Common Myths About Patrilineal Descent, and the Truth

Myth 1: Patrilineal descent is destroying Jewish unity by interfering with the ability of all Jews to marry one another.

The Truth: Contrary to myth, traditional Jewish law does not allow all Jews to marry one another to begin with.  Halakha (traditional Jewish law) forbids a kohen (priest) to marry either a divorced woman, or a convert who converted after the age of three.  Moreover, halakha also forbids marriage between a mamzer (a child born as the result of of various prohibited sexual unions, most notably adultery and incest) and anyone who is neither another mamzer nor a convert.  Amazingly, these traditions are held and enforced by the very parts of the community that insist patrilineal descent is undermining the ability of Jews to marry one another.

Moreover, the very people in the Jewish community who decry the "disunity" created by treating men and women equally with regard to Jewish descent rarely bring up the issue of differing rules regarding Jewish divorce, which pose far more problems to Jewish unity than patrilineality.  In Orthodox Judaism, when a woman fails to obtain a get (writ of divorce) and then has a child with another man, the child is considered a mamzer under Jewish law, and hence ineligible to marry most other Jews.  Whereas a patrilineal Jew can convert if he or she wants legal status within communities that do not accept patrilineality, a mamzer can never lose his or her status as a mamzer.  Yet, surprisingly, very little is said by Orthodox organizations about the "disunity" caused by other branches' adopting different standards for Jewish divorce, compared with the slew of commentary reserved for patrilineal descent.

Myth 2: Judaism has always been matrilineal.

The Truth: Judaism's definition of who is a Jew by descent has changed several times over the course of Jewish history.  Scholarship in the field of Jewish studies has indicated that no single distinct practice existed during the Biblical period and that matrilineal descent most likely originated in the period after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 C.E.

For a fuller treatment of the origins and rationale of matrilineal descent, see:

http://www.interfaithfamily.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=ekLSK5MLIrG&b=297405&ct=3690573

Myth 3: Matrilineality is the definition of Jewish nationhood and Jewish "citizenship".  Every group needs to enforce boundaries about who is in and who is out.

As noted above, the Jewish nation existed for 1,800 years before the introduction of matrilineal descent--about as long as it has existed under matrilineal descent.  In pre-modern times, matrilineality rarely had applicability, and evidence suggests that it was only sporadically enforced.  Despite the official bans on patrilineality in Orthodox and Conservative Judaism, there are congregations in these movements that are ignoring this aspect of Jewish tradition.

We at Emunah Avot recognize and accept that the Jewish community, like all groups of people that have a common purpose, needs to have boundaries.  But the simple fact that the community needs some form of boundary line does not make this particular boundary morally acceptable.  To return to the metaphor of national citizenship, the United States needs citizenship laws.  It did not need, for over sixty years, to enforce the Chinese Exclusion Act, forbidding persons born in China from ever becoming American citizens.  The repeal of this act in 1942 made the United States that much more democratic.  Similarly, we feel that the repeal of matrilineal descent will make the Jewish community that much more just and holy.

Myth 4: Matrilineality enshrines the holiness of Jewish women.

Fact: None of the texts used as a basis for matrilineal descent, in the Torah, the Mishnah, or in any other Jewish texts, refers in any way to the holiness of Jewish women.  In fact, the relevant portion of Mishnah, Kiddushin 3:12, does not establish the matrilineal principle by declaring the child of a Jewish woman to have the status of his or her mother; rather, the text indicates that the child of a Gentile or a slave is "like her."  The concern of this text is the unholiness of non-Jewish women, not the holiness of Jewish women.

Myth 5: Patrilineal descent is a recent invention of the Reform Movement, which shows the movement is desperate to shore up its numbers and put a fig leaf over its failure to stop intermarriage.

The Truth: Opponents of patrilineal descent often point to the Reform Movement's 1983 resolution on Jewish descent and therefore assume patrilineality is a recent innovation.  In fact, the documentary evidence shows that the Reform Movement has accepted patrilineal descent in one form or another for much longer than that.  In editions of its Rabbis' Manual published in 1947 and 1961, the Movement declared categorically that children of non-Jewish mothers who had been educated in Reform congregational schools and been confirmed (this was in an age when Reform temples did not perform b'nai mitzvah) would be considered Jews--a policy that was patrilineal descent in all but name.  Indeed, even Benjman Bleich, the former rosh yeshiva (head) of REITS, the rabbinical school of Orthodox-affiliated Yeshiva University, noted in a 1985 article in the scholarly journal Judaism that the Reform Movement had already been quietly accepting patrilineal children into the fold for years.

Indeed, it is clear from the furor with which Orthodoxy and the Conservative Movement have reacted to patrilineality that semantics seem to matter more than the actual acceptance of patrilineal children by the Reform Movement.  Accusations that Reform was disassociating itself from the rest of the Jewish community or "dividing the Jewish people" began when the Reform Movement started using the term patrilineal descent to describe its policies, not when those policies were adopted in the 1940s.

Moreover, contrary to what many people within Orthodoxy and the Conservative Movement believe, patrilineal descent was not primarily an outreach tool.  Although Rabbi Alexander Schindler did call for openness toward patrilineal children in a 1978 speech advocating outreach to the intermarried, the policy did not create "facts on the ground" but rather grew out of them.  The 1983 resolution on patrilineal descent was a response by the Reform Movement to the large number of intermarried Jewish men who were already affiliating with Reform congregations and enrolling their children in Hebrew School.  The role of the resolution was largely to clarify existing policy and bring to it a measure of honesty and fairness.

It should be noted, however, that the smaller Reconstructionist Movement has accepted patrilineality since it became its own movement in 1968.  In fact, the Reconstructionist Movement is the only movement that adopted patrilineality out of clear moral conviction, rather than as a reaction to demographic changes within the Jewish community.  For their movement's bravery in doing so, Reconstructionists should be proud.

Myth 6: The Conservative and Reform Movements will probably be forced to merge anyway, so an organization like this isn't really necessary.

Truth: In recent years, some commentators, noting the growing similarities between the Reform and Conservative Movements on such issues as the ordination of women and the morality of homosexuality, have argued that a merger between the two movement in inevitable.  These commentators believe that, at this time, the Conservative Movement will cease its institutional existence, and patrilineality will cease to be an issue.  Others have suggested that, since Conservatism has always been more of a loose coalition than a true denomination, it will likely split up over current issues such as gay and lesbian ordination.  The progressive wing of the movement would then be free to adopt patrilineal descent, if it so chose.

We at Emunah Avot do not claim to possess a crystal ball.  We do not know whether, 20 or 30 years from now, the Conservative Movement will maintain a separate existencce, or whether it will still be one movement beleaguered by some of its current contradictions.  What we do know is that the present attitude of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, the main halakhic body of the Movement, is one of resistance and recalcitrance when it comes to the patrilineal issue.  Movement leaders still see the question of Jewish descent as one of "maintaining standards", rather than of doing the right thing.  We feel that this attitude requires a dramatic shift if the Movement is to remain vital and relevant to its laity.

Moreover, even if a merger between the Reform and Conservative Movements were to materialize, it is in no way clear that this merger would involve an acceptance of patrilineality.  Even Conservative thinkers who question whether the Movement can still claim to be halakhic, such as Neil Gillman, continue to call on the Reform Movement to drop patrilineality.  Given that Reform communities outside the United States still do not accept patrilineality, it is entirely possible that a merger might involve a rescinding of the policy rather than a reaffirmation.

We at Emunah Avot do not look forward to such a prospect with equanimity.  We feel that any rescinding of patrilineal descent now would be disastrous to the thousands of patrilineal Jews and their families who have depended on this policy, and that rescinding would break a covenant the Reform and Reconstructionist Movements have made with a large portion of their lay people.  Our organization must exist to fight against any such rescision.

Myth 7: Demographics will ultimately for the Jewish community to recognize patrilineal descent, so we don't need to do anything.

Truth: As with the prospect of a merger between Conservative and Reform Judaism, we do not claim to possess a crystal ball.  While it is true that children of intermarriage now constitute a majority of the Jewish community in America, and a growing share in other diaspora communities, this fact has not changed the attitudes of all parts of the Jewish community.

Even if it we could know with certainty that the acceptance of patrilineal descent is an inevitability, it would still be necessary for someone, or some group of someones, to set the wheels of history in motion.  A pot may be left on the stove filled with water, but until someone consciously turns the pot on, it will never boil.  Emunah Avot seeks to light a fire under the pot of the organized Jewish community.

Furthermore, we at Emunah Avot feel that the whole frame of reference within which the issue of patrilineal descent is discussed in the Jewish community needs to be changed.  For too long, this issue has been treated as one of sociology and demography, when it needs to be treated as a serious issue of ethics and morality.  It is a shanda (a deep shame) that it has taken a demographic crisis in American Judaism for the Jewish community even to look at this issue.  Even if the number of intermarriages were far, far smaller, matriineal descent would still be wrong.

Myth 8: Patrilineal descent is a minor ritual issue and has no consequences more serious than someone's being denied the opportunity to celebrate a bar/bat mitzvah in a particular community.

Truth: 300,000 patrilineal Jews from former Soviet republics who have emigrated to Israel under the Law of Return are not considered Jewish by the official rabbinate in Israel.  Accordingly, they are unable to marry within the State of Israel, cannot be buried in Jewish cemeteries, and cannot have a host of other privileges the State of Israel reserves to Jews.  This situation, never envisioned by Israel's founders, should be intolerable to Jews around the world, and to most secular Israelis, it is.  Nonetheless, Jewish policies on descent clearly has effects beyond the denial of ritual honors in an Orthodox or Conservative setting.

For more information on the situation of patrilineal Jews in Israel, see our "Israel" page.

Myth 9: Matrlineal descent is inherently part of halakha, with no dissenting opinions.  To adopt patrilineal descent, the  Conservative movement would have to abandon its commitment to halakha.

The Truth:  Halakha (Jewish law) has changed many times in Jewish history, even in those parts of the community that insist most fervently that it has not.  In recent times, the Conservative Movement has chosen to change halakha with respect not only to such emotionally charged issues as permitting women to function as rabbis and cantors and the permissibility of homosexual sex, but on such minor issues as the permissibility of Jews' eating swordfish and drinking wine made by non-Jews.  We at Emunah Avot ask only that the Conservative Movement treat the spiritual and psychological health of thousands of patrilineal Jews with the same seriousness it devotes to the kashrut (kosher) status of swordfish.

Moreover, the argument that Conservative Judaism cannot adopt patrilineal descent because of its commitment to halakha rests on an assumption that there is a uniform acceptance of, and approach to, halakha within the Conservative Movement.  We at Emunah Avot see at least three stances toward halakha functioning within the Movement simultaneously:

1) The precedent approach, exemplified by such figures as Rabbi Joel Roth, which allows changes in halakha only when these seem to have clear sources and precedents within Jewish texts.

2) The conciliar approach, which asserts that halakha is what the rabbis acting collectively declare it to be, rendering any decision made by the halakhic bodies of the Conservative Movement ipso facto halakhic, whether the changes have clear precedent or not.

3) The progessive approach, exemplified best by Rabbi Neil Gilman, which asserts that the Conservative Movement is not in fact a halakhic movement at all and should not pretend to be.

The adoption of patrilineal descent is clearly consonant with the latter two approaches to halakha within the Conservative movement.  We at Emunah Avot contend that it is also consonant with the first approach, because matrilineal descent itself was a change of earlier Jewish policy determining who is Jewish by birth.