Reform Rabbis Reaffirm Stand on Patrilineal Descent Amid Protests

With a show of hands, an overwhelming majority of the 550 Reform rabbis convening in the Biltmore Hotel on March 15, 1983, adopted officially their decades-old practice of presuming the offspring of a mixed marriage to be Jewish regardless of which parent is a Jew.

Time-honored Judaic tradition says that one is Jewish only if one’s mother is Jewish.

But three years ago in Los Angeles it was argued successfully that Judaism’s liberal branch should “say what we are and proclaim what we do” and, in view of the unstemmed tide of intermarriages, not write off as “non-Jews” the children raised as Jews but with Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers.

Nevertheless, the Reform rabbis knew then that their endorsement of “patrilineal descent” would create a storm.

Largest Branch

In fact, it was soon denounced by Orthodox and Conservative rabbis in terms that questioned whether Reform, which with more than a million members is the largest branch of Judaism in the United States, was dealing a death blow to Jewish unity.

Reform leaders, at a recent convention in Snowmass, Colo., reaffirmed that there is no turning back on the decision on patrilineal descent--and it doesn’t have to be a barrier to religious cooperation in the Jewish community.

American Jewry has put a premium on unity in order to deal more effectively with any discriminatory threats from outside the faith.

Tensions in organized Jewish religious life usually arise over the degree to which Jewish law, halacha , is being observed or adapted--and most religious leaders say the divisions are now the sharpest they have been in decades.

New Interpretations

The centrist Conservative movement regards Jewish law as the norm, but it has upset traditionalists with some new interpretations, such as ordaining women rabbis this decade. The Orthodox organizations include the synagogue-based “modern” Orthodox, still concerned over Jewish unity, and various ultraorthodox groups, who usually steer clear of association with those who are not strict followers of halacha .

Reform rabbis, on the other hand, often cite respected colleague Alexander Schindler, who says that tradition should not bar Reform’s innovative approaches.

Even as the Reform body, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), stood its ground on patrilineal descent at its recent convention, it also passed a resolution on Monday maintaining that Reform rabbis “cherish” their Conservative and Orthodox colleagues and “respect their views”--yet staunchly denied anyone’s claim to be totally right.

The CCAR extended a speaking invitation to Rabbi Walter Wurzberger, former president of the Orthodox Rabbinical Council of America, the organ of “modern Orthodox” rabbis. Wurzberger was frank about the effect of the patrilineal decision on more traditional Jewry.

‘The Final Straw’

It “poisoned the atmosphere,” Wurzburger said.

Another Orthodox rabbi called the Reform action the final straw--”an emotional drain”--that prompted the Orthodox movement to withdraw in 1983 from an unusual, joint Conversion Board in Denver. Rabbi Stanley M. Wagner of Denver told a panel discussion Monday that his Orthodox colleagues had feared perceptions that conversions were made “quick and easy” in the five years the board was run by Reform, Orthodox and Conservative rabbis, but that the patrilineal descent decision prompted them to leave.

The Reform stance also stirred Conservative rabbis last month to assert their own disagreement during their Rabbinical Assembly meeting in Kiamesha Lake, N.Y. Rabbis on June 19 approved sanctions against members who violate the standard of recognizing that Jewish lineage is determined by the mother alone. The resolution also reiterated the Conservative adherence to Jewish law on conversions: namely, requiring a ritual bath for both male and female converts and ritual circumcision for male converts.

“Jewish identity represents the primary issue on the Jewish scene today,” said Rabbi Joel Roth, chairman of the committee that drafted the resolution. The vote was 235 to 92, and Roth said he believed the “nos” reflected objections to imposing sanctions.

Reconsideration Asked

During the debate, Rabbi Alexander M. Shapiro, president of the Conservative rabbis’ organization, again appealed to Reform rabbis to reconsider their position on patrilineal descent “for the sake of Jewish unity.”

Reform Rabbi Jack Stern, however, in his presidential address last week in Colorado, said that it was “entirely beyond the realm of possibility” that the CCAR would rescind its policy. To Reform colleagues who have suggested reassessment, Stern said that “any retraction of the principle would logically require a repudiation of the practice.”

Stern noted that the 1983 debate anticipated the vehement Orthodox reaction but not the intensity of the Conservative reaction.

“They, who on so many issues consider themselves our allies, feel painfully alienated from us on this one,” Stern said.

Law of Return

(The Reform-Conservative alliance was illustrated last week when leaders of both movements fired off objections to the decision of Israeli Interior Minister Yitzhak Peretz to have the word “converted” stamped on the identity cards of anyone converted to Judaism before emigrating to Israel. The action was seen in the light of the long-running battle that Reform and Conservative Judaism has had to retain the existing Israeli Law of Return treating all convert-immigrants equally. Orthodox leaders want to amend the law to say that a Jew must be converted according to Orthodox ritual. Israeli Orthodoxy, which holds great authority in that country’s religious matters, does not recognize the legitimacy of non-Orthodox rites.)

To Conservative rabbis, Stern suggested, “Do not dismiss the possibility that 10 or 20 years from now you too will seriously consider the adoption of the patrilineal position. If you do, you will be responding, on your own, to the same realities of social change as we are because your members are entering into mixed marriages in the same number that ours are.”

At present, however, Stern said that “attempts to reconcile what is essentially irreconcilable might only make the battle worse.” He proposed that fellow Jews “walk around the differences rather than trying to solve them.”

Pragmatic approaches are preferable, Stern said, and he predicted that the recent exit of Orthodox representatives from the national Commission on Jewish Chaplaincy will be resolved soon. The outgoing president of the Rabbinical Council of America, Rabbi Louis Bernstein, charged on June 17 at the Orthodox group’s national convention in Baltimore that the breakup of the joint commission was caused when Reform officials “bypassed” the commission and endorsed separately a woman rabbi for a U.S. Navy chaplaincy.

But Rabbi Barry H. Greene of Short Hills, N.J., chairman of the chaplaincy commission, said in an interview that a “modus operandi” may be found at the commission meeting on Thursday to continue the Reform-Conservative-Orthodox support system to chaplaincy posts in the armed forces and veterans administration. Others familiar with the commission suggested that a way may be found to allow each organization to approve only its own chaplains, thus avoiding the Orthodox objections to the impression that any rabbi approved by the commission is approved by all three groups.