we shall find that approximately ten percent of the Jewish population was intermarried (A. Ruppin, The Jews in the Modern World,pp. 157ff). The percentage remained fairly stable throughout the century, but increased in the 20th century.

The lands of Eastern Europe and the Balkans were not entirely free from this problem, although the numbers involved were smaller (Ruppin, op. cit.,p. 159).

We should remember that opposition to mixed marriages remained equally strong on the part of Catholics and Protestants. Slowly some Protestants granted concessions if the children were raised as Christians. The Catholic Church insisted that such marriages were not valid and that remarriage was necessary after conversion of the non-Catholic partner, although some changes in this view began to occur in 1821 (Leopold Loew, “Eherechtliche Studien,” (Gesammelte Schriften,vol. 3, pp. 194ff). Slowly intermarriage was legalized in modern European states. This occurred in Germany in 1875, in Hungary in 1895, and in Rumania a little later. In 1913 it was still prohibited in Austria, Russia, Spain, Portugal, and Islamic lands. Even within the Jewish community, marriages between subgroups like Ashkenazim and Sefardim were rare in the l9th century.

Intermarriage was highest in lands where the number of Jews was small and where there was little discrimination, as in Denmark, Italy, and Australia (Ruppin, op. cit., p. 161). It reached 34.1% in Italy in 1881, while in New York in the same year it was one percent, as most Jews had settled there only recently. The figures in Germany between 1904-1908 were 22.2%. It should be noted that pre-World War I Hungary ruled that those about to “contract a mixed marriage can make an arrangement as to the religion they wish their children to have. In the absence of such an agreement, the sons follow the religion of the father, the daughters that of the mother” (Ruppin, op. cit.,p. 177).

The pattern of increasing mixed marriage, which was noted for England in the 18th century, grew especially with the establishment of civil marriages in 1837. Before that time Jews who married Christians were forced to do so in the Church (C. Roth, “The Anglo-Jewish Community in the Context of World Jewry,” Jewish Life in Modern Britain, pp. 83ff; S.J. Prais and M. Schmool, “Statistics of Jewish Marriages in Great Britain,” Jewish Journal of SociologyIX, no. 2).

Such marriages were also found with fair frequency in early America (M. Stern, “Jewish Marriage and Intermarriage in the Federal Period, 1776-1840,” American Jewish Archives, vol. 19, pp. 142ff; J. Goldstein, A Century of Judaism in New York, pp. 328ff; H.B. Grinstein, The Rise of the Jewish Community of New York, 1654-1860, pp. 372ff). Studies for the mid-20th century indicated the increasing rate of mixed marriage, which has now reached approximately thirty-five percent of all Jewish marriages. Accurate broad statistics are not available, but many specialized studies have been undertaken (see Erich Rosenthal, “Studies of Jewish Intermarriage in the United States,” American Jewish Yearbook, 1963, pp. 3ff; B. Kligfeld, “Intermarriage: A Review of the Social Science Literature on the Subject,” CCAR Yearbook, vol. 70, pp. 135ff; “Report of Special Committee on Mixed Marriage,” CCAR Yearbook, vol. 72, pp. 87ff; M. Davis, “Mixed Marriage in Western Jewry,” Jewish Journal of Sociology 10, pp. 197ff; Rosenbloom, Conversion to Judaism,pp. 121ff).

The issue of mixed marriage was raised in a formal way by the Napoleonic Sanhedrin in 1806. Among the questions posed to this body was the following: “Can a Jewess marry a Christian, or a Jew a Christian woman, or has the law ordered that Jews should only marry among themselves?” As a result of the French Revolution, marriage and divorce had been made a concern of the State. Keenly aware of the implications, the Sanhedrin conducted lengthy discussions, in which reference was made to marriages between Jews and Christians which had taken place in France, Spain, and Germany, and which had sometimes been tolerated by the rulers. The final answer stated, “The Great Sanhedrin declared further that marriages between Israelites and Christians, contracted according to the laws of the Code Civil, are civilly binding, and that, although they cannot be invested with religious forms, they shall not result in anathema” (Tama, Transaction of the Parisian Sanhedrin, transl. F. Kirwan, p. 155; G. Plaut, The Rise of Reform Judaism, pp. 71ff). The French text here simply declared civil marriages between a Jew and a non-Jew valid, but avoided the issue of religious marriage; the Hebrew text deemed such marriage religiously invalid (E. Feldheim, “Intermarriage Historically Considered,” CCAR Yearbook, vol. 19, p. 296). The Napoleonic Sanhedrin here applied the legal principle “Dina demalchuta dina” to civil marriage, without granting religious status. This Talmudic principle was constantly used for civil and criminal law, but never previously in matters of personal status. Some modern Orthodox authorities recognize such marriages, while others do not, and therefore require no religious divorce for them (Abraham Freimann, Seder Kiddushin Venisu-in, pp. 362ff; C. Ellinson, Nisu-in Shelo Kedat Mosheh VeYisra-el,pp. 170ff).

The Rabbinical Conference of Braunschweig in 1844 intended to endorse the declaration of the Napoleonic Sanhedrin, but as no one possessed a copy of the resolution, it actually went further by stating: “The intermarriage of Jews and Christians, and, in general, the intermarriage of Jews with adherents to any of the monotheistic religions, is not forbidden, provided that the parents are permitted by the law of the state to bring up the offspring of such marriage in the Jewish faith.” A motion was also made to permit rabbis to officiate at such marriages, but that was rejected, and so no Jewish authority was authorized to conduct such marriages (for a summary of the debate, see W.G. Plaut, The Rise of Reform Judaism, pp. 220ff). The author of the general resolution, Ludwig Philipson, later changed his mind on this question (L. Philipson, Israelitische Religionslehre, vol. III, p. 350; Moses Mielziner, The Jewish Law of Marriage and Divorce, p. 48). Abraham Geiger similarly opposed mixed marriages (A. Geiger, Referat ueber die der ersten Israelitischen Synode ueberreichten Antraege, pp. 187ff). At the conference held in Breslau in 1846, Samuel Holdheim suggested that rabbis should officiate at mixed marriages, but this motion was rejected (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 1, p. 98). Resolutions calling for acceptance of civil marriage and marriages between Jews and Christians were introduced at the Leipzig Synod of 1869, but none was passed. The Synod of Augsburg (1871) stated that civil marriages are to be considered as valid (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 1, p. 113). None of the other rabbinical conferences held in Germany or in the United States during the last century passed resolutions on this subject; a number of individual rabbis dealt with the issue in essays and lectures. The radical David Einhorn called mixed marriage “a nail in the coffin of the small Jewish race” (Jewish Times,1870). This citation was frequently quoted by others in the last century and in our own.

The Central Conference of American Rabbis has dealt with the question of mixed marriage extensively from its earliest days. Mendel Silber read a lengthy historical essay on the subject to the Conference in 1908 (Mendel Silber, “Intermarriage,” CCAR Yearbook, 1908, p. 207). This represented part of the concern over the subject and the desire to establish a policy on the question. The following year a major portion of the Conference was dedicated to this subject with the presentation of two papers (E. Feldman, “Intermarriage Historically Considered,” and S. Schulman, “Mixed Marriages in Their Relation to the Jewish Religion,” CCAR Yearbook, 1909). Both cited a considerable number of sources and reviewed the positions taken by various Reform groups in the l9th century. The discussion of the Conference indicated that all the rabbis present opposed mixed marriages, although some were willing to officiate at them. The debate dealt with the freedom of the individual rabbi versus the power of the Conference and the general force of the rabbinic tradition. The debate on the subject dealt with the question itself and with the issue of rabbis officiating at such marriages. The resolution which was passed read:

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.

There was no substantial additional discussion in the following years, but the matter was mentioned peripherally in a lengthy paper by Kaufmann Kohler (“The Harmonization of the Jewish and Civil Laws of Marriage and Divorce,” CCAR Yearbook, 1915, pp. 335ff). This essay made it clear that Reform Judaism accepts civil marriages as valid and does so in the case of mixed marriages as well.

The following decades saw some discussion of this subject in responsa of the Conference (“Forfeiture of Congregational Membership by Intermarriage,” CCAR Yearbook, 1916, pp. 113ff; “Burial of Gentiles in a Jewish Cemetery,” CCAR Yearbook, 1963, pp. 85ff), and those of Solomon B. Freehof in his various volumes. Fairly frequent articles in the CCAR Journal and elsewhere by Reform rabbis demonstrated continued concern, and minor discussion of this question occurred at conferences through the years. It was not brought to the floor of the Conference again until 1947, when a lengthy report of a special committee under the chairmanship of Solomon B. Freehof proposed a set of recommendations with considerable annotations, which were adopted after some debate (“Report on Mixed Marriage and Intermarriage,” CCAR Yearbook, pp. 158ff). The Conference reaffirmed the 1909 resolution on mixed marriage and then proceeded to deal with the specifics involved in mixed marriage through resolutions embodied in the report. These were as follows:

II. The CCAR considers all sincere applicants for proselytizing as acceptable whether or not it is the intention of the candidate to marry a Jew.

III. 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.

IV. Since it is the point of view of the Conference that all sincere applicants for conversion be accepted whether marriage is involved or not, and since, too, we recognize the validity of civil marriages but urge that they be sanctified by a religious marriage ceremony, we surely would accept such a proselyte and officiate at the religious marriage. However, it should be clear that the fact that the couple is already married by civil law does not obviate the necessity of conversion of the Gentile party before the Jewish marriage service can take place.

V. The Conference may well take the stand that wherever the state acknowledges the validity of common law marriage, we likewise consider them to be valid; but that just as in cases of civil marriage. we urge that they be changed to regular marriage by license and religious ceremony.

VI. We cannot take quite the same attitude which traditional law has taken inasmuch as marriage, especially in England and the United States, is not only church marriage; it has also, to some extent, the status of civil marriage, at least to the extent that the license to marry was issued by the state. Nevertheless, in this case, the mood of the traditional attitude must determine our point of view. We cannot declare such a marriage invalid but would consider it highly improper and should endeavor, as much as possible, to persuade the couple to be married subsequently by Jewish ceremony. Likewise, on the basis of the unanimous attitude of traditional law, it would be improper for a rabbi to participate with a Christian minister at such a marriage.

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 convert should receive regular instruction for that purpose and be converted in the regular conversion ceremony.

Considerable background material for each conclusion was provided. These specific recommendations have gone much farther than any other material in providing an orderly and uniform approach to the questions connected with mixed marriages.

A further recommendation was made by a special committee under the leadership of Eugene Mihaly in 1962 (“Report of the Special Committee on Mixed Marriage,” CCAR Yearbook, 1962, pp. 86ff). It analyzed the problem and recommended a resolution which would have changed the position of 1909 and permitted rabbis to officiate at mixed marriages. There was considerable debate in which all matters connected with mixed marriage were thoroughly discussed. The substantive portion of the resolution failed, but it was decided to study the matter further and monitor it.

The issue of mixed marriage was raised again in 1971 with a demand for further study which was brought to the floor of the Conference in 1973 through a report under the chairmanship of Herman E. Schaalman (“Report of the Committee on Mixed Marriage,” CCAR Yearbook, 1973, pp. 59ff). In this instance the majority report was accompanied by several minority statements. The entire matter was then subjected to lengthy discussion. The resolution accompanying the report urged that the 1909 statement be reaffirmed and then proposed a series of detailed statements which sought to restrain rabbis officiating at such marriages and co-officiating with Christian clergy. It also dealt with the question of welcoming those who had already entered a mixed marriage as well as their children. The discussion which followed dealt again with every aspect of mixed marriage as well as the issue of rabbinic freedom. The resolution finally adopted read:

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 involvement in the Jewish community and the synagogue.

The Conservative Movement felt it necessary to deal with the intermarried Jew and his rights within the synagogue and community at length (“Intermarriage and Membership in a Congregation,” Rabbinical Assembly Annual, 1958, pp. 110ff). The statement which opposed mixed marriage also sought to deal with the non-Jewish partner in a conciliatory manner. “It should be clearly understood that in frowning upon intermarriage and in voicing opposition to the choice of a non-Jewish mate, neither Judaism at large, nor Conservative Judaism in particular, expresses any judgment about the morality of character of these non-Jewish men and women.” A list of fourteen reasons for not accepting the non-Jewish partner into a congregation was provided. Congregational membership could be retained by those already holding it, even after a mixed marriage, but would not be accepted initially. Such an individual would be permitted to worship with the congregation, but could not join it. In either case, it was recommended that synagogue honors be withheld, and the non-Jewish members of the family were not granted burial rights. The statement concluded with a milder injunction considering it “a mistake to permit the unconverted non-Jewish wife to be a member of the women’s organization of the congregation.” The Law Committee of the Rabbinical Assembly has dealt with the question further, but not in published responsa.

Orthodox Judaism has not changed its approach to this question. Civil marriages are not recognized by most Orthodox authorities. When a civil marriage has united a Jew and a non-Jew and, subsequently, the non-Jew converts to Judaism, some Orthodox authorities have refused to conduct a religious marriage (Mishna, Yev. II.8), while others have followed a more lenient point of view, as did Ben Zion Uziel (Mishpetei Uzi-el, Yoreh De-a, #14; also see B. Schereschewsky, Dinei Hamishpacha,pp. 80ff).

There are a number of responsa by David Hoffman (Melamed Leho-il, vol. 3, #10, 14, etc.) which dealt with the status of intermarried individuals, especially in cases of a later desire to convert, or where there was some concern about the future of the offspring of such a union. Such converts were refused. Similar responsa are also found in Moses Feinstein’s Igerot Mosheh, Even Ha-ezer, #73, 44, etc.) and elsewhere. All of them simply reported the incidence of intermarriage and decried it.

Israeli law has followed Orthodox law in matters involving family and personal status. It has, however, recognized civil marriages conducted in other lands in accordance with international law (Skornik v. Skornik,1951, 8:155-156). For Purposes of the Law of Return, a non-Jewish spouse and his/her children possess similar rights of immigration as Jews (Law of Return, Amendment, 2, 4a, March, 1970).

Summary

Reform Judaism and the Central Conference of American Rabbis has opposed mixed marriages. We recognize the problem as significant in every period of Jewish history. It has become more severe in 20th-century America, and, therefore we have made provisions for families of mixed marriages and their children. They are welcome in our congregations, and we continue to urge them to convert to Judaism. The Conference resolution of 1973 succinctly summarizes our position:

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 Yisraelfor 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 involvement in the Jewish community and the synagogue.

Walter Jacob, Chairman

Eugene J. Lipman

W. Gunther Plaut

Harry A. Roth

Rav A. Soloff

Bernard Zlotowitz

See also:

Resolution, CCAR Yearbook, vol. 19, 1909, p. 170.

Resolution, CCAR Yearbook, vol. 57, 1973, p. 97.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 95-96

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

59. Three Generations of Mixed

Marriage

QUESTION: A young man who grew up in the South is the

product of three generations of mixed marriage. His great grandfather was Jewish and his great

grandmother was Christian. His grandmother was raised as a Christian, but married a Jew. Both

of his parents come from mixed marriages, and have provided him with no formal religious

education. He would now like to claim his Jewish heritage and feels that the recent decision of

the Central Conference of American Rabbis would make this easier for him. (H. S., Washington,

DC)ANSWER: The resolution of the Central American Rabbis, passed in 1983, has

stated: “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.” This resolution deals with the current

generation and cannot be applied retroactively. In any case, there was no Jewish education or

commitment in the previous generations. This young man has been raised in a secular fashion

which has been colored by Christian traditions. Although there was very little formal Jewish

education for three generations, some Jewish heritage survived. Otherwise, the young man in

question, who now lives in a slightly larger town, would not be interested in reclaiming his Jewish

identity. From a traditional Jewish point of view, he would not be considered Jewish as the link

was broken in the second generation in which the father was Jewish and the mother non-Jewish.

Had this not been the case, traditional Judaism might consider him as a Jew in accordance with

the view of Solomon ben Simon of Duran (Rashbash, Responsa #89). He was concerned

with the offsprings of Marranos and considered them Jewish indefinitely if the female Jewish

lineage remained unbroken. Most authorities would insist on some form of haverut to

mark a formal re-entry into the Jewish community (Shulhan Arukh Yoreh Deah 268.10 f;

Ezekiel Landau, Noda Biyehudah, #150, etc.) We, however, feel that there must be a

strong educational component which will create a positive identity, and so would demand more

regardless of matrilineal or patrilineal descent. As this young man and his forefathers had no

Jewish education or contact, we should treat him as a convert to Judaism and welcome him to

Judaism. In the process of conversion and the final ceremony, we should stress his links to a

Jewish past which he now wishes to establish firmly for himself and for future

generations.September 1983

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

CARR 290-291

CCAR RESPONSA

Contemporary American Reform Responsa

196. Twenty-fifth Anniversary of a Mixed

Marriage

QUESTION: A couple, in which the husband is Jewish and wife

is Christian, has been happily married for twenty-five years. Their children have been raised as

Jews and the oldest among them is now a member of the congregation. The family has

participated in the life of the congregation in every way, including a term of service by the

husband on the Board of the Congregation. The rabbi is a friend of the couple. The couple was

originally married by a judge. Now they have asked the rabbi to participate in the anniversary

celebration by performing a service of rededication, before a party at home, after twenty-five

years. Should the rabbi participate or should he decline on the grounds that he does not officiate

at mixed marriages? (J. F., Miami, FL) ANSWER: There is, of course, nothing in

the traditional literature which deals with this subject. For a full discussion of mixed marriage and

the halakhic basis for not officiating, let me refer you to the resolutions of the C.C.A.R.

and W. Jacob, American Reform Responsa (#148 ff). There is also no discussion in any

literature about a ceremony of rededication. Nothing akin to it seems to have been used in the

past. As the couple has participated actively in the congregation throughout their married life,

this might be an appropriate time to suggest the conversion of the non-Jewish spouse, especially

as her entire family is Jewish. Under these circumstances, no formal period of study would be

necessary; conversion would indicate official acceptance into the Jewish community. Following

that, a marriage ceremony, with appropriate modifications, could take place. If the

non-Jewish spouse does not wish to convert, a simple prayer of rededication, rather than a

service, would be appropriate; the rabbi may participate in the private setting. We make this

decision on the principle that lehat-hilah, we can not officiate in a mixed marriage, but

bediavad, we will accept the couple, work with them and help them lead a Jewish life.

The occasion should have no overtones of a marriage ceremony and should stress the couple’s

participation in Jewish life and in the congregation. Everything should be done in a way which

would stress that there has been no change in the rabbi’s policy on mixed marriage, nor should it

have the appearance of representing any change.October 1984

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.