NAMING THE CHILD OF AN UMARRIED MOTHER

QUESTION:

A pregnant, unmarried woman means to keep the child when it is born and she wants it named in the synagogue as other children are named. Shall this wish be granted? (Asked by Rabbi Marvin M. Gross, Glendale, Calif.)

ANSWER:

What is the status of this child? That depends on her status and that of the father. If she was not already married to someone else and if the father is not of so close a kin to the mother that a marriage between them would be incestuous and therefore void, then this child is legitimate. In fact, if the father is a Gentile, her child is not only legitimate but is also Jewish by birth.

Even if we do not know the status of the father, nevertheless we hold the presumption that the child is legitimate. Ezekiel Landau, the great rabbi of Prague (1713-1793; Noda Biyehudah Even Haezer 7) begins surprisingly enough with the statement: “For our sins, such matters occur frequently in our country” In the specific case in which he dealt, the mother had died and was no longer available to testify as to the status of the father of the child. Nevertheless, Ezekiel Landau said that even if we do not know the status of the father, we follow the presumption that the father was not too close a relative and therefore the child is legitimate. Therefore in our case, unless the woman tells us to the contrary, we assume that the father was not a close kin and that therefore the child is to be deemed legitimate and has every right of a Jewish child. Now, the mother asks specifically that the child be given its name publicly in the synagogue as is the custom in the congregation. (For full discussion of this and similar questions, see Current Reform Responsa, pp. 100 ff. and Reform Responsa, pp. 200 ff.)

If this child is named publicly in the synagogue as are all other children who are born in wedlock, there may be considerable discontent and displeasure in the congregation which would create the sort of a bitterness that is to be avoided if possible. Such bitterness might well tend to perpetrate the memory of the child’s status and thus harm an innocent person. It might be better for the child’s future if the mother withdrew her request. Perhaps we may draw an analogy as to what to do in this case from the custom of dealing with an illegitimate boy child. Even an illegitimate child (if this child proves to be illegitimate because of the status of the father) has every right in Judaism (except marrying into a legitimate family) and must be circumcised. But the Shulhan Arukh in Yoreh Deah 265:4 makes some slight difference in the ritual in the case of the circumcision of an illegitimate child. Part of the blessing is varied; and as the commentators explain, this change in the blessing is to indicate that we hope that such will not increase among the people of Israel. Surely we would wish the same today, that such unmarried pregnancies should not increase in Israel, and we are therefore entitled by tradition (without deprecating in any way the right of the child) to make some distinction between naming this child and the naming of children born in wedlock.

If the child proves to be a boy, the circumcision and the naming can occur, as it usually occurs, in the hospital, and the rabbi should be present and the full ritual used. If the child is a girl, an analogous procedure can be followed: the child should be named in the hospital by the rabbi. In this way the rights of the child will not be diminished and disputes and bitterness will be avoided in the congregation.