Abstract
The purpose of this article is to outline the ideological and theological controversy over the issue of conversion to Judaism in Israel that has remained on the agenda of the Israeli public discourse since its founding (1948). Through an analysis of the viewpoints of three central political and religious leaders on this issue, this article aims to demonstrate that beyond fierce political debate, the disagreement lies within what each leader views as adequate interpretations of Jewish history and religion in the modern State of Israel. This comprehensive dispute illustrates that the three sides cast the meaning of Israel’s basic character differently—as either a Jewish secular nation-state, a Jewish religious state, or rather a combination of the two. Thus, the controversy over conversion highlights the fact that Israel has not yet succeeded in forming a consensual conception of its definition as a “Jewish state.”
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The Orthodox Rabbinate and the Rabbinical Courts were actually established in the 1920s, as part of the adoption of the Ottoman ruling system that gave religious authorities the privilege of ruling on matters of personal status. However, it was legally reestablished in the 1950s within the context of a larger commitment to the Ultra-Orthodox, which was delivered in 1947 in order to gain their support for the establishment of the state (Friedman1990a). Yet as explained in the text, the status granted to the rabbinate stemmed not only from an immediate political interest but also from the deep need to contain religion and its institutions within the emerging Zionist entity (Elam 2000).
During the discussion preceding the legislation, the religious parties tried to add religious conditions to the definition of Judaism in the Law of Return. These proposals were rejected, as were those from the secular-left, which demanded precise legislation that would allow the entrance of mixed families. The elusive definition that was eventually enacted reflected a means of compromise but, as noted, it in fact allowed an open interpretation of the law that enabled the entrance of non-halakhic Jews to Israel during the early fifties (Hacohen 1998, pp. 285–316).
Due to the increasing interest in matters of conversion, in the last decade alone several monographs have been published on the rabbinical conversion model in Judaism (Amsalem 2010; Ellenson and Gordis 2012; Finkelstein 2006; Sagi and Zohar 2007). The comparison between them reflects the varied perspectives on this topic in the religious sphere itself.
Shaye Cohen deals at length with the redefinition of Judaism in the Hasmonean era. His main claim is that previously Judaism was an ethnos, but the Hasmonean era demonstrates a period when Judaism became an ethno-religion. This change explains the shift from the sociological conversion model, widespread in the Bible, to a religious-political conversion model, prevailing in Hasmonean times (Cohen 1999, pp. 109–139).
Mapai representatives’ debate in the Knesset, 29 June 1958 (The Israeli Labor Party Archives (henceforth: TILPA) File Num. 2-11-1958-64).
TILPA, ibid.
Proceedings of the Government of the State of Israel, 22 June 1959 (The Israeli State Archives).
This public statement was published in several Ultra-Orthodox newspapers, such as Hamodi'a, October 24, 1972 (my translation).
Surprisingly there is neither a research on Rabbi Goren’s conversion enterprise in particular, nor on his other activities, notwithstanding its huge impact on the religious public sphere in Israel. For some aspects of his activities and for biographic information see Edrei 2005; Hollander 2011; Mescheloff 2010.
Proceedings of the Internal Affairs Committee of the Knesset, 29 October 1976.
Not surprisingly, Rabbi Goren’s approach of using non-classical sources like the Hasmonean chronicles was criticized harshly, even by Zionist rabbis (Hollander 2011, pp. 47–64).
Interestingly, at that time (1958) in his letter to Ben-Gurion, he referred to the Hasmonean model as a negative example of mass conversion. However, it seems that he adopted this model beginning in the 1960s when he changed his commentary on the issue.
It is not clear how far Rabbi Goren was willing to go with his leniency. However, it is certain that when a potential convert explicitly opposed Jewish law, Rabbi Goren would not convert him (see his letter to MK Omri Ron, 7 April 1978, Rabbi Goren archive).
The public pronouncement was broadcast in the Haredi newspapers. See for example: Hamodi'a, June 6, 1984.
This public statement was published on the front page of the Ashkenazi Ultra-Orthodox newspaper Yated Ne’eman, December 27, 2011 (my translation).
Rabbi Elyashiv was not the first rabbi to use the Shivat Zion model in order to intensify his negative conversion approach (HaCohen 1936, p. 68). However, his approach was unique because he relied on this model to justify annulments of Israeli conversions on a mass scale.
Rabbi Goren too changed his position. While his basic policy was to be lenient in conversion so as to conserve the special status of religion in the state, in “the Langer’s brother and sister case” he annulled a conversion for that same purpose, although, as he emphasized, the main basis for the annulment in that case was the doubt whether in fact Borkovski had converted at all, and not his non-observance (Goren 1989, p. 184).
This Ultra-Orthodox desire to shape the public sphere in Israel did not characterize their attitude during the early years of the state. For several decades the Haredi leaders focused on building up their own society, rather than exporting their values to the larger society. This shift in their attitude, mainly from the 1980s and on, can be partially explained by the leadership of rabbis such as Rabbi Elyashiv, who, as explained, took an approach that claimed it is necessary for the Ultra-Orthodox to take responsibility for the religiosity also of non-Ultra-Orthodox communities and to shape the Jewishness of the state in a religious manner (Sivan and Caplan 2003).
It should be noted that beyond Rabbi Goren’s partial success, his successors at the rabbinate did not adopt his approach as a whole. While they keep intact the conversion system he established which allows thousands of people to convert in Israel, most of the chief rabbis after Rabbi Goren did not back the conversion establishment, ideologically and publicly, as Rabbi Goren did. As a result, the Chief Rabbinate’s conversion policy from the 1980s onward can be defined as an ambiguous one: influenced by Rabbi Goren’s model but trying to appease its Haredi opponents as well.
References
Amsalem, Chaim. 2010. Zera Israel. Jerusalem: Machon Nidchei Israel. (in Hebrew).
Anonymous. 1989. Sha’aruryat haGiurim haMezuyafim (The Scandal of False Conversions), Jerusalem: Va’ad HaRabbanim Ha’Olami Le’Inyanei Giyur. (in Hebrew).
Avineri, Shlomo. 1981. The making of modern Zionism: The intellectual origins of the Jewish state. New York: Basic Books.
Batnitzky, Leora. 2011. How Judaism became a religion: An introduction to modern Jewish thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ben Rafael, Eliezer. 2002. Jewish identities: Fifty intellectuals answer Ben-Gurion. Leiden: Brill.
Ben-Israel, Hedva. 2003. Zionism and European nationalisms: Comparative aspects. Israel Studies 8(1): 91–104.
Brown, Benjamin. 2011. Toward democratization in the Haredi leadership? Jerusalem: The Israel Democracy Institute. (in Hebrew).
Cohen, Shaye J.D. 1999. The beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, varieties, uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California.
Edrei, Arye. 2005. Divine spirit and physical power: Rabbi Shlomo Goren and the military ethic of the Israel Defense Force. Theoretical Inquiries in Law 7(1): 257–299.
Elam, Yigal. 2000. Yahadut Ki-sṭaṭus ḳṿo. Tel Aviv: Am Oved. (in Hebrew).
Ellenson, David, and Daniel Gordis. 2012. Pledges of Jewish allegiance: Conversion, law, and policymaking in nineteenth- and twentieth-century Orthodox responsa. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Elyashiv, Yosef Shalom. 2000. Kovetz teshuvot (Collection of Responsa). Jerusalem. (in Hebrew).
Finkelstein, Menachem. 2006. Conversion: Halakhah and practice. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press.
Fisher, Netanel. 2011. Conversion and the State: Israel’s policy on conversion to Judaism, 1948–2004. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (in Hebrew).
Fisher, Netanel. 2013. Introduction to the History of conversion in the IDF. In Safra v-Saifa—Jubilee Book in Honor of Rabbi M. Piron, eds. Z. Tal, A. HaCohen, 411–451. Jerusalem: Sapir Institute. (in Hebrew).
Friedman, Menachem. 1990a. And these are the origins of the status quo: Religion and state in Israel. In HaMaavar me’yishuv lemedina 1947–1949: Retzifut utmorot (The Transitions from a settlement to a state 1947–1949: Continuity and changes), ed. V. Pilovsky, 47–79. Haifa: University of Haifa. (in Hebrew).
Friedman, Menachem. 1990b. Jewish zealots: Conservative versus innovative. In Religious Radicalism and Politics in the Middle East, ed. Emanuel Sivan, and Menachem Friedman. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Goren, Shlomo. 1972. Pesaḳ ha-din be-‘inyan ha-aḥṿeha-aḥot. Jerusalem: Ha-Rabanut ha-rashitle-Yiśra’el. (in Hebrew).
Goren, Shlomo. 1982. Meshiv milḥamah (Responsa for War). Jerusalem: Ha Idra Rabah. (in Hebrew).
Goren, Shlomo. 1989. Mishnat ha-medina (The Doctrine of the State). Jerusalem: Ha’Idra Rabah. (in Hebrew).
Goren, Shlomo. 1996. HaGiyyur Be’aspaklaryat Hadorot Ve’hahalakha. Shana Beshana: 155–176.
Govrin, Nurith. 1985. Me’ora Brener: Ha-Ma’avaḳ al hofesh ha-biṭui. Jerusalem: Yad Yitsḥaḳ Ben-Tsevi. (in Hebrew).
Hackett, Rosalind I.J. 2008. Proselytization revisited: Rights talk, free markets and culture wars. London: Equinox Publications.
HaCohen Skali, David. 1936. Kiryat hanna David, Part 2. Jerusalem. (in Hebrew).
Hacohen, Dvora. 1998. Ḳibuts galuyot: Aliyah le-erets Yiśra’el: Mitos u-metsi’ut. Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar center. (in Hebrew).
Hollander, Aviad Yehiel. 2011. The halakhic profile of Rabbi Shlomo Goren. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University (in Hebrew).
Karpin, Michael. 1991 (May). A special interview with Rabbi Goren. Monitin. (in Hebrew).
Kaufmann, Yeḥezkel. 1929. Gola ve-nekhar. Tel-Aviv: Dvir. (in Hebrew).
Kravel-Tovi, Michal. 2011. ‘National mission’: Biopolitics, non-Jewish immigration and Jewish conversion policy in contemporary Israel. Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(4): 737–756.
Landau, David. 1993. Piety and power: The world of Jewish fundamentalism. New York: Hill and Wang.
Lichtenstein, Aharon. 2003. Leaves of faith: The world of Jewish learning. Jersey City: Ktav Publishing House.
Liebman, Charles S. 1983. Extremism as a religious norm. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 22(1): 75–86.
Liebman, Charles, and Eliezer Don-Yehiya. 1983. Civil religion in Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mescheloff, Shifra. 2010. In the eye of the storm: The public image and creative Torah work of Rabbi Shlomo Goren 1948–1994. Ph.D. Dissertation, Bar-Ilan University. (in Hebrew).
Novak, David. 1999. Proselytism and Judaism. In Sharing the book: Religious perspectives on the rights and wrongs of proselytism, eds. John Witte, Jr and Richard C. Martin. Maryknoll, 20–21. NY: Orbis Books.
Reiner, Rami (Avraham). 2012. Axioms of the halakhic approach of Rabbi Elyashiv. Netuim 17: 73–103. (in Hebrew).
Sagi, Avi, and Zvi Zohar. 2007. Transforming identity: The ritual transition from gentile to Jew—Structure and meaning. London: Continuum.
Samet, Moshe. 1985. Who is a Jew 1958–1977. The Jerusalem Quarterly 36: 88–108.
Sherman, Avraham. 2008. Supreme Rabbinic Court, Docket No. 1-64-5489.
Sivan, Emanuel, and Kimmie Caplan (eds.). 2003. ḤaredimYiśreʾelim. Jerusalem: Van Leer. (in Hebrew).
Sivan, Emanuel. 1995. The enclave culture. In Fundamentalisms comprehended, ed. R.S. Appleby, and M.E. Marty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Waxman, Chaim I. 2013. Multiculturalism, conversion, and the future of Israel as a modern state. Israel Studies Review 28(1): 33–53.
Witte, John Jr. 2007. Soul wars: New battles, new norms. The Review of Faith and International Affairs 5(1): 13–19.
Yakobson, Alexander. 2010. Joining the Jewish people: Non-Jewish immigrants from the former USSR, Israel identity, and Jewish peoplehood. Israel Law Review 43(1):219–239.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisher, N. A Jewish State? Controversial Conversions and the Dispute Over Israel’s Jewish Character. Cont Jewry 33, 217–240 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-013-9108-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12397-013-9108-4