The Jewish outlook., 1908-07-10


ideal sancity of marriage to the ex-
igencies Of their times, all the while
being actuated in their teachings by
the most elementary principle of self
preservation. Though at the present
time idoatry Gin the strict sense, at
least) is extinct, the principle under
lying the prohibition of intermarriage
cOmmends itself to the Jewish con-
science. Now. as of old, the religion
of Israel must be protected from in
fuences which make for it's disinte-
grafton. And among those influences
none is as strong and as serious as in
termarriage. Even where it spares the
faith of the Jewish party to it, it does
not preserve that of the second gen.
Grafton. No matter even if husband
and wife agree to train their children
as Jews. the force of conditions and
circumstances will assert itself in
spite of the agreement, and in the in
evitable struggle that will ensue be-
tween the diverse doctrines of the par
ents. those of Judaism will invari-
obly have to succumb. The reasons
for this are evident. Judaism is the
IdItu ol lIt II tIN
to practice. and is considered the less
favored. the less privileged. and. in
some countries. even prescribed
faith. hence the heterogeneous heirs
will follow the lines of least resist
ance and adopt the non-Jewish re-
ligiOn Let intermarriage but become
general and it will not take many
centuries before Judaism will disap-
pear. The opposition to intermar-
riage is. therefore. as justifiable today,
and on the same grounds. as it was in
Biblical times.
But consideration of the subject
must not stop with the Bible. The
fact is that without our "Torah She
b'al-peh" oral lsw) we would be ut
terly helpless to interpret our 'Torah
she-b 'ksav" (written law and would
be compelled to initiate the silly and
senseless practices of the Karaites
with whom. by the way. intermarriage
is also prohibited (29). We must
then. go for advice to post-Biblic au-
thorities. And here our task becomes
at once much easier. For in the realm
of traditional law prohibition is the
strict rule and permission the rare ex-
ccption. The Talmud (3O) goes even
so far i'm its opposition that it con-
siders mixed marriage invalid and
that the contracting parties are not
even obliged (from a religious stand
point) to he formally divorced in or
der to nullify their marriage and to
separate. Later authorities as Maim-
onides (31) and Caro- (32). as well
as the other codifiers and commenta-
tors (33) of the middle ages are ali
one in condemning mixed marriages.
In more modern times the question
was first dealt with in August. 1906.
by the French Synhedrin. to whom
reference has already been made here.
The thesis laid before them read:
MAY "A Jewess marry "A Christian,
and Jew Christian woman. or does
the law allow the Jews to intermarry
only among themselves - To what ex-
tent these notables were influenced in
their reply by consideration for Ma
poleon' liberal tendencies and the
consequences negative answer might
have for the Jews in the Napoleanic
states. | am unable to say. At any
rate. they answered affirmatively. But
not without a certain reserve. They
stated that our law does not say that
Jewess cannot marry Christian. or
Jew Christian woman. nor does
it hold that the Jews can intermarry