Who Is a Jew?

The security of the State of Israel requires that every citizen carry an identity card recording nationality (or origin) and religious affiliation. This recording of re ligious affiliation has created considerable dispute be tween Orthodox religious leaders and the registration office of the State of Israel. The dispute becomes clear in the case of a child bom of a Jewish father and an unconverted Gentile mother. The parents desire to have this child registered as Jewish. This the State is ready to do, on the ground that religious affiliation is the free choice of the individual and that in the case of an infant the parents, as guardians of the child, may make the choice for the child. However, the re ligious leaders object from the point of view ofOrtho dox law. A child born of an unconverted mother is a Gentile, and a Gentile cannot become a Jew except by specific ceremony, mikveh for a girl, and mikveh and circumcision for a boy. To allow affiliation merely on the basis of choice, as the State proposes, is declared to be a violation of the requirements of Jewish law and would dilute the identity of Jewry as a religious community. What is to be done in this situation? (From The Honorable David Ben-Gurion, former Prime Minister of the State of Israel)

The laws involving the reception of proselytes into Judaism seem on the surface to be absolutely clear and unmistakable. However, this is not entirely the case. As in the case of other laws, also, the emotional attitude of the scholars of the various generations reflects itself in their decisions on this question. When from time to time the rabbis have felt that the circumstances of their day required extra cautionary prohibitions, they applied them and the law becomes stricter. Unfortunately, these restrictive actions tend to become permanent, and the longer the law lasts, the longer do these times of restrictiveness accumulate, and the law grows further and further away from actual life.

The present attitude of the Orthodox rabbinate toward the reception of infant proselytes reveals this tendency toward cumulative restrictiveness. Basically, the law was generous about receiving infants into Judaism. The Talmud (b. Ketuboth ll a ) says simply that the Beth Din may bathe an infant as a proselyte. The discussion following indicates that although the infant cannot be aware of all that is implied in its adherence to Judaism, nevertheless, to accept the child as a Jew is a favor to the child, and we can always do a favor to someone without that person’s knowledge. Furthermore, the Talmud (b. Yevamoth 47b) considers the acceptance of proselytes to be a mitzvah. While it is true that under varying circumstances they disliked accepting proselytes while at other times they were willing to do so, it seems clear that with regard to an infant, whose soul is still pure (see Ketuboth l1 a ), they were always hospitable.

However, about a century ago, a different mood came over Jewish scholars. There was an increasing amount of intermarriage, and many men asked the Jewish community to circumcise the children born of their Gentile wives because they wanted the children to be Jewish. Here a great objection arose. Shalom Kutno wrote a two-volume work, Let the Law Be Obeyed, in which he emphasizes the great dangers to Judaism in accepting such children. On the other hand, the Chief Rabbi of the British Empire indicated that his uncle, Tevele Schiff, permitted the circumcision of such children in California and Australia (i.e., under frontier conditions) and, of course, with the understanding that later, if possible, if the family moved to a more settled place, the child should be taken to the mikveh. A similar mood of friendliness is recorded in the responsa of Marcus Horowitz, the Orthodox Rabbi of Frankfurt, seventy-five years ago (see his “Matteh Levy,” Vol. II). There he finally decides not to be too strict, but to permit such children to be circumcised, however only after exacting the promise that at some future time the Gentile mother will be converted to Judaism. In other words, there is a noticeable difference in attitude, one more receptive and the other more prohibitive.

The fact is that Orthodox law is not objective. There is a large subjective element involved. Although with regard to a child of a Gentile mother even the Shulchan Aruch implies that he should be circumcised, but merely says that he should not be circumcised on the Sabbath (Yore Deah 266 : 13); nevertheless, if the rabbis feel that it is necessary to be strict, they will rely upon the law in the Shulchan Aruch (Yore Deah 334 : 6) where Isserles says that in the case of a man under the ban the court may refuse to let his children be circumcised.

It is clear, then, that the law is not absolutely fixed. If the rabbis today felt it proper to be liberal, they would encourage rather than fear the reception of these children as Jews. They would, of course, ask for the ceremonial requirements, but their attitude would be friendly and not hostile to the entire situation.

In this regard, it is important to note the decision of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, which is the offi cial organization of the Reform movement in America (see C. C.A.R. Yearbook, 1947). Such a child is welcome to enter the school of a Reform congregation, and if the child completes the school courses, we consider this education to be the full equivalent of any ritual or ceremony of conversion. In other words, in Reform Judaism, while the rituals are not disregarded, the education in ethics and in Jewish history and literature is considered the more important element. That is also why, in our reception of converts, we are not content with the mere ceremonies, but require a month or more of instruction.

Basically, then, one of the sources of difficulty in the situation is not so much what the Law is, but the attitude of the rabbis. There is only one form of Jewish religion in Israel, and that form, for reasons which seem adequate to itself, is afraid of the whole situation confronting the Jewish religion in the present world (including Israel) and reacts vigorously against a liberal attitude in the reception of proselytes. There are in Israel many moods among Jews, but only one type of religious organization. In America, for example, where there is more than one type of religious organization, the mood between traditional and modern has become mutually tolerant.

But what is to be done under the present circumstances? The State can do no other than to make religion a matter of choice, and Orthodoxy can do no other than express its mood of suspicion in the matter and demand the full ceremonial of bathing and circumcision as an indispensable preliminary. In fact, it may even demand the formal conversion of the mother on the ground that the child, even if converted, yet being raised by a Christian mother, would not be truly a Jew. All this constitutes a sharp conflict in which a solution must be found.

May I suggest that a solution is possible? The State can make clear that it is not deciding for the Jewish religion who is a Jew. It is making only a civic or political decision as to which of the three communities, Christian, Mohammedan, or Jewish, the citizen belongs. The religious tests remain. When this child grows up and is about to marry, it will be the duty of the religious authority to inquire whether this child is born of a Jewish or a Gentile mother. It should have such a questionnaire for all who come to be married. If the religious authorities find that the person was born of a Christian mother, then they may demand that certain ceremonials be observed before the marriage is permitted. All that the State now says is that this child is politically or civically Jewish. Whether or not the requirements for being religiously Jewish are also fulfilled is left to the religious authorities to decide whenever the matter comes before them, in such individual cases as marriage or divorce.

Of course, this involves, in effect, the creation of a group of what may be called half-proselytes to Judaism. They will be people who have full Jewish rights civically, but only tentative Jewish rights religiously. Is this possible? Is there a precedent for it? There is, indeed! Besides the full proselytes [p???] which Orthodoxy now demands, there was also during the time of the Jewish State, a status of half-proselytes [???]. This is based upon the Talmud (Avodah Zara, 64b) and codified by Maimonides (“Issure Biah” XV : 7-8). But, such half-proselytes could only be accepted while the Jewish State existed, the technical phrase for that being, “while the Jubilees were being observed.” But after the Jewish State ceased to exist, it was not safe, or permitted, to welcome such half-proselytes (cf. Maimonides, op. cit., 8). However, now there is a Jewish State. Without going into the complex question of the State’s status in Jewish religion, it appears to be clear, as you indicate in your letter, that whatever assimilation there is, it will be toward Judaism and not away from it. There fore, it is again possible to have ger toshav, half-proselytes.

Actually, this is all that the government of the State of Israel wants. The present difficulty with the religious groups has arisen chiefly because of a confusion between ger zedek, the full proselyte, and ger toshav, the half- or tentative proselyte. If the State will now declare that it does not proclaim these children ger zedek (this [ ???] will be a matter for religion to decide, when the problem of the status of the child comes before the religious authorities at marriage and other occasions), the State is only making a ger toshav decision affirming the civic right to choose to belong to the Jewish community rather than to the Christian or Mohammedan community. It is with this clear distinction that I believe a solution can be reached.