The Jewish outlook., 1908-07-10

pCIlOuS lIlCCl ldSCS DCG"CCll cCWS
and Christians in France, Spain and
Germany. But, they added, they could
not withhold the fact that the opinion
of the rabbis has ever been against
such unions. Although the Mosaic
code does not forbid the Jews to in
termarry with other nations "a state
ment whose correctness, I hope, have
successfully disproved), yet, as mar
riage according to the Talmud re
quires religious ceremony called
"Kidushin,' and as certain bene-
diction is pronounced during the cere-
mOny, and whereas this religious cere-
mony cannot be performed unless both
parties profess Judaism, union be-
tween Jew and Christian could not be
considered as religiously valid (34).
From this it may be seen that the
stand the French Synhedrin took to
intermarriage was not quite as favor
able. as it is sometimes said to have
been, at least not as regards its re-
ligious character.
The question, of course. arises
whether marriage is religious or
civil function. There are some who
claim that it is not sacrament. a
religious act but purely a natural. a
civil contract. and it cannot be de-
MED that when divested of its sacra-
mental character. marriage falls with
i'm the category of ordinary. every
day civil contracts which can be
formed by the consent of any two
parties. Yet. am not sure that you
and l would subscribe to such a sen-
timent Marriage is much more than
II common civil contract The relig-
ious sanction is. l take it. an indis-
pensable part of marriage You will
perhaps remember the volley of in
dignation that was called forth on the
part of the ministry and the laity the
country over a few years ago when
II certain Rev. John Encell advertised
in daily paper. "When you are
ready to get married. call on or send
for Brother Encell. 1O7 Davis street.
Syracuse. y. Y. Rates from $500 to
$500 Now. if marriage is merely n
civil contract. why should this have
been more improper than it would be-
for an attorney to advertise his serv-
ices as a writer and witness of con-
tracts and deeds?
Conceding. then. that marriage is II
religious act. it being besides the old
est and most sacred rite and ordi-
nance in the economy of human so
ciety. the decision rendered by the
Jewish notables must be taken as OPP
posing and not favoring intermar-
riage.
OF still later authorities. the Rab-
binical Conference at Braunschweig,
1874. while stating that mixed mar
riages were permissible. insisted that
this was the case only where there
was a solemn understanding that the
children would be brought up as Jews.
which in the face of the conditions
that existed at that time i'm the ajor-
ity of the German states. was tant-
amount to prohibiting intermarriage
Moreover. Ludwig Philipson. one Of
the moving spirits and eminent
scholars at that conference. after vot-
ing for the decision. later on. upon
sounder study and deeper delibera-
tion of the subject. changed his views
and declared himself against inter
marriage of any kind (35). SO did
also Aub and Geiger. members of a
committee appointed by the first Jew
ish Synod at Leipzig. 1869. charac-
terize intermarriage as detrimental
to the Jewish faith and fireside (36).
Even of greater interest to us