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.