INTERFAITH SERVICES
QUESTION:
A number of questions arise with regard to a joint service held in one of our Temples in which a Catholic priest and the rabbi participated. The elements of the service included the following:
(a) A Catholic priest read from the Sefer Torah.
(b) The rabbi read the Beatitudes from the Vulgate.
(c) The congregation joined in responsive readings which included New Testament passages. Are these procedures consistent with the spirit of Jewish tradition? (From Rabbi Minard Klein, Park Forest, Illinois.)
JOINT SERVICES with Christians, held either at the Temple or in a Church, are not a new phenomenon resulting from the presentday ecumenical mood in the Catholic church. For a number of years many of our con gregations have participated in joint Thanksgiving services with Christian churches. The services alternated in the houses of worship of the respective participating congregations. What is perhaps new in the presentday ecumenical service is the participation of Catholic priests and the fact that joint services are often held in Catholic churches. These services are increasing in number and in scope.
It is obvious that many halachic questions are involved. But before considering the specific halachic questions, it might be well to use this occasion for an analysis of this whole phenomenon. We know well that it will generally be our Reform congregations who will be the Jewish participants. We, therefore, should try to develop general guidelines for ourselves in such services.
First of all, the basic question must be asked: Is it right or permissible from the point of view of Jewish tradition to arrange or to participate in such services? The Talmud (and the Mishnah) at the beginning of the tractate Avodah Zarah forbids even association or business dealings with Gentiles at the time of their religious observances. But this avoidance of contact with Gentiles at the time of their religious festivals referred to the pagan idolworshipers of those days. Therefore as these laws are carried over into the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 148) the last section, 148:12, states clearly that this avoidance of association does not apply nowadays, because the Gentiles among whom we live are not idolators. This is the general and consistent standpoint of Jewish law on the matter. Note, for example, the statement of Rabbenu Tarn in the Tosfot to Bechorot 2b (s.v., Shemo) in which he says that Christians are not idolators and that although they associate other sacred personalities with God, they really mean God whenever they take an oath. The “Sons of Noah” are not prohibited (shituf) the adding of personalities to the concept of God. See also Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 156, the note of Isserles, in which he clearly states that the Christians among whom we live are not idolators. This is too wellknown a principle in Jewish law to need more than this mention. Therefore there is no prohibition of close association with them at the time of their religious festivals although, of course, none of the earlier literature would be confronted, as we are, with the question of actual joint religious serv-ices. Yet on the basis of the general respect of Judaism for Christianity as a valid religion, we from our point of view have no objection in principle to some joint religious service with Christians. However, certain cautionary rules or principles suggest themselves:
1) These ecumenical services should not take place too frequently. We must not, by a too frequent occurrence of such services, accustom our people to the notion that there is no real difference between Judaism and Christianity. The purpose of these joint services must never be to blur the real differences between the two religions, but to stress those similarities which exist and have always existed. For this laudable purpose an occasional service, once or twice a year, is quite sufficient.
2) In such services there must be complete respect for the conscientious differences. A Jew must not be asked to read or recite anything which is contrary to his religious conscience, nor must a Christian be asked to read or recite that which is contrary to his conviction. Which sort of statements or participation that might well be considered contrary to conscience will be considered later.
3) While we are motivated by the intention of creating friendship with Christian churches, we must be careful not to evoke hostility among large groups of our fellow Jews. The unity of Israel is precious to us. Of course we will not surrender any principle in order to please Orthodox Jews. Nevertheless we must be careful that the type of our participation in these ecumenical services does not needlessly offend them. It would be wrong of us to pay the price of alienating our fellow Jews in order to befriend Christians.
There are certain parts of a joint service which might be contrary to the conscience of Jewish or Christian participants. When, for example, the joint service occurs in a Catholic church, obviously the rabbi or the Jewish members present cannot in conscience participate in the Communion. The Communion, or Eucharist, speaks of and dramatizes the divinity of Jesus and the incarnation of his divinity into human form. A Protestant may perhaps find it somehow possible to participate in a Catholic Eucharist; he will simply interpret the ceremony differently from the interpretation of the Catholic officiant. To the Catholic the wafer and the wine have, by the miracle of transubstantiation, really become the actual presence of the body and the blood of the Christ; to the Protestant they are just a symbol of his incarnation. In either case, whether it be the Catholic or Protestant interpretation, the whole concept is rejected by Judaism and a Jew cannot participate in it.
May, however, the rabbi or the Jewish members present read or respond to passages in the New Testament? The Talmud, in a discussion among secondcentury Tanaim, speaks of the status of the Gospels. In Shabat 115b, the Talmud discusses which sacred writing may be rescued from fire on the Sabbath. There it says specifically that the evangelical books (Gilyonim) may not be rescued at the cost of violating the Sabbath. Rabbi Tarfon says that he would destroy them at any time. But is is to be noted in the Talmudic discussion that the Gospels are not the only books for which the Sabbath may not be violated in order to rescue them from fire. Prayerbook manuscripts and amulets, although they contain the name of God, may nevertheless be allowed to burn, and the Sabbath may not be violated for them. It is to be noted also that when all this discussion is carried over as law to the Shulchan Aruch ( Orach Cha-yim 334) the evangelical books are not even men tioned. All that is clear from the Talmud is that these books are not to be deemed sacred, although some rab-bis felt that they were really harmful and should actually be destroyed.
As for us, in some ways we feel nearer to the New Testament than did the Rabbis of the Mishnah, but in other ways we are further from it. Modern Jewish scholars study the New Testament and have recovered many Jewish elements in it. Yet the centuries which have intervened between the Tanaim and us have opened a wider gulf between the New Testament and us. For us, nowadays, the New Testament has acquired unhappy associations. It awakens in us the memory of the long history of our persecution. The vivid stories of the Crucifixion in the Gospels, dramatized by preachers, made exciting by miracle plays, have caused us endless agony through the centuries. And as for Paul’s Epistles, they are centrally directed toward attacking the Torah which has been so precious to our people. It certainly would not be considerate of the organizers of an ecumenical service if they insisted that the Jewish participants read and respond from the New Testament. It is proper and useful for a Jewish scholar to study the New Testament, but for a Jew to use the New Testament as a vehicle for prayer, as he might be asked to do in an interfaith service, certainly would run counter to Jewish feeling. Of course it is possible for a rabbi to read some selected passage from the New Testament, such as the Lord’s Prayer, which closely resembles the Kaddish in a number of its phrases; but, generally speaking, it is a shock to Jewish memory when Jews are the readers of New Testament passages in a joint service.
After all, the real purpose of the Scriptural portion of these services is to declare and to demonstrate our common Biblical heritage. This common Scriptural ground is represented only by the “Old” Testament. When a rabbi or Jewish members read from the Old Testament, or respond to it, they are reading and responding not only to that which is sacred to them, but is equally sacred to Christians. The very reading by a Jew of the Old Testament is a proclamation of those Scriptural foundations which unite Jew and Christian. Knowing the feelings of Jews, which have been induced in us by the cruel past, the reading of the New Testament by a Jew would be accompanied in his thoughts by many dubieties. But the reading of the Old Testament is a proclamation and a reminder of brotherhood.
There are also parts of a joint service in which a Christian cannot in conscience participate and which, therefore, we must not urge him to do. Such a part is involved in the specific question asked here, namely, the propriety of having the Catholic priest recite the Torah blessings and read the passage from the Torah.
As for the Torah reading itself, there is some ques-tion to begin with as to whether the Torah should be taken from the Ark and be read on a day which is not ordained for the reading. This very question was asked of Naftali Zvi Berlin (the “N’tziv”), head of the Yeshivah of Volozhin. Interestingly enough, the question came to him from a rabbi in Cincinnati and is found in his responsa, Meshiv Davar, I, #16. An Orthodox congregation in Cincinnati dedicated a new Ark and celebrated its completion on a Sunday. Part of the celebration was the carrying around of the Torahs in procession. A leader of the congregation wanted the Torah read on that occasion. The local rabbi prohibited this unauthorized reading (since there is no ordained reading for Sunday unless it happens to be New Moon or a holiday, which this Sunday was not). Berlin’s answer was, in effect, that there is no great objection to an extra Torah reading. The real objection is to the reciting of the blessings over an unauthorized reading, for since the reading is unauthorized, the blessings would be a vain or void blessing (Levatalah). See fuller discussion, page 14.
A similar situation occurs when the priest reads from the Torah. Since he believes in the sacredness of the Bible, his reading can be sincere. As for the fact that the reading is from the Sefer Torah and not from a printed Bible, there can be no real objection to that either. The Sefer Torah is not harmed thereby. It is not susceptible to ritual uncleanliness. In reference to the Talmudic passage (Berachot 22a) which says that the Torah cannot be made unclean, Maimonides (Hil-chot Sefer Torah, X, 8) says that anybody may handle the Scroll and read from it, even a nonJew. The prob lem, however, is just as it was in the question asked of Naftali Berlin, namely, the Torah blessings. In general, of course, a Christian’s blessing must be responded to by “Amen” (Orach Chayim 215:2, Isserles). This applies to blessings in general, but the blessing over the Torah specifically expresses what a Christian priest cannot in conscience accept. The blessing is meant for Jewish recital, “Who has chosen us among all peoples . . .” and then it speaks of the privileged gift of the Torah, all of which is exactly opposite to the mood of Paulinian Chrisitanity. If the priest is to read the Torah, to which in itself there can be no real objection, then either he should omit the specific Jewish blessing, which he cannot in conscience accept, or else a special, new blessing should be written for the occasion.
To sum up: Christians are not idolators in Jewish law and the older laws against the pagans do not apply to them. We may therefore associate with them in every social and business way and, in our liberal point of view, we extend this general mood to our having an occasional joint service with them. In these joint services, it may be possible for a rabbi to read certain selected passages in the New Testament which are not polemically antiJewish. But in general it would be important that the Old Testament, which is sacred to both Jew and Christian, should be read by the rabbi. What-ever parts of the respective rituals cannot be in conscience participated in or recited by one of the participants, should not be assigned to him, or else the participant becomes merely an actor reciting words for the sake of a dramatic performance. The joint service, in order to achieve its worthy purpose, must be completely sincere. As rabbis cannot participate in Communion, priests and ministers cannot recite such blessings as speak of Israel’s unique gift of the Torah; and so with other and similar elements of Jewish and Christian services. Only that which can be spoken with clear conscience and full sincerity can serve to make of these occasional joint services a true declaration of spiritual brotherhood.