Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French

Who is a Jew - A Christian Perspective from Israel
Peter Schneider

In the post-1967 situation it is almost a relief to have an Israeli issue of world interest that is not directly concerned with the Israeli—Arab impasse. The question "Who is a Jew?" is not Israeli making; it is as old as the origins of the Jewish people. Christians naturally will be most familiar with the Biblical aspect of this question. There are the deliberately restrictive measures enunciated by Ezra and Nehemiah at the time when Jewish identity could so easily have become blurred. There is the agonising of St. Paul who, along with the apostolic Church, was not eager to sever his association with the Jewish people. Yet it was a time of separation and his thought on this issue is most pertinently expressed in five chapters of two of his writings, i.e. Galatians 3 and 4 and Romans 9-11. An intriguing reference in the last book of the New Testament, i.e. Revelations 2:9 to "the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not" is not so well known. Commentators are agreed that "Jews" in this context is a pseudonym for "Christians" and that the reason for this literary device was that Christianity at that time was an illegal or unrecognized religion under both Roman pressure and persecution. The nearnessand the popular confusion of Jews and Christians at that time made the use of this pseudonym particularly apposite.

On occasions the outside interest in Jewish identity has been pejorative and no Christian can, or should, forget the awful purpose with which Hitler both pressed and answered it. It seems necessary to state that what is called for at this moment from the Christian side is an approach of sensitive understanding that first of all attempts to grasp the Jewish answer to this essentially Jewish question. In the history of Jewish self-understanding the definition of identity has often arisen and the Rabbis have given what has for centuries been a definitive answer. The Halakhic (the authoritative law, direction and rule for the practice of religion) definition is that a Jew is a person who is born of a Jewish mother, or who has become a Jew by the process of conversion. There is ample rabbinical commentary but it seems that the emphasis is on the ethnic definition and that the weightiest aspect of the commentary, what is often wrongly supposed to be part of the halakhic definition itself, is the additional phrase "and who has not accepted another religion".

The contemporary renewal of the Jewish people in terms of sovereignty in the land continuously associated with their identity has undoubtedly given this question both a new urgency and a further complexity. Let us hasten to add that it is a complexity that Jewry is happy to have, even if it does break up an Israeli Government coalition, as it did in 1958, or merely strain it, as it has just done. The further strain of definition or of the more modern problem of the content of Jewish identity is only one extra interesting problem demanding the attention of Jewish scholars. The rather obvious Jewish priority of this issue is often forgotten just because it is intriguing that such an age-old religio-community question should today be so relevant in a modern State. If Israeli were a predominantly new nationality and citizenship unrelated to the friendly of the Jewish- people, then the problem would not arise. If, on the other hand, to be an Israeli was altogether coterminous with being a Jew in Israel, or if Israel were absolutely a Jewish religious State, such as Saudi Arabia is absolutely an Arab Muslim religious State, the problem also would not arise. But the fact is that Israel is a Jewish State with a dynamic relationship (the circles of identity overlap but are not co-extensive) to the whole of Jewry. Further, Jewry and no less the Land of Israel, and consequently to a large degree the State of Israel, is indissolubly linked with Judaism. But Israel is also a secular and democratic State which, over and above the Jewish majority, has also non-Jewish Israeli minorities, be they Arab Christian, Arab Muslim, Druse or Christians from the west of both Jewish and Gentile origin; and if that is not enough there are the further complexities both of a pejorative element in the history of Jewish—Christian relations that has tended to negate Jewish identity and of mixed marriages, often loosely referred to as Jewish and Christian but in most cases more accurately described as Jewish and Gentile. There are also cases of Jewish and Muslim marriages but these have not figured largely on the Israeli scene.

Therefore, because the contemporary aspectof the question also relates to the citizenship of a modern State, it naturally becomes a legitimate though secondary interest and concern of the world community of nations. Similarly, (granted that the primary responsibility and authority of the Israeli Government in this area is duly recognized) because the Land of Israel is also for Christians the Holy Land and, even more pertinently, because it has been and continues to be a place where Christians lived and continue to live, the problem under review is also of great interest to Christians in Israel and the world over. Much the same is true for Muslims.

The focal point of tension in the two decades (1950-70) of the contemporary controversy has been the varying and vacillating official and semiofficial definitions of who is and who is not a Jew, as this has applied on the one hand to the Law of Return and on the other to the Interior Population Registration in Israel.

The Law of Return that was officially promulgated as a Law of the State of Israel in 1950 declares that any Jew who arrives in Israel can claim citizenship as of right. Further, the implied definition of the term Jew as used in this Law and subsequently upheld by the High Court is the popular and pragmatic definition which can perhaps be summarised as meaning a person who bona fide claims and knows himself to belong to the Jewish people. This pragmatic definition has a longstanding tradition and while it is at variance with the halakhic definition of the Rabbis it rarely in actuality conflicted with that definition during the past two millenia when, for the most part, it was not exactly advantageous to be a Jew.

By contrast the particular identity definition required by the Ministry of the Interior population registration, as reflected by the three-fold classification on Israeli identity cards: that of "dar — religion; "le'om" — national community or peoplehood; and "citizenship", over and above the more usual and simple classification of citizenship normally required by similar documents in the west has, by the very nature of its threefold formulation, tended to emphasise the community or peoplehood link-up with that of religion and thus tended to be interpreted more in line with the halakhic definition that makes an absolute link of People and Religion. It would be incorrect to say more than this, for the interpretation has been more or less in the direction of the halakhic definition, but not always strictly according to the Halakhah.

A whole series of crises, most of them highlighted by personal cases each reflecting a particular aspect of the problem, exemplify the enormous complexities of this issue but seen as a whole this is not altogether surprising, granted the present multivaried aspect of the Israeli situation. The over year-long debate concerning the formulation of the Law of Return that was promulgated in 1950 indicated the serious tension between the religious and secular elements in the country in the understanding of who is a Jew. The Government intention was clearly not to give a precise definition and certainly not to restrict the benefit of the Law to apply only to Jews within the halakhic definition. The opposite tendency prevailed in the regulation for the population registration, as indicated above.

The first case to be dramatised by the world press was the rather tragic Steinberg affair of 1957, in which the pitiful figure of a father hauling about the body of his seven year old son, who was said to have been refused burial for several days on account of his non-Jewish mother, aroused world sympathy. In reality there were difficulties of burial, even if not to the extent indicated above and as publicised by the world press at the time. However, the case threw into open relief the personal hardships likely to occur in the case of mixed marriages in a State where the religious communities exercised authority in the areas of personal status and where consequently there was no provision for those citizens betwixt and between the religious communities or outside of them altogether.

The next step in the controversy was that the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Bar Yehuda, issued a Ruling in March, 1958 favouring the popular definition of the term Jew that anyone bona fide claiming and knowing himself to be a Jew and to belong to the Jewish people was to be registered as a Jew. Ben Gurion's Government endorsed this Ruling in July of the same year and immediately this triggered off a Government crisis in which Mr. Moshe Shapira, at that time Minister of Social Welfare and Religious Affairs as well as Leader of the National Religious Party, led his Party out of the Government coalition. Mr. Gen Gurion realised that more was at stake than the break-up of a Government coalition and so he issued his renowned enquiry addressed to Jewish scholars the world over on the problem of Jewish identity. By February 1960, forty-five of the scholars had answered the enquiry and Mr. Ben Gurion, acting on this collective wisdom, reversed the Government ruling of July 1958 and, by way of two circulars issued by the Ministry of the Interior in March and April 1960, the Bar Yehuda Rang of March 1958 was somewhat modified though not clearly over-ruled.

In 1962 a new aspect of the controversy arose in the now renowned Father Daniel Rufeisen case. The focal point of this High Court case concerned a Catholic monk who, although a Jew according to the halakhic definition, had converted to Christianity and yet claimed that he should be allowed Israeli citizenship as of right under the Law of Return. The majority High Court judgment pointed out that the definition of the term Jew as intended by the Law of Return was the popularly accepted definition of Jewish identity and that this did not extend to a Jew who had accepted another faith. Further, the judgment admitted that halakhically Father Daniel was a Jew in apostacy and that while the Halakhah did not negate his Jewishness it did negate his rights issuing out of his Jewishness on account of his voluntary and deliberate leaving of the Jewish religio-community.

The next stage of the controversy referred to the problem of a mixed marriage and erupted in 1963. It centred around the Funk-Schlesinger couple: an Israeli Jew and a Belgian Christian who had been married in Cyprus and asked that their marriage be registered in Israel. The case came before the High Court, which decided that as the Registering Officer was neither an expert in international law nor a judge, he had to register the marriage according to the declaration of the subjects. This case followed very much the intention of the Bar Yehuda Ruling of March 1958.

The very recent Shalit case was again of a different nature. The central point of dispute was the claim of an Israeli Jewish naval officer to register his children as of no religion but belonging to the Jewish "le'om" — national community — over and above the undisputed right they already had to be registered as Israeli citizens. The complication of this case arose from the fact that Mrs. Shalit is a Gentile of Scottish origin and that neither she nor her husband is religious. If Mrs. Shalit had been prepared to undergo the process of rabbinical conversion there would have been no difficulty. While a born Jew remains a Jew even if he does not practise his religion and no difficulty arises as long as he does not positively embrace another religion, it is required of a convert to Judaism to be religiously observant as this is his or her only link with Jewry. The various ramifications of this last case have already appeared in the world press. The majority ruling of the High Court in favour of the Shalits based itself on the Bar Yehuda Ruling of 1958 and, as on that occasion, brought about a Government crisis.

The Government has accepted the High Court judgment in its individual particularity as it affects the Shalits but has felt it necessary to effect new legislation. This new legislation, which at present has only passed its first reading in the Knesset, will not alter the direction of the Law of Return as it was intended to apply to the term Jew as popularly understood at the time of promulgation. However, the two categories of "dat" — religion — and "le'om" — national community — in the regulations affecting population registration and the corresponding entry in Israeli identity cards will be interpreted more directly in line with the halakhic law. This will, it would seem, more than reverse the Bar Yehuda Ruling of 1958. It would be presumptuous to say more than this at a time when the law has not yet been finalised or promulgated. However it is no secret that this Government legislation is not popular, neither is it expected to be the last chapter of the present controversy. It is perhaps more correct to see it as an interim measure.

Clearly, party politics have played a considerable part, in which the pressure of the religious parties has been one of the major contributing factors. However, it needs to be recognized that this pressure of the religious political parties does arise out of a genuine religious conviction. They are convinced that the well-being of the nation and of the whole Jewish people is at stake if the age-old link between People and Religion is weakened, never mind severed! If the so-called secularists did not believe that there was something significant, something pertinent to the essence and nature of Jewishness, in this tie-up, the Government would not have had the will to bring in extra legislation and the popular protest would have been far stronger.

We might add that the new conditions and present situation, indeed the whole dimension of the State of Israel as it impinges on this question of Jewish identity, appears to require a new imaginative solution. It would seem that this can hardly be achieved without taking into serious account the historic Jewish consciousness with its strong link of Religion and People; the particular Middle East situation with its long history of the millet system that delegates authority in the area of personal status to the religious communities; and the pressures in a modern State, of which the secularity of the west is one definite and powerful ingredient.

Inevitably Christians and even the Churches in the Holy Land have taken sides. The Latin Patriarchate, for instance, suggested in 1958 that the category "le'om" — national community —should have a wider connotation than that of "dat" — religion — which alone can be properly answered by Jew, Christian or Muslin. It was suggested that if under the second category of "le'om" the designation of "IVRI" was permissible then this would overcome the difficulty of half-Jews and Jews not strictly within the halakhic definition. There was a pragmatic motivation to this suggestion as there are several thousand mixed Jewish—Christian marriages in Israel, of which in most cases the Christian partner is a Catholic originating from an east European country. This pastoral concern of the Christian Churches in the country is surely legitimate and has correspondingly, also rightly, been taken up by the Jewish authorities in the west in a similar situation affecting Jews of mixed marriages in a predominantly non-Jewish environment.

The Israeli Baptists have taken a very similar line to the Catholics, but have gone further by advocating the total removal of the "le'om" category. Further, they and other Protestants have made it clear that they would even prefer the removal of both the "dat" and "le'om" categories, thus not only dissolving the official tie-up of Religion and National Community in the population registration and on identity cards but also making the question of religion one of personal choice of the citizen. One can at once see that this demand is far too radical and takesinsufficient cognisance of the past to have a chance of acceptance.

We would repeat that the present Christian imperative is for a sympathetic and sensitive understanding. The well-being of the State, which we believe is tied up with the well-being of its majority and minorities, is the first priority. Obviously the new dimensions of Israel have to be taken into consideration. While admittedly the question under review is primarily a Jewish concern of great import to the whole of Jewry, yet because it also affects the life and future of all those involved in mixed marriages and of non-Jewish citizens of Israel, we would plead that in the working out of a right solution the non-Jewish minorities in the country be adequately brought into consultation. Who can tell where such an Israeli example of direct talks may lead?