In an article, "When two tribes" (6 Nov. '98), the (London)
Jewish Chronicle quoted Rabbi Dr. Julian Shindler, director
of marriage authorization at the Office of the Chief Rabbi as
stating that "increased rates of assimilation and
intermarriage have made our investigations (into the
eligibility of applicants from non-Orthodox communities to
marry under his office's auspices) more complex." The
statistical basis for this is demonstrated by quoting the
published research of one of the leading ministers of the
British Reform movement which showed conclusively that the
majority of persons born to those married under Reform
auspices would have some disqualification from marrying in an
Orthodox synagogue.
It should be noted that in Britain, the Reform movement is
more similar to the American Conservatives, though it is
affiliated to the World Union for Progressive Judaism, the
international wing of the U.S. Reform movement. There is a
small Masorti movement, affiliated with the U.S.
Conservatives, but which also has close ties with the U.K.
Reform, their principal `rabbi' giving `semichah' to
graduates of the U.K. Progressive `Rabbinic' Seminary. The
equivalent of the American Reform movement in the U.K. is
known as Liberal, which also maintains close relations with
the U.K. Reform movement.
Jonathan Romain obtained a Ph.D. from the University of
Leicester in 1990 for a thesis entitled `The Foundation and
Development of the Rabbinical Court of the Reform Synagogues
of Great Britain, 1935-1965.' He presented a paper based on
his research to the Jewish Historical Society of England on
20 May 1993 which was published in their transactions, volume
XXXIII, pp. 249-263. The material contained in his paper came
as a considerable surprise to me since I had assumed that
most members of the Reform movement were in reality
unquestionably Jewish. (Unless otherwise stated all
references will be to that paper.)
In his introductory comments he writes (p.249) that
originally, "Requests for conversion were rare, and
applicants were sent abroad. After 1875, however, a less
timid attitude prevailed and conversion ceremonies were
carried out in England. Cases at West London synagogue were
still infrequent and whenever one arose an ad hoc
court was created. Halachic requirements were
considered background details that were not necessary to
follow: circumcision was required for males, but
tevilah (`immersion') was not. Sincerity was the
keynote; fulfilling the commandments was regarded as an
additional piety for those that so wished."
Incidentally tevilah was reinstated in 1977 as Dr.
Romain states in his book `Faith and Practice' (RSGB, 1991 p.
15). However, he does not add the proviso that Liberal
proselytes, who do not undergo tevilah, are considered
by them as fully Jewish as it is their policy, "to recognize
proselytes accepted into Judaism by any other Beth
Din."
This situation seems to have continued until the Second World
War. Dr. Romain writes (p. 255) "A significant effect of the
war years was the sharp rise in intermarriage. The extent of
courtship between Jews and non-Jews is evident from the
number of proselyte inquiries at West London Synagogue;
whereas, before the War they numbered 20-30 per annum, by
1942 they had increased to 54 and in 1945 they leapt to 105
inquiries."
A Reform `Beth Din' was established in 1948 to deal
with this problem and Dr. Romain carried out a detailed study
of the cases between 1948 and 1965 as part of his doctoral
research. In `Faith and Practice' (p. 175) he states: "In all
its dealings, the ethos of the Reform Beth Din is to
assist in whatever way possible, and emphasis is laid not
just on fulfilling set procedures."
He found that it dealt with just over 2500 cases in this
period of which, "The number of adult proselytes coming
before the Reform Beth Din indicates a pattern of
steady increase. Thus 40 cases appearing in the first year
rose to 109 cases in 1965. (This figure has remained largely
the same since then.) Only 9 per cent of applicants were
converting purely for love of Judaism itself and with no
other motive to influence their decision. In all other
instances a Jewish partner was involved
Moreover, more than half the Jews concerned had married their
spouses before they converted. The fact that conversion was
an afterthought to marriage for many is shown also by the
large number of young children who converted at the same time
as their mother. "It is noticeable that the overwhelming
number of proselytes were women, with a total of 1120
applicants compared to 229 men. The overall ratio of
approximately five females for every male compares exactly to
Reform conversions in the United States where the same ratio
is found." (p. 257)
From his figures it would appear that about 1150 children
were converted, about two for each married woman. It appears
that these figures do not include adopted non-Jewish children
since he discusses them separately, though he does not give
any indication of the numbers involved. (p. 258)
An even more worrying aspect of the work of the Reform
`Beth Din' is in regard to divorce. Dr. Romain states
(p. 259) that, "In only 14 percent of all cases had the
couple been married in a Reform synagogue -- the other 86
percent coming from Orthodox synagogues. The figure is
slightly lower today -- around 63 percent." These divorces
are obviously not acceptable gittin since, "The Reform
Beth Din took on itself the power to award an
equivalent document despite the objections of either
party."
This accounts for much of the growth of the Reform movement
from 1940 to 1960, as Dr. Romain states (p. 251). "Moreover,
those using the Reform Beth Din also had an even more
considerable impact on the number of marriages performed in
Reform synagogues, which increased dramatically in this
period, whereas Orthodox marriages decreased. If the total
number of proselytes whose conversion was followed by a
marriage (1205) is added to the number of individuals whose
divorce was followed by a remarriage (211), the total sum
accounts for 45 percent of all Reform marriages during that
time (3139)."
The figures cited regarding marriages refer to the years 1940-
60. Since then divorce and intermarriages rates have risen,
so one might expect such disqualified marriages to form an
even larger percentage of the total. Some indications of this
trend are evident from the passages quoted.
Dr. Romain does state that the Reform movement currently
(1993) makes approximately 109 adult conversions each year of
which only 9% are unconnected with a potential marriage,
i.e., about 100 conversions involve someone specifically
converted for this purpose. According to the figures
published by the Community Research Unit of the Board of
Deputies the total number of Reform marriages has declined
from about 190 per year in the late 70's to 160 per year in
the early 90's.
Furthermore, children of couples who had married previously
under Reform auspices will not be included in their
statistics as being anything other than ordinary Jews. We can
estimate the numbers involve from the figures quoted earlier
since in these cases at least one partner would be the child
of a family within that movement. In the early 90's these
amounted to about 60 marriages. According to Dr. Romain, 38%
of marriages between 1940 and 1960 involved a convert of whom
five sixths were female, i.e., 32% would have produced non-
Jewish offspring, making a total of 19 marriages in the early
90's.
In addition there are "the large number of young children who
converted at the same time as their mother" and the rising
number of adopted children whose conversion could not be
sanctioned by the London Beis Din, both referred to
above, for which figures are not available, but would also
have given rise to problems.
Also 7% of the marriages in the earlier period involved a
divorcee whose get was arranged by the Reform Beth
Din, a proportion that almost certainly has increased since,
implying that at least 4 more marriages involved a
mamzer. Though we do not have figures for the number
of marriages involving a current divorcee, it cannot be less
in view of the massive increase in the divorce rate over the
last 30 years, and must therefore exceed 5.
In addition there will probably be others who are
disqualified because of irregularities in previous
generations for which figures are not available, and those
marriages involved a Cohen and a woman specifically
prohibited to him. Thus we see that at least 128 of the 160
(80%) marriages recorded under Reform auspices could not have
taken place in an Orthodox synagogue. Their own admitted
statistics explain Rabbi Dr. Shindler's difficulties in
sanctioning the marriages of their children. The question
that must now be asked is whether it is possible to even
assume that Reform synagogues are any longer congregations of
Jews in any meaningful sense.
