Britain’s Supreme Court has weighed in on the thorny question of Jewish identity. By a 5-4 vote on December 16, the judges upheld an earlier court ruling that publicly funded Jewish schools in Britain could not admit students by what it deemed to be ethnic considerations. Such schools, said the court, had to look beyond the Jewishness of an applicant’s mother when determining admissions. From now on, questions of religious practice and commitment must come into play.
Many in the Jewish community expressed surprise and outrage over this decision, seeing it as an unwarranted intrusion into the inner workings of Jewish law. Even the dissenting judges opined that the majority’s view “insists on a non-Jewish definition of who is Jewish,” and “has no basis in 3,500 years of Jewish law and teaching.”
Well, not quite. Actually, for millennia, Jews have struggled with the question of whether we are a people, defined by descent and common ancestry, or a religion, defined by faith and practice. In fact, Judaism is the only major contemporary world religion that grapples in this manner with questions of ethnicity and peoplehood. The reason for this lies in the distant past.
In the ancient Near East, ethnicity and religion were fused; being a member of a tribe or nation meant being a part of that group’s culture and religion and subscribing to the group’s national god. One important corollary of this ethno-religious reality is that it was impossible for a non-Israelite man to become an Israelite. (In a patriarchal society, women could assimilate into the clan by marrying an indigenous man.) “Conversion,” as we think of it today, did not exist.
Enter Alexander the Great. Through his empire, Alexander introduced to the lands he conquered a new notion: the multi-ethnic civilization. Starting with Alexander, it was possible for people of many tribes and peoples to join Greek civilization by dressing Greek, speaking Greek, worshipping Greek gods and adopting a Greek form of government. Hellenistic culture cleaved religion from ethnicity and allowed anyone born anywhere to enter into a Greek way of life.
This shift plunged Jews into an identity crisis from which we have never fully recovered. Are we a people? A religion? Some combination of both?
The major post-Hellenistic religions are just that: religions. To be a Christian is to profess faith in Christ. To be a Muslim is to declare that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his prophet. Peoplehood is not an issue for them. Only Jews, with their pre-Hellenistic roots, have been bequeathed this dilemma.
As with all core issues of identity, this one is more readily understood by looking at those who attempt to cross boundaries: converts, those who enter Jewishness from the outside, and apostates, those who are born Jewish but abandon Jewish practice.
Rabbinic Judaism responded to Alexander’s challenge by embracing the notion of converts. The Talmud lays out procedures for how a gentile can become a Jew through a commitment to Jewish practice and a process of circumcision (for men) and full-body immersion in water (simulating a kind of rebirth).
This acceptance of converts, however, has not been uncontroversial. While there are many texts that speak of the convert’s equality (and even superiority) to the born Jew, other texts speak much more disparagingly about converts, revealing a deep insecurity regarding the project of dissolving ethnic bonds by allowing for conversion.
Here and there, one finds contemporary Orthodox rabbis who go so far as to discourage their followers from entering into marriages with converts. In support of that position, they can point to a passage in the Talmud stating that “converts are as terrible for Israel as a rash.” This shocking — and extremely troubling — stance actually illuminates a deep truth: Every move toward strengthening the notion of Jewishness as a religious identity weakens the ethnic and national notion of Jewishness.
Apostates have been no easier to deal with. Some sources in the Talmud suggest that once one is born a Jew, one can never lose that status. Even a conversion to another religion has no effect in the eyes of Judaism, according to this view. But other sources suggest that gross violations of Jewish law — and certainly adopting another religion — effectively strip one of Jewish citizenship. After all, if one can convert into Judaism, why shouldn’t one be able to convert out?
The controversy has never fully been resolved. There were rabbis in the Middle Ages who claimed that for an observant Jew to marry a Jew who had abandoned Sabbath observance was no different than intermarriage with a gentile. And occasionally today one hears suggestions that secular Israelis are essentially Hebrew-speaking gentiles. While jarring for many to hear, such statements reflect the view that prioritizes the definition of Jews as a religious group.
Absent a return to the Iron Age, it seems Jews will be stuck with this dilemma and the difficult choices it presents for the foreseeable future. The best strategy would seem to be to identify the importance of peoplehood, on the one hand, and religion, on the other, and to draw strength from both.
Judaism as a religion benefits from Jewish peoplehood and the sense of warmth, belonging and unconditional love and commitment that come with it. At the same time, simply distilling Jewishness down to a content-free ethnic categorization determined by one’s mother threatens to trivialize and marginalize any sense of Jewish purpose and mission. Only a concept of Judaism that sees a religious mission embedded within an ethnic group — albeit with the possibility of both entry and exit at the margins — can do justice to the richness of Jewish history.
Now that the British court case is decided, Jews, as an ancient people and faith, must even more urgently return to a basic question: Do we share a future as a result of our common ethnic past, or is our common past irrelevant if we don’t share a religious vision for the future?
Rabbi Ethan Tucker is dean and chair of Jewish law at Mechon Hadar in New York City. He served on the American Jewish Committee’s Task Force on Jewish Peoplehood.
The entire issue of peoplehood can never be resolved without a clear realization that Jews must return to a Jewish language. American Jewry has totally given up on giving serious language skills to its children. It's sad, but it seems to be a fact. The sense of Jewish peoplehood, therefore, is a lost cause. Only religion remains as a tool for the creation of Jewish identity - and, ironically, the American Jews are a very irreligious public, so even religion isn't so effective.
The Yiddish-speakers had a clear Jewish identity. Anti-religious people such as the Bund had an obvious Jewish identity. Likewise, Hebrew-speaking Israelis - religious or irreligious - are obviously Jews. The line "Hebrew-speaking gentiles" was in very poor taste. The Jewish population of Israel is the most traditional Jewish society in the world. Jewish education is universal. Intermarriage is negligible. Participation in a Jewish society is self-evident. As always, blunt and rude words are acceptable in American Jewish discourse only when the topic is Israel. No one would dare call the masses of non-affiliated, (Jewishly) illiterate American Jews "English speaking gentiles". Surely, the Forward wouldn't allow it.
Rabbi Ethan Tucker - It's very important to be busy with the issue of peoplehood. But peoplehood means peoplehood - also for the Jewish people. Every people has its own language. Put Hebrew achievements at the top of the agenda. Renew the creativity of Diaspora Jews in their own language. And suddenly, as if by magic, you will discover that peoplehood is self-evident - and there will be no need to discuss it.
This is also a political issue. As Amos Elon wrote re. the "Who is a Jew" question in Israel, it's really "Who is a Rabbi?" We've been waging a 150 year-odd year struggle around who possesses power in Jewish life. Denomination stuff, mishpat ivri v. halakha, Israel v. Golah, lots of interesting power dynamics.
http://www.forward.com/articles/118773/ In England the Chief has turned Judaism into more of an ethnic group than a Religion. The Chief rabbi Jonathan Sacks does not accept Helen Lightman's Orthodox conversion to Judaism (she converted in Israel). This may be one of the reasons the court believed that Judaism is more of an ethnic group than a religion.
A well written and thought provoking article.
Several points. The Supreme Court suggested that the law be amended to allow Jewish schools to use a Jewish definition of who is a Jew, a view publicly endorsed by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey. The main case before the courts was unusually complicated. The boy's mother was a Catholic who converted to Reform Judaism and later reverted back to Catholicism and separated from her Jewish husband. Frum schools in Britain have a Shomer Shabbos clause for admission which is 100% legal as it is based on religon and not ethnicity. Mainstream Orthodox schools use the broadest possible definition, having a Jewish mother, in order to include Conservative and Reform children. The Chief Justice and two other Supreme Court Justices are ethnically Jewish, as is the Lord Chacellor or Justice Minister as well as the Foreign Minister and the Speaker of the House of Commons, although they are not necessarily religiously observant. Admission to a 'faith school'-- Anglican, Roman or Jewish -- should be based on faith, not ethnicity.
A simple way for the jews of all stripes in england can solve the problem they face would be to establish non state funded Jewish Day Schools.If british Jews wish to have the states money they must follow the states rules.
If you were jewish in America unless you were a crook you would note receive public money to operate your schools.
@Philip
Exactly. I think most of the commenters must have missed the "public" part in "the judges upheld an earlier court ruling that PUBLICLY FUNDED Jewish schools in Britain could not admit students by what it deemed to be ethnic considerations" (emphasis mine.)
When you fund your own school then you can pick and choose whom to admit, using any criteria you please. But if you accept the public's money, you must accept its children as well. It is not fair to exclude the very people who funded the school, indeed, without them the school would not even exist. The school is in essence saying "Thanks for the money. You can go now." The mere attempt at denying a place to the child that eventually prevailed was an arrogant and reprehensible attempt at getting something at the expense of others, under a veneer of religion and piety. In my opinion, the court got it absolutely right. You can't suck on the public tit and play exclusion games at the same time.
Public versus private. The UK Race Relations Act applies to all schools and businesses whether public or private, e.g. you cannot have a policy of 'whites only' or 'no Jews allowed', however private the school or employer. The law was passed to protect minorities including Jews from discrimination, and no one in Parliament ever dreamt it would be used against Jewish schools. Of the 97 Anglo-Jewish schools, 95 are Orthodox, one is Reform and one is cross communal, specifically set up to prioritise non-Orthodox converts who have lower priority in Orthodox schools. If there are enough places Orthodox schools also accept non-Orthodox converts and non-Jewish pupils, several Orthodox schools having an intake which is about 50% non-Jewish because of demographic changes. Many top Church of England schools accept Jewish pupils and at one time Carmel College, the so-called 'Jewish Eton' had about 50 non-Jewish boys and 300 Jewish ones back about 1970. Carmel boarding school has closed and been replaced by several top day schools in London, notably Immanuel College, named after Chief Rabbi Lord Immanuel Jakobovits.
I have always been intrigued by how this question plays out in the US with non-jews. To US gentiles, there is no question - Judaism is a relgion. Period. Terms such as "jewish atheist" or "cultural jew" never makes sense to US gentiles.
Yet, my read of our history in the diaspora up to World War II demonstrates clearly how we maintained an ethnic and cultural identity, nationhood, in a world in which borders were tenuous at best. Through that nationhood we maintained Hebrew and developed Eastern European and Sephardic cultural traditions.
But the ultimate modern statement of ethnicity, as expressed by the modern philosphers Emil Frankenheim and Victor Frankel, came with the Holocaust, with Hitler understanding, recognizing, and attempting to destroy our ethnic identity. I believe that we learn from the Holocaust that, whether we want to be so or not, we are an ethnic group, are recognized as such on the world stage, and that one can give up the religious aspects of this identity overnight, but that it takes generations to give up the ethnic aspects of our jewish selves.
Hymie says "The Forward The Forward is not likely to be part of the FUTURE of Judaism" The Forward is not a synagogue, it's purpose is to report the news on the whole of the Jewish community and include different perspectives. You can't expect to agree with every article and opinion you read.
I have long been perplexed why Jews seem to have such an identity problem. Jews are a tribe. The Torah says so repeatedly. No one has a problem understanding that the Navajo or that the Cherokee are tribes. Or that they have native religions of their own. From its earliest primordial beginnings, the Israelites were a "mixed multitude." Moses even took a Cushite for his second wife. Jews are not a race or ethnicity or religion. Jews are a tribe that has an ancient tribal religion that has gone through various evolutionary stages, and is comprised of elements of various ethnicities that have become members of the tribe over time. Jews are a nation with a national language, Hebrew, and a national legal system, Halacha, a national tribal homeland, the Land of Israel, and a set of cultural values that derive from their diverse historical experiences in exile. In brief, Jews are a tribe and have nothing to be ashamed about.
A tribe, huh? Okay, as long as it's not the Stüssy Tribe (which I once mistakenly believed was a rock band but turned out to be a line of clothing. I once profoundly mortified my teenager by asking for CDs by Stüssy Tribe in the music store. Aw shucks ...)
@Yehuda,
Ethan Tucker works for an institution that teaches Jews from a variety of backgrounds to study classical Jewish texts in the original Hebrew and Aramaic, so he probably agrees with your assessment.
Rabbi Tucker, a thought-provoking article. Thank you for sharing your erudition and thinking.
Peter, this is the wrong forum, but I will give you the beginnings of an answer.
What gives the German people (or any other) a right to their own country, or to the land they currently live in?
The modern state of Israel was not created by the US - the USSR was actually the first country to officially recognize it - and it gave back the Jewish people their homeland (which had only been left due to forced exile).
How do the complexities involved in defining who is a Jew have any relation to the right of a people to live in the land they were forcibly expelled from?
If you would like to discuss this further, please feel free to email me: Ian.Guffy@gmail.com -Ian
Regarding your comment: "Enter Alexander the Great. Through his empire, Alexander introduced to the lands he conquered a new notion: the multi-ethnic civilization."
What nonsense!
The Persian Empire, long before Alexdander of Macedonia, was an example of a multi-ethnic civilization. Cyrus the Great did the Jews a pretty big favour, although it's hardly ever acknowledged.
Ethan Tucker, my friend, you stated in your artical ---"Judaism as a religion "benefits" from Jewish peoplehood... Let stop there my friend, and look at this.
First it is G-D who is the foundation, and it is the stone, the house of G-D that Jacob entered in -----IN PEACE. For Jacob to enter in peace, G-D wars on sin, for sin was driffen out of the kingdom of G-D above. The turning out of male and female, was for them to work and drive out sin on earth as well. Mankind empraces their sins, and put them up higher than G-D. The word Jew...was not called the Jewish people until the 18 century in the English copy of the Old Testement. It is written...Jemeriah 31...Behold, the dayssss coooome( in every generation, G-D seeded our DNA, our Creator of All Mankind) . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will sow the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the seed of man, and with the seed of beast.
The beast--and man, who are now sow with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. Ecclesiastes 3...I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men (not the sons of G-D) that G-D might see that they themselves are beast. For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beast; even one thing befalleth them; as the one dieth, so dieth the other; so that man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
It is written Job 33...The Spirit of G-D *MADE ME*( above, flesh death, sons of men due to sin) but the breath of the Almighty gives me life. (above, a child(male or female) is given up to Us(G-D), and it is the declared decree in Ps. 2 were David was brought forth, or birth or begotten as a son of G-D. Along with our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, that all walked in unity with G-D.
The true sons of G-D who put the desire of G-D within their inward parts to be brought forth to be given a garment and spiritural food to eat, and to grow more like their Living G-D of heaven and earth.
It is written of them....Psalm 51...Behold, thou desirest TRUTH in the INWARD PARTS:(heart and mind) ...and in the HIDDEN PART (the house of G-D, Genesis 28 the Stone in Psalm 118 that the builders rejected due not telling the people to put sin out...and then , and only then---do they can enter the house of G-D.
For this reason it is written....Genesis 28 And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If G-D will be with me, and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat (spiritual food to grow, above and below) ....and a raiment to put on. ( his covering, above, and below) So that I COME AGAIN to my FATHER'S HOUSE IN PEACE;---THEN---shall ------the LORD-----be---my ----G-D. Only in Peace, this is the way Jacob was asking G-D to keep him so he may return. For Jacob---TURNED AND PUT SIN OUT, and ----knew----for Truth----*MADE HIM* to know Wisdom in the HIDDEN PART, HOUSE OF G-D. above.
These are the sons of man....that will not do what G-D has asked of them due to sin that brings them death. Jeremiah 31...But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those daysssss, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their INWARD PARTS, and write it is their hearts; and will be their G-D, and they shall be my people.
I not sure, but I think Israel is not the country, but from all of mankind that will not freely give the free-will offering to G-D to desire what G-D desires for us, they are these people. and not the sons of G-D that are brought forth like David and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob that walked in unity with G-D.
It is written in Jeremaiah 32...Behold, I am the LORD, the G-D OF ALL FLESH: is there anything too hard for ME?
NO!......It is also written...Ecclesiastes 12..And further, by these my sons, be adminished: of making books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whold matter; FEAR G-D, and keep His commandments for this is the WHOLE DUTY OF MAN.
We are to have two breaths...one below and one above. In Job 33-we find the one below--*Made ME* Psalm 51...*Make Me* look back there above in what I have put down for you. Dust to dust ashes to ashes and Spirit to spirit.
It is written ....Ecclesiastes 12....Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit return unto G-D who gave it.
Dust to dust, ashes to ashes and Spirit to spirit...
Amos 4....I have overthrown some of you, as G-D overthrown Sodom and Gomorrah, and ye were as a firebrand plucked out of the burning: yet have ye not returned unto me, saith the LORD.
Therefore thus will I do unto thee, O Israel: and because I will do this unto thee, prepare to meet thy G-D, O Israel.
Must we be the generation.....ashes to ashes????
Reply to Claire regarding Mrs Lightman. The Halachic issue with Mrs Lightman is whether she intended to marry Mr Lightman, a Cohane, at the time she converted. As a cohane cannot marry a convert it may have invalidated her conversion. Mr and Mrs Lightman say they met after her conversion.
I agree with Philip and Richard, public funds should not be spent on Jewish Day schools, or for that matter on any religious schools. The age old debate as to who is a Jew will go on forever with individuals deciding for themselves as to why they have a Jewish identity. This is a very emotional issue, facts are secondary. The ethnic argument is weak given that Jews belong to many, many different ethnic groups and cultures; have greatly differing physical appearances, skin colors.