3

I have often heard that religious and traditional Jews are very concerned with intermarriage with non-Jews and strongly discourage it. But halachically, what is the support for the prohibition?

I am assuming here that the marriage performed would be a civil one or a Christian marriage or something like that.

I know that intermarriage with the seven nations is prohibited in Torah, as well as a few others, like Moabites. But even rabbis now say that the descendants of those nations are so diluted that we cannot really determine that anymore.

The following article attempts to address this question, and admits that the rabbis typically base their prohibition on the prohibition from Torah about Caananite nations:

http://chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1741789/jewish/Isnt-Intermarriage-Only-With-Canaanites.htm

But it does not seem to make a clear case that ALL non Jews are forbidden. Also, today the danger of avodah zarah is not as it was before - today most Westerners are either monotheists following one of the Abrahamic religions, or some variety of skeptic or apathetic. So, I would like to know the major source for the prohibition of intermarriage today, and what this source says about the consequences of such an intermarriage.

In fact, even the halachic question of who is a Jew seems to be based on rabbis parsing a verse in a strange way to say it goes by the mother. A literal reading of TaNaKh may suggest it actually goes by the father. So, what does it even mean to marry a Jew or non-Jew when the person isn't fully observant?

In your answer, if you could also address Deuteronomy 21 which describes marrying women captured in battle, that would help clarify the matter as well, since any halachic interpretation should probably address Torah commandments that would seem to be problematic for the interpretation.

Gregory Magarshak
  • 955
  • 6
  • 17
  • 1
    Motion to close as "this sucks -- am I right?" You cite an article explicitly answering your question, and then say you don't like it and want something else. (I don't even understand what your second-to-last paragraph is saying.) – Double AA May 28 '15 at 02:25
  • 1
    "the rabbis typically base their prohibition on the prohibition from Torah" No, that article does not describe that pheonomenon but rather the rabbis explaining what the prohibition from the Torah includes. There is no "derabanan" extension described in that article (see in particular footnote 2 therein). – Double AA May 28 '15 at 02:30
  • 3
    Note also that Christianity (unlike Islam) is not monotheistic (as defined by Judaism) and is considered Avoda Zara. So concerns for Avoda Zara do very much abound in the Western World. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 02:32
  • Double AA - with respect, are you saying that the article's argument is the best and only d'oraysa source for this prohibition? If there is something more, that's what I would like to understand in the answers. As I said Deuteronomy 21 speaks explicitly about marrying non-Jewish women. – Gregory Magarshak May 28 '15 at 02:39
  • 1
    I am not (nor am I denying it). If you want to levy a particular criticism of it and ask for other suggestions that overcome a particular shortcoming, then that would be a reasonable question IMO. Start by accurately summarizing it and then explaining what the particular issue with it is. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 02:41
  • 1
    Very similar: http://judaism.stackexchange.com/q/51153/3 – WAF May 28 '15 at 03:26
  • @WAF Indeed, i didn't close bc this asks about marriage specifically. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 03:34
  • The captor is not allowed to marry the captive woman unless she agrees to convert (which is true with marrying any non-Jew). Otherwise, he is obligated to release her. – Loewian May 28 '15 at 04:11
  • 2
    I am not sure what you mean by "marry" -- a Jew CAN (not ("may") not marry a non-Jew because there can be no kiddushin as far as I understand it. Are you asking why that is, or why something else is forbidden? – rosends May 28 '15 at 10:40
  • I explained above ... the marriage would be, say, a civil marriage by the state. Or a religious ceremony in another monotheistic religion. Including, say, Reform Judaism. Orthodox Judaism recognizes such marriages to some extent, doesn't it? http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Judaism/Does-Halacha-recognize-civil-marriage – Gregory Magarshak May 28 '15 at 15:36
  • @GregoryMagarshak The question of if a civil ceremony can substitute for a Jewish ceremony in certain cases is not relevant here where a Jewish ceremony cannot happen. There is no Jewish legal construct of "marriage between a Jew and a gentile" just as there is no secular legal construct of "marriage between a tree and a rock". – Double AA May 28 '15 at 15:56
  • @DoubleAA There is inasmuch as that would cause the violation of "lo sischaten" (a la mechiras hageneva to be chayav daled v'heh). – Loewian May 28 '15 at 16:49
  • @Danno see the sugya in the answer I posted. We are not necessarily discussing ' Ishus' but possibly 'Chasnus' a non-halachicaly validated marriage, but marriage none the less. – user6591 May 28 '15 at 17:35
  • @loewian Biah derekh chasnus doesn't mean there is any legal construct of marriage. There can be a prohibition to act married-like. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 19:34
  • @user6591 Sorry if I'm being dense but that would mean that the question asks not about marriage but about sex. The gemara seems to equate them. I'm not sure the questioner does. – rosends May 28 '15 at 21:01
  • @Danno the question is discussing marriage as opposed to sex, and the gemara makes the differentiation. Think about it, The lav is lo tischaten, do not marry. There is something called secular marriage which won't help to call a Jewish lady an eishes ish, but does have it's ramifications, such as here. See also the first Beis Shmuel in the shulchan aruch I mentioned. He explains Rambam's opinion as marriage with sex is biblical. Marriage w/o sex or sex w/o marriage does not get lashes. – user6591 May 28 '15 at 21:53
  • @DoubleAA I don't get your point. The OP asked about marriage which seems a reasonable translation of chasnus. In the case of daled v'heh, the kinyan also is not chal but the ganav is still chayav. That was my point. – Loewian May 28 '15 at 22:29
  • @Loewian He did. In a comment he supported the assertion that Judaism recognizes a legal relationship created by a civil wedding ceremony with a certain news article and I explained why that assertion is inaccurate and is not relevant to the case at hand. – Double AA May 29 '15 at 03:25
  • "Marriage w/o sex or sex w/o marriage does not get lashes." -- huh? Sex without marriage doesn't get lashes? What about the prohibition of sex with gentiles outside of marriage? – Gregory Magarshak May 29 '15 at 04:43

2 Answers2

3

Your assumption is based upon an opinion in Talmud which is not the standard accepted opinion.

The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch codified the opinion of Rabi Shimon bar Yochai found in maseches Avoda Zara 36b stating that marriage to any nonjew is biblical, it was casual promiscuity I.e. znus which the beis din of Chashmonaim enacted their nashga/nashgaz against as a safeguard so as not to marry them.

See Rambam chapter 12 of hilchos Issurei Biah halacha 1&2 and Shulchan Aruch Even Ha'ezer siman 16 siff 1.

See also Aruch HaShulchan siff two who says even the other opinion who argues on the Rambam and rules that biblically only the seven nations are not allowed agrees that in a situation where the couple lives together and have continual conjugal relations, this would also be biblically prohibited.

Y     e     z
  • 58,536
  • 3
  • 109
  • 249
user6591
  • 33,638
  • 2
  • 39
  • 81
  • Note though that other Rishonim argued on the Rambam, and the Tur and pseudo-Rama argue on the ShA as well. So "who [sic] we do not rule with" is a little strong. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 15:26
  • @Double edited and updated. Sounds better? – user6591 May 28 '15 at 15:36
  • Interesting answer! I thought Jews for the most part followed the Shulhan Aruch as well as the Rama's gloss for the Ashkenaz. If Shulha Aruch rules one way, how did it get overridden? More stringencies and safeguards since then? – Gregory Magarshak May 28 '15 at 16:05
  • Also what is siff two? Sorry for not knowing. – Gregory Magarshak May 28 '15 at 16:06
  • @Gregory The issue here is a gloss on the shulchan aruch which may or may not be from Ramma. For arguments sake let's say it is Ramma. He brings a variant opinion by saying 'some say etc.' That usually means he is not completely arguing with the shulchan aruch but the opinion is not obsolete. Note the opinion he brings is lenient. – user6591 May 28 '15 at 16:14
  • Siff two means the second paragraph in the aruch Babylonian. His work follows the numbering system of the shulchan aruch. I took the liberty to assume people would look in the aforementioned siman in Shulchan Aruch. Sorry. – user6591 May 28 '15 at 16:16
  • @user6591 The generally accepted practice of those who follow the Rama is to treat his "yesh omrim"s as actual rulings (in spite of the more ambivalent/ambiguous literal meaning). – Loewian May 28 '15 at 16:57
  • @Ioewian you are correct about v'yesh omrim. I mistyped before. This gloss does not say 'some say', it says v'yesh cholkim bazeh, and there are those that argue. – user6591 May 28 '15 at 17:18
  • 1
    Would it be alright if I asked that the answer be in 100% English ... because I am having trouble understanding. It's okay if a comment would be. Basically, is this correct: "marriage to any nonjew is biblical" means it's not allowed from the Bible? And the one who is doing the gloss brings a variant opinion that it's only the 7 nations? But nevertheless says that an unmarried couple living together continuously is biblically prohibited? How are these opinions supported, is my question. Or are they just asserted? – Gregory Magarshak May 29 '15 at 04:46
  • 1
    @Gregory I can try to rewrite without the jargon. So far you are doing very well! The support for these opinions is based around the discussion in the Talmud I mentioned and how to understand a certain verse in Deuteronomy 7. It is not possible now to discuss whether the opinions are based on the exegesis, or that verses were found to support a long standing opinion. That is a different issue, relevant to much of the Talmud's exegesis. But in this discussion at hand, the Talmud makes very clear exactly what each opinion holds is biblically prohibited, and what was Rabbinicaly ordained. – user6591 May 29 '15 at 08:57
  • Yes, if you could rewrite your answer without the jargon, it would be great! – Gregory Magarshak May 29 '15 at 23:43
0

I believe the answer to your question is amply provided by Matt in the reference linked in the comments, namely, that the origin of the prohibition is disputed, but it seems that, at the very least, it is a very severe rabbinic prohibition.

I would add that rabbinic prohibitions are not (necessarily) of a lesser severity than biblical ones, and can indeed be more severe. This prohibition is a case in point since it can even be considered a capital offense, inasmuch as the Hasmoneans enacted that it is liable to 39*4=156 (נשג"ז/נשג"א) lashes which are potentially a death sentence, inasmuch as it is also liable to kareith midivrei kabbala (from the words of the prophets), and inasmuch as it is one of the prohibitions for which the rule is kana'im pog'in bo (zealots are allowed to extralegally execute him). Also, the reasoning mentioned explicitly in the verse by the seven nations, namely, of the gentile spouse leading one's children astray, is applicable whenever the spouse is not keeping the commandments one needs to impart on his children.

As far as literal readings of tanach, as noted in the 2nd footnote in the source you cite, halacha is not determined by the layman's literal reading of tanach (nor even by the expert's) and it is a central principle of Judaism that just as there is a written Torah, there is an oral one as well that came along with it.

Finally, the captor in the source you mention is halachically obligated to free the captive woman if she is not willing to undergo a full conversion.

(Perhaps you're better bet is in convincing her to convert as well. Though, AYLOR.)

Community
  • 1
Loewian
  • 17,746
  • 2
  • 29
  • 60
  • That answer is talking about casual sex not marriage. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 05:32
  • @DoubleAA Kol sheken. (My assumption is that the OP here is not talking about something platonic.) – Loewian May 28 '15 at 05:34
  • What's the kol shekein? Marriage seems more chamur than casual sex, so if the latter is kal (weak restriction) you can't prove the former is chamur: dayo! – Double AA May 28 '15 at 05:51
  • It does seem to be rabinic because king solomon married pharaoh's daughter. And ruth was married while not being Jewish. Zimri was done in a more public affair. – cham May 28 '15 at 05:53
  • @DoubleAA Not getting what you're driving at. The answer there (explicitly) answers the question posed here as well. – Loewian May 28 '15 at 14:29
  • @cham I assume tradition is that Solomon's wives all converted first. Ruth's status is more controversial, but if she did marry first, the assumption is that it was not permitted (at least for her husband). – Loewian May 28 '15 at 14:30
  • @loewian The primary reason given for rejecting option 1 doesn't apply here. Why is that confusing? It does quote some relevant sources but quoting its conclusion in this context is highly misleading. – Double AA May 28 '15 at 14:40
  • @cham, tradition states that Ruth had already converted before marrying her first husband (Na'ami's son) and that she had reaffirmed this in her vow to Na'ami (Rut א). I don't recall which source this is (I believe that it's Rut Rabbah) but I have heard it in multiple contexts and I went through it on Monday. – Noach MiFrankfurt May 28 '15 at 15:58
  • Well there is an argument in all cases if they converted first and if they committed a sin. A tosfos yeshonim on yibamos somewhere discusses Shlomo hamelech. A maharsha discusses ruth. From the pesukim where we learn hilchos geirus ruth had not yet converted.@NoachmiFrankfurt I should Samson as well. – cham May 28 '15 at 17:54
  • http://daf-yomi.com/Dafyomi_Page.aspx?vt=1&massechet=296&amud=152&fs=0 tosfos yeshonim top of page @NoachmiFrankfurt – cham May 28 '15 at 18:08
  • ם א) ובעלמא אי לאי גיירה נימא שנשאה שלמה דכל זמן שלא נתגיירה לא שייך איסור דמצרית ראשינה יאיסור הכא על הנכרית דחייכ משוס גשג״א עדיין לא נתקן עד כית דיגו של תשמוגאי וגס קנאיס סוגעין כו ציכא דלא שייך רק כצנעא אכל בפרהסיא לא ושמא שלמה נצנעא לקתה אכל כיון דגיירה קשה היכי נשאה דהא הויא לה מצרית ראשונה: כדי שיהא כן כני ראוי לכא בקהל. יתימה שהרי גס כנו מותר לבא כקהל דהא א – cham May 28 '15 at 18:09
  • @cham You realize that Tosefos Yeshanim is explaining that she did convert, right? He is explaining why the Gemara has a question, and showing why it wouldn't have been a question had she not converted, but since she did convert therefore the question is valid. – Y     e     z May 28 '15 at 19:36
  • Yes I do appreciate that. I was saying he says it would be no issur if she didnt @yez – cham May 28 '15 at 19:41
  • @cham Just making sure - in the flow of the conversation here that point wasn't so clear (as above, you attempted to bring proof that it is Rabbinic from the mere fact that Shlomo married her). – Y     e     z May 28 '15 at 19:45