The ball is in the secular public's court
The issue of conversion is ostensibly no longer in the headlines, but it still figures prominently on religious Zionism's agenda. The proposal to establish religious courts to serve as an alternative to those of the Chief Rabbinate comes up repeatedly in various conversations. An interesting question is why the disputes on the issues of shmita (the sabbatical year) and conversion, which set off harsh reverberations this year, provoked a far stronger reaction than that aroused by the religious courts' long-term harassment of women who are refused a get - a religious decree of divorce.
The answer is apparently related to the fact that the
religious Zionist rabbis have a more consolidated viewpoint on these
issues than on the issue of women denied a get. So the ultra-Orthodox
insistence on enforcing the more stringent view is striking religious
Zionism on a very sensitive nerve - not only farmers or converts are
being harmed, but a religious worldview as well.
The idea of establishing alternative religious courts has potential, but there are many obstacles: It requires a long-term organizational and financial effort and an alternative system for registering marriages, which will include a promise to perform marriages for converts (the rabbinate will not recognize their conversion). Therefore, along with the attempt to establish an alternative system, we would do well not to give up the struggle for official governmental recognition of a lenient concept of conversion. An interesting and worthy trend of thought in this area can be found in the covenant drawn up a while ago by Prof. Ruth Gavison and Rabbi Yaakov Medan, a document that could solve most of the problems concerning relations between religion and the state. On the question of "Who is a Jew," the two propose that Israeli law adopt a new definition: not "Jew," which is a term with a double meaning, both religious and national. Because of the double meaning the rabbinate demands exclusivity for the religious meaning. Instead, Gavison and Medan proposed "a member of the Jewish people," in other words, a definition of identity based specifically on nationality. According to their proposal, "a member of the Jewish people" would apply to anyone who is the child of one Jewish parent ?(father or mother?) as well as anyone who has joined the Jewish people and leads a Jewish lifestyle ((a sufficiently broad definition to include all the denominations of Judaism?).
This proposal gives all the parties most of what they want. On the one hand it solves the problem of those who want to be a part of the Jewish people without accepting the burden of observing all the mitzvot. On the other hand, it leaves in the hands of Orthodox Judaism the right to claim that it does not recognize these people as Jews when it comes to religion, and so will not marry them. This means, of course, that there is a need for a marriage arrangement for those who cannot marry in the rabbinate or are not interested in doing so. And in fact, the covenant provides for such an arrangement.
The proposal also has a public-relations advantage because of the very fact that Rabbi Medan is a signatory. Medan, the head of the hesder yeshiva in Gush Etzion, is an Orthodox rabbi who is not among the "Meimad liberals." Politically he belongs to the central stream of religious Zionist rabbis. Medan is strongly identified with the right, and was even among the rabbis closest to the Yesha Council during the struggle against the Gaza disengagement. Nobody can claim (as has often been maliciously claimed about rabbis identified as liberals) that he bends halakha or religious values to find favor in the eyes of the secular left. If he has signed the proposal, even its opponents will not be able to dismiss or overturn it.
So the main obstacle to implementing the proposal - and in effect, any solution to the complicated problems of conversion, women denied a get, and the other issues included under the heading "relations between religion and the state" - is the political veto of the ultra-Orthodox parties. Here the ball is in the secular public's court. Its willingness to accept coalitions in which the Haredim are not just satisfied with guaranteeing their rights (and even with receiving extra benefits), but demand for themselves a veto right that promotes a stringent halakhic approach, is in the end what is harming the farmers, the converts and women denied a get.
Religious Zionism today has a significant branch that is willing to deal with these issues courageously, and to propose reasonable solutions. But if the secular public continues to accept the Haredi coalition veto, there will be no chance to implement any of them.
The idea of establishing alternative religious courts has potential, but there are many obstacles: It requires a long-term organizational and financial effort and an alternative system for registering marriages, which will include a promise to perform marriages for converts (the rabbinate will not recognize their conversion). Therefore, along with the attempt to establish an alternative system, we would do well not to give up the struggle for official governmental recognition of a lenient concept of conversion. An interesting and worthy trend of thought in this area can be found in the covenant drawn up a while ago by Prof. Ruth Gavison and Rabbi Yaakov Medan, a document that could solve most of the problems concerning relations between religion and the state. On the question of "Who is a Jew," the two propose that Israeli law adopt a new definition: not "Jew," which is a term with a double meaning, both religious and national. Because of the double meaning the rabbinate demands exclusivity for the religious meaning. Instead, Gavison and Medan proposed "a member of the Jewish people," in other words, a definition of identity based specifically on nationality. According to their proposal, "a member of the Jewish people" would apply to anyone who is the child of one Jewish parent ?(father or mother?) as well as anyone who has joined the Jewish people and leads a Jewish lifestyle ((a sufficiently broad definition to include all the denominations of Judaism?).
This proposal gives all the parties most of what they want. On the one hand it solves the problem of those who want to be a part of the Jewish people without accepting the burden of observing all the mitzvot. On the other hand, it leaves in the hands of Orthodox Judaism the right to claim that it does not recognize these people as Jews when it comes to religion, and so will not marry them. This means, of course, that there is a need for a marriage arrangement for those who cannot marry in the rabbinate or are not interested in doing so. And in fact, the covenant provides for such an arrangement.
The proposal also has a public-relations advantage because of the very fact that Rabbi Medan is a signatory. Medan, the head of the hesder yeshiva in Gush Etzion, is an Orthodox rabbi who is not among the "Meimad liberals." Politically he belongs to the central stream of religious Zionist rabbis. Medan is strongly identified with the right, and was even among the rabbis closest to the Yesha Council during the struggle against the Gaza disengagement. Nobody can claim (as has often been maliciously claimed about rabbis identified as liberals) that he bends halakha or religious values to find favor in the eyes of the secular left. If he has signed the proposal, even its opponents will not be able to dismiss or overturn it.
So the main obstacle to implementing the proposal - and in effect, any solution to the complicated problems of conversion, women denied a get, and the other issues included under the heading "relations between religion and the state" - is the political veto of the ultra-Orthodox parties. Here the ball is in the secular public's court. Its willingness to accept coalitions in which the Haredim are not just satisfied with guaranteeing their rights (and even with receiving extra benefits), but demand for themselves a veto right that promotes a stringent halakhic approach, is in the end what is harming the farmers, the converts and women denied a get.
Religious Zionism today has a significant branch that is willing to deal with these issues courageously, and to propose reasonable solutions. But if the secular public continues to accept the Haredi coalition veto, there will be no chance to implement any of them.
Add your comment