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]

(The very end of Mel Brook's 'History of the World Part II')

Oooh, you must come from an alternate universe! Is that the one where William Shatner was never allowed to direct a Star Trek movie, and where George W. Bush lost Florida (and the 2000 election) by a very small margin, mainly due to a 'butterfly' ballot in the conservative areas of the state that led to spurious votes for Ralph Nader? :-)

Or did you just make the mistake I've made on occasion and mis-remember the title of History of the World, Part I? If that's the case, I must admit to being a bit vague on the ending. Didn't it end with a "preview" for "Part II", including a Jews in space bit?

I don't know if I am guilty of using stereotypes when I see Jews as a people and a religion that takes some of its identity from having been persecuted and discriminated against until very recent history.

There is a lot of truth to this. However, it's a fairly recent and localized development. I'm no expert, but I'd say it's really only come up in the last 5 or 6 hundred years, among Eastern European Jews. There's a term for it, I think - the Lachrymosal history of Judiasm. Until the founding of the state of Israel, the Jews from Arab lands (aka "Sephardic Jews") weren't affected by this trope. Now there's societal pressure for Sephardic Jews to say that they've been persecuted just as much as any other Jews. But it's not, in my opinion, inherent to Jewish theology or religion. On the other hand, it's been part of Christian theology (especially in the middle ages) for Jews to be seen as dispersed and lowly and wandering. (See, look, those Jews rejected - and continue to reject - Jesus, and look where it got them!) (So it was not only OK, but necessary on some level to keep the Jews down; to expell Jews from Britian, Spain, etc.) When I have children, I will of course want them to know about Jewish history. I won't want to pretend that persecution hasn't occured, but on the other hand I won't want them to think that being Jewish is all about being persecuted. Perhaps I'm too idealistic; perhaps it's because I, personally, am alive in a time and a country where Jews aren't being particularly persecuted - at the moment.

I think all religions are guilty of being too conservative when it comes to looking to the past for all the answers to today's problems. I am interested in the ways religion (all religions) and other forces both help bind society together and serve as flash points for problems in society.

This is a very interesting point. And Judiasm doesn't have an answer. It's got 5. Or 6. Or more, depending upon how you count it. Well, OK, maybe it's more like a spectrum. There are Jews who seem to me to refuse to look beyond Poland in the mid-1800s for answers. There are Jews who use the past as a source of general principles (e.g. the need to be ethical and to be socially active), but not specific answers. The Reconstructionist movement has a catchy saying, "Tradition has a vote, not a veto". And there's lots of views inbetween and even beyond. I'm a Conservative Jew - to be distinguished from a conservative Jew (-: - and believe in the evolution of Jewish law in light of modernity. That's not as pithy as the Reconstructionist saying. Conservative Judiasm is in a difficult place towards the middle of the Jewish spectrum.