Contemporary American Reform Responsa

162. Congregational Membership for a Non-Jewish Spouse*

QUESTION: Should we reinstitute the ancient category of semiproselyte known in the Talmudic literature
as yirei adonai, ger toshav and ger shaar? Would this be a way of solving the problem of non-Jewish
spouse whose Jewish husband or wife belong to our congregations while they, as non-Jews with a
considerable interest in Judaism, have either no status or a status which has not been properly and
clearly defined? Would this ancient Talmudic category help us with our modern problems? What kind of
status should be granted to such an individual? (Rabbi G. Raiskin, Burlingame, CA)

ANSWER: The problem of the non-Jewish spouse is a serious one in many congregations. Every effort
toward a solution deserves our attention and consideration. We should begin by looking at the Talmudic
categories, yirei adonai, gerei toshav and gerei shaar, and try to understand their precise meaning. What
rights, if any, did individuals in each category possess? How were they treated in the Temple, in the
synagogue, by Jewish courts, etc.?

The general question of conversion to Judaism has been well treated by a number of our colleagues (J.
Rosenbloom, Conversion to Judaism, Cincinnati, 1978; H. Eichorn, Conversion to Judaism, New York,
1965; B. Bamberger, Proselytism in the Talmudic Period, New York, 1939; W. Braude, Jewish Proselyting
in the First Five Centuries of the Common Era, Providence, 1940). These volumes indicate that
conversion to Judaism has continued through the centuries. They discuss what was expected of the
convert, motives which led to conversion, and the way in which converts have fit into the general
community. Relatively little space in these volumes is given to our categories, which existed for only a few
centuries. These categories play no role in rabbinic literature after the Talmud, and when these terms are
used they are synonymous with benei noah, in other words, a Gentile who had accepted basic human
morality and was no longer a pagan. The terms also designate individuals who had adopted certain
Jewish thoughts in the post Talmudic period. No special status has been accorded to them (S. Zeitlin,
"Proselyte and Proselytism," Harry Wolfson Jubilee Volumes, Vol. 2, pp. 587 ff; see also A. Bertholet, Die
Stellung der Israeliten und der Jüden zu den Fremden, Leipzig, 1896). If we follow the generally accepted
view, individuals characterized by these designations seem to have fallen into four categories during the
Mishnaic and early Talmudic period:

1. A theoretical designation which indicated how the rabbis would have liked to treat resident aliens (gerei
toshav) in Israel (M. Gerim 3.1; A. Z. 64b; San 56a ff; Arak. 29a).

2. Individuals who were on their way to becoming full proselytes but had not yet fulfilled all the conditions.
In other words, they may have undergone immersion or circumcision, but not yet brought the mandatory
sacrifice in Jerusalem before the destruction of the temple (Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the
Christian Era, Vol. I, pp. 330 ff; Mishnat R. Eliezer, p. 374; Juvenal, Satire, XIV, 96 ff).

3. Individuals who were married to Jews, accepted basic Jewish morality and religious thought, but for a
variety of reasons were unwilling to undergo complete conversion. Usually this category seemed to
consist of husbands of women who had become Jewish and were unwilling to follow as this entailed the
difficult operation of circumcision. Other reasons may also have been operative.

4. Individuals who had accepted some of the ethics and morality of Judaism and left their ancient pagan
beliefs, in other words, a synonym for benei noah (A. Z. 64a; Pes. 21a; Ker. 8b; Hul. 5a; Meg. 13a; Philo,
Contra Apion; Josephus, Antiq. 20.8.7; Wars 2.18.2, 7.3.3).

One scholar, Solomon Zeitlin, felt that these categories did not exist at all. The terms merely designated
Gentiles who were no longer idolaters but in no way semi-proselytes (Zeitlin, op. cit.).
For the purposes of our discussion, we can forget the first two categories. As we turn to the remaining
category, we must first ask about the status of these individuals within the Jewish community. It is clear
from a wide variety of statements that they were considered on a level above pagans, but did not possess
the status of full converts or Jews; they had no official status in either the synagogue or a Jewish court
and were considered non-Jews in virtually all legal matters (Gerei Toshav, Encyclopedia Talmudit, Vol. 6,
pp. 290 ff). They could bring sacrifices at the Temple, but so could any pagan who wished to do so
(Schurer, A History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised by Vermez, Millar and Black,
Vol. 2, pp. 309 ff). The fact that they had taken this step was recognized and praised; there was the hope
that they might go further, but until this occurred, no real change of status was conferred.

These designations ceased to exist with the end of the pagan period. After the majority of the neighboring
people had become Christians, or later, followers of Islam, most individuals known to Jews were benei
noah and could be designated by the synonyms, yirei adonai, ger toshav, and ger shaar. The special
categories, therefore, became meaningless.

If we nowadays accorded these designations to our Christian friends, they would provide no special
status in the synagogue but simply recognize the ethical and moral teachings of their religion as akin to
our own which we have done anyhow.

A revival, therefore, of the Talmudic categories of yirei adonai, ger toshav, and ger shaar would not
achieve the goal desired or solve the problem of the non-Jewish spouse. It is not likely that a revival of a
special designation which carries no appropriate historical overtones would help us. It would probably
only confuse matters and place the non-Jewish partner in a doubtful position. We, therefore, recommend
that the membership section of the constitution and the constitutions of the auxiliary bodies, such as
Brotherhood and Sisterhood, read as follows:

Membership in our congregation is limited to Jews and Jewish families. A non-Jewish partner is welcome
to the fellowship of the congregation and is encouraged to participate in all of its activities; however, the
non-Jewish spouse may not serve on on the Board, hold office, become chairman of any committee or
have the privilege of voting at congregational or committee meetings.

October 1983