The Rabbinical Council of America, the main association of Modern Orthodox rabbis in the United States, today issued a statement calling on American Jews to respect the outcome of the democratic process in the State of Israel regarding laws governing conversion to Judaism. Sponsored by the Yisrael Beitenu party, the new conversion law is intended to ease conversion for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who identify as Jews and Israelis but are not Jewish according to Halakha, or Jewish religious law.
Conversion to Judaism is unlike conversion to any other religion, for the premise of Judaism is God’s promise to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendents. From the time of King David’s great-grandmother Ruth, Jews have accepted wholehearted converts. For Orthodox rabbis, conversion is a solemn matter, for it involves conferring God’s promise to the family of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs to an individual born outside it. It is not simply a matter of doctrinal assent but an adoption into the family of Abraham.
Michael Wyschogrod, the Orthodox theologian two of whose essays have appeared in First Things this year, argues that when a Gentile converts to Judaism, a miracle occurs: the convert becomes a descendent of Abraham and Sarah. Miracles, he adds, should not be an everyday ocurrence. Wyschogrod’s view is not universally accepted, but the Orthodox community is unanimous in its caution and seriousness regarding conversion.
The Reform and Conservative currents of American Judaism employ looser standards, especially in the case of a Gentile who wishes to marry a Jew in a Jewish service. Because the new Israeli legislation places responsibility for conversion with Israel’s chief rabbinate, which is Orthodox, Reform and Conservative organizations as well as mainstream Jewish organizations have opposed the Israeli Conversion Law, sometimes with bitter and inflammatory statements.
America’s Modern Orthodox rabbis, though, call on American Jews to respect Israel’s democratic process:
RCA Statement Regarding The Rotem Knesset Legislation Pertaining to Conversions
The Rabbinical Council of America is fully aware of the current significant and broad-ranging communal debate regarding the so-called Rotem legislation in the Israel Knesset, dealing with the charged matter of conversion to Judaism, and Jewish identity in the Jewish State.
There can be no doubt that the State of Israel is the center of Jewish life in our time. Decisions made in the Knesset relating to Jewish status in the State impact on the entire Jewish world. This includes the status of those who have emigrated with family members from other countries, as well as those who may have converted elsewhere prior to emigration.
For this reason the RCA has expended major efforts in recent years to work with Israeli authorities to facilitate acceptance of RCA conversions in Israel. This effort has borne fruit with a significantly expanded number of conversion courts and judges whose converts are fully recognized in the State of Israel. For indeed every rabbinate around the world bears the responsibility to certify or recognize those who come under its jurisdiction, according to its own processes and principles.And what is true of the rabbinate, is true of the sovereign and democratic State of Israel. North American Jews have long embraced the principle that the duly elected leadership of the State of Israel should not be subject to outside interference or pressure by other governments, religious bodies, or communal entities.
This is especially true when, as happens from time to time, there is no consensus – either among Diaspora Jews, or within the governing political and religious leaderships of Israel. While we have noted certain statements by a number of American Jewish religious and umbrella organizations, as far as we are concerned there is certainly no unanimity, or even consensus, among American Jews on the matter of the current Knesset legislation. It should be noted that the more traditionalist segments of North American Jewry, always in the forefront of support and advocacy for Israel and aliyah, have to our knowledge not been consulted by the North American Jewish Federation leadership.
While the legislation in question may not be perfect, we who live in North America must recognize that it does contain much to commend it. It is important to note that it was proposed and is championed by a secular political party whose constituents are the ones most directly affected by its outcome, and also has wide support among many in the Religious-Zionist camp. Crucially, for the future of the Jewish state, it addresses the existential challenge posed by the presence in Israel of hundreds of thousands of non-Jews who are members of Jewish families. It does so by significantly expanding the number of local rabbinical courts for conversion, so as to facilitate conversion in accordance with the relevant requirements of Jewish law and ethical sensitivity. It also prevents retroactive revocation of conversions by third parties. And not least, it has the support of Israel’s official rabbinate.
The legislation is designed to change nothing regarding North American Jewish issues, a matter which in any event is far less significant to the State of Israel and its citizens than the undoubted benefits that the bill promises. Modifications in the language of the legislation may further alleviate the concerns of the non-traditionalists, but that should be for Israel’s religious and political leadership to decide, without outside pressures or interference. As a Diaspora community we ought all to respect the internal political process that impact first and foremost on those who live within the boundaries of Israel, and only in a derivative fashion on us who have chosen to live in the Diaspora. It ill behooves us to intrude on Israel’s democratic processes, or to threaten, even indirectly or by implication, a lessening of our full and unequivocal support for the State of Israel, if our views do not prevail. It certainly is unacceptable to involve members of the United States Congress, acting in their official capacity as Members of Congress, in lobbying one way or another regarding internal Israeli legislative processes, as some have done.
We thus call on our fellow Jews to respect Israel’s internal political processes, so as to allow Israel and its citizens to make this decision in their own – albeit imperfect, but democratic – fashion, with our unqualified support, our heartfelt prayers, and – whatever the outcome – our undiluted blessing.




July 19th, 2010 | 6:10 pm
What is the change in the law? Could you give us a hint? All I got out of this is that there will be more conversion courts and judges. Is the conversion process different? Are the criteria for Jewishness different?
July 19th, 2010 | 6:53 pm
The issue is complex, but in a nutshell the proposed legislation would take conversion out of the hands of “special conversion courts” in each locality, often dominated by ultra-Orthodox rabbis, and centralize the process with the Chief Rabbinate, which includes Modern Orthodox and religious-zionist (as opposed to ultra-Orthodox rabbis). It is de facto a liberalization of the conversion process, but within the Orthodox world; the Reform and Conservative wings of American Judaism, which have only a negligible presence in Israel, feel left out. That is understandable, but Israeli Judaism is overwhelmingly Orthodox, and it makes sense for Israelis to employ their own standards.
There have been many news reports, including this one:
http://www.jstandard.com/content/item/rotem_conversion_law_in_israel_is_under_debate/13198
July 20th, 2010 | 7:31 am
Jews used not to be so punctillious, and Judaism once was an aggressively proselytizing religion. In the Hasmonean era, the Jewish kingdom annexed Idumea and converted all of its population to Judaism, including a talented guy named Antipater, whose son Herod went far. Something similar happened when the Galilee was annexed.
Throughout the intertestimental period, and up to the middle of the third or fourth century, Jews actively sought out converts–which put them on a collision course with the rival synagogue of the Christians. Most of the patristic broadsides against “Judaizing” (e.g., that of John Chrysostom) can best be understood in that context. Even the crushing defeat of Bar Kochba’s rebellion (AD 135), which ended Jewish apocalyptic pretensions, did not end Jewish proselytization. As late as the 8th century, the Turkic Khazars adopted Judaism en masse, and were accepted as Jews by the rabbinate in Persia, the Middle East and Europe.
The exclusivist, or at least highly restrictionist attitude of modern orthodox Judaism is probably a reaction to the Christian and Muslim oppression of the Jews from the Middle Ages onward. With the conversion of both Christians and Muslims a legal offense with highly adverse effects for the Jewish community as a whole, it was natural for the rabbinate to make conversion as difficult as possible, if not outright impossible. The advent of religious liberty in the post-Enlightenment West created new opportunities to attract converts (the up-side of intermarriage), but in the Middle East, conversion remains a politically and socially charged issue.
Modern Jews will have trouble addressing the conversion issue effectively until they are willing to examine their entire history, to understand how their present attitudes evolved, and whether they have a real Talmudic basis, or were merely a transient response to historical conditions.
July 20th, 2010 | 7:40 am
Thanks. I don’t have any information on how many of the Russian immigrants have converted, or if they have to. A cousin of mine in Israel married a Russian girl and she had to convert in order to have a Jewish wedding. Their families are secular. She didn’t become orthodox, but the conversion process did give her a great knowledge of an appreciation for Judaism, and she and her husband are more observant than the rest of the family. I worry that the secular Jews are gradually through the generations losing any religious feeling, and an influx of conversions of Russians would be great. (I don’t think God likes Jews to ignore him either.)
July 23rd, 2010 | 9:29 am
Are Orthodox standards of conversion a reaction to Christian and Muslim oppression of the past? I doubt it. A better explanation is that in the days of Ruth, “conversion” was an all-in decision: if you let Moab, family, clan, tribe, and country, you did not go back; you became part of another family, clan and tribe. One also has to be careful in considering “prosleytes” vs. “converts” at the of Hillel. Gentiles were permitted to sacrifice a bull at the Temple duriing Sukkot, for example, and a sort of association with Israel was encouraged. But that was then. In the modern world, where religion is a consumer good and people can shop for faith, one can change religions as often as one changes toothpaste. The freedom of the modern world thus raises an entirely different sort of problem: the inner sincerity of the convert. And that requires appropriate standards. There is considerable disagreement in the Orthodox world about what they should be, and there seems to me to be no alternative to a case-by-case approach.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact