| Insight Israel from Rabbi Professor David Golinkin | |
|
On Conversion, Intermarriage and "Who is a Jew?"
In this month's
Israel Insight, I would like to take a break from the Intifada and related controversies
(I wish that Israel could do so too!) and relate to one of Israel's long-term
problems: conversion, intermarriage and "who is a Jew?". I relate to this issue
not as an objective observer, but as someone who has been actively involved
for three years in trying to solve this problem. This problem has two different
aspects, which sometimes lead in opposite directions.
1) The Masorti/Conservative Dilemma:
Until the early 1990s, Conservative/Masorti rabbis in Israel did not perform
conversions. This was not because it was illegal - the law was and is ambiguous
- but because the Masorti Movement was very small and did not want to "take
on" the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. In 1989, the Masorti Movement and the Rabbinical
Assembly decided to start performing conversions. This was because more and
more people asked us to convert them because they were turned away or turned
off by the Rabbinate or because they simply were attracted by Masorti Judaism.
The Masorti Movement and the Rabbinical Assembly turned to the Va'ad Halakhah
(Law Committee) which I chair, and Rabbi Theodore Friedman z"l wrote a responsum
in which he explained the halakhic parameters of conversion (Responsa of the
Va'ad Halakhah, Vol. 3, pp. 59-68). Then a Bet Din was set up with Rabbi Friedman
as Av Bet Din followed by Rabbi Pesach Schindler and Rabbi Reuven Hammer and
since then, hundreds of conversions have been performed. Nevertheless, the Ministry
of the Interior refused to recognize Masorti (and Reform) conversions performed
in Israel, which meant that hundreds of converts converted by our Bet Din according
to halakhah were not recognized as Jews by the State of Israel.
This issue reached the Supreme Court in November 1995, which ruled that a Reform
convert does not need authorization from the Chief Rabbinate in order to be
registered as a Jew by the Interior Ministry. But instead of forcing the Interior
Ministry to register the woman in question as a Jew, the Supreme Court threw
the issue back at the Knesset. In October 1996 and March 1997, the Orthodox
parties tried to pass two different laws, which would clearly outlaw Masorti
and Reform conversions. Thanks to heavy pressure from North American Jewry,
Prime Minster Netanyahu did not go along with the Orthodox initiatives. He,
rather, set up the Ne'eman Commission which met between June 1997 and January
1998 and was composed of representatives of all three movements - which was,
in and of itself, an historic breakthrough. (I testified before the Commission
in July 1997 along with Prof. Ismar Schorsch and I felt that we were participating
in an historic event.) The Ne'eman Commission recommended that a Joint Institute
of Jewish Studies be set up by all three streams, but that the actual conversion
be performed by the Chief Rabbinate. This recommendation was officially rejected
by the Chief Rabbinate, but was soundly endorsed by 80 members of Knesset in
February 1998. The Joint Institute of Jewish Studies was set up in May 1998
and I have served since its inception as one of the Conservative representatives
along with Rabbi Reuven Hammer.
The Ne'eman Commission did not solve the problem of non-recognition of Masorti
and Reform conversions in Israel. Both movements continue to perform their own
conversions and their separate cases are still pending before the Supreme Court.
But the Joint Institute of Jewish Studies is of historic importance. For the
first time, a group of Orthodox, Conservative and Reform rabbis and educators
has begun to solve one of Israel's greatest social and religious problems -
the conversion of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who made aliyah under
the Law of Return, yet are not halakhically Jewish.
2) The Russian Immigrant Dilemma:
One) Beween 1991-2000, 785,000 people from the Former Soviet Union made aliyah
to Israel and became citizens under the Law of Return, which allows spouses,
children and grandchildren of Jews to make aliyah, even though they may not
be Jewish according to halakhah. Experts estimate that 215,000-250,000 of these
immigrants are not halakhically Jewish.
Two) In the early nineties, 10% of the immigrants were not halakhically Jewish;
today over 50% are not halakhically Jewish.
Three) It is estimated that 80% of the young people currently in the Jewish
Agency programs in the FSU are not halakhically Jewish.
Four) Between 1996-1999 only about 6,000 Russian immigrants converted, an average
of about 1,500 a year.
Five) The result has been a growing number of intermarriages. Twenty percent
of the young couples getting married today do so outside of the Chief Rabbinate
and in many cases the husband or the wife or both are Russian immigrants who
are not halakhically Jewish.
What is the solution?
Minister of Justice Dr. Yossi Beilin has suggested a "secular conversion" process,
not according to Jewish law, while Rabbi Uri Regev of the Reform Movement in
Israel has suggested adopting patrilineal descent, following the Reform decision
in North America in 1983. As a Conservative rabbi, I am opposed to these solutions
both because they contradict 2,000 years of Jewish law and tradition and because
they will solve nothing. The Russian immigrants need to be converted in such
a way that all Israelis will consider them Jewish, so that they can become full
citizens in every respect and not cause thousands of cases of intermarriage.
A Five-Point Plan
Therefore, in light of the facts presented above, I propose a five-point plan:
1) Israel needs to emend the Law of Return. Paragraph 4a, which was added in
1970, says that grandchildren of Jews are considered Jewish under the Law of
Return, even if both their parents are not Jewish. In 1990, 1.2% of the immigrants
fit that category; today over 10% of the immigrants fit that category.
2) The Jewish Agency in the FSU must change its policy. It must stop looking
for people who are "Jewish" under the Law of Return in order to fill immigration
quotas.
3) The Joint Institute of Jewish Studies should teach Judaica in the FSU automatically
to all potential immigrants, Jewish and non-Jewish, so that they make aliyah
after at least one hundred hours of Jewish studies.
4) There are now over 100 classes in Israel of the Joint Institute (up from
five last June!). Every immigrant from the FSU should automatically study in
the Joint Institute as part of the ulpan/absorption process. In that way, every
immigrant from the FSU will have studied 400 hours of Jewish studies, regardless
of whether they need to convert.
5) Finally, the special rabbinic courts for conversion should continue to follow
the lenient halakhic approach to conversion and acceptance of the commandments,
which is very similar to the Masorti approach.
If these steps are taken, we will be able to convert tens of thousands of immigrants
within a few years. If not, the number of non-Jews and intermarriages in the
State of Israel will continue to grow.
* * *
The first half of this article is based primarily on my own personal experience.
The second half is based on Moment, April 1997, p. 48 ff.; The Jerusalem
Post, January 14, 2000, p. B6; Aviad Hacohen, Meimad, No. 19, April
2000, pp. 4-7; Ha'aretz, Dec. 24, 2000, pp. A1 and 7; The Jerusalem
Post, January 11, 2001, p. 4; The Jewish Week, New York, January
19, 2001; The Jerusalem Report, January 29, 2001, pp. 26-29.rof.
David Golinkin
is the President of the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem.
Feel free to reprint this article in its entirety. If you wish to abbreviate
the article, please contact Rabbi Golinkin at: goinklin@schechter.org.il.
The opinions expressed here are the author’s and in no way reflect an official
policy of the Schechter Institute.
|
|
