Getting Married?

We can help find a rabbi for your interfaith wedding. Check out our Clergy Officiation Referral Service.

All Topics

Save To My Profile

Dialogue and Debate On Rabbinic Officiation At Int - Page 1

Page 1

< Previous

Next >

IFF Dialogue and Debate

Author: The Editors (---.ne.mediaone.net)
Date: 05-18-00 14:13

Responses to "Tomorrow's Men and Women and the Question of Intermarriage Officiation" by By Rabbi Jerome K. Davidson

Post your response to By Rabbi Jerome K. Davidson's article, "Tomorrow's Men and Women and the Question of Intermarriage Officiation" below.

In need of assistance

Author: David W. McCormick, Sr (---.ne.mediaone.net)
Date: 03-06-02 14:52

March 6, 2002

Dear Sir:

I very much enjoyed seeing your website, but I am in need of some specialised assistance.

I am to be appointed as a Special Justice to perform a wedding ceremony, for two very special friends. I am good with words and will prepare something very personal and individual for them. But I am looking for a format and/or samples of ceremonies.

Can you Help ?..........................

Thank you and please may I hear from you.

David W. McCormick
PO Box 51513
Boston, Massachusetts 02205-1513
(617) 521- 7325 Office

IFF Dialogue and Debate: George Markley's Remarks

Author: InterfaithFamily.com Editor (---.home.net)
Date: 05-26-00 15:40

George Markley told the Central Conference of American Rabbis why he believes that officiating at interfaith marriages will not lead to the continuity of the Jewish people (http://www.InterfaithFamily.com/article/issue37/markley.html). What do you think?

George Markley

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 05-28-00 13:33

Hurrah, Amen, and Right On to George Markley! If a rabbi has no principles, then he or she is no rabbi. As Mr. Markley points out, there is no hypocrisy in refusing to perform a wedding ceremony but then letting the couple join one's congregation. One may be unable to sanctify a relationship which violates the Torah but then try to encourage a couple to become involved in the Jewish community. What is hypocritical is to insist on enjoying the rights and privileges of a religion which one refuses to join.

Respones to Susan

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-06-00 14:47

Susan,

There is no law in the written torah that prohibits the marriage of a Jew to a Non-Jew. In fact in the jewish wedding ceremony there are multiple references to Moses, which we all assume was a Jew , who in fact married a non-jew. Given the chance how many rabbis would not perform that ceremony? Perhaps if Jews would look at their own history they would find a great many of their religious icons involved in interfaith marriages, Solomon, Joseph, etc... By the way, what is wrong with a rabbi saying a blessing over the gift of love two people have been given from God?

Author: Dave (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 06-11-00 00:45

See Ex 34:16. Also Jews believe both in the written and the oral Torah (Talmud).

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-12-00 15:12

Dave,

Actually, not all Jews believe in the "Oral" torah. There are some extreme sects of Orthodox Jews that do not believe the principle of the "Oral" torah and take only the written Torah as the literal word of God. Additional the oral torah is basically the combined arguments of rabbis over several thousand years and thier respective conclusions. In fact, the whole point to the "Oral" torah is something like the ammendments of the constitution, the rabbis needed a way to reinterpret the existing laws to fit within the context of the current social order.

By the way Dave, are you making a point about interfaith marriage and the applicable religious laws or are you just stating that there is an "Oral" torah to consider in this debate.

In either case, one of the marriage laws in the "Oral" torah is the law of matrilineal descent, i.e. if mom is a jew baby is a jew. The law was developed, as I understand, to address the question of where the baby came from. Obviously there is no question of the babies parentage from the mothers side. i ould argue this law is no longer pertinent in our society as DNA testing can quickly verify who the real parents are.

My final point is this. The "Oral" torah was and is available to constant debate by the rabbinic community. It is part of the Jewish tradition to question and debate, maybe it's time to do so again.

Len's argument

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-12-00 23:03

All right, Len, so maybe lots of Jews "don't believe in" the Oral Law. Maybe you "don't believe in" the Oral Law. I'll warrant that there's probably a lot in the Written Law that you disagree with, also, or do you expect me to believe you take the rule against mixing linen and wool seriously?

So, since when is religious law determined by a majority vote? Maybe if enough people disregard the fourth and seventh commandments those laws will lose their validity, too?

How interesting that you try using the U.S. Constitution as an analogy. If you are trying to make the statement that the Jewish religion has evolved over the millennia, then that is true, and that is also precisely why your argument doesn't wash. What was permissible in Joseph's or Moses's time, before there was a written Torah and a defined Jewish people as such, is really quite irrelevant.

Perhaps I wanted to disregard the halacha that Jewish status comes from one's mother or that chicken cooked in milk isn't kosher. It would be as if we Americans were to try living our lives as Americans did in 1850 when the 13th amendment hadn't been written yet. ("I know some Americans believe slavery is illegal, but George Washington had slaves, and he was an American, so obviously those people are wrong.") The fact is that the Oral Law is an integral part of what the Jewish religion has become. The only people who could dispute that fact are people who don't accept halacha as binding anyway, or who are trying to invent some sort of new pseudo-Judaism out of obsolete, discredited ideas to suit their own purposes. In either case, they're cutting themselves off from mainstream, normative Judaism.

Susan

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-13-00 12:51

I never said I didn't believe in the religious laws. From my understanding and practice of judiasm one of the highest mitsvot is the study of torah. Study of torah not only entails learning the laws but also the past, present, and future debate of their meaning. My belief is that our understanding of the religious laws written and oral are not complete and will only be fully revealed when the messiah comes.

As to your point about when has religious law been determined by the majority, it's been going on since the begining of biblical history. Do you perform animal sacrifice or take a jubilee year. All of these laws existed or exist in some form written or oral but due to the changing face of society where not practiced, modified, or reinterpretted to fit the times.

Lastly, I do not and will not quetion the moral and ethical tradition of our religion but I will question the political and ritual tradition. What has the ban on interfaith marriage accomplished other than to push people away from us. Do you honestly believe that with the changes technology and gloablization are having on the world there is no need to re-examine or religious doctrines. Or perhaps we should go back to the old traditional ways where I will only pray in a minyan of men, since women don't count, you can go to temple as long a you sit in back behind a curtain, and rabbis will only marry jews to jews.

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-13-00 18:03

Okay, so you believe in Jewish law, just as long as it's a law you understand and feel like obeying. It's only those laws you don't care for that you don't obey, but other than that, you're very respectful of Jewish law.

Your "It is part of the Jewish tradition to question and debate, maybe it's time to do so again" refrain is the same tired, simplistic stuff we keep hearing from everybody else who doesn't know what he's talking about, as if it was the likes of you who had the authority to determine Jewish law! I'm glad you realize that study is important in Judaism. I hope you try it. If you do so, one of the first things you will learn is that animal sacrifice has nothing to do with majority rule. The reason Jews stopped doing that is because the Romans destroyed our Temple. But by all means, don't stop there. For that matter, you could even learn a thing or two about English grammar and punctuation.

Author: Dave (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 06-17-00 21:14

1/ Ex 34:16 is of course in the Written Law (Torah)
2/ There is no group of Orthodox Jews who do not believe in the Oral Law (Talmud). There is a very small group of people who refer to themselves as 'Karaites' who do not believe in the Talmud but do believe in the Torah. They are not Orthodox, and most Jews do not consider them Jewish.

Susan

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-19-00 14:27

I'm sorry for my spelling and grammar I just happen to write these things during my lunch hour so sorry. In the Talmud there are records of Rabbis debating the definition of Jewish law for every majority opinion there is also a dissenting opinion. If I am not mistaken, and I will look it up if you would like, there is a term that basically states that two different opinions on the same subject can bot actually be right.

I don't understand why you feel my view, that we should actively re-examine jewish law, is simplistic? Let's take the comment about the temple, if in fact we rebuilt the temple would you participate and condone animal sacrifice? Perhaps if we follow the scriptures we should all move to Israel, rebuild the temple, destroy some holy muslim sites, and hope the messiah will come to save the day.

You are bascially saying that the holy books are closed and there is no more debating to be done on jewish law. Why are the babylonian and assyrian rabbis any more wiser than the rabbis of today? By the way, you sound like your upset at my opinion in fact your last remark basically is saying I'm ignorant. In that case let me share some of my ignorance with you, do you pray behind a curtain at temple? Do you make a good home for your husband? Do you feel your husband should be able to divorce you because you do not provide enough sex? Do you use your computer on Shabbat, or lights, or even serve warm food? Do you have an oven for meat and one for dairy or do you cook everything in the same oven? Do you write the name of God? Do you follow all of the scriptural laws? If you don't follow each and every last one of them you are a hypocrite and if you do follow each of the laws then your opinion doesn't matter anyways because only men can have binding opinions on religious matters, "halachickly" speaking.

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-19-00 23:22

"You are bascially saying that the holy books are closed and there is no more debating to be done on
jewish law."

I am saying no such thing.

"Why are the babylonian and assyrian rabbis any more wiser than the rabbis of today?"

There are some very wise rabbis today. You are not one of them.

"do you pray behind a curtain at
temple?"

There is no Temple anymore. The Romans destroyed it, remember?

"Do you feel your husband should be able to
divorce you because you do not provide enough sex?"

You obviously have Judaism confused with another religion.

"Do you use your computer on Shabbat, or lights,
or even serve warm food? "

If you knew anything about the laws of Shabbat observance, you would know that we are not required to sit in the dark and eat all of our food cold.

The point is that in Judaism, as with any other legal system, decisions are made by people who respect the law, are knowledgable about it, and are generally recognized as having the authority change it. Since the schisms of the past couple of centuries, I'll admit, there has been a shortage of authorities on we all can agree. But certainly if everyone with some half-baked notion of Judaism, based on ignorance and hearsay info were to decide for himself what Jewish law is, there would soon be nothing left of Judaism at all.

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-20-00 09:35

By the way, Len, there were no ancient Assyrian rabbis. You have also been misinformed about the two ovens idea and the "only men can have binding opinions on religious
matters, "halachickly" speaking." idea.

"let me share some of my ignorance with you"

I'll tell you what; you needn't bother.

Ooops! Forgot to proofread.

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-20-00 10:03

Sorry. Make that "authorities on WHOM we all can agree."

Susan

Author: Len (---.tnt2.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net)
Date: 06-20-00 16:48

You never did answer my question. Do you follow all of the scriptural laws?

Sorry about the Assyrian rabbi thing, I was thinking about the Aramaic language and somehow crosswired my thoughts. As for the ovens, I happen to live next to an orthodox jewish community and was recently in the market for purchasing a home. A lot of the homes that I visited had two ovens that were seperately and distinctly marked and so I was curious why. One family basically said that thier religious intrepretation of Kashrut prevented them from cooking certain combinations of foods in the same oven. In fact they went so far as to seperate thier dishes, containers, and cleaning utensils. Does this mean I'm misinfomed or does this mean there are different interpretations of the law?

But really, please answer my question about your adherence to all of the laws.

By the way, our you affiliated with one of the Jewish religious movements and if so which one?

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-20-00 17:09

You ask me to answer your questions about my own level of Jewish observance, yet you have not answered my question from June 12th about the fourth and seventh commandments losing their validity if enough people disregard them.

Another concern I have is that the rabbis make a distinction between the <I>
Machloket lesheim shamayaim </i> (argument for the sake of Heaven) and the <I>
Machloket shelo lesheim shamayaim </i> (argument NOT for the sake of Heaven). I am happy to have the former, but unwilling to engage in the latter. It seems to me that you are posing your questions not to understand the point of view of someone you disagree with so much as to ridicule.

Susan

Author: Len (---.tnt2.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net)
Date: 06-20-00 17:19

I almost missed yur whole response since I read only the two upper posts. Let me add this:

No, I am not a wise rabbi but there are some Rabbis out there that have some of my opinions and beliefs. The point is, wiser people than you or I are having the same debate.

Secondly, some people call it Temple, some call it shul, some call it synagogue, whatever. When you go to service do you sit behind a curtain?

The laws governing sex and marriage are an interpretation of the marriage contract, ask your rabbi I did. I'm sure no one has invoked them for years but they are still there.

By the way, one of the great things about Judiasm is that there is no heirarchy. By definition a rabbi is a guide not a judge. Unlike Catholics we don't need a pope to interpret scripture, Torah is for everyone. Perhaps if I read more of the Talmud I would feel differently about my views on interfaith marriage. But upon reading the Tanach for the third time completely I have yet to find one reference to such a restriction and in fact I again believe that this restriction was a rabbinical reaction to the social order of the day.

Please point out where in Talmud this restriction resides, the scriptural basis, and then we can talk.

Susan

Author: Len (---.tnt2.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net)
Date: 06-20-00 17:32

I am not trying to ridicule anyone. I just feel there is hypocrisy in religion. I think there are very few people that truly have a complete understanding of Torah. I might argue that Moses was the last one of them. If you feel that I insulted you I'm sorry. Perhaps I feel strongly about my position and perhaps there are others like myself, with more knowledge, that could be more eloquent. I'm just trying to understand why our religion would be so hung up on this issue. I agree that the commandments are inviolate but they were handed down by god and recorded in Tanach. But the Oral Law is tricky, it's man's interpretation, and Oral Law is changeable. Maybe today there is not enough concensus to review it in favor of interfaith marriage but there is certainly plenty of material in our own scriptures that could allow us to bring the laws regarding interfaith marriage into question and cause some rabbis to take differing opinions than what you would call as "normative".

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-20-00 18:40

I'm finding inconsistencies in what you've written, too. First you wrote that there is nothing in the original written version of Torah to prohibit intermarriage, disregarding the rabbinic interpretations of more than the last two thousand years. Then you implied that I believe in some religion frozen in time over two thousand years ago and that I oppose any modern interpretion. So which is it, do we take seriously the changes made in the past two thousand years or do we just scrap them all? Talmudic scholarship doesn't automatically become invalid just because you're no Talmudic scholar. Going back to the U.S. Constitution analogy, it is not the criminals who have the power to determine Constitutional law; it's the members of the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't know what kind of religious background you have, but traditional Judaism is not something one does for an hour or two a week. It's a way of life which informs nearly every decision and act of one's waking day, from what and how one eats to how one raises one's children. One can't honestly claim to be following a way of life if one's partner in life, especially if that person is raising the same children, is following a completely different lifestyle or none at all.

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-20-00 18:58

Besides, you seem to want to draw parallels between counting women in minyons and allowing intermarriage. People can make the case that the industrial revolution has freed women to take a more public role in Jewish life and we have a lot more to contribute in the synagogue than people previously thought possible. On the other hand, there is no evidence to suggest that changing the halacha on intermarriage would benefit the Jewish people in any way, shape, or form. On the contrary, there have been times when intermarriage rates were high, such as during the Helenistic period, and the result was always an increase in assimilation and loss to the Jewish community. People who are willing to intermarry generally have a more tenuous connection to Jewishness than people who are not, and any version of the Jewish religion which they may still practice tends to be more watered down and debased than that of people who are strongly committed to Jewish continuity.

Susan

Author: Len (---.tnt4.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net)
Date: 06-21-00 11:16

I see no inconsistancy in my argument from the standpoint that the written Torah, especially Leviticus and Numbers that prohibits interfaith marriage. In fact, even the law of matrilineal descent makes little sence when you look at the long tradition of patrilineal references and inheritance throughout the books of the Jewish bible. It is only throught the oral tradition that rabbis have institutes these laws. One can argue the "divine" source of these laws as being given to Moses at the time of the written Torah or one can argue that they are just the interpretations of men of authority.

You yourself pointed out that because of social changes during the industrial revolution the roles of women have changed and thier ability to contribute to ritual life has changed. This meant that old "religious" laws regarding women needed to be changed or reinterpreted because of the new social order. Would you disagree that laws have changed?

Interfaith marriage without a doubt is a controversial issue, there are many very strong views against it just as I imagine there where quite many strong views about removing the restrictions on womens participation in jewish religious life.

I would argue that globalization will force Judiasm to rethink some of it's positions. My neighbors run the gamut of oriental buddhists to "born again" Christians. My family is spread around the world and my friends as well. There are too many ideas freely available to all of man to think that restricting a person to marry within one faith will keep them closer to that faith. In fact there are many examples of interfaith marriages that work. Islam is currently the fastest growing religion on Earth, they allow interfaith marriage to some extent and in fact do not allow/require the partner to convert to Islam. Judiasm on the other hand is shrinking today, is there a correlation?

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-21-00 12:37

The main reason the number of Jews has shrunk in the past century, aside from the actions of certain notorious antisemites I don't care to name, is that people have lost the commitment to tradition that earlier generations had, assimilated, or otherwise fallen away from the faith. It's not as fashionable to belong to an authoritarian organized religion as it used to be in past centuries, and there is such a variety of belief systems available now. Intermarriage is probably not the cause of the problem so much as a symptom. Islam is one of those religions, like Christianity, which actively converts and easily accepts any new member. Judaism, on the other hand, is a family faith which was designed for one particular nationality of people. That doesn't mean other people can't and don't convert, but Judaism has not generally made a point of seeking out new members.

Women have always had a crucial role to play in Jewish ritual life. It is a common modern fallacy that we oppressed in traditional Judaism. A big part of the reason for this misconception is that those other Jewish rituals which center on the family were dropped by the Reform movement, which has reduced Jewish prayer to something one does only on Shabbat and at bedtime. Our foremothers just didn't spend a lot of time in synagogues, because women are not obligated to pray with a congregation. Since public prayer was a male activity, women in the synagogue were not counted as essential to the congretation but "extra" persons, who could be curtained off for "modesty" and not included among the men. These are laws which were formulated by the rabbis in medieval times, taking the norms of their own societies into consideration. This is probably the main area of disagreement between Conservative and Orthodox. The Conservative movement is grappling with issues women's role in the synagogue, but within a context of halacha. For example, many USCJ congregations now count women in minyons and have women as rabbis, but the question of women as cantors is still problematic.

Laws do change. If we want to change them, though, we will not accomplish anything with a rebellious, rejectionist stance. It will only be possible for Conservative rabbinic bodies to win the respect of the Orthodox and demonstrate their legitimacy if they can remain constructively engaged within a context of halachic discussion. Orthodox people are already mad enough that the Rabbinic Assembly has condoned driving cars to synagogue on the Sabbath. To sanction the patrilinial descent decree or intermarriages would have an effect on Judaism that Martin Luther had on the Catholic church.

<I> By definition a rabbi is a
guide not a judge </i>

You must not be familar with the Beth Din, then, which is a court of rabbis.

Susan

Author: Len (---.tnt8.minneapolis.mn.da.uu.net)
Date: 06-21-00 14:21

Interesting perspective from a "conservative" veiwpoint. I however would argue that the affect that Martin Luther had was positive for the Christian faith. Basically, he made religion a more personal experience. Instead of having a central figure, Pope, define and interpret religious scripture he made scripture interpretation available to all.

Traditionally it was dangerous to actively seek out converts. In fact in medieval times rabbis turned converts away for fear of the rerpercussions. That time is passed, perhaps it's time to change our view on that as well.

From the tone of your message it seems as if you are of the view of trying to rectify the differences between the conservative and orthodox viewpoints. Do you discount the reform viewpoint and in which case would you "excommunicate" the reform community. Additionally do you feel that a liberal viewpoint is invalid?

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-21-00 18:52

What Martin Luther did essentially was to create a second religion with the same name as an existing religion, which set a destructive precedent and led to hundreds of years of bloody, tragic, and vicious wars between the various different Christianities. Look into the history of the Thirty Years' War. Then look at the situation in Ireland today. Perhaps you think that he improved the situation, but I don't. I've studied Erasmus and Luther and I find the entire episode very sobering indeed. Do you really think that it would be a positive development to have several different Judaisms?

Of course I don't believe in "excommunicating the Reform community."

What do you mean by "a liberal viewpoint"? I consider myself to have one of those.

Remember George Markley?

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-21-00 23:12

Len:

I'm been having a jolly good time for the past two weeks now, but it seems that all you've done is to dispute my version of the Jewish religion. I wonder if you read the original column by George Markley which prompted my first post here. What do you have to say in response to <B> <I> his </i> </b> ideas? I would be very interested to learn what argument you have with him. Do you want to go for it?

oops again!

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-21-00 23:54

That was <I> "I'm having a jolly good time" </i> and then I decided to change it to <I> "I've been having a jolly good time." </i> Sorry for the oversight!

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-22-00 18:34

It has been interesting indeed!

I have read Mr.Markley's position and I have some concerns. First he states that the chances of and intermarriage producing positives for the Jewish community are low yet it seems his own personal history shows that his family succeeded. Additionally it took his wife almost 10 years to convert to Judiasm, I wonder what promted her to convert and why it took 10 years.

I also have a problem with his position that all people approaching a rabbi are looking for a "sanctified" jewish wedding. I don't mean to split hairs but I believe there are people that are looking for an "officiant" that best represents there religious views. Personally, if two people want to affirm their love between each other in the face of God and they feel that a rabbi represents most closely what they believe then a rabbi should help them. There are a lot of people looking for spirituality today that may not be aligned with any religion and a positive exposure to Judiasm may push them in that direction. Additionally, though you may find this strange coming from me, I do not believe rabbis should co-offiiate at weddings. By making an interfaith couple choose up-front the issues that they will see in the future become clearer. The important thing here is that the couple has a choice and is not rejected from a belief flat out.

Additioanlly, some points of technical clarification:

It does not actually take a rabbi to sanctify a jewish wedding? I though all it takes was an exchange of an item of value and exchange of "vows" in front of two witnesses.

Have rabbis not made compromises in the past because of their congregations that we assume were good?

Ultimately, every rabbi has the choice to officiate or not and I certainly would not support a measure to force all rabbis to officiate at any wedding.

rabbis

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-22-00 23:14

It is true that a Jewish wedding ceremony can happen without a rabbi--all the more reason not to demand a rabbi for a non-Jewish ceremony--but it is not true that any "vows" are exchanged. (Again it sounds as if you're thinking more along Christian lines.) What happens is that the man gives the woman a ring and pronounces an ancient formula, and he gives her a written contract, also written according to prescribed Jewish formula, all amid various blessings about the sanctity of marriage between Jews. The ring ceremony basically means "behold, you are consecrated unto me according to the commandment of Moses and the law of Israel." Double rings are optional, but if she gives him one, she <I> has </i> to say something else. Clearly if the woman isn't Jewish then she isn't covered by the law of Israel, and he can't say it to her. If the man isn't Jewish, he isn't commanded by Jewish law to give her anything, either, and of course a Jewish woman can't say anything of the sort to a non-Jewish man.

Rabbis do Jewish weddings, which means weddings between Jews. A rabbi can't do anything to prevent two people from getting married. If they want someone to officiate, there are always judges who will do so. For a non-religious person to pick a clergymember from the least objectionable religion is at best silly and at worst more than hypocritical. If people don't actually belong to the Jewish religion, then what right do they have to expect a member of the Jewish clergy to marry them? Or if someone has his heart set on having a rabbi perform the ceremony, then why doesn't he marry another Jew?

George and Chris Markley (?)

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-22-00 23:29

Len:

I forget to mention that Mr. Markley didn't say there's <B> no </b> chance that intermarriage can work. I'm glad that things have gone so well for him and his wife, and obviously that one rabbis didn't turn her off to Judaism after all. However, for every marriage tht works out between a Jewish man and a non-Jewish woman, there are many more which don't. We can't count on other people in the same situation being so successful.

Susan

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-23-00 14:25

I'm sure there are also plenty of jewish wedings that fail as well. I'm sorry about the "vows" terminology I just wasn't sure what the formula was called.

As for your comment about picking the least objectional clergy member I thinked you missed my point. I'm not saying that his doesn't happen, I'm saying there are people out there that may not be Jews, or Christians, or Buddhists that are marrying jews and feel that a rabbi represents as close to thier beleifs about God as any official clergy member.

Also, isn't it intereesting that the exchange between bride and groom refers to the laws of Moses. A jew who didn't marry another jew. Why is it that the rabbis retained a reference to him, why not just say by the laws of Israel. That would be a little less hypocritical.

Additionally, let's talk about the concept of marriage. According to Jewish theology God gave man a soul and that soul was part of the divine being. As such when two souls want to become one that is a good thing as it brings the divine being closer together. If a rabbi can't sanctify a "jewish" wedding why can't a rabbi sanctify a wedding that celebrates the coming together of two souls?

Finally, Torah was given to the Jewish people so that we can be an example to the other nations of the world. What kind of an example are we setting, sorry your not jewish and your love for one another doesn't count as something worthy of a blessing.

Len

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-23-00 20:37

Who says Moses has to be the exemplar of perfect sinless behavior? The Torah tells a story that once the children of Israel complained of thirst and God told Moses to speak to a certain rock, telling it to give forth water. But did he obey and help pull off this nifty miracle? No. As the story goes, he picked up a stick and whacked at the rock. For this sin, which was not only violent but made it look as if Moses deserved the credit instead of God, he was denied entrance into the holy land. And you suggest that this very human person's conduct before he even "got religion" is supposed to justify anything?

Many people have more than one sexual partner during the course of their lives, and most of those partnerships don't last. A Jew is commanded by his religion to marry another Jew. If he chooses to have a relationship with someone else, how can he expect a rabbi to sanctify that? You may as well demand that the Jewish religion sanctify the eating of ham sandwiches, because it can't possibly be against the divine will to eat anything that tastes so yummy.

Look, I'm sure that many people who visit this site, perhaps yourself included, have a compelling interest in disagreeing with me. Whom we choose to be our spouse is a decision we take most personally. People never want to hear that their marriage is a mistake, much less a sin. Especially in June, it's inconceivable to some people that there could be anything on earth or in heaven more sacred than the feelings they have for their special someones. How much more palatable it is to tell oneself that the religion must be at fault!

Well, it's almost candle lighting time here, so I'm signing off. Have a blessed and holy Shabbat.

Author: Kelly (---.kcc.com)
Date: 06-26-00 10:53

Susan,
From what I've read of your posts, I do believe that you are posting on the wrong webpage.... are you in an interfaith family? If not, I believe your postings are inappropriate at this particular site. This is "INTERFAITH FAMILY".

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-26-00 20:05

Kelly,
Yes, I am part of a so-called "interfaith family," although I think "interfaithless" would be a more appropriate term.
I find it interesting that you challenge my right to express my ideas here instead of actually trying to refute them. (Perhaps you cannot?) If you cannot tolerate people posting here who don't enthusiastically encourage intermarriage, then why didn't you write something critical of George Markley? He's the one who originally wrote the "offending" column. All I did was to agree with him and applaud the integrity of clergy who refuse to violate their religious principles.
It was never my intention to spend half a month here, but I thought I had to correct some of Len's erroneous statements about the Jewish religion. In fact, he keeps asking me questions. I'm not really interested in getting mired in the argument over Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform, because that's irrelevant and I have better things to do with my time. Nevertheless, if Len continues to request more information of me, I'll give it.

Kelly

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-27-00 13:23

Although I disagree with Susan on several of her ideas and perhaps we both have different viewpoints I suggest you go back to to some of our earlier posts and read the part about having opinions.

This discussion isn't a support group for interfaith families. I would like to hear other Jews opinions. If we don't talk to each other then what? Isolation, bigotry, violence?

Susan

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-27-00 13:49

Just read your earlier post about sanctifying ham sandwiches. Basically here is how I see it. There are the more laws and then there are the ritual laws. Among both sets of these laws there are distinctions between law in the scripture and rabbininc law. Not all rabbinic law is based on the scriptural law. Let's assume the rabbis were extremely enlightened when they enacted some of the rabbinic laws. Basically the law prohibiting intermarriage was enacted by men not sent from God directly.

Regardless of the finer points of where the law came from or if it was divinely inspired there are really three ways to look at this. Accept all Jewish law as the literal word of god and follow to the letter, accept non of the Jewish law as binding but rather as a starting point, or the last choice which is somewhere in between the other two.

I don't know if your an orthodox jew but I would bet you're not. Additionally I would bet that the majority of the Jewish world community would not fall into an "Orthodox" classification. That basically means that even if you fall somewhere in between liberal and orthodox Judiasm there are some laws that are not followed.

If that is the case then how do you or the rabbis know that one law has more weight or importance than any other law. If you choose to ignore one why is another more important. We all feel that the 10 commandments are inviolate but why does that not apply to other laws. How do we know that certain ritual laws we no longer follow are not just as important as the 4th commandment or the 7th. Do you or the rabbinic community have any special insight on the divine plan that let's you choose what to follow and what not to follow? I guess when you choose to walk away from an Orthodox view on the law you must accept the responsibility of questioning every law you follow.

When I talked about the womens participation in ritual you had a reason why it was now accpetable but basically your response to why intermarriage is not accpetable is that's the law. But why? Where did it come from, what does it accomplish. Are we saying that Judaism is right, not a privledge. Marry two jews do you get a Jewish home, not always? Marry a Jew to a non-Jew do you get a Jewish home, sometimes? So why the ban?

By the way, sorry the long rambling post. One of my non-jewish friends was asking me about the ban on intermarriage and where it came from? I obviously have some opinions on it and I happened to need a break at work today.

Author: Kelly (---.kcc.com)
Date: 06-27-00 16:01

True, this discussion is not about interfaith families. But this forum belongs to the "interfaith family webpage". This isn't "letsdebatereligion.com". Each person has the right to voice their opinions where they choose, but why choose here?

Kelly

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-27-00 18:38

Kelly, the debate Susan and I are having is focussed on Jewish law. Jewish law is the reason why intermarriage is such a problem for the Jewish community. I believe the two articles about rabbi officiation are a perfect start to a discussion about jewish law in practice today as it relates to interfaith marriage.

By the way do you have an opinion about the two articles?

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-27-00 22:14

<I> Each person has the right to voice their opinions where they choose, but why choose
here? </i> So, nu? Why not here?

<I> Not all rabbinic law is based on the scriptural law </i> Len, can you please explain what you mean by that?

<I> There are the more laws and then there are the ritual laws. Among both sets of these
laws there are distinctions between law in the scripture and rabbininc law . . . how do
you or the rabbis know that one law has more weight or importance than any other law. If
you choose to ignore one why is another more important. We all feel that the 10
commandments are inviolate but why does that not apply to other laws. How do we know
that certain ritual laws we no longer follow are not just as important as the 4th
commandment or the 7th. Do you or the rabbinic community have any special insight on
the divine plan that let's you choose what to follow and what not to follow? </i>
Actually, you may make that distinction, but it doesn’t exist in traditional Judaism.
Everything in the Torah is equally “inviolate.” One follows every law that one can to the best of one’s ability. If we don’t see the point in a particular law, the official position is that the action comes first and the understanding follows.

<I> I guess when you choose to walk away from an Orthodox view on the law you
must accept the responsibility of questioning every law you follow. </i> It is not
necessary to “question every law.”

<I> Basically the law prohibiting intermarriage was enacted by men not sent from God
directly. </i> Actually, it says right in the Torah -- see Dave’s citation above (or is
“below” more accurate?) -- that we are forbidden to marry into certain nations, whose
religious practices led the ancient Israelites away from Judaism. The list in the Torah
doesn’t mention the English or the Irish or the Puerto Ricans, but there is no compelling reason to exclude them from the prohibition. After all, they have religious practices which lead modern Jews away from Judaism as well.

I think Kelly makes the point that we should not use this site for arguing the pros and cons of intermarriage. In fact, if you still have questions about the “Official Position” of the Jewish religion on the subject, I think you would probably do better to consult the experts. I offer the following sites where you might want to begin your study:

www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Intermarriage
uscj.org/intmar/
aish.com/dating/advice/Dating_Advice_14_-_Intermarriage_Issues.asp

Susan

Author: Len (---.ptc.com)
Date: 06-28-00 12:01

Perhaps this is not the best place to discuss this issue but it seems like this is the only forum on these web pages that had any life. Unless there is another forum we can debate on I'll sign off with my final thought.

The "official" position you presented me with was definately from a biased "conservative" viewpoint. I wonder what the other branches of Judiasm have to say about this?

Good-bye

Author: Susan (---.milwaukee.k12.wi.us)
Date: 06-28-00 12:52

Len:

Interesting question. I tried phrasing my last post in a way that Orthodox people would agree, but maybe there's one of them reading this out there who wishes to correct me. Anybody? I would suspect that the "official" Reform position is that Reform people don't need "official positions," with which I suspect you concur. I would ask if your last post didn't imply that Judaism only requires us to obey those commandments that a reasonabye intelligent and ethical gentile wouldn't also agree to obey, but you've just declined to continue this discussion here. I think that I, too, will withdraw at this point. If you are looking for other Jewish discussion boards, I invite you to join some of my friends and me on <B> shmooze.com </b>

Author: xxx (---.kcc.com)
Date: 08-18-00 16:20

Does anybody have any additional thoughts on the dialogue regarding Jeri Zeder's discussion on her sons being involved with a Catholic wedding mass?

judaism

Author: nikki (194.130.104.---)
Date: 02-23-01 11:45

hi everyone
i'm nikki and i'm doing a project at school about jewish views on human life, about the divine plan and moral issues.
i was wondering if any jewish people could email me information about judaism and its beliefs about how sacred life is
thank you
nikki

Nikki's email

Author: Mina (---.rutgers.edu)
Date: 02-23-01 16:32

Hi, Nikki. People could probably provide more appropriate leads knowing three things: what level in school you're at, how long the paper is, what your knowledge of Judaism is. If you're pretty much starting from scratch, I like Milton Steinberg's *Basic Judaism* as an introduction to the religion.

nationality

Author: chanel (---.tnt2.palm-springs.ca.da.uu.net)
Date: 08-29-01 19:27

i had gotten into a debate with my friend who is also jewish and he said "jewish" is JUST a religion nothing else and i said it is part of my nationality and on went the debate on how i was wrong. so my quetion to you is who is right?

nationality

Author: mpfreed (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 08-31-01 09:18

To Chanel,

There are two aspects to being Jewish - religious and ethnic/cultural. The former aspect subsumes the latter, but it is perfectly possible to be a secular Jew (though in previous ages that term would have been considered an oxymoron). The 1990 US National Jewish Survey showed that as many as 20% of the core Jewish poulation of 5.5 million were Jews who had no religion. That this can cause some confusion is undoubted. Thus, I once heard someone declare "I'm an atheist Jew - thank G-d" ! Unfortunately, Jewishness completely devoid of any religious content is unlikely to be transmittable to succeeding generations.

Interfaith marriages

Author: kathleen fahey (---.dc-t.navipath.net)
Date: 09-01-01 12:20

Hello All:

I am a practicing Catholic who happened to meet a wonderful Jewish man this summer. I always had an unwritten rule of only dating in my religious circle. I believe that marriage is tough enough without having 2 religions that are so far apart from each other.

I read the article and understand why the Rabbi does not officiate interfaith marriages - but I ask you - would a Catholic who would agree to raise the children Jewish - participate in their upbrining in Judaism - be allowed to be married by the Rabbi?

My beliefs are already with me at the age of 30. I am Catholic and wish to continue practicing my faith because it ids dear to me personally - but I have no problem raising my children Jewish.

Is this possible?

Reply to Kathleen Fahey

Author: BobP (159.53.32.---)
Date: 09-04-01 18:11

Hello Kathleen,

I am a Jewish man married to a Catholic woman for over 26 years. To answer your question, most Rabbi's will not perform a wedding ceremony unless both parties are Jewish. There are some Rabbi's (and Cantors) who will do so, and their criteria varies from "pay me x amount and I'll do it" to "here's what is required of the couple" (attending classes or whatever). These Rabbi's are usually either un-affiliated or are with the Reform or Reconstructionist movements. Officials in both the Orthodox and Conservative movements are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from performing such marriages. It does not matter that the children will be raised Jewish. In fact, you should know that because you (the mother) are not Jewish, only reform and (I believe) Reconstructionist movements will recognize your children as Jews. Not that it matters in your case, but if the woman is Jewish and the man isn't, the children are automatically considered to be Jews, but the prohibition by Orthodox and Conservative officials still holds.

I must also wonder how as a practicing Catholic you expect to be able to raise Jewish children. I my case, as a non practicing Jew, my children were raised in the Catholic faith. It can be a very difficult path. I strongly suggest you spend some time to find and speak with a Rabbi (perhaps several).

Whatever you do, best wishes.

software testing

Author: InterfaithFamily.com editor (---.ne.mediaone.net)
Date: 09-13-01 10:20

this posting is a test of software

ignore posting, testing software

Author: IFF editor (---.ne.mediaone.net)
Date: 12-18-01 13:53

ignore posting, testing software

software test

Author: Ronnie Friedland (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 02-14-02 10:51

ignore

< Previous

Next >

RELATED RESOURCES

Send to Friend Save To My Profile