Mixed marriage

TFN no.5751.7 267-269

CCAR RESPONSA

Funeral of a Child of Mixed Marriage

5751.7

She’elah

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

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

Teshuvah

The following questions arise:

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

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

3. What other considerations should be addressed?

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

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

Does the matter of co-officiating alter these conclusions?

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

RR21 no. 5758.14

CCAR RESPONSA

5758.14

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

She’elah

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

Teshuvah

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

NOTES

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

Gates of Mitzvah

, 37.

CCARY

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

CCARY

83 (1973), 97.

See Bereishit Rabah, ch. 39, on the words “you shall be a blessing” in Gen. 12:2: Abraham is described as mekarev rechokim, one who brings “under the wings of the Shekhinah” those who are estranged from God.

See the discussion in Teshuvot for the Nineties (TFN), no. 5755.17, 251-258.The resolution (CCARY 93 [1983], 157-160) states that a child of a Jewish and a Gentile parent enjoys a presumption of Jewish status which may be established through “appropriate and timely public and formal acts of identification with the Jewish faith and people.” These acts testify to the child’s “positive and exclusive Jewish identity.” From this, it follows that a mixed-married household is capable of transmitting a firm Jewish identity to its children.

Membership in our congregations is restricted to Jews; the non-Jewish family members of a Jew are affiliated with us through that person’s membership. A non-Jewish spouse may not serve as an officer of the congregation or as the chair of a committee which exercises important religious functions. See Suggested Constitution and By-Laws for Congregations, Joint Commission on Synagogue Administration, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, April, 1984; Contemporary American Reform Responsa (CARR), nos. 163-164, and R. Solomon Freehof, Reform Responsa for Our Time, no. 53. These restrictions, however, do not apply to the congregant who is married to a non-Jew.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

ARR 465-466

CCAR RESPONSA

American Reform Responsa

147. Prayer for Couple Contemplating Intermarriage

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

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN 5751.7 267-269

CCAR RESPONSA

Funeral of a Child of Mixed Marriage

5751.7

She’elah
A rabbi has been asked to co-officate with Christian clergy at the funeral of a 16-year old boy

who died tragically in an automobile accident. His mother is Catholic and his father Jewish. The boy was

enrolled for a few years in religious school, but was never called to the Torah as a bar mitzvah. His

parents are not currently members of the congregation. The clergyman has assured the rabbi that, at the

request of the family, the service would be non-sectarian and that nothing would be said to offend Jewish

ears. The cemetery too is non-sectarian.

The rabbi has been was invited to lead the mourners’ Kaddish and has asked whether it was

proper for him to co-officiate in this manner.

Teshuvah
The following questions arise:

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

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

3. What other considerations should be addressed?

1. The religious status of the child is not in doubt. The Halakhah would consider him a Gentile since he

was born of a Gentile mother and was not converted. Neither would the boy meet the requirements of the

patrilineal definition of the CCAR, for while he attended a Jewish religious school for a while he did not

affirm his Jewishness in a “timely public and formal fashion,” as required of him in order to be

acknowledged a a Jew.¹

2. If the rabbi had been asked to be the sole officiant at the funeral, the propriety of his/her accepting this

task would not have been in question. That constellation was first discussed with regard to non-Jewish

spouses, and there were no obstacles to the rabbi’s participation.² Rabbis have also officiated on

other occasions in keeping with the Talmudic dictum to keep peace with the gentile community,

mipnei darkhei shalom, a rule which has been incorporated in the codes.³ Nor is there

an objection with regard to reciting the Kaddish for a Gentile.⁴ The whole matter was explored in

detail by R. Solomon B. Freehof in a responsum published in 1957.⁵ We see to it that the dead are buried

with dignity and that the mourners are consoled.

Does the matter of co-officiating alter these conclusions?

A funeral is not an “interfaith service” of a civic nature, in which Reform rabbis generally

participate.⁶ Rather, it is a service which performs a specific religious rite and thereby focuses on the

identity of the deceased.

In the case of the burial of a non-Jewish spouse the deceased’s identity is not at issue, and the

rabbi’s participation is understood as an act of comforting the surviving partner. Here, however, the dead

boy’s religious identity is unclear and the rabbi’s co-officating gives rise to the impression that the boy had

two religious identities, the existence of which we have declared inadmissible.⁷

Further, another long-established principle comes into play. What we do must not only be right,

but should also be perceived as being right. We should not act in a manner which will create falso

impressions (mipnei mar’it ayin). The rabbi’s participation would appear to affirm the Jewishness

of the child, along with his Christian identity. Therefore, even if the service does not contain specific

christological references the rabbi should not co-officate. We draw a definite line

between ourselves and Christian practice. In an age in which boundaries were not as blurred as

they increasingly tend to be in our time, it might have been possible to arrive at a different answer, but for

us the setting of boundaries has become an important aspect in the maintenance of our Jewish identity.

Participation in the ritual would give the appearance that the child was considered Jewish.

3. However, we do not counsel the rabbi to turn away from a family that is in the throes of bitter tragedy.

On the contrary, we believe that there is a meaningful role for Jewish spiritual guidance and participation.

Responding to the invitation to participate in the ritual, the rabbi might give the following

answer: I find myself unable to co-officiate in the ritual, but I will assist the father in fulfilling

his own religious duty to say Kaddish for his son. I will sit with him in the pew and help him to perform

the mitzvah.

In this way, religious boundaries are observed, as are the two principles of mipnei mar’it ‘ayin

and mipnei darkhei shalom. The presence of the rabbi provides a measure of consolation to the

father, and the father himself is encouraged to express his feelings in a Jewish way.

Notes

See Rabbi’s Manual (1988), p. 226.
American Reform Responsa , ed. Walter Jacob, # 95.
Based on BT Gittin 61a;Tur Yoreh De’ah 367 rephrases the law to read: mishtadlim
bikevuratam kemo she-mishtadlim bikevurat yisra’el, “we participate in their burials as if

they were Jews.” See also Rambam, Mishneh Torah , Hilkhot Avel 14:12, and Melakhim

10:12, supporting his position with references to Ps. 145:9 and Prov. 3:17. There is some

speculation on the meaning of Rashi’s interpretation of the Gittin passage; see Rashba and

R. Nissim Gerondi (commentary on Alfasi, folio 28a).
Oshry,, pp. 69 ff.
American Reform Responsa , #124.
See Contemporary American Reform Responsa , ed. Walter Jacob, # 167.
Ibid., # 61.
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.

TFN no.5755.2 249

CCAR RESPONSA

Naming a Child of a Mixed Marriage

5755.2

She’elah

A child from a Jewish father and Gentile mother has been converted and has undergone immersion in the mikveh. What parental Hebrew names should be inscribed on the certificate? (Rabbi Alejandro Lilienthal, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)

Teshuvah

The way we name a child is a matter of custom and not of law, as is set forth in a teshuvah issued by R. Walter Jacob.

Since the child has a Jewish father, the only question that arises concerns the name of the child’s mother. As a general practice, we do not assign a Hebrew name to the non-Jewish parent. If it seems desirable to add such a name, you might wish to use that of our ancestor, Sarah.

Notes

Questions and Reform Jewish Answers, , p.182. (The teshuvah was enclosed with our letter.) Contemporary American Reform Responsa, ed. R. Walter Jacob, p.57.

If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.