![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
the obligation to reproduce?
First off, there is at least one other halachic reason for sexual intercourse: pleasure. Men are specifically obligated to provide this pleasure for their wives, in fact. The talmud even specifies frequency requirements! The idea that sex is only for procreation is not a traditional Jewish notion.
If procreation were the only motivating factor, then alongside the familial restrictions (don't lie with your inlaws) and the ever-challenging Lev 18:22, we would see something about not lying with people who are infertile. But we don't, because that is not forbidden. (For that matter, the Torah itself doesn't say anything against masturbation, though I don't know about later sources.)
Some people can't have kids, and for some people it would be a really bad idea to have kids, but we don't chase those people off. [1] We do, however, alienate them every time we say things like "sex is for procreation, and why aren't you doing your part to replenish the Jewish people?". I am especially offended to hear that argument from leaders in the Reform movement -- leaders who are not simultaneously saying things like "Shabbat is central to Judaism and why aren't you observing it?". The sages aren't even in complete agreement on whether "p'ru ur'vu" (be fruitful and multiply) is a commandment; some say it's a blessing instead.
Further, appeals based on achieving replacement levels for population (the number that gets kicked around is 2.1 kids per couple) are misguided on their own. What good does it do to produce more kids, if we aren't also doing something to keep them Jewish? More than half the US marriages involving Jews are intermarriages; those Jews are very unlikely to have Jewish grandkids. And even within Jewish marriages, how many kids continue their education past bar/bat mitzvah? How many kids end up as committed Jewish adults? The problem here isn't production; it's retention. And if we can't solve the retention problem first, then increasing production won't solve a thing. In fact, it'll make things worse, by providing more non-religious nominally-Jewish models for kids who might be waffling on whether to stick with it.
Yes, paying attention to demographic studies is important -- but it is also important not to attribute the wrong reasons to the results. I would much rather have a smaller number of more committed members of the community; nominal body count really doesn't matter much if they're Jews only in DNA.
Growth will come from increasing education and commitment, and from converts. We need not, and should not, pressure people into having more children than they otherwise would have. That is a loss, not a gain, for the community.
I'll probably try to distill this down into a letter to the editor of Reform Judaism, so comments would be very welcome.
[1] Yes, I am aware that the talmud teaches (somewhere;
don't have the cite) that a man may divorce his wife if
they fail to produce a child after ten years of
trying.
no subject
I don't agree with you about this. Is there any reason a Rabbi should perform a marriage between a Jew and a non-jew other than to keep the Jew from feeling alienated from Judiasm? (And to hope that the children will be raised Jewishly?) (This is not rhetorical; I can't think of any). A reason that I can think of not to do so is this: by having Rabbis perform intermarriages, it gives a sort of rabbinic sanction to intermarriage. This is, I think, inappropriate. It's not that I think that people who intermarry are bad in any way. But a Jewish marriage ceremony is a religious ceremony joining two Jews in marriage. It makes no sense to have this ceremony if two non-jews were marrying, or for that matter if a Jew and a non-jew were marrying. If you're not going to have a jewish religious ceremony, why have a Rabbi preside and not a justice of the peace, judge, or ship's captain? Warm fuzzies?[1]
If marrying the woman to a non-Jew would guarantee her offspring not being converted to her husband's religion, wouldn't it be worth it?
I don't think that the fact that a Rabbi was present at the wedding would make the difference for most people about how their children will be raised.
Let's divide Jews into two groups: those who feel strongly identified with Judiasm and not so. It seems to me that the strongly identified person would be likely to raise children Jewish regardless of a Rabbi being present at the wedding. So the question becomes: would it make a difference for a non-strongly identified person? I don't know, but I don't really think so. If you want to make a difference, do outreach after childbirth -- or when the child is old enough to go to school. I think that this is a different issue, actually.
I don't think that a policy of "you must promise to raise your children Jewish for a Rabbi to be at the ceremony" is one that would be particularly effective, either. The marginal people would just have a wedding without a Rabbi. (See, e.g., the number of Israeli Jews who get married outside Israel, because only Orthodox Rabbis are allowed to perform marriages there.)
This is a tough issue. I understand that there are people who feel personally rejected when a Rabbi refuses to perform their intermarriage. I regret that people feel hurt. But anyhow, that's my take, take it or leave it.
[1] If it's warm fuzzies you're after, there are ways of having those without having a Rabbi "do" the wedding. For example, my younger sister married a non-jew recently. The marriage was performed by a judge; however, there were aspects of my sister's Jewish heritage reflected in the ceremony. I think they added meaning to the ceremony for her (and gave warm fuzzies) even though a Rabbi wasn't present.
no subject
no subject
It's also frustrating that you can go to get your pet cat, dog, or pot-bellied pig blessed by a priest, but not by a rabbi.
OK, that was too flippant. The rest of my comment is more serious. I did have a point though - we're talking about seriously different belief systems here. Remember that according to Judiasm, a Rabbi is totally unnecessary for a wedding to be valid. There are 3 (well, 4) independant ways you can have a binding marriage according to Jewish law: By a man giving a Ketubah (marriage document detailing the responsibilities of a Jewish man to a Jewish woman[1]) and a woman accepting it knowingly. Also, a man giving a ring to a woman and saying a short formula[2] and her accepting it is sufficient. The Rabbis, being belt and suspender-type people, combine both of these into one ceremony. (There is also the need to have two witnesses[3] for both of these ways.) Note that neither requires a Rabbi -- and, in fact, if one has a Rabbi presiding at a wedding, the Rabbi cannot be a witness.[4] Let's leave aside the third way in Jewish law that two people can get married with the brief note that it emphatically doesn't require a Rabbi either. The fourth is to have a civil ceremony, since according to the Rabbis, the law of the land one is living in is binding. (Although I'm not positive about all the ramifications of this last way).
Also note that Judiasm has a very different attitude towards children born "out of wedlock". Judiasm has the concept, however it is rather less broad than the Christian/secular concept: according to Jewish law, the only way you can get a "Mamzer" (Bastard) is if a married Jewish woman has a child whose father is not her husband. So even if I was wrong about the fourth way (and I don't think I am), any children would, according to Jewish law, have the exact same status as if the wedding was recognized by Jewish law.
So, to conclude: I am sorry that you are in a frustrating situation. If you want to marry your beloved, I suggest that you do so. The laws vary from state to state, but I am sure that you can have a non-religous officiant perform your wedding. Quite frankly, I've been to weddings where the judge presiding did a better job than some Rabbis. It won't be a traditional Jewish wedding, but... well... that's a consequence of not marrying a Jewish guy. It's not a value judgement; it's an observation. And if you and your husband then decide to raise your children as the Jews they are, then I think that's terrific and I wish you the best of luck. (Even if you don't, I would still respect your decision and wish you the best of luck.)
[1] The text of the Ketubah has become fixed in the last 400 or so years, but there is evidence from the Cairo Geniza that it used to be pretty flexible. In any case, it's basically a sort of one-sided pre-nuptual agreement, stating some of the man's obligations to the woman.
[2] It's something like "Behold, you are married to me according to the laws of Moses and the people Israel." And the "ring" has to be only minimally valuable. In fact, I think it doesn't even have to be a ring, although I might be wrong about that. Traditionally, an unadorned gold ring is used.
[3] Witnesses for these purposes must be, according to traditional Jewish law, male observant Jews. They must be adults (i.e. over 13) and unrelated to the couple.
[4] I'm not sure why a presiding Rabbi isn't allowed to be a witness, just that that's the case.
no subject
I disagree with this statement. While marriage is a life cycle event and thus important to Jewish life, it is *not* a religious ceremony. It is a business contract in which two people agree to live a Jewish life together. Being a business rather than religious event is why Jewish marriages cannot be performed on Shabbat.
The reason I was given for why most rabbis will not perform intermarriages is related to 'agreeing to live a Jewish life together.' If one partner is not Jewish, they cannot be expected to know and fulfill the obligations of a Jew, hence no Jewish life. At this point the intentions of the couple provides a gray area, which provides fuel for debate and allows some rabbis to agree to perform intermarriages.
The reason a priest will perform an intermarriage without pause is that the Catholic Church considers all children of Catholics to be Catholic, regardless of which parent is in the religion. Because of the rule of matrilinear descent and an implication that living a Jewish life means having Jewish children, there are more considerations for Jews.
I have to agree with
the number of Israeli Jews who get married outside Israel, because only Orthodox Rabbis are allowed to perform marriages there
Really? Judges, reform rabbis and other officials cannot officiate at marriages in Israel? I didn't know that. What are the numbers of Israeli Jews that marry outside Israel? Where do they go?
no subject
and you replied:
I disagree with this statement.
You made several very good arguments, and I think I agree with them all, although I think I still believe what I said in the first place. (What, me worry about paradox?)
Really? Judges, reform rabbis and other officials cannot officiate at marriages in Israel? I didn't know that. What are the numbers of Israeli Jews that marry outside Israel? Where do they go?
Yup. Only religious marriages, performed by Orthodox Rabbis, are recognized by the state. I don't believe Reform and Conservative Rabbis are even officially recognized as being Rabbis. That's what happens when you don't have separation of church and state, and when the secular majority cedes religous power to the Orthodox... and of course now they have power, they're not letting go.
Numbers of Israeli Jews that marry outside Israel: I don't have any hard numbers, but I think it's more than just a few people. They used to go to Cyprus; it sort of became a kind of honeymoon/wedding combo. I'm not sure if that's still the case. (You see, they're exploiting the loophole that Israel recognizes marriages performed in other countries.)
I heard a talk last year by a Conservative Rabbi who lives in Israel, about the state of Conservative (and Reform) Judiasm in Israel. It's kind of ironic; although the Supreme Court of Israel has issued several rulings which theoretically would give power to the liberal movements, these have been blocked in practice by the Orthodox power structure. On the other hand, secular Israelis are enrolling their children in Conservative and Reform schools, and there has been progress in letting Conservative Rabbis perform conversions. And, as I said, many secular Israelis are getting married outside the country... so there's some hope...
The thing is, due to Israeli politics, the Religious parties are pretty strong. For a long time, they were small, but crucial in forming coalitions; recently the religious party Shas has grown so that it is the third largest party. (They're still only something like 17/120 seats, but those are critical seats considering Labor and Likud have been getting around 30-50 seats each recently.)
Also, most Israelis consider themselves "Secular". In practice, they might be more observant than the average Conservative jew, but they don't think of themselves as being religous. (I knew a guy when I was in Israel who was "secular". In talking, it was clear that he was familiar with the bible. He mentioned at one point that his apartment is kosher (so his mom can eat there), and he goes to a little shul near his place almost every Saturday. But he's adamantly Secular!) Then there's the Orthodox. There are some Orthodox Jews who are the equivalent of "modern orthodox" in the U.S. - I have cousins there who fit into this category. They all serve in the Army (or do national service), and have jobs. But most Orthodox are of the "ultra orthodox" variety. And, oh yeah, there are small numbers of Reform and Conservative Jews. Most Israelis think of these as mainly imported movements, and lump them together as "reformim". (As a Conservative Jew I find this a bit annoying... I mean, there are significant philosophical and practical differences between Reform and Conservative, even in Israel where the Reform movement is more "right wing" than in the U.S.)
This is more than I should've written, but... well...