CCAR RESPONSA
American Reform Responsa
150. Marriage with a “Messianic Jew”
(Vol. XCI, 1981, pp. 67-69)QUESTION: May a Reform rabbi officiate at a marriage between a Jewish girl and a boy who was born a Jew but now considers himself a “Messianic Jew”? Is this in consonance with Reform Judaism? (Rabbi Seymour Prystowsky, Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania)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 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 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. (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 Responsa Committee has written a long responsum on this subject. It is printed in the 1980 Yearbook (pp. 86-102) and presents a good deal of additional background material. If we consider a “Messianic Jew” as an apostate Jew, what would his status be for us? Judaism has always considered those who left us as sinners, but still remaining as Jews. They could always return to Judaism through Teshuva and the exact response of Judaism depended very much on the conditions of the time. Hai Gaon (as quoted by Adret, Responsa VII, #292) felt that an apostate could not be considered as a Jew. Centuries later the rabbis of the Mediterranean Basin had to face the problems of the Marranos (Anusim). Their attitude differed greatly and may be summarized under five headings: (1) Apostates are Jews who sinned but, nevertheless, are considered Jewish (Isaac bar Sheshet; Simon ben Zemah of Duran, but on some occasions he did not grant this status; Solomon ben Simon Duran; Zemah ben Solomon). (2) The apostates are considered Jewish only in matters of matrimony (and so their offspring are Jewish), but not in any other area (Samuel de Medina). (3) Marranos (Anusim) are considered non-Jews in every respect, including matters of marriage; their children are not considered to be Jews (Judah Berab, Jacob Berab, Moses ben Elias Kapsali, etc.). (4) An apostate is worse than a Gentile (ben Veniste, Mercado ben Abraham). (5) Descendants of the Marranos who have been baptized are like Jewish children who have been taken captive by non-Jews and their children are Jewish (Samuel ben Abraham Aboab). All of these references and excerpts from the relevant literature may be found in H.J. Zimmels Die Marranen in der Rabbinischen Literatur, pp. 21ff. One extreme position was held by Solomon ben Simon Duran (Rashbash Responsa, #89) who felt that not only the apostate, but also the children would continue to be considered Jewish forever into the future as long as the maternal line was Jewish. He also felt that nothing needed to be done by any generation of such apostates when they returned to Judaism. No ritual bath nor any other act was considered necessary or desirable. In fact he emphasized that no attention be given to their previous state, for that might discourage their return. Rabbenu Gershom gave a similar view and urged the quiet acceptance of all who returned to Judaism (Machzor Vitry, pp. 96 and 97). The other extreme has been presented by Rashi (in his commentary to Kid. 68b and Lev. 24:10). He felt that any returning apostate, or the children of a Jewish mother who had apostacized, are potentially Jewish, but most undergo a process akin to conversion if they wish to become part of the Jewish community. That point of view was rejected by most later scholars, as for example Nahmanides (in his commentary to Leviticus 24:10; Shulchan Aruch Voreh De-a 268.10f; Ezekiel Landau, Responsa, #150, etc.). We, therefore, have two extremes in the Rabbinic literature; both, of course, represented reaction to particular historic conditions. Solomon ben Simon of Duran wished to make it easy for a large number of Marranos to return to Judaism; unfortunately, this did not occur. Even when it was possible for Jews to leave Spain, the majority chose to remain. Rashi’s harsh attitude probably reflected the small number of apostates who were a thorn in the side of the French community. Normative Rabbinic Judaism chose a middle path and encouraged the apostate’s return along with some studies, but without a formal conversion process. If an apostate did not wish to return to Judaism he would, nevertheless, be considered as part of the Jewish people (San. 44a). His or her marriage, if performed according to Jewish law as Marranos, and therefore as unwilling apostates, were valid (Yev. 30b; Shulchan Aruch, Even Ha-ezer 44.9); divorce procedures for them are somewhat modified. Such an individual was not considered as reliable witness except in the case of an Aguna. Penalties may be imposed on his inheritance (Kid. 18a), although he does have the right to inherit (B.B. 108a 111a). Normal mourning rites should not be observed for such a person (M. San. 6.6; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De-a 345.5). It is clear, therefore, that an apostate stands outside the community in all but relatively few matters until he has repented. We cannot officiate at his marriage with a Jewish girl. Could we, on the other hand, consider a “Messianic Jew” as still a Jew? He may define himself in this manner, but do we? A “Messianic Jew” is one who has designated himself as Jewish, but believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah and has come to fulfill the messianic promises. By making these assertions that individual has clearly defined himself as a Christian. He may be somewhat different from other Christians in the Jewish practices which he continues, but in belief of theology and basic life pattern he is a Christian. We should remember that there are a wide variety of Christian sects which also observe various Jewish laws and customs–so the Seventh Day Adventists who observe the Shabbat as their day of rest, some Black Christian churches which celebrate Jewish festivals, etc. It is clear, therefore, that unless the young man renounces his belief in Jesus of Nazareth and becomes a Jew rather than a “Messianic Jew,” we must consider him as a Christian and cannot officiate at his marriage with a Jewish girl. We should be much stricter in our relationship with “Messianic Jews” than with other Christians with whom we continually attempt to establish good interfaith relations. The normative Christian churches are known for their beliefs and practices and are easily distinguishable by our people. Although they may continue to seek some converts from Judaism, most Churches have not pursued active missionary activities in modern times. Directly the opposite is true of “Messianic Jews.” They have established a vigorous missionary presence and often seek to confuse Jews about the nature of their religion. They have frequently presented themselves as Jews rather than Christians through misleading pamphlets, advertisements, and religious services. We should do everything in our power to correct these misconceptions and to maintain a strict separation from anyone connected with this group. We should, of course, not officiate at such a marriage.Walter Jacob, ChairmanLeonard S. KravitzW. Gunther PlautHarry A. RothRav A. SoloffBernard Zlotowitz
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.