By Victor Rosenthal
Israel’s Supreme Court decided a few days ago that conversions to Judaism by the Reform and Conservative movements in Israel must be recognized by the state for the purposes of the Law of Return. Until now, the state has somewhat illogically recognized non-Orthodox conversions done outside of the country, but has not accepted those that took place here.
Despite what many of us think about the Court, it did not make this decision out of rampant leftism and desire to destroy Judaism. In fact, the justices probably would have preferred not to have to take up this issue, which is the hottest potato in Israeli politics.
At the time of the founding of the state David Ben Gurion negotiated a historic agreement with the religious Agudat Israel party in return for its support. This compromise, which is often referred to as the “status quo,” included stipulations about state observance of Shabbat and kashrut, separate streams of education, and – very significantly – that the state would “satisfy the needs of the religiously observant” in connection with “marital affairs.” This came to mean that the Haredi-dominated Chief Rabbinate (the Rabbanut) would be the sole authority concerning marriage, divorce, burial, and so on, of Israeli Jews.
Until recently, the only authority in Israel whose conversions to Judaism were recognized for any purpose was the Rabbanut. About 15 years ago, two petitions were filed with the Court by people who were denied citizenship under the law of return because they had non-Orthodox conversions to Judaism in Israel. At that time, the Court said that it was up to the Knesset to legislate the conversion issue, which was problematic for many reasons besides immigration, and set a deadline for it to do so.
One of the most pressing aspects was that a large percentage of the roughly one million Russian immigrants to Israel were not accepted as Jewish by the Rabbanut, although they had been considered Jewish by the state for the purposes of immigration. Documentation of Jewish parentage was very hard to obtain in the former Soviet Union, where records had been destroyed during the war, and where the Soviet government had discouraged the practice of Judaism. Orthodox conversion via the Rabbanut was long, difficult, and required the adoption of a Haredi lifestyle which many secular Russian Jews were not willing to adopt – although they considered themselves part of the Jewish people (and so did almost everyone else). But if they weren’t Jewish according to the Rabbanut, then they and their descendants were unable to marry, divorce, or be buried in the Jewish part of a cemetery (unless they served in the IDF!)
In order to solve this problem (and satisfy the Supreme Court), various arrangements and compromises were proposed, involving the establishment of Orthodox (but not Haredi) conversion courts outside the control of the Rabbanut. This was shut down by the political power of the religious parties. Conversions in Israel still had to be under the auspices of the Rabbanut. In 2016, the Supreme Court decided that private, Orthodox conversions in Israel would be recognized by the state – but only for the purposes of the Law of Return, and not for matters of family law.
But the old petitions of the Reform and Conservatives Jews had still not been acted upon after 15 years, and the Knesset, after the appointment of a commission and countless extensions of the Supreme Court’s deadline, still had not legislated on the matter. It became clear that the religious parties would continue to stonewall any attempts to introduce leniency into the conversion process. Former Justice Minister Moshe Nissim, who headed the legislative commission, said,
At the time I proposed establishing courts for conversion and determined that the conversion would be done according to Torah law and the judges would be certified by the Chief Rabbinate … They didn’t accept the proposal because the words “under the supervision of the Chief Rabbinate” did not appear in it.
So the Supreme Court had no choice but to rule, and in light of its prior decision to accept Orthodox conversions outside the Rabbanut and not wanting to be put in the position of deciding which branches of Judaism were legitimate, extended its recognition to Reform and Conservative conversions.
Practically speaking, the ruling has little effect. It does not include family law and other matters, which remain under the control of the Rabbanut. Very few people in Israel who are not citizens convert to Judaism via the Reform or Conservative movements; the movements say they number 30 or 40 a year.
But the decision is symbolically important, because it constitutes a form of state recognition of the Reform and Conservative movements as Jewish institutions, something that Haredim and many other Orthodox Jews do not accept any more than they accept “Jews for Jesus.” They especially object to what they see as the liberal movements’ lax standards for conversion and recognition of a person’s Judaism.
Full-time rabbis of larger congregations in Israel receive salaries from the state, but until 2014 only Orthodox rabbis were eligible. In response to a petition by a (female) Reform rabbi, the Supreme Court decided that Reform and Conservative rabbis must be included. The government had no choice but to comply, but the religious parties insisted that the payments come from the Ministry of Culture and Sport rather than the Ministry of Religious Services!
***
So now I will give my personal opinion: the Rabbanut has always been Orthodox, but it has not always been Haredi. The organization today is corrupt, slow, and intolerant, and needs to be at least reformed (not Reformed!) and possibly abolished. I believe the refusal to permit Orthodox conversions outside of the Rabbanut is harmful and should be ended, as well as the Rabbanut’s monopoly on kashrut certification. I would also like to see an option for civil marriage and divorce in addition to traditional religious marriage. It’s ridiculous that many Israelis have to jump through demeaning hoops or leave the country to get married.
What about Reform and Conservative Judaism? I think a good argument can be made that Conservative Judaism is just a less stringent form of Judaism, while the Reform Movement practices a different religion from Judaism. Here are some relevant comparisons:
Early Christianity was an offshoot of Judaism. Beginning with a significant theological divergence – the attribution of divinity to Jesus – it continued to diverge by the introduction of extreme leniency in practice and the mass incorporation of formerly pagan converts. By the time of Constantine, and probably well before then, nobody would have said that Christianity and Judaism are the “same religion.” Protestantism (which is in itself very diverse) was a later offshoot of Catholicism. There are many theological and practical differences, but the most essential part – the human need for salvation from sin that is provided by Jesus – remained. Most people agree that they are both forms of Christianity.
Now consider Unitarian Universalism, an even more recent offshoot of Protestantism. It has abandoned the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. Today’s Unitarian Universalists do not identify as Christian, and may even be atheists. They have crossed the line and now explicitly practice a “different religion.”
Rabbinical Judaism became the primary form of Judaism after the destruction of the Temple. It added to the monotheism and narrative of the Jewish people that had previously characterized Judaism alongside the Temple ritual, an elaboration and codification of the mitzvot found in the Torah. This became the halacha, the laws for Jewish living. Halacha became an essential part of Judaism.
Jews living in Eretz Yisrael and in the various parts of the diaspora placed emphasis on different parts of the halacha or observed it more or less stringently. However, Reform Judaism, from the moment of its creation, rejected the idea that there is an obligation of any sort to follow halacha. The famous “Trefa Banquet” held in honor of the first graduating class of Hebrew Union College in 1883 was not significant because Reform rabbis ate non-kosher food, but rather because it demonstrated that they did not consider themselves bound by halacha. Their deliberate action defined them not as nonobservant or even “bad” Jews, but as Jews who had stopped observing Judaism.
Since then, the Reform Movement has replaced halacha with a different moral code, one which is very similar to that of Unitarian Universalists and other liberal and progressive people, emphasizing values like diversity, environmentalism, gender and racial equality, and so on. Indeed it is often hard to tell the difference between Reform Jews and Unitarians, and I am acquainted with numerous people that have moved from one to the other faith. But unlike the Unitarians, the Reform Movement does not admit how far it’s come from its roots.
The Conservative Movement observes halacha, although its rabbis have – especially in America – issued halachic rulings that are more lenient than Orthodox Judaism; for example that it is permissible to drive to the synagogue (but only there) on Shabbat. However, if a line must be drawn between Judaism and not-Judaism, I would place the Conservatives on the side of Judaism – and the Reform movement on the other.
***
The Supreme Court’s decision will change little. The Russian immigrants are already citizens. What they need is to be able to be married (and buried) like anyone else. It would be good for all of us if this could be achieved by making it possible for them to affirm their Jewish identity.
As a point of fact, Conservative Judaism is an offshoot of Reform Judaism so the conjecture that it is just lax Orthodox Judaism is not rationally possible.
It chiefly differs in observance by returning to Kosher rules, which the Reform movement famously abolished at its outset with a treif buffet, back in the 19th century.
Anyone can observe the 613 mitzvot and still not be Halachically Jewish. And any Jew can flout every single such rule and remain a Jew in the eyes of those who assiduously safeguard those rules. These facts alone serve to demonstrate just how absurd it is for the State to get involved in enforcing those rules.
Israel is a secular state. It should not support the Rabbinate through either law or funding, nor should it do so for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, the Muslim Waqf, or any other such organization. Currently the Israeli taxpayer is on the hook for all of these by indirectly supporting their supposed legitimacy through law, through law enforcement, and other civil means.
Surely the promises made at the incept of the Jewish State have been honored long enough and the Rabbinate can and will carry on as a fully private organization, while Jews in Israel, as elsewhere in the world, can choose to what extent they align with the Rabbinate’s diktats regarding, inter alia, who is and is not a Jew.
@ Edgar G.:
Yes. He is also “in charge” of the Ethiopian “Jews”.
I don’t know about the rest of them but the Ethiopian ones (at least the more recent ones) are not Jews, many of them are, in fact, Christians.
I want to be careful when judging whether someone is a Jew or not but in this case, I believe, it is merely a rich guy’s pet project.
Well, it’s his money to spend as he wants.
What does the Rabbanut say about his activities?
milhouse Said:
I used to go to the Conservative Shool in Victoria B.C, because there was no Orthodox shool. It was Orthodox originally but over the years……
It is named Temple Emanu-El and the oldest shool appparently on the whole Nth. American Pacific coast, .. Built in the 1850s, like a Church from the outside, becuse that was the kind of shool acchitecture then. I don’t know why, maybe they were trying to imitate the goyim. They call it Romanesque Revival style. The congregation was full of competing “machers”.. sooo…
we, who drove 80 miles to get there were outsiders*, and treated accordingly. but our 4 children needed bar and batmitzvahs so for about 4-5 years, weekly we had done the 160 miles trip, as well as attending shool on shabat. ( *I think their gripe was because they couldn’t figure out how much money we had)
I and 4-5 others quit when the Rabbi (I think his name was Weinstein) “married” 2 lesbians, not in the shool but I think in his office. We then started an orthodox shool named Aish HaTorah, which attracted other members, and today is thriving.
@ Reader:
You mean Myanmar “Jews” (Christian/Animist/Cannibal “Jews”) as per Michael Freund and his purchased “Rabbi”.
There us a misstatement in the article regarding the Jews from the Soviet Union.
EVERY resident of the USSR had his ethnicity stated in the passport (at least after the war), and his ethnicity AND that of both of his parents – on his birth certificate, which is unique in the world except for Hitler’s Germany.
In fact, there are a lot of Jews from there whose passport states “Russian” or whatever (for various reasons) when it should properly say “Jew”.
The difficulty in obtaining “the documentation of Jewish parentage” in their case has to do with the RELIGIOUS documentation (which the Rabbanut demands), a lot of which (and a lot of the Jewish cemeteries with their documentation) was either destroyed during various wars and upheavals or was simply non-existent because the people had to live secular lives and have civil marriages, burials, etc, for 2-3 generations (however, everybody knew who-was-who, so to speak).
It looks like the Russian Jews are a favorite whipping boy in Israel because the same people who hate “Russian” Jews are mortally afraid to state the truth – that if Israel got rid of 2 million Arabs within the Green Line and of the countless foreign workers and infiltrators, they would have room for another 2-3 million Jews (if the Rabbanut would graciously agree to let them in, of course).
Plus, they don’t have tons of money money (which talks and does a lot of other interesting things for those who have it – like letting them bring in Ethiopian “Jews”).
@ vivarto:
Your post is ambiguously stupid or idiotic..There is no mythology in any part of the Torah from the time of at least King David . His existence has been authenticated and his palace found and dated. Also the secret tunnel by which he and his men gained entrance to Jerusalem when he captured it AS DESCRIBED IN THE TORAH.
A person cannot be come a Jew by naturalization, but by conversion by Halachic Authorities. The Laws handed down from On High to Moses are first class methods of social engineering, and a complete way of life for those who follow them. The accretions can be recognised as such by their foolishness and their contrariness to human comfort. Which is how the many secular Jews interpret their Jusaism….. Some religious Jews also.
Just my reactionary opinion……..
LOOK at who and how American Reform Judaism originated in Albany, NY. Local businessmen asked a poorly educated immigration local rabbi (Weiss?) for exemptions from external appearances of being a Jew for economic gain purposes. The exemptions progressed from there until the exemptions swalled the Rule of Sacred Laws, customs, habits, language of prayer, even the origins of the prayer service. It’s not even a shadow of Judaism, except to the extent that in a few generations more it will be a ghost. It adopts the protestants’ method of finance. They once proposed moving services, the few they conduct, to Sunday! What are they converting to? “Save the World”, a kabbalastic add-on is their motto while they can’t save themselves from extinction.
judaism has three legs
1. the people of Israel
2. The land of Israel
3 The torah
I want the Torah to be at the center of Judaism just like the constitution is at the center of American patriotism. I don’t care who authored it.
Paul rejected the Law and his followers did likewise. In 92 AD they were excommunicated from the Synagogue.
That doesn’t mean that I have to follow the law but I can not replace it with another law. Judaism is what it is.
Ted, Conservative is just as alien to Judaism as Reform is. Conservatives cover a range of theological beliefs, but even the most small-c conservative of them does not believe that the Torah is true. They do not believe that G-d appeared to the entire Jewish nation on Mt Sinai and commanded us to keep His laws, or that He later dictated the Torah (or even any part of it) to Moshe. They believe that the Torah was authored by human beings. They do not believe that the sacrifices mandated by the Torah will be restored in the rebuilt Temple, and they do not believe that the dead will be resurrected. A Conservative “rabbi” who had a Jewish mother is a Jew only in the same sense as Cardinals Lustiger and O’Connor were; and many are not Jews even in that sense.
If you look for the religions most similar to Judaism, the Sikh religion comes close; “Conservative Judaism” is less similar than some forms of Protestantism; and Reform is less similar than almost any form of Christianity or Islam.
@ vivarto:
Except that “naturalization” can only be performed by those authorized by Jewish law to do so, and requires that the candidate sincerely accept the truth of the Jewish religion and the obligation to obey Jewish law.
“Converting” without that sincere acceptance is like being naturalized a US citizen while crossing ones fingers when reciting the oath. And converting before a Conservative or Reform “beit din” is like being “naturalized” by some random person who is not a US judge or an official of the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, and may not even be a US citizen.
Ted, the question, “Who is a Jew” is inconsequential if not moot. Non-halachically-observant Jews are disappearing off the face of the earth and they are certainly not moving to Israel in droves. The bigger issue is the many Christians who might wnat an easy way to conversion so that they can be right there, ready and waiting, when the second coming occurs.
A Jew is a member of the Israelite nation (“Jewish” nation)
Membership is inherited from parents, and can also be acquired by naturalization.
The so called “religion” is our national mythology and history.
Beyond that “Judaism” is just as stupid as every other “ism”.
A Jew is a Jew whether he subscribes to some ism on another or none.