Ordinances of the Paris Sanhedrin, Ordinance 3, France, 1807
...The Sanhedrin clarifies that a marriage between Jews and non-Jews conducted in keeping with the civil code is valid for all matters obligatory under the law of the state. And even though it is impossible for such a couple to have a binding kiddushin in keeping with the Mosaic religion, they will not be punished by excommunication.
CCAR RESPONSA American Reform Responsa 6. Participation of Non- Jews in a Jewish Public Service
(1979) QUESTION: To what extent may non-Jews participate in a Jewish public service? (Committee on Education)
ANSWER: In order to answer this question properly, we must first inquire about the status of Christians in Jewish law. It is clear that from the Middle Ages onward, Christians and Moslems were considered as monotheists rather than pagans. The pattern for this may very well have been set by Hiyya bar Abba, who stated that Gentiles outside of the Land of Israel were not to be considered idolaters, but merely as people who were following the practices of their ancestors (Chullin 13b). Maimonides (12th century) viewed Christians and Moslems akin to Benei Noach. In that capacity, they were assisting the preparation for the messianic era (Yad, Hil. Melachim II, Moreh Nevuchim I.71; Responsa, II, no. 448 (ed. Blau). A French contemporary of Maimonides, commenting on Talmud Bechorot 2b, expressed the same feeling about Christians. All placed Christians in these special categories. We should, of course, remember that good treatment and many privileges were extended to pagans in earlier times, both in Israel and in Babylon, mipenei darchei shalom. We comforted their dead, visited their sick, helped their poor, etc. (Git. 59b, 61a; Tur,Choshen Mishpat 266). Proper consideration was to be extended, as they were human beings despite their pagan beliefs.
The classification of Christians as Gerei Toshav had theological implications and also important economic consequences; for example, wine made by a Gentile was permitted to be handled by Ashkenazic Jews. Although it could not be consumed by Jews, Jews could trade in it (Tosafot to San. 63b; Isserles to Sh.A., Y.D. 123.1). Sephardic Jews did not follow this practice and had no pressing need to do so as they were not involved in extensive wine growing and lived among Moslems whose consumption of wine was limited (Maimonides, Responsa, II, no. 448; Tur,Y.D. 124).
As we turn to worship, we must remember that non-Jews were welcome to pray in the ancient Temple and Solomon had already asked that their prayers be heard by God (I Kings 8:41ff). Sacrifices of pagans were acceptable in the Temple (Men. 73b) and the permanent gift of an item such as a Menora to a synagogue was also considered as perfectly acceptable (Arachin 6b). There was nothing improper about a non-Jew handling a Torah or reading from it; it is not subject to ritual uncleanliness (Ber. 22a; Yad, Hil. Sefer Torah X.8; Sh.A., Y.D. 282.9). Statements about Gentiles studying Torah contradict each other; so on the one hand we have the phrase that non-Jews who studied Torah deserved death (i.e., are punishable by heaven), and on the other hand, an individual who studied in this fashion is considered equal to the High Priest (B.K. 38a). In the latter section, we hear of a Roman emperor who sent students to study Torah from the Rabbis. David Hoffman (Melamed Leho-il, Y.D. 77) stated that we should teach everything except specific commandments so that the Gentile not disrespect erring Jews. Despite this friendly attitude of Judaism towards Christianity, all of the traditional authorities made it quite clear that major distinctions continue to exist. Maimonides felt that many Christians were actual idolaters and, therefore, sought to restrict relationships with them (Yad, Hil. Akum X.2) and also prohibited Jews from dealing in any way in Christian wine (Yad, Hil. Ma-achalot Asurot XVII); and he and all the other medieval authorities felt that both Christianity and Islam had mixed strange concepts (shituf) into the absolute unity of God as expressed by Judaism (Isserles to Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 156; Maimonides, Pe-er Hador, 50; etc.). In secular relationships Christians could be treated as Benei Noach,but in religious matters distinctions were to remain.
Now, let us deal with the specific matter of prayer recited by an idolator or a Christian. If an idolator recited a prayer, i.e., a private prayer, in the name of God, those who heard it were to respond with “Amen” (Ber. 44a; Isserles to Sh.A., O.Ch. 215.2). The only references to Christians participating in Jewish public worship in Rabbinic literature which I have been able to find consisted of singers, who honored the bride and groom by singing for them on Shabbat (H. Benvenisti, Keneset Hagedola, quoted in Palligi, Lev Chayim II.9). A similar statement has already been made by Eliezer ben Joel Halevi (Raviah, 796). In these cases, we are dealing with instrumental music played on the Sabbath in honor of the bride and groom by non-Jews. Citations, both for and against this practice, are listed in Sede Chemed,Ma-arechet Chatan Vechala, no. 13.
From Babylonian times onward, public prayers for rulers of the country, parallel to those for scholars and students in the academies, were included in the liturgy and have remained there ever since. These rulers, of course, were pagans, Moslems, or Christians. We, in modern times, have gone a number of steps further than this. For example, we regularly recite the names of non-Jewish dead in the lists of deceased read before the Kaddish. In most cases, these are relatives of converts; although the convert is not duty-bound to mourn for his parents, he should be encouraged to do so out of respect (Yad, Hil. Evel 2.3; Radbaz to Yad; Sh.A., Y.D. 374.5; and many subsequent authorities). We have, however, also added the names of notable Christians from time to time. In addition, we have participated frequently in interfaith services, which have generally been associated with national holidays or events; these have usually been non-liturgical in character, i.e., consisted of Biblical readings and various prayers without following the strict order of the service. Furthermore, we have invited non-Jews, including ministers and priests, to address our congregations during our public services. This practice has been widespread in the Reform and Conservative movements. Thus, there is no doubt that we have included priests, ministers, and non-Jewish participants in our services in a manner not known heretofore. In addition, nowadays, because of intermarriage we find the non-Jewish parent involved in a Bar/Bat Mitzvah. It would be appropriate to have that parent participate in some way in the service, but not in the same way as a Jewish parent. For example, he or she should not recite the traditional blessing over the Torah which includes the words “asher bachar banu.” It would be well if he/she recite a special blessing, perhaps akin to the words suggested by Solomon B. Freehof: “Praised be Thou, Lord our God, King of the Universe, Who has given His sacred law unto all His children that we may learn, observe, and serve Him in righteousness” (Current Reform Responsa,p. 91).
We have, therefore, gone much further than any generation before our time by permitting non-Jews a larger role in our public services; this is part of a more open and friendly interreligious attitude which the Reform Movement has encouraged and led. Yet, these steps have remained within definite limits. We have not included non-Jews, no matter how friendly, in the essential elements of the service. If we follow the line of reasoning which divides between the essential service and supplemental prayers and statements, we may conclude that Christians, Moslems, and other non-Jews who fall into the category of Benei Noach may participate in a public service in any of the following ways:
(1) through anything which does not require specific statement from them, i.e., by standing and silently witnessing whatever is taking place (e.g., as a member of a wedding party or as a pallbearer);
(2) through the recitation of special prayers added to the service at nonliturgical community wide services, commemorations, and celebrations (Thanksgiving, etc.);
(3) through the recitation of prayers for special family occasions (Bar/Bat Mitzvahof children raised as Jews, at a wedding or funeral, etc.).
All such prayers and statements should reflect the mood of the service and be non-Christological in nature.
Walter Jacob, Chairman
Leonard S. Kravitz
Eugene Lipman
Harry A. Roth
Rav A. Soloff
Bernard Zlotowitz W. Gunther Plaut
Rick Jacobs: “Intermarriage is Fact of Jewish Life — Not Disease.”Forward. Feb 3 2014.
(JTA) — All in favor of a strong Jewish future say “aye.” On that core question, there is resounding unanimity, but there have been some unnecessarily polarizing articles in the Jewish press suggesting that we have to select either endogamy or outreach.
Nonsense! Such binary thinking reduces a multi-dimensional and complex reality to a false choice.
At the Union for Reform Judaism Biennial in San Diego a few weeks back, I challenged Jewish leaders to stop speaking “about intermarriage as if it were a disease. It is not.” I do not know how any serious observer of American Jewish life can believe that in the aftermath of the Pew Research Center’s study of Jewish Americans and other surveys, intermarriage is anything but a reality of Jewish life.
Many characterize intermarriage as the result of assimilation. There is some obvious truth in this view, but I believe that higher intermarriage rates are largely the result of the open society in which we are privileged to live.
The sociology is clear enough. Anti-Semitism is down. Jews feel welcome. We mix easily with others. So, of course, there are high intermarriage rates.
The pressing question is, how do we respond? High intermarriage rates require a thoughtful response. Delivering endless sermons about the importance of endogamy — or making apocalyptic arguments — is not going to dissuade young people from falling in love with someone who is not Jewish. If that were the case, we would not be where we are today.
Intensifying and deepening Jewish engagement for the next generation is an essential undertaking that forms the cornerstone of “Inspired Engagement,” our large-scale, new URJ response. Our new youth engagement strategies reflect our broadly inclusive definition of Jewish community that seeks to include, educate and embrace, among others, children of interfaith families. . . .
While other voices will surely proclaim that endogamy is the only effective way to have a committed Jewish family, the Reform movement has something altogether different to say: Jewish commitment can be established in a variety of settings, especially with support and increased opportunity for learning and engaging. Falling in love with someone who is not Jewish is not a failure of Jewish commitment at a time when young adult lives are just beginning.
How congregations and rabbis do this holy work varies, but today it is an axiom of Reform Judaism that we take on the work of inclusion every day. Some rabbis officiate at interfaith weddings; others do not. But either way, thoughtful, content-rich outreach must become the gold standard of our Jewish communities. ...
CCAR RESPONSA American Reform Responsa 146. Reform Judaism and Mixed Marriage
(Vol. XC, 1980, pp. 86-102) QUESTION: May a Reform rabbi officiate at a marriage between a Jew and a non-Jew? What is the attitude of Reform Judaism generally to such a marriage?
ANSWER: Reform Judaism has been firmly opposed to mixed marriages. This was true in the last century and in this century. At its New York meeting in 1909, the Central Conference of American Rabbis passed the following resolution: “The Central Conference of American Rabbis declares that mixed marriages are contrary to the tradition of the Jewish religion and should, therefore, be discouraged by the American rabbinate” (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 19, p. 170). This resolution was reaffirmed as part of a lengthy report in 1947 (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 57, p. 161). A considerably stronger resolution was passed in Atlanta in 1973. Its text reads as follows:
The Central Conference of American Rabbis, recalling its stand adopted in 1909 “that mixed marriage is contrary to the Jewish tradition and should be discouraged,” now declares its opposition to participation by its members in any ceremony which solemnizes a mixed marriage.
The Central Conference of American Rabbis recognizes that historically its members have held and continue to hold divergent interpretations of Jewish tradition. In order to keep open every channel to Judaism and K’lal Yisraelfor those who have already entered into mixed marriage, the CCAR calls upon its members:
1. to assist fully in educating children of such mixed marriage as Jews;
2. to provide the opportunity for conversion of the non-Jewish spouse; and
3. to encourage a creative and consistent cultivation of involvements in the Jewish community and the synagogue. (CCAR Yearbook, vol. 83, p. 97)
These resolutions clearly state the position of the Reform rabbinate in this matter. They reflect only the latest steps in the long struggle against mixed marriage which began in Biblical times and will now be traced as background for this resolution.
Walter Jacob, Chairman
Eugene J. Lipman
W. Gunther Plaut
Harry A. Roth
Rav A. Soloff
Bernard Zlotowitz
BIBLICAL SOURCES, from R. Ethan Tucker, Hadar Institute, Lectures on Interfaith Marriage 2018
(11) Mark well what I command you this day. I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. (12) Beware of making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land against which you are advancing, lest they be a snare in your midst. (13) No, you must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, and cut down their sacred posts; (14) for you must not worship any other god, because the LORD, whose name is Impassioned, is an impassioned God. (15) You must not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for they will lust after their gods and sacrifice to their gods and invite you, and you will eat of their sacrifices. (16) And when you take wives from among their daughters for your sons, their daughters will lust after their gods and will cause your sons to lust after their gods.
(א) וּבְכָל־זֹ֕את אֲנַ֛חְנוּ כֹּרְתִ֥ים אֲמָנָ֖ה וְכֹתְבִ֑ים וְעַל֙ הֶֽחָת֔וּם שָׂרֵ֥ינוּ לְוִיֵּ֖נוּ כֹּהֲנֵֽינוּ׃
(לא) וַאֲשֶׁ֛ר לֹא־נִתֵּ֥ן בְּנֹתֵ֖ינוּ לְעַמֵּ֣י הָאָ֑רֶץ וְאֶת־בְּנֹ֣תֵיהֶ֔ם לֹ֥א נִקַּ֖ח לְבָנֵֽינוּ׃
(1) “In view of all this, we make this pledge and put it in writing; and on the sealed copy [are subscribed] our officials, our Levites, and our priests. ... (31) “Namely: We will not give our daughters in marriage to the peoples of the land, or take their daughters for our sons.
(1) At that time they read to the people from the Book of Moses, and it was found written that no Ammonite or Moabite might ever enter the congregation of God, (2) since they did not meet Israel with bread and water, and hired Balaam against them to curse them; but our God turned the curse into a blessing. (3) When they heard the Teaching, they separated all the alien admixture from Israel.
SECOND TEMPLE SOURCES, from R. Ethan Tucker, Hadar Institute, Lectures on Interfaith Marriage 2018
Josephus, Antiquities VIII
But although Solomon was become the most glorious of kings, and the best beloved by God, and had exceeded in wisdom and riches those that had been rulers of the Hebrews before him, yet did not he persevere in this happy state till he died…He grew mad in his love of women, and laid no restraint on himself in his lusts; nor was he satisfied with the women of his country alone, but he married many wives out of foreign nations; Sidontans, and Tyrians, and Ammonites, and Edomites; and he transgressed the laws of Moses, which forbade Jews to marry any but those that were of their own people. He also began to worship their gods, which he did in order to the gratification of his wives, and out of his affection for them. This very thing our legislator suspected, and so admonished us beforehand, that we should not marry women of other countries, lest we should be entangled with foreign customs, and apostatize from our own; lest we should leave off to honor our own God, and should worship their gods.
I Corinthians 7
12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
RABBINIC SOURCES, from R. Ethan Tucker, Hadar Institute, Lectures on Interfaith Marriage 2018
באלי אמר אבימי נותאה משמיה דרב פיתן ושמנן יינן ובנותיהן כולן משמונה עשר דבר הן בנותיהן מאי היא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק גזרו על בנותיהן נידות מעריסותן וגניבא משמיה דרב אמר כולן משום עבודת כוכבים גזרו בהן דכי אתא רב אחא בר אדא א"ר יצחק גזרו על פיתן משום שמנן מאי אולמיה דשמן מפת אלא על פיתן ושמנן משום יינן ועל יינן משום בנותיהן ועל בנותיהן משום דבר אחר ועל דבר אחר משום ד"א בנותיהן דאורייתא היא דכתיב (דברים ז, ג) לא תתחתן בם דאורייתא ז' אומות אבל שאר עובדי כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו וגזור אפילו דשאר עובדי כוכבים ולר"ש בן יוחי דאמר (דברים ז, ד) כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי לרבות כל המסירות מאי איכא למימר אלא דאורייתא אישות דרך חתנות ואתו אינהו גזור אפילו דרך זנות זנות נמי בבית דינו של שם גזרו דכתיב (בראשית לח, כד) ויאמר יהודה הוציאוה ותשרף אלא דאורייתא עובד כוכבים הבא על בת ישראל דמשכה בתריה אבל ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים לא ואתו אינהו גזור אפי' ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים הלכה למשה מסיני היא דאמר מר הבועל ארמית קנאין פוגעין בו א"ל דאורייתא בפרהסיא וכמעשה שהיה ואתו אינהו גזור אפילו בצינעא בצינעא נמי בית דינו של חשמונאי גזרו [דכי אתא רב דימי אמר ב"ד של חשמונאי גזרו] ישראל הבא על העובדת כוכבים חייב משום נשג"א כי אתא רבין אמר משום נשג"ז כי גזרו בית דינו של חשמונאי ביאה אבל ייחוד לא ואתו אינהו גזור אפי' ייחוד
- Said Bali said Avimi Nota’ah in the name of Rav: Their bread, their wine, their oil and their daughters are all part of the 18 things…
- And Geneivah in the name of Rav said: They were all banned on account of idolatry, for when R. Aha b. Ada came he reported in the name of R. Yitzhak: They banned…their bread and oil on account of their wine, and their wine on account of their daughters and their daughters on account of another thing and another thing because of another thing.
“Their daughters”—This is Biblical, for it is written, “Do not marry them” (Devarim 7:3)!
- The Biblical ordinance is restricted to the seven nations and does not include other
Gentiles/idolaters; [the Houses of Hillel and Shammai] came and decreed against these also.
- But according to R. Shimon b. Yohai who held that the words, “For he will turn your son away from following me” (Devarim 7:4) come to include all women who would turn [their husbands aside], what is there to say?
- Rather, the Biblical ordinance is against intercourse through marriage, and [the Houses of Shammai and Hillel] banned even casual intercourse.
- But the decree against such casual intercourse had already been made by the Court of Shem, for it is written, “And Yehudah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt” (Bereishit 38:24)!
- Rather, the Biblical ordinance refers to a female Jew having intercourse with a male Gentile/idolater since she would be drawn aȅer him, but not against a male Jew having intercourse with a female Gentile/idolater. [The Houses of Shammai and Hillel] banned even the latter.
- But [the prohibition against] a male Jew having intercourse with a female Gentile/idolater is a law of Moses from Sinai, for [the Mishnah says]: If [a male Jew] has intercourse with a heathen woman, zealots may attack him!
- The Biblical ordinance refers to a public act as was the case [in the story of Zimri]; [the Houses of Shammai and Hillel] banned even a private act.
- But the Court of the Hasmoneans had already banned a private act; for when R. Dimi came [from the land of Israel] he reported: The Court of the Hasmoneans decreed that a male Jew who had intercourse with a female Gentile/idolater is liable…
- The Court of the Hasmoneans banned intercourse but not being in private seclusion; [the Houses of Shammai and Hillel] banned even this.
(א) כותית אע"פ שאין בה לאו אסורה מדרבנן ואם בא עליה בזנות דרך מקרה מכין אותו מכות מרדות ואם יחדה לו בזנות חייב עליה מדרבנן משום נדה ומשום שפחה ומשום עכו"ם ומשום זונה כתב הרמב"ם ז"ל בא על הכותית משאר העכו"ם דרך אישות לוקה מן התורה או ישראלית שנבעלה לעכו"ם דרך אישות לוקה מן התורה משום לא תתחתן בם אחד ז' עכו"ם ואחד כל העכו"ם באיסור זה ע"כ ונ"ל שאינו אלא בז' עכו"ם דלא קי"ל כרבי שמעון דאמר כי יסיר לרבות כל המסירין
A Gentile woman, even though she is not forbidden by the Torah, is forbidden on rabbinic authority…
Rambam wrote: If a Jew has relations with a Gentile/idolater of one of the other nations in the context of marriage, s/he violates a Biblical prohibition, as it says, “Do not marry them; do not give your daughter to his son nor take his daughter for your son.” This law applies to the seven nations [of C’na’an] as well as to all the other nations.
But it seems to me that this only applies to the seven nations, for we do not follow R. Shimon, who said: “For he will cause your son to go astray”—this includes all those who lead you astray.
(א) איזהו גר תושב כל שקבל עליו שלא לעבוד ע"ז דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר כל שקבל עליו שלא להיות אוכל נבילות:
(ב) רוקו ומושבו ומשכבו ומי רגליו טמאין עיסתו ושמנו ויינו טהורים ועובר על בל תונה ובל תעשוק ובל תלין פעולת שכיר.
(ג) אין משיאין לו ולא נושאין ממנו נשים ולא מלוין אותו ולא לוין ממנו ברבית:
(ד) אין מושיבין אותו בספר ולא בנוה רע אלא בנוה יפה באמצע א"י במקום שאמנותו יוצאת שנאמר (דברים כג) עמך ישב בקרבך במקום אשר יבחר וכו׳:
(ה) כל ערוה שישראל מצווין עליה מיתת ב"ד אין הגרים מצווין עליה:
(ו) הא כיצד היה נשוא אחות אמו ואת אחותה (אמו) מאם רמ"א יוציא וחכ"א יקיים א' מהן:
(1) Who is a ger toshav? Anyone who commits to avoiding foreign/idol worship, according to R. Meir.
(2) R. Yehudah says: anyone who commits not to eat animal carcasses.
(3) His spit, the items he sits and lies on and his urine are impure, his bread, oil and wine are pure. He is under the rubric of the ban on monetary deception, oppression and delaying workers’ wages.
(4) One does not marry [off Jewish women] to him, nor does one marry women from him. One may not lend or borrow from him on interest.
(5) He is not to be settled on the border, nor in a bad neighborhood, rather in a good neighborhood in the middle of the land of Israel, in a place where he can make a living, for it says: “He shall dwell with you in your midst, in a place of his choosing, in one of your town where it is good for him. Do not oppress him.”…
דריש רבי שמלאי בנציבין שמן ר' יהודה ובית דינו נמנו עליו והתירוהו ... ור' יהודה הנשיא היכי מצי למישרא תקנתא דתלמידי שמאי והלל והתנן אין בית דין יכול לבטל דברי בית דין חבירו אלא אם כן גדול הימנו בחכמה ובמנין ועוד הא אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר' יוחנן בכל יכול לבטל בית דין דברי בית דין חבירו חוץ משמונה עשר דבר שאפילו יבא אליהו ובית דינו אין שומעין לו אמר רב משרשיא מה טעם הואיל ופשט איסורו ברוב ישראל שמן לא פשט איסורו ברוב ישראל דאמר רבי שמואל בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן ישבו רבותינו ובדקו על שמן שלא פשט איסורו ברוב ישראל וסמכו רבותינו על דברי רשב"ג ועל דברי רבי אלעזר בר צדוק שהיו אומרים אין גוזרין גזירה על הצבור אא"כ רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בהץ
...R. Simlai publicly taught in Netzivin: Gentile Oil—R. Yehudah and his court voted on it and permitted it…
How could R. Yehudah HaNasi permit an ordinance from the students of Shammai and Hillel? Is it not taught: “A court cannot annul the words of another court unless it is greater than it in number and wisdom! Furthermore, didn’t Rabbah bb. Hannah say in the name of R. Yohanan: One court can annul the words of another court on any matter except the 18 things [decreed by Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel]—even if Eliyahu and his court come [and try to overturn them] we do not heed them!
Said R. Mesharshya: Why? Because these decrees spread throughout most of Israel; the ban on oil did not spread throughout most of Israel...and our masters relied on the words of R. Shimon b. Gamliel and the words of R. Elazar bar Tzadok, who used to say: You do not decree a decree on the community unless most of the community can uphold it...
SOURCES ON NON-JEWS IN THE JEWISH COMMUNITY from R. Amichai Lau-Lavie's Joy: A Proposal. 2017
(ז) גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב וְהוּא שֶׁקִּבֵּל עָלָיו שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ יֵינוֹ אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וּמְיַחֲדִין אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן וְאֵין מַפְקִידִין אֶצְלוֹ יַיִן. וְכֵן כָּל עַכּוּ''ם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹבֵד עַכּוּ''ם כְּגוֹן אֵלּוּ הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִים יֵינָן אָסוּר בִּשְׁתִיָּה וּמֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה. וְכֵן הוֹרוּ כָּל הַגְּאוֹנִים. אֲבָל אוֹתָם הָעוֹבְדִים עַכּוּ''ם סְתַם יֵינָם אָסוּר בַּהֲנָיָה:
(7) A Ger Toshav -- He who has accepted the Seven Mitzvot of the sons of Noah, as we have explained -- it is prohibited to drink his wine, but it is permitted to derive benefit from it. And one may leave wine with him briefly, but not for a long time. And so too any Gentile who does not worship the stars and the constellations, such as the Ishmaelites, their wine may not be drunk, but one may derive benefit from it. And such instructed all the Geonim. But those who worship the stars and the constellations, one may not derive benefit from their wine.
Rabbi Menachem ben Solomon Meiri, 13th century Provence
Anyone who belongs to those people that are bound by proper customs and serve God in some way, even if their faith is distant from ours…are to be considered in exactly the same way as Jews with regard to these things…With no differentiation at all.
(טז) אָ֧ז נִדְבְּר֛וּ יִרְאֵ֥י ה' אִ֣ישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵ֑הוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁ֤ב ה' וַיִּשְׁמָ֔ע וַ֠יִּכָּתֵב סֵ֣פֶר זִכָּר֤וֹן לְפָנָיו֙ לְיִרְאֵ֣י ה' וּלְחֹשְׁבֵ֖י שְׁמֽוֹ׃
In 1921, Vienna’s Chief Rabbi Zvi Perez Chayes researched Yirei HaShem with an eye towards the evolving realities of his own community. In his analysis of Psalm 115, he writes:
This is a clear proof, supporting what we know from Jewish-Hellenistic literature, that these Partial-Gentiles had a reserved section in the temple, apart from the sections for Israelites, Levites and Priests. This is a clear proof that they are not part of Israel but are foreigners, partial converts, who are Jewish according to the essence of their faith, and therefore present for Jewish worship.
WHERE TO WE GO?
Shai Cohen, Gentiles in our Midst:
Intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles did occur from time to time in antiquity, but it was not common - it was certainly far less common than it is today. The phenomenon of gentiles in our midst through intermarriage is modern, not ancient. But the pre-rabbinic world of antiquity provides a parallel to the post rabbinical world of today in that in antiquity rabbinic norms did not yet define, and today they no longer define, the boundaries of the Jewish community... According to rabbinic law there is no such thing as a ‘half Jew’, but n American society there is a growing category of people who regards themselves as ‘Half-Jews’. Our post rabbinic world mirrors the pre rabbinic world of antiquity.