![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
Abstract
The fierce debate over conversion to Judaism raging in Israel today has been fuelled by the Israeli Law of Return and the resulting immigration of large numbers of non-Jews to Israel from the Soviet Union. It has precedents, however, in earlier rabbinic literature. This paper traces the conversion debate from its Talmudic origins, through the nineteenth century halakhic polemic, to the present day. It demonstrates how the processes of secularization and nationalism that have affected the Jewish community have impacted on a changing balance in the roles of religion and nationalism in the definition of “who is a Jew” and “who is a convert?” It also shows how halakhic rulings are affected by social changes and how the ideologies of halakhic authorities impact their decisions.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Prof Adam Ferziger and Dr Miri Freud-Kandel for inviting me to join the research group on Orthodoxy which they organized in 2013 at the Oxford Center for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. The group, and especially the academic leadership of Adam and Miri, created a unique environment for research, thinking and writing. This article is one of the fruits of that initiative.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. This law realizes the article in the Declaration of Independence of the State of Israel which established that the Jewish state “will be open to Jewish immigration and the ingathering of the exiles.” Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion expressed that the Law of Return embodies the historical right of every Jew to return to his homeland (Knesset Protocol 6 (1948), 2035–3040). Years later, Chief Justice Barak described it as one of the most important pieces of legislation (H.C. 9579/99 Rodriguez-Tuschbeim v. Minister of Internal Affairs 59(6) P.D., 721, 733).
2. It is accepted that the rabbinate, which by law implements all Jewish marriage and divorce in Israel, has the authority to define Jewishness in that context according to the halakhic definitions that it accepts.
3. Available in English in Special Volume (1962–1969) Israel Law Reports, 35–191.
4. Such a conversion is undesirable, but, nevertheless, there is a controversy as to whether it is valid ex post facto. The Talmud concludes that “they are all valid converts.”
5. See, for example, Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (Galicia 1785–1869) who wrote: “The fact that they returned to his father's house proves that she wants to convert for the sake of Heaven, and not because of the man” (Kluger Citation1959).
6. See, for example, the comments of Rabbi Shmuel Glazner (Klausenberg 1856–1925), who wrote about a person who wishes to convert to satisfy the wishes of his spouse:
If for this reason he is converting, we have before us one who has already rebelled against his former faith which is completely unimportant to him, and one who casts off idolatry is as one who has accepted the entire Torah. (Glazner Citation1901)
7. See the comments of Rabbi David Tzvi Hoffman (1843–1921) in Responsa Melamed Lehòil 3:8. Subsequently, an even more radical argument arose, claiming an obligation to make a great effort to return to the Jewish community children of a Jewish husband who are not formally Jewish by halakhic categories, yet are “of a Jewish seed” (ZeraYisrael). See Rabbi Tzvi Hirsch Kalischer's correspondence on this matter with Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, Responsa of Rabbi Azriel Hildesheimer, Yoreh De'ah 229. See also Rabbi Glazner: “we are closing the door before those who are returning, [ … ] they are his natural children and how will he leave them and go off by himself?” (Glazner Citation1901).
8. See, for example, Rabbi Yitzchak Shmelkes in a responsum from 1876:
They convert people in Germany knowing that after the conversion they will not conduct themselves in a proper Jewish manner … such a person is not a convert, even though she says that she accepts everything, as they taught her to lie. (Responsa Bet Yitzhak, Yoreh De'ah 100)
9. On the conceptual deference between the “law” and the “law to be applied” (“Halakhah” and “Halakhah le-ma'aseh”) see Ben-Menachem (Citation2006).
10. An interesting example of the awareness of the modern concept of nationalism appears in Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli's (1909–1994) analysis of the concept of conversion. He held that in a religious conversion, the national connection and the religious connection cannot be separated – becoming part of the people suffices for conversion, for the obligation to observe the Torah is an inevitable outcome that does not depend on agreement. (See, Israeli, Havat Binyamin). Rabbi Yisraeli, one of the distinguish religious Zionist rabbis, is certainly not proposing an ethnic conversion. He is proposing a religious conversion, but he holds that the national connection and the religious connection cannot be separated.
11. Evidence of the stormy nature of the controversy can be seen in the reactions to the ruling of the Supreme Rabbinic Court that retroactively invalidated the conversions that had been performed by the conversion court. This ruling thrust the conversion courts under the auspices of the Office of the Prime Minister and of the Israel Defense Force into the center of the public discourse. See the Ruling of the Supreme Rabbinical Court (5489-64-1) that was issued on February 2, 2005.
12. For Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau's position, see Responsa Yahel Yisrael, 1:25. Eight rabbinical courts operate today within this context throughout the country. Similarly, a number of institutes prepare the candidates for conversion. These institutes are funded by the government and the Jewish Agency for Israel.
13. The conversion courts were transferred at the request of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon after the closure of the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Sharon viewed conversion as an issue of great national importance. It is possible that this change, which was designed to promote conversion, actually impeded it, as the Ultra-Orthodox community viewed it as a sign that the the conversions were motivated by national interests rather than religious motives.
14. The average number of conversions performed annually between 1999 and 2007 was 1750, plus an average of 450 conversions performed annually by the courts under the auspices of the IDF. These numbers do not include the immigrants from Ethiopia who were required to undergo conversion. While these numbers are large in contrast to previous years, the State of Israel views them as a failure in light of the number of potential converts.
15. Such as Rabbi Dov Lior of Kiryat Arba, Rabbi Tzefania Drori of Kiryat Shmona, Rabbi Yaacov Ariel of Ramat Gan, Rabbi ShaarYashuv Cohen of Haifa, and Rabbi Shlomo Daichovsky, a former member of the High Rabbinic Court. Rabbi Daichovsy's opinion was published in Torah She-Ba'alPeh, 44 (2004).
16. Published in the haredi newspapers on 15 June 1984, and signed by Rabbi Kanievsky (the Steipler), Rabbi S”Z Auerbach, Rabbi M. Schach and Rabbi Y”S Elyashiv.
17. As mentioned previously, Amsalem claims to be the follower of Ovadia Yosef. See Ovadiah Yosef, Responsa Yabia Omer 8:12, p. 416, where he was positive towards accepting the Egyptian Karaites as Jews in Israel. Rabbi Yosef considered the fact that they “struggled continuously in behalf of the State of Israel” and “when they come to Israel, they serve in the army and defend us with all of their might against the evil terrorists who hate Israel.”
18. Unterman relied on the approach that the lack of observance after the conversion does not prove that the commitment was not sincere at the time of the conversion. He also relied on Rabbi Grodzinski's interpretation that the conversion might be valid even if at the time of acceptance he thought that he would not actually observe the commandments, as long as his violation is not because of a principled rejection of the obligation, but rather, a result of weakness.
19. Prior to serving as chief rabbi, Goren founded the military rabbinate and served at its head for two decades (1948–1968). Edrei (Citation2006) analyses his halakhic thinking. Rabbi Goren is remembered in the context of a few vocal polemics relating to conversion. For Goren's ideas on conversion, see Goren Citation1983; Goren Citation1986; Goren Citation1999.
20. In his article “Kol Dodi Dofek,” which first appeared in 1956 and was subsequently translated into English, Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik coined the terms “covenant of fate” and “covenant of faith” to define two ways in which Jews can belong to the Jewish community. Although the religious Zionist halakhic authorities discussed here did not utilize this terminology, Rabbi Soloveitchik's model certainly serves as a template that explains their position.
Additional information
Arye Edrei is a professor of Law at Tel Aviv University. He is a co-editor in chief of Dine Israel, a Journal of Jewish Law. He teaches and writes on Jewish Law, History and Philosophy of Halakhah.