The religious authority debate continues to roil Israel.
The Israeli Cabinet has formally rejected a carryover proposal from Prime Minister Netanyahu’s previous cabinet that would have given regional rabbis the authority to establish local conversion courts at the expense of the tight control the Chief Rabbinate has traditionally exercised over conversions.
The development is plainly a result of the haredi parties now being part of the new Netanyahu government after two years in the political wilderness. In fact, repeal of the policy was part of the coalition agreement between the Likud party and the ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism.
The Cabinet also returned authority over the country’s religious courts to the Ministry of Religious Affairs, now headed by David Azoulay of the Shas Party. Prior to this transfer, the religious courts, which constitute the sole authority for the issuance of marriage and divorce certificates to Jews, were part of the Justice Ministry (as were Christian and Sharia courts). Being part of the secular Justice Ministry notably impacted on the courts’ independence as arbiters of religious questions. In the past when the religious courts were part of the Religious Affairs Ministry, many secular Jews chafed under the strict halachic rules applied regarding marriage and divorce.
The issue of the Chief Rabbinate’s control over conversions and other life-cycle matters has long been a contentious one. There are religious authorities whose interpretation of halacha differs from that espoused by the chief rabbis and haredi leaders. There are also those who specifically challenge the halachic requirements for conversions, asserting the need for a more accommodating interpretation in light of Israel’s critical need for population growth and the support of overseas Jews identifying with the Reform and Conservative movements.
Indeed, the immediate impetus for the now abandoned dispersal of authority over conversions was the situation presented by tens of thousands of immigrants from the former Soviet Union who qualified for Israeli citizenship because of family connections or Jewish ancestors but did not meet the stringent conversion standards of halacha.
One does not have to take a position on the relative merits of the particular sides of the two issues to recognize the importance for Jewish unity of one common standard in the public domain to supersede all others. Thus, we do not challenge the legitimacy of positions taken by Orthodox rabbis on issues of religious standards or their interpretations. Nor would we dismiss the value of support for Israel from the greater non-Orthodox community here in America. And we do not minimize the utilitarian value of non-halachically Jewish immigrants to the security of Israel.
But what it clear to us is that there cannot be different definitions of what it means to be a Jew as recognized by the Jewish state if we are to be one community. Thus we find the following statement from MK Bezalel Smotrich (Jewish Home) to be instructive:
When we take away from the Rabbinate responsibility for the standards of conversion and allow various organizations and institutes to determine their own standards as they see fit, this will eventually lead to a situation where we can no longer be united. Such differentiation will only lead to tribalism, in which each group will manage its own affairs, where eventually each Jew will have to prove his or her Jewishness before getting married.