CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
162. Congregational Membership for a Non-Jewish
Spouse*
QUESTION: Should we reinstitute the ancient category of
semiproselyte known in the Talmudic literature as yirei adonai, ger toshav and ger
shaar? Would this be a way of solving the problem of non-Jewish spouse whose Jewish
husband or wife belong to our congregations while they, as non-Jews with a considerable interest
in Judaism, have either no status or a status which has not been properly and clearly defined?
Would this ancient Talmudic category help us with our modern problems? What kind of status
should be granted to such an individual? (Rabbi G. Raiskin, Burlingame, CA)ANSWER:
The problem of the non-Jewish spouse is a serious one in many congregations. Every effort
toward a solution deserves our attention and consideration. We should begin by looking at the
Talmudic categories, yirei adonai, gerei toshav and gerei shaar, and try to
understand their precise meaning. What rights, if any, did individuals in each category possess?
How were they treated in the Temple, in the synagogue, by Jewish courts, etc.? The
general question of conversion to Judaism has been well treated by a number of our colleagues
(J. Rosenbloom, Conversion to Judaism, Cincinnati, 1978; H. Eichorn, Conversion to
Judaism, New York, 1965; B. Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period, New
York, 1939; W. Braude, Jewish Proselyting in the First Five Centuries of the Common
Era, Providence, 1940). These volumes indicate that conversion to Judaism has continued
through the centuries. They discuss what was expected of the convert, motives which led to
conversion, and the way in which converts have fit into the general community. Relatively little
space in these volumes is given to our categories, which existed for only a few centuries. These
categories play no role in rabbinic literature after the Talmud, and when these terms are
used they are synonymous with benei noah, in other words, a Gentile who had accepted
basic human morality and was no longer a pagan. The terms also designate individuals who had
adopted certain Jewish thoughts in the post Talmudic period. No special status has been
accorded to them (S. Zeitlin, “Proselyte and Proselytism,” Harry Wolfson Jubilee
Volumes, Vol. 2, pp. 587 ff; see also A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten und der
Jüden zu den Fremden, Leipzig, 1896). If we follow the generally accepted view,
individuals characterized by these designations seem to have fallen into four categories during
the Mishnaic and early Talmudic period: 1. A theoretical designation which indicated
how the rabbis would have liked to treat resident aliens (gerei toshav) in Israel (M.
Gerim 3.1; A. Z. 64b; San 56a ff; Arak. 29a). 2. Individuals who were on their way to
becoming full proselytes but had not yet fulfilled all the conditions. In other words, they may have
undergone immersion or circumcision, but not yet brought the mandatory sacrifice in Jerusalem
before the destruction of the temple (Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian
Era, Vol. I, pp. 330 ff; Mishnat R. Eliezer, p. 374; Juvenal, Satire, XIV, 96
ff). 3. Individuals who were married to Jews, accepted basic Jewish morality and
religious thought, but for a variety of reasons were unwilling to undergo complete conversion.
Usually this category seemed to consist of husbands of women who had become Jewish and
were unwilling to follow as this entailed the difficult operation of circumcision. Other reasons may
also have been operative. 4. Individuals who had accepted some of the ethics and
morality of Judaism and left their ancient pagan beliefs, in other words, a synonym for benei
noah (A. Z. 64a; Pes. 21a; Ker. 8b; Hul. 5a; Meg. 13a; Philo, Contra Apion; Josephus,
Antiq. 20.8.7; Wars 2.18.2, 7.3.3). One scholar, Solomon Zeitlin, felt
that these categories did not exist at all. The terms merely designated Gentiles who were no
longer idolaters but in no way semi-proselytes (Zeitlin, op. cit.). For the
purposes of our discussion, we can forget the first two categories. As we turn to the remaining
category, we must first ask about the status of these individuals within the Jewish community. It
is clear from a wide variety of statements that they were considered on a level above pagans,
but did not possess the status of full converts or Jews; they had no official status in either the
synagogue or a Jewish court and were considered non-Jews in virtually all legal matters (Gerei
Toshav, Encyclopedia Talmudit, Vol. 6, pp. 290 ff). They could bring sacrifices at the
Temple, but so could any pagan who wished to do so (Schurer, A History of the Jewish
People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised by Vermez, Millar and Black, Vol. 2, pp. 309 ff).
The fact that they had taken this step was recognized and praised; there was the hope that they
might go further, but until this occurred, no real change of status was conferred. These
designations ceased to exist with the end of the pagan period. After the majority of the
neighboring people had become Christians, or later, followers of Islam, most individuals known
to Jews were benei noah and could be designated by the synonyms, yirei adonai, ger
toshav, and ger shaar. The special categories, therefore, became
meaningless. If we nowadays accorded these designations to our Christian friends,
they would provide no special status in the synagogue but simply recognize the ethical and moral
teachings of their religion as akin to our own which we have done anyhow. A revival,
therefore, of the Talmudic categories of yirei adonai, ger toshav, and ger shaar
would not achieve the goal desired or solve the problem of the non-Jewish spouse. It is not
likely that a revival of a special designation which carries no appropriate historical overtones
would help us. It would probably only confuse matters and place the non-Jewish partner in a
doubtful position. We, therefore, recommend that the membership section of the constitution and
the constitutions of the auxiliary bodies, such as Brotherhood and Sisterhood, read as
follows: Membership in our congregation is limited to Jews and Jewish families. A
non-Jewish partner is welcome to the fellowship of the congregation and is encouraged to
participate in all of its activities; however, the non-Jewish spouse may not serve on on the Board,
hold office, become chairman of any committee or have the privilege of voting at congregational
or committee meetings.October 1983
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.