Last week, Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson argued in the Jewish Journal that Conservative clergy in the United States should officiate at interfaith weddings. I would like to respectfully disagree with his thesis.
I am writing this article as a Posek (halakhic authority) of the Conservative/Masorti movement for the past 45 years. During these years, I have taught Jewish law to many hundreds of rabbinical students from the Schechter Rabbinical Seminary, JTS, Ziegler and the Seminario Rabìnico. In 1985, I was one of the founders of the Va’ad Halakhah (Law Committee) of the Rabbinical Assembly of Israel and I served as its Chair for almost 20 years. I have published 16 volumes of my own responsa and edited an additional eight volumes of responsa written by other Conservative rabbis. In addition to publishing over 200 of my responsa, I have written some 800 unpublished responsa.
I would like to address three major issues raised by Rabbi Artson: What does Jewish law have to say about intermarriage? What will happen to the Conservative/Masorti Movement if the Rabbinical Assembly (R.A.) decides to change its Standard of Rabbinic Practice which prohibits officiation at an intermarriage? What can we do to stem the tide of intermarriage?
What does Jewish law have to say about intermarriage?
Rabbi Artson refers to the prohibition of intermarriage as a “policy.” He also calls it “nostalgia” and “a personal preference.” The reality is that ntermarriage has been forbidden since the days of the Torah.
Abraham made his servant swear to him that he would take a wife for Isaac from among Abraham’s own relatives and not from the daughters of Canaan (Genesis 24). Rebecca and Isaac saw to it that Jacob did likewise (ibid., 27:46-28:5). The Torah records the great displeasure of Rebecca and Isaac when Esau marries Hittite women (ibid., 26:34-35) – so great that Esau takes an additional wife from Ishmael’s daughters to placate his parents (ibid., 28:6-9).
Later, the Torah explicitly prohibits intermarriage (Exodus 34: 15-16; Deut. 7:1-4; cf. Joshua 23:12). While these verses only prohibit intermarriage with the Seven Nations, the First Book of Kings (chapter 11) condemns King Solomon for marrying Egyptian, Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Phoenician and Hittite women who led him to worship idols, which caused God to punish him by splitting his kingdom after his death. Indeed, Nehemiah (13:26) emphasizes the sin of Solomon whose “foreign wives caused even him to sin.”
Furthermore, Second Temple sources beginning in the fifth century BCE forbid all forms of intermarriage (Ezra 9:1-2; 10:11-12; Nehemiah 13:23-27; Malachi 2:11-12; Philo, The Special Laws III:29; Josephus, Antiquities 8:190-196).
According to the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 36b), the Sages maintained that Deut. 7:3 applies only to the Seven Nations while other forms of intermarriage are rabbinic prohibitions, but Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai ruled that all forms of intermarriage are forbidden by the Torah. Rabbi Moses of Coucy (13th century; Sefer Mitzvot Gadol, Lo Ta’aseh 112); Rabbi Yaakov ben Asher (died 1240; Tur Even Ha’ezer 16) and apparently Rabbi Moses Isserles (the Rema, Shulhan Arukh Even Ha’ezer, ibid.) ruled according to the Sages. On the other hand, Maimonides (Sefer Hamitzvot, Lo Ta’aseh 52; Issurei Biah 12:1-2), Sefer Hahinukh (No. 427) and Rabbi Yosef Karo (Even Ha’ezer ibid.) ruled according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai. Yet even those who say that the general prohibition is rabbinic, ascribe it to the days of the Maccabees (Avodah Zarah, ibid.) ca. 170 BCE or to Bet Shammai (Shabbat 17b) in the first century CE.
Thus, from the Talmudic point of view, all forms of intermarriage have been forbidden either Biblically or Rabbinically for the past 2,000-3,200 years, while according to the Bible itself, all forms of intermarriage have been forbidden since the days of Abraham some 3,800 years ago.
Therefore, a rabbi who officiates at an intermarriage ceremony is going against the prohibition of lifnei iver, “putting a stumbling block before the blind” (Leviticus 19:14), which includes telling a Jew that something is permitted when it’s forbidden or helping him/her transgress Jewish law. He/she is also transgressing the obligation of afroshei mei’isura, of preventing a fellow Jew from committing a transgression.
What will happen to the Conservative/Masorti Movement if the R.A. decides to change its Standard of Rabbinic Practice?
I believe this would be a historic mistake.
While I understand and sympathize with the issues confronting Conservative rabbis and synagogues in the United States concerning intermarriage, allowing Conservative rabbis to officiate at intermarriages will not solve that problem. But it will announce the end of the Conservative Movement as a Halakhic movement, and it will make us synonymous with the Reform and Reconstructionist Movements.
In most cases, performing an intermarriage does not bring the couple closer to Judaism and to raising their children as Jews.
It will also create a schism between the minority of R.A. members who favor this move and the majority who are against changing this standard. Included in the latter are 95-100% of rabbis who live in Canada, Israel, Europe and South America who will feel disenfranchised by the R.A. and the Movement. Indeed, many hundreds of rabbis will be forced to resign from the R.A., which would be a tragedy for them, the R.A. and the Conservative/Masorti Movement. (This latter paragraph is based on my correspondence with hundreds of rabbis on this topic.)
Rabbis who are opposed to intermarriage will not be able to find pulpits. This is what happened in the Reform movement.
Finally, the phenomenal growth of Chabad and Hadar prove that movements and synagogues can grow and prosper while sticking to their halakhic principles. The farther we move away from Jewish law, the fewer members we will have. Those who want liberal Judaism without halakhic standards will go to Reform and Reconstructionist synagogues, while those who want modern yet halakhic Judaism will move to modern Orthodox or Chabad or Hadar synagogues. If you try to please everyone, you end up pleasing no one. A movement which has no principles will, in the long run, disappear.
What can we do to stem the tide of intermarriage?
Education: The main way to deal with intermarriage is by providing serious Jewish education in Day Schools, Camp Ramah and USY. Dealing with intermarriage after the fact is akin to closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. Without strong Jewish education, we have no future.
Conversion both before and after an intermarriage: As I have shown in my articles and responsa, the classic Talmudic approach is very welcoming to converts and the Conservative movement has followed in that classical tradition. We must make every effort to convert the non-Jewish spouse and the children.
But, you may say, many young people today do not wish to convert because they have no interest in any religion or for other reasons. This is true, but we cannot make them Jewish by magic. They are adults. If they decide not to convert, we should make them feel welcome in our synagogues without compromising Jewish law.
In summary, as Prof. Jack Wertheimer, the leading sociologist of American Jewry, wrote in his very important article about intermarriage (eJP, March 15, 2022), we do not need “a new narrative.”
Endogamy has preserved the Jewish people for some 3,800 years. If we endorse intermarriages, not only will we destroy the Conservative movement, but the Jewish people itself will disappear.
Rabbi Prof. David Golinkin serves as a Professor of Talmud and Jewish Law at the Schechter Institute in Jerusalem. He has published forty books related to responsa and Jewish law. The opinions expressed here are his own.
