CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
129. the Table of Consanguinity
(Vol. LXXXVIII, 1978, pp. 55-56)QUESTION: The Table of Consanguinity currently used by the Reform Movement is male-centered, and clearly discriminates against women. Should we change the Table to reflect our equal treatment of men and women?ANSWER: The Table of Consanguinity as produced in the Rabbis’ Manual is based largely upon Biblical law (Lev. 18:11-21; Deut. 23:3, 27:20-23; Kid. 67b; Yoma 67b; Maimonides, Yad, Hil. Ishut IV, Isurei Bi-a II; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 15:44.6). The Biblical laws were somewhat modified and expanded by the Talmud. A full discussion of those modifications may be found in Mielziner, Jewish Marriage Laws, 1897. Each of these statements has approached the entire matter from a male point of view. It would, of course, be possible to rewrite these statements so that they would reflect the views of the current feminist movement. This, however, would add a number of prohibitions, if we simply paralleled masculine prohibitions which exist already. It would be unwise and unrealistic to follow this path for the following reasons: (1) The last major change in Jewish marriage laws was made in the 11th century through the decree of Rabbenu Gershom, which prohibited polygamy. This decree was effective because polygamy had largely ceased in practice by Ashkenazic Jews, as the general population among whom they lived did not practice it either. The decree, however, was not followed by the remainder of world Jewry, and polygamy continued to be practiced up to modern times by Jews in various Eastern countries. In other words, the decree was effective only because it fitted into the mood of the time and place. Such additional restrictions would, however, not evoke a similar response in our age. The decree of Rabbenu Gershom had long been completely accepted by Ashkenazic Jewry. (2) The presumption of inequality for women has led Judaism to adopt the most lenient definition of bastardy in the Western world. Only the offspring of those prohibited from marrying by the laws of consanguinity and adultery on the part of a married woman are considered Mamzerim. Any change would also alter this definition to the disadvantage of infant children. (3) It is extremely doubtful whether our rabbis or our laymen would follow any additional restrictions in the field of marriage. It is difficult enough to enforce some strictures which we have now, much less impose others. In other words, any restrictive decision on the part of our committee in this matter would represent a mere gesture toward the feminist movement rather than an effective effort. Anyhow, one should not legislate when it is obvious that no one will follow what has been decreed (Yev. 65b, Shabbat 148b). In addition, our Reform Movement has made some changes: (1) We have recognized the marriage of divorcees to those of priestly descent. This permissive change was made as we no longer recognize priestly privileges. (2) We have accepted civil divorce as sufficient for remarriage. The reliance on civil divorce is, ipso facto, an effective and realistic measure toward equality of the sexes, since women can and do institute divorce proceedings in their own right under State laws. Both changes have gained complete acceptance by Reform Jews and also by a large percentage of the American Jewish community. The existing Table could be rewritten in a more permissive way. That also does not seem appropriate for us for the following reasons: (1) We are continuing to try to work out distinctive, but naturally agreeable, approaches to family law along with our Conservative and Orthodox coreligionists in order to avoid conflict over family matters in the Land of Israel. A decision such as this on our part would increase the difficulties of this task. (2) Most State legal systems parallel our Table of Consanguinity or are very close to it. Any changes we might make would only raise additional problems. In this case, the abstract notion of complete equality would hinder rather than help us or the feminist movement. For these reasons the Table of Consanguinity should remain as it now stands.Walter Jacob, ChairmanSolomon B. Freehof, Honorary ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzStephen M. PassamaneckHarry A. RothHerman E. SchaalmanBernard Zlotowitz
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.