Israeli Law Should Protect Jews But Not Define Judaism

Please note: For another perspective on the decision of the Supreme Court of Israel, see The Supreme Court Decision on Conversions in Israel: Threat or Opportunity for Halakhic Judaism? by Rabbi Ronald Price.

The Israeli Supreme Court’s conversion ruling is being viewed by some as the secular court’s meddling into religious affairs.

Wrong.

While some have assailed the decision as dictating religious law or overruling religious authorities, that is not what the decision did.  Rather, the Court held that when it comes to the Right of Return, which entitles all Jews to Israeli citizenship, the Chief Rabbinate’s restrictive definition of Judaism cannot be the only definition of Judaism.

The Supreme Court’s decision was not only correct but vital to the central purpose of the Right of Return.

The Right of Return is less about a religious litmus test than it is about one’s identification with a people. Established in the shadow of the Holocaust, the return policy was created to ensure all Jews could live in peace and security, free from discrimination.

In this context, it is important to recognize that rabbinic Judaism, let alone any particular understanding of rabbinic Judaism, has never been the only form of Judaism in existence. Long before the denominational divides of today there were the sectarian divisions of the Second Temple period, for instance. And while those sects differed on religious understanding, each saw itself as authentically Jewish.

Indeed, many of the Zionists who fled antisemitism to found the State of Israel did not practice rabbinic Judaism and cared much more about Jewish national identity than religious identity.

To afford the benefits of Israeli citizenship only to those who meet the Chief Rabbinate’s definition of Judaism would be an ahistorical and emphatic abdication of Israel’s most sacred responsibility, which is to ensure that no Jewish person be the victim of discrimination.

This is not, of course, to say that Israel’s only responsibility is to protect Jews. Israel should also facilitate the growth and health of the Jewish community. Here, too, the state should not back any one definition of Judaism. While I pray that the messianic era will lead us to universal agreement as to how best serve our Creator (an amicable pluralism is an option if the Messiah guides us in that direction), I equally pray that until then we avoid using the tools of government to impose one conception of Judaism on one another.

Protecting and supporting Judaism while not deciding among competing definitions of Judaism would be healthy both for Israeli democracy and for Judaism. The current electoral system allows those who prioritize religious control over other political issues to gain outsize power on religious issues – a power that in turn has very real potential to corrupt the “successful” religious authorities. Additionally, the electoral system allows political parties cravenly to capitulate to those religious groups in order to gain power and implement their agenda on other issues.  Theocracy, even when established democratically, has perverse effects on religious and secular policy alike.

Personally, I adhere to what I consider to be a classical form of halakhic Judaism.  I believe that liberal forms of Judaism often emphasize the command of a person’s conscience over the Divine will and thus leave their constituency and, more so, their children, with little reason to see Judaism as an inspiration and guide in their lives. Though I hope that Rabbis Avi Weiss and Marc Angel are correct about their optimistic outlook expressed in the Jerusalem Post (“As Orthodox Rabbis, We Support the Court’s Conversion Ruling”), I am concerned by what an ascendency of Reform and Conservative Judaism in Israel might mean for the future of halakhic Judaism.

On balance, however, the importance of respecting different perspectives on Judaism and avoiding religious oppression are a paramount concern, equally protecting religious Jews from potential oppression at the hands of the state. It is also not lost on me that my particular understanding of halakhah (including regarding conversion) is hardly in favor within the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. To the extent my position would be different if I were in greater agreement with the Chief Rabbinate, shame on me.

There is an old joke that recognizes (perhaps not entirely accurately) that Jews do not have a long history of perpetrating religious oppression for a simple reason: lack of opportunity. The creation of the State of Israel provides the historical opportunity for Jews to avoid antisemitism and religious persecution. I hope that Israel exercises this opportunity in a way that celebrates freedom from religious oppression rather than the freedom to oppress others. Given the complexities of the issues, Israel undoubtedly will fall short of this ideal.  But the Supreme Court’s decision is, in my estimation, a step in the right direction.

Please note: For another perspective on the decision of the Supreme Court of Israel, see The Supreme Court Decision on Conversions in Israel: Threat or Opportunity for Halakhic Judaism? by Rabbi Ronald Price.