the obligation to reproduce?

[cellio]

During Torah study we've been discussing the part of Leviticus that covers permitted and forbidden sexual relationships. Twice in the last three weeks someone has asserted that the purpose of sex is procreation. (I disputed it the first time; I didn't do so again this morning.) Then, this afternoon, I read an article in Reform Judaism, from the chairman of the national board, about how our population numbers are dropping and it's because we aren't giving priority to having kids and that's a critical mitzvah because we'll die out otherwise and blah blah blah. (Part of "blah blah blah" was that people are too concerned with their careers and not concerned enough with marrying early and reproducing.)

Nonsense, I say.

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.

Comments

[goljerp]

It's frustrating when your Catholic boyfriend can get any priest to marry you, but you can't get any rabbi to do likewise

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.