The opening of Britain’s brand-new Supreme Court last month was an occasion for celebration. But for some sections of Britain’s Jewish community, it was accompanied by trepidation.
In a society with only partial separation between church and state, one of the first cases heard by the new court concerned the right of the Jewish community to decide who is allowed to attend Jewish day schools, which in Britain are almost all publicly funded. If that right is taken away, blame can be laid squarely at the feet of Britain’s Orthodox establishment.
Many of Britain’s Jewish day schools fall under the religious aegis of the United Synagogue, headed by the chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks. Consequently, the schools only admit children who are considered to be Jewish under Halacha, or Jewish law — and who are certified as such, during the application process, by the chief rabbi. The chief rabbinate does not consider non-Orthodox converts, or their children, to be Jewish.
For the most part, the Jewish community quietly acquiesced in the United Synagogue’s admissions practices until 2005, when two women who had Orthodox conversions in Israel tried to get their 11-year-old children accepted into London’s Jewish Free School. As Orthodox converts, the women should have easily met the chief rabbi’s criteria. But while the chief rabbi is celebrated as a leading Modern Orthodox thinker, his beit din, or rabbinic court, insists on imposing Haredi halachic standards on a British Jewish community whose practice and belief is largely traditional, rather than strictly Orthodox.
The chief rabbi, apparently under pressure from his beit din, refused to certify either woman as Jewish. There were “procedural irregularities” in the conversion of Helen Sagal, he said; and Helen Lightman — herself a teacher at JFS — could not have been a “sincere” convert, because her husband, whom she married under Orthodox auspices in New York soon after her conversion, was a kohen. (According to Halacha, kohanim are not allowed to marry converts, although such a marriage is valid if a fait accompli.)
These two cases unleashed a storm of anger in the traditionally placid world of Anglo-Jewry. Many could not understand why the chief rabbi was declaring two women — fully accepted as Jews in Israel — to be non-Jews, devastating their families. Was it really necessary to delve into the intimate details of decade-old Orthodox conversions, creating problems where there were none?
The issue came to a head in 2007, when JFS rejected “Boy M” because his mother had converted through a non-Orthodox beit din. Apparently spurred on by the outrage caused by the previous cases, the father sued the school, with the Lightman parents listed as “interested parties” and presenting a supporting statement to the court.
Initially, the court ruled in favor of JFS. But this summer, the case took a shocking turn. An appeals court — headed by a Jewish judge — decided that the halachic principle that Jewish status could be determined by birth constituted ethnic, not religious, identity. Offering places on the basis of whether a child’s parent is Jewish amounted to ethnic, and therefore racial, discrimination. Under English law, what is important is whether the child has Jewish beliefs and practices — not their lineage, the judge ruled.
Bizarrely, as a result of the ruling, each school has had to devise a test measuring applicants’ religious devotion. Most have set the bar low — requiring, for example, a mezuzah on one’s front door, and four visits to synagogue each year. During the High Holy Days, shuls of every denomination placed a box at the entrance, into which parents could slip a card with their names, proving attendance.
Communal leaders were taken aback by the court’s interference in an internal Jewish row. It was particularly jarring in that the court’s ruling seemed to imply that the traditional definition of Jewish identity is racist. Indeed, Rabbi Tony Bayfield, head of Britain’s Movement for Reform Judaism, said that even though his movement deplored JFS’s admissions procedures, he was behind the United Synagogue in this matter “100%.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue is due in a matter of weeks. As we all wait, Lord Sacks and the rest of Britain’s Orthodox establishment should be asking themselves some tough questions. Namely, how did they contribute to the communal climate of outrage that helped bring us to this juncture? And was it was really worth sacrificing our educational institutions’ independence and provoking a secular court to impose its own definition of Jewish identity just to keep two 11-year-olds — who are almost certainly halachically Jewish — out of their school?
Miriam Shaviv is foreign editor of Britain’s Jewish Chronicle.
The Forward welcomes reader comments in order to promote thoughtful discussion on issues of importance to the Jewish community. In the interest of maintaining a civil forum, the Forward requires that all commenters be appropriately respectful toward our writers, other commenters and the subjects of the articles. Vigorous debate and reasoned critique are welcome; name-calling and personal invective are not. While we generally do not seek to edit or actively moderate comments, the Forward reserves the right to remove comments for any reason.
To post a comment, click to login:
Copyright © 2012, Forward Association, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
"The chief rabbinate does not consider non-Orthodox converts, or their children, to be Jewish."
For a point of clarification, I believe you are referring here to a mother who has undergone a non-Orthodox conversion; her children would not be considered Jewish by the chief rabbinate. (the status of the father is not relevant)
Joel Katz Religion and State in Israel
I think this goes beyond whether any or all of the streams of Judaism are right, proper, or invalid.
This is above all, about a potential inconsistency in law that places the rights of the individual, above those of the group - protected in law, above and beyond the rights of the community. Unlike other peoples, Jews have ensured their survival over millenia through the power of tzdaka, the importance of tikkun olam and the power of the many, over the self-interest of the few. It would be a shame to start now.
http://jewinthefat.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/jew-is-as-jew-does/
jewinthefat is wrong. This is about English Law taking precedence in England, a country where the individual has rights that are sacrosanct. The court decided group racial purity does not take precedence over individual's rights. I for one am joyous for that--failure of individual rights over group racial purity has been disastrous in the past.
Jewinthefat's comments are abominable.
jewinthe fat,
I don't quite understand how "tsedaka" and "tikkun olam" can be invoked to justify a powerful community trying to exclude a few children who believe they are Jewish, and want a Jewish education - purely because their mothers were not ethnically Jewish. Is that really what "ensuring survival" is all about? Thankfully, the practice has been found to be unlawful. In my opinion, a society which protects the rights of the individual (especially when it concerns a vulnerable child) against those in power is to be wholly applauded.
Can you explain to me the difference between
"Haredi halachic standards" and "strictly Orthodox"? If a Bet Din goes according to the Torah, then that is all one needs. There is certainly NO difference between "Haredi halachic standards" and "strictly Orthodox" - you simply made that up. They both follow the same Torah!
Several points. First, in the UK Reform is what Americans call Conservative and UJK Liberal Jews are what Americans call Reform. Therefore the CVonservatives supported the Chief Rabbi while the Reform opposed him. Second, no Jewish school rejects a child because of a doubtful Orthodox conversion. The problem is that the school was oversubscribed and in such cases there is a list of priorities. Top is children who are Halachically Jewish, whether Orthodox, Conservative/Masorti or Reform / Liberal. Then children with a Jewish father and a non-Jewish mother, then non-Jewish pupils. Many mainstream Orthodox Jewish schools in rhe UK have non-Jewish children; it all depends on supply and demand. One provicial Jewish school has an intake that is 75% non-Jewish because of changing demography. The case before the British courts is based on the Race Relations Act that outlaws racial discrimiation. The UK govt finances 'faith schools' -- Anglican / Episcopalian, Roman Catholic and Jewish, and children of the school's faith have priority in being offered places based on 'faith', but NOT race. Most Orthodox schools accept children from homes that are Shomer Shabbos and this is quite legal. Mainstream Orthodox schools want to include as many types of Jews as possible and therefore use the much broader definition of having a Jewish mother.
Would it be relevant to ask the denomination of the Judge who headed the Appeal Court panel? Orthodox or otherwise? Joe Feld's explanation implies that the selection criteria could be interpreted as racial by non-Jewish legal eyes. In Britain Jews are classified as a racial group under the Race Relations Act, like the Sikhs, as well as being a religious group. If Jews were simply a religious group like Muslims or Hindus the selection criteria would be no problem.
The real problem as Miriam points out arises from affronted Jewish people having to go to English Civil Law to resolve a religious dispute. Non-Jews tend to regard Jewish religious rules as comic at the best of times. The malicious among them probably regard this as the best Jewish joke of the year.
Joe Feld: the school actually rejected some Halakhically Jewish children on the grounds that it could not ascertain whether or not their mothers were really Jewish.
*sorry their mothers had converted via Orthodoxy but the school was not convinced of their status.
Yesterday evening Miriam watched the BBC TV "The World's Strictest Parents" http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/bbcs-worlds-strictest-parents-do-shabbat-keep-kosher
I watched the same programme and it illustrated clearly the importance of the principle mentioned by jewinthefat earlier, the value of the precedence of the community over the individual, especially when bringing up children. In this case it had a clearly beneficial effect on the behaviour of two wayward British teenagers under the benign influence of two very capable Orthodox parents in Israel.
One must question however what is in the best interests of the community in this school admission case and whether it should be decided by diktat, or consensus or by lawsuit in the British courts.
david
I am uncertain where the Torah gives guidance on the definition of a Jew according to the religion of his mother. Relationships seem to be defined by the male rather than the female parentage. Perhaps you can guide me on this.
I find it curious that one of the women concerned in this case was converted as an Orthodox Jew in the USA but her conversion was deemed to be insincere by the London bet din because she married a kohen. It would seem more logical to me to doubt the sincerity of her husband and annul the marriage. In that case presumably her child could then have been admitted to the school, unless of course the child of a single Jewish mother would be excluded. The real irony of this is that apparently she is a teacher at the school!
If you look at the Appeal Court ruling, what the court did - admirably - was to look beyond all questions of Jewish denominations, the validity or otherwise of various conversions, and simply examine what was required of a child to be able to enter the school as a priority, "Jewish" candidate. They found that the admissions criteria required a child to have a Jewish mother, who herself obviously had to have a Jewish mother etc, etc. The refusal to admit the child in question was because his mother was not Jewish. It was not on the grounds of his religious beliefs. Other children could be admitted simply by "bloodline" with no questions whatsoever asked about their religious beliefs.
No-one is suggesting that that isn't a reasonable way of defining a Jew for other purposes, but it is unlawful to use that sort of criteria for admissions to a state school.
Many people are up in arms about the state trying to define "who is a Jew" and meddling in things that should be the preserve of the Jewish scommunity to decide. However, admissions to state schools in very strictly regulated and the community may just have to accept that genuine religious criteria will have to be used in future.
cont.
A remark by the Chief Rabbi is often quoted where he says that, in common with British citizenship - where you can be born into it or achieve it by naturalisation - a person can be Jewish by birth or become Jewish by conversion: and therefore it can't be racist.
What the Rabbi, and those who quote him, seemingly fail to understand is that this comparision merely proves the Court of Appeal's stance, not their own: because it would clearly be 100% unlawful to run a school where priority is given to British children over other children. Yes, Jews are a nation as well as a religion, but it's unlawful to use nationhood as a criterion to enter a school.
Yes. Part of the judgement actually said that it would clearly be illegal for a Christian child of practising Christians to be denied access to a Church school on the grounds that one of the parents was of Jewish origin, although now converted to Christianity. More or less the obverse of the present situation.
I think also that the London bet din perhaps should not have allowed a situation to arise where a dispute over the validity of Israeli Orthodox conversions was aired in a public Court. Perhaps it is a good thing that the BNP is currently "friends" with Israel!
One thing is certain - to be born Jewish is easy, to convert is exceedingly hard work and involves overcoming considerable resistence from the community and the religious authorities. Sincerity is severely tested and it appears to include being careful not to marry a Kohen. There seem to be degrees of being Jewish even when the toughest tests have been passed.
"These two cases unleashed a storm of anger in the traditionally placid world of Anglo-Jewry. Many could not understand why the chief rabbi was declaring two women — fully accepted as Jews in Israel — to be non-Jews, devastating their families.".
When anyone coverts to Judaism under one Orthodox authority which is not recognized by another orthodox authority, this undermines the rabbi's authority and also undermines Judaism. This may lead to Jews questioning and even rejecting the rabbi's authority in their country. If someone has converted to Judaism and then later told by rabbis they are not Jewish, it shows that rabbis cannot make proper decisions on big issues that can be trusted when they change their minds which causes huge problems like this.
in the conversion of Helen Sagal, he said; and Helen Lightman — herself a teacher at JFS — could not have been a “sincere” convert, because her husband, whom she married under Orthodox auspices in New York soon after her conversion, was a kohen. Since she had an Orthodox wedding in New York after her conversion this must have led the couple to believe that their marriage is acceptable in Orthodox Judaism, the couple were mislead into believing that their marriage is acceptable in Orthodox Judaism so Helen was a sincere convert.
If a priestly authority wants to maintain the purity of its religion and the standard of devotion of their followers,it has to be very picky about who is admitted, who they marry and the standard of education of their children. The present ownership of the JFS by the very small British Orthodox sect is not unreasonable in that context.
The survival of Judaism and Jewish cultures over the centuries has depended on adherence to the Mosaic laws and to the guidance of priests and rabbis. The strict rules of the religion in all its various sects have helped to keep the communities together and to maintain a common thread that links all Jewish communities.
However, who is to say that any one of the current sects of Judaism has a monopoly of the truth? Could it be that Abyssinian Jews are closer to pre-Diaspora Judaism than the current British Orthodox establishment?
This argument is a symptom of the sort of struggle that occurs in almost all religions. The real question is whether Judaism should be inclusive or exclusive in nature. There was a time when Jews welcomed converts and some sects in the USA in particular still do. Others are fanatically exclusive and this inevitably leads to conflict. Another aspect of this is the old and continuing argument over assimilation of Jews into the larger community in which they live.
One thing is clear from history, exclusiveness can make Jews a target for suspicion and abuse while assimilation carries its own dangers to the cohesion of Jewish religion and traditions.
Jakes. Every year the JFS school turns away children from local Orthodox primary / elementary schools because there just aren't enough places. Two new Jewish Secondary schools -- state aided -- have opened in the past two years, one Orthodox and one cross communal, to cover children of non-Orthodox converts.
Phoenix, re: very small British Orthodox sect ? The Chief Rabbi represents the very large majority of British Orthodox afilliated Jews. Orthodoxy is the norm in England, and the majority of Jewish children born in England are born to Orthodox families. When it comes to Jewish schools, out of 97 Jewish schools, 95 are Orthodox, one Reform/Conservative and one cross communal.
The Chief Rabbi does not represent the large majority of British Jews. Many Jews belong to an Orthodox synagogue because they live near to an Orthodox synagogue/ they want their children to go to Jewish schools and know that the schools will give them preference because most of the Jewish schools are Orthodox. I know someone who wants to join a Reform synagogue but was told to join a United Synagogue so they can get their children into the school. I know Jewish people who drive to their Orthodox synagogue, park two roads away from it and do not see anything wrong with doing it- does the Chief rabbi represent them because they are Orthodox affiliated?
Joe There are roughly 300,000 Jews in Britain. Of those a majority may be Orthodox, but there are enough of the others to makes a fuss about this. Compared with the total world population of Jews anything British is very small indeed! Anything Jewish in Britain is also very small in the interest of the whole population but they manage to attract attention to their quarrels out of all proportion to their numbers.
Lucy "I know Jewish people who drive to their Orthodox synagogue, park two roads away from it and do not see anything wrong with doing it" Surely not on Shabbat?!!
Of course on Shabbat! I see nothing wrong with that.
Joe Feld: I don't care if the school has to turn down applicants because there aren't enough spots, but to start questioning an Orthodox convert's sincerity and turning down Halakhically Jewish children because of their mother's conversion is, to me, beyond the pale.
As for the case in question, where the mother had converted via Conservative Judaism, I think there is a legitimate issue here because the school receives state funds. Perhaps if it were entirely privately funded, it would be different. But that is not the case.
Regarding the majority of British Jewry being Orthodox: Many countries aside from the US have Jews identifying as nominally Orthodox because, twice a year when they go to synagogue, they attend an Orthodox one and are members. Many of them do not keep kosher and plenty of them don't keep Shabbat. The term Orthodox is used quite loosely. Finally, even if the majority of British Jewry were Orthodox, they certainly are not Charedi. Although R Sacks is considered MO, his Bet Din is considered Charedi which is significant in explaining why the Orthodox converts' children were rejected.
Replies. Orthodox by afilliation does not mean they are Shomer Shabbat or strictly kosher. It means they are mainstream Anglo-Jewish and feel at home in the communal United Synagogues. The main Orthodox groups are the United, the Spanish and Portuguese, the Federation, the Union and the Adass Israel communities. The last two groups are Haredi and all members are Shomer Shabbat. The other groups are inclusive or Modern Orthodox, serving every Jew in their district even if only twice a year. Masorti is quite new and small by comparison. Reform and Liberal cover quite a range, but tend to have a lower birth rate and higher assimilation.
Jakes. If a person converts with the intention of marrying a Cohane [who is not allowed to marry a convert ] the conversion is very doubtful. In the case of Boy M, his mother was originally Catholic, underwent a Conservative conversion and later reverted to being Catholic, separating from her Jewish husband. Her Conservative conversion may have been less of a problem than reverting back to being Catholic.
Joe Field, where in the Torah does it say that once someone has converted and confirmed as Jewish, that conversion and convert can be questioned on whether they were sincere and their Jewish status can be changed?
If a person is a genuine convert and understands and undertakes to live according to the Torah, then he is a convert forever even if he or she loses his/ her initial enthusiasm. If the convert never really intended to accept to live a Jewish life, but had an ulterior motive, then it may be doubtful whether the conversion ever took place. To give you a recent example, a group of Christian missionaries in Israel managed to convince a Haredi Beth Din to convert them, although their intention was to get inside Jewish life to spread their 'good news'. Their conversion was clearly not genuine. Admittedly retroactively revoking a conversion is very unusual in most places, although the London Beth Din has quite a track record of not accepting Israeli conversions.
In theory this might make sense to you but in practice it will not work. This means that Jewish people who have grandmothers (their mother's mother) who converted to Judaism in Israel or in another country where the convert might not be believed to be sincere by another Orthodox authority in another country, will question their own Jewish status because they consider themselves Jewish because Jewish status is determined by their mother. In that case would the Jewish person have to go to the country where their grandmother lived to research whether their grandmother's conversion was genuine?. Will they also have to provide the Chief rabbi with information on their grandmother's conversion even if she is not alive, to get confirmation that her conversion was genuine?.
This means that there are likely to be cases where a women converts to Judaism in Israel, gets married to a Jewish man, have a son and daughter who they bring up as Jewish who later move to England or another country where their mother's conversion is not accepted. The son and daughter are told at the age of 40 they are not Jewish because their mother was not a sincere convert. For people to be considered Jewish in one country by one Orthodox authority and not another one will turn Judaism into a joke, undermines Orthodox authority and treats the convert badly,
if you read today's Jewish News or go to http://www.totallyjewish.com/ and read the Jewish News online. Letters to the editor pg 14, the letter titled right of reply to Rabbi Shochet explains the reason not to question a Beth Din.
Sarah, Many, even most Orthodox rabbis probably agree with you. When a Dayan on the Chief Rabbi's Beth Din in Israel tried to retroactively revoke all the Chief Rabbis own conversions, a leading London Orthodox Rabbi publicly called such behaviour 'insane', and I don't recall many who disagreed.
Joe Feld who are you to start questioning a convert's sincerity? The fact that she married a Kohan does not change her status as a Jew. All kinds of cases can be made to prove that she is still a Jew. I won't bother here because I'm going to try to convince you. I just don't want any innocent readers to be hurt by your accusations and I don't like the misrepresentation of Halakha either. Retroactive annulment of giyyur is based on senseless chumra of ultra-Orthodoxy but trying to disguise it as classical Halakha. It is a recent tool used by ultra-Orthodoxy to assert its power and dominance over all other Jews.
*because I'm not going to bother trying to convince you.
The Jewish News letters to the editor page includes this letter
"There are at least two key sources which talk about the need to fully respect decisions of earlier courts. The first is Mishnah Rosh Hashanah 2:8-9, in which Rabbi Dosa says to Rabbi Joshua: "If we call into question the decisions of the Bet Din of Rabbi Gamaliel, we must call into question the decisions of every Bet Din that has existed since the days of Moses until the present time." It goes on to say: "Every group of three which has acted as a Bet Din over Israel is on a level with the Bet Din of Moses."
The other major source is the section in the Mishnah Torah where Maimonedes tries to explain why the conversions of King Soloman's wives were valid, although they continued to practise idolatry. He makes it clear a conversion does not get annuled after the fact. As for the question of a territorial conversion, this is sheer nonsense. Provided the conversion has been carried out in accordance with the Talmud Babli it is valid anywhere in the world."
To define someone as Jewish purely on the basis of parentage and not religious practice is, indeed, racist. Jews should be acutely aware of that and the harm that can cause, as it was exactly what the Nazis did: defining as Jewish on the basis of parentage.
Just as animal slaughter is no longer a Jewish religious practice, so should the way in which someone is defined as Jewish, even by the Orthodox.
The JFS are doing the work of the NAZI party for them, by identifying Jews with a "pure" blood line. And the rest of the Jewish race are therefore Untermentchen???? These poor women have been dragged through the public gaze. Where was there any respect for them or their feelings, - common "derech eretz"?
Shame on the JFS for bringing not only the Jewish community in the UK into disrepute but also other faith schools who now wait nervously to see what the rulings about their admission policies will be. This will not have made many friends in the wider community in the UK and there is already a rise in the AntiSemitism in the UK.
The JFS should be careful. Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. There are people near the top of that organisation who have family members they would rather hide as well.......