Reform : In 1000 Words

Jewish Status

Context

“Who is a Jew?” is both an interesting ‘academic’ question, and a fraught and painful personal issue for those whose status is in doubt: those who have mixed heritage, hidden heritage, or are affected by the negative decisions of some batei din (courts). Modern fertility treatments and the establishment of a Jewish Nation State have also led to divisive debates. Progressive Jewish movements around the world have responded in a variety of ways to the challenge modernity poses in this area. In this article, Josh Levy, Rabbinic Partner at Alyth, traces the history of Jewish status and the extraordinary challenges that face us as modern Jews in this area.

Content

It is in the nature of groups that they set boundaries of membership. They make decisions about who enjoys privileges and rights, and also bears the responsibilities and duties, of inclusion. These decisions can be made in a way which limits entry to the group, or with a view to inclusivity and welcome. These decisions can be behavioural - inclusion can be earned or acquired; often they are financial – paying membership fees, for example; sometimes rights are attributed to the individual for reasons beyond their control, such as inheritance. In the context of ~Judaism, the area of decision making about inclusion is normally referred to as Jewish status (as distinct from Jewish identity, which is the individual’s sense of their own relationship with Judaism), and its history is long and complex.

In biblical times, status was a straightforward affair. Israelite status belonged to Israelite men, or to those attached to the household of an Israelite man through birth or marriage. While a non-Israelite woman could join Israel through marriagei, there was no mechanism by which a non-Israelite man could become Israelite. Such a person could live among the people, protected by Israelite law, but would always remain in a different category: ger, or stranger.

This model sufficed in the geographically and socially narrow context of the tribal life of Ancient Israel. However, by the period of the , when Israelite cultic life had transformed into a distinctive Judaism, existing beyond national borders, with significant interaction between Jews and non-Jews, new mechanisms were needed to answer new questions. What was the status of the child of a Jewish woman and a Roman man? What was the entitlement of the child of a Jewish householder and his gentile slave? What to do with those non-Jews who were attracted to (and probably being encouraged to joinii) the ritual and values of Jewish life?

In response to these new realities, the rabbis took Judaism through two radical shifts. The first was to introduce a mechanism by which a non-Jew could, independently, become Jewish – that which we now call conversion. They grounded this new process in their raw material - the Torah - transforming the biblical ger into the rabbinic proselyte, and prioritising three ritual requirements which they linked to the acceptance of Torah at Sinai: circumcision, ritual immersion and sacrificial offering, of which two remain central to modern conversion to Judaism.

The other radical shift was to introduce a simplifying principle for inherited status – the matrilineal principle. First found in the Mishnah, the compilation of early rabbinic law from c200CE, this new model asserted that while Jewish status would follow the male line in straightforward cases, where there was complexity, status would follow the mother. This was a radical subversion of the patrilineal model of Israelite status found in biblical texts, in which Israelite kings married foreign women with no demand for transformative ritual and no impact on the status of their children.iii

In introducing this transformation, the rabbis were most heavily influenced by the models of status law that they saw around them. And so, it came to be the case that Jewish law contained a matrilineal principle taken directly from Roman status lawiv.

These new models sufficed for most of the period since. Judaism in the Middle Ages had only occasional reason to grapple with status law. In modernity, however, the question of status has once again become a live one, as our social realities and our Judaism have changed. The nature and extent of Jewish interaction within wider society, the greater diversity within the Jewish world, the new complexity of the family unit, the extraordinary ability of science to enable the creation of new life, the evolving roles of men and women in family and society, the existence of a Jewish state – these have all led to questions about how Jewish status is given, or earned; about who is considered ‘Jewish’ for the purpose of inclusion. Meanwhile, the fundamental injustice of implementing a gendered status law has become a source of discomfort in those parts of the Jewish world that believe in equality as a fundamental religious principle.

These new complexities present us with questions about our approach to status today: Do we believe that the context of our Judaism demands a different response to that which the rabbis developed 2000 years ago? If so, do we think that we have the right to transform that which came before, to draw on our own context and our own values as the rabbis once drew on theirs? Can we, as the rabbis did, create new mechanisms for our generation to allow people to be part of the peoplehood of Israel, or should we privilege the models of the past? Do we believe that status decisions can be made for our communities alone, or only if all parts of the Jewish world are willing to make them together (recognising that, if the latter, we allow power over status decisions to reside with those with very different values to ours, in order to preserve the sense of the whole)? These are not questions that anyone takes lightly – change is never made in our Judaism for its own sake or without great consideration. Increasingly, however, we believe that in the area of status, as in much else, it is our right and our duty, to respond to the challenges of modernity.

What does this mean in practice? In the area of status in Reform communities, the most important principle is that we seek to help those whose Jewish life and Jewish identity is strong to be included in our communities. As rabbis, we do so in the most appropriate ways possible, seeking to create the best possible journey into Jewish communal life that we can. In many cases, this means using existing models – as in the case of conversion for someone with no Jewish lineage. But we recognise that there will be cases where the mechanisms of 2000 years ago no longer suffice: such as the child of a Jewish father raised exclusively as a Jew (and sometimes without knowledge that there are any questions about status), or the child of two parents of the same sex where one is Jewish and one is not. In these cases, we need new mechanisms and processes to respond to the reality of modern Jews.

Just as in the complex history of Jewish status, the early rabbis were willing to make radical shifts for their own time, so we must not be afraid to be bold, too.

Contemplation

In an ever shrinking community, does status really matter, or should we be finding every way possible to open up to all who genuinely wish to contribute to the future of Jewish life? Do there need to be processes for membership for this to have meaning, and if so, what should they look like?

i As did, for example, the biblical character Ruth who was attached to Israel through her first husband, was then separated from the people when she was widowed, and then became part once again through her relationship with Boaz. Though she would become a paradigm for conversion in rabbinic times, her story pre-dates any conversion ritual. ii There is good evidence that early rabbinic Judaism was active in seeking to attract new members, and was certainly not as separate from the forthright proselytising activity of the period, for example by early Christians, as we might imagine. iii For more of the history, see Shaye J D Cohen The Origins of the Matrilineal Principle in Rabbinic Law, AJS Review, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Spring, 1985) iv See, for example, Gaius (130-180 CE), Institutes of Roman Law

Edited and framed by Rabbi Josh Levy and Rabbi Debbie Young-Somers.

Reform Judaism: In 1000 Words

Welcoming Converts

Context

Since the early rabbinic period, Judaism has had a formal process by which those who are not Jewish are able to become so - conversion. While the core elements of this process have remained the same for nearly 2000 years, the attitude to those who might wish to join has varied significantly over time, with periods of active encouragement, reluctant welcome, and even the placing of obstacles. Where do we, as Reform Jews today, stand in relation to those who wish to join the Jewish people?

In this essay, Rabbi Dr of , places our attitude to welcoming converts in the context of a survey of the history of Jewish proselytising. He emphasises both the distinctive nature of our approach and its historical precedents.

Content

Conversion is an issue on which Jewish thinking has made a total volte-face over the centuries, initially being very pro-active, then becoming totally opposed to it, and recently becoming more accommodating. has played a major role in this latest change in attitude.

In its earliest form, Judaism was an avowedly missionary faith, convinced of its superiority over the surrounding pagan faiths. It started with Abraham and the reference - in the very first chapter in which he appears - to the souls that he had gotten in Haran (Genesis 12:5). Even if that could have been seen, instead, as a reference to the servants he had acquired, the fact that later Jewish tradition chose to view it as converts indicates its mind-set and the assumptions that it held.

This was reinforced by an underlying religious vision which saw the Jews as light to the nations (Isaiah 42:6) and which envisaged many nations flocking to the mountain of God (ibid 2:2). The declaration of Ruth Your people shall be my people, and your God my God (Ruth 1:16) became the rallying cry of subsequent converts. There could be no higher signal of the honoured position of those who joined the Jewish people than the fact that David was her direct descendant and that from her stemmed both the most successful king and the messianic line.

It was little wonder that Matthew complained that the Pharisees, one of the main Jewish sects of the first century and subsequent leaders of Judaism thereafter, were so imbued with a missionary spirit that they would traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte (Matthew 23:15). It reflected how Judaism and Christianity vied with each other for the interest of the growing numbers in the Hellenized world for whom the ancient gods had lost their appeal.

However, with the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Christianity around 313, the Church changed from a minority sect to the official religion of the most powerful empire in the world. This led to a series of edicts punishing those who oversaw the conversion of a Christian to Judaism. Missionary activity became dangerous not only for the individuals concerned, but also for the Jewish community at large, resulting in fines and arrests. The same situation was to occur later in Islamic countries, where converting a Muslim was banned under pain of death. There was often also a major social divide between Jews and the surrounding population, which meant any non-Jew changing faith not only risked the charge of heresy but would be totally alienated from their family and the rest of society. Thus it was external circumstances, rather than internal developments, which caused a major revision to the sense of Jewish mission.

The effect of this enforced brake quickly led to a change of attitude within the Jewish community, initially seeing attempts to convert others as unsafe, and then as undesirable, and ultimately as un-Jewish. It was also underpinned by the notion that Christianity and Islam were forms of monotheism, and so, unlike the pagans in biblical times, did not need to be converted. By the time of the Babylonian Talmud, the teaching of the first/second century sage, Joshua ben Hananiah - the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come (Sanhedrin 13.2) - had become the standard Jewish view. While Judaism was still seen as the faith chosen to first reveal God’s existence to the world, there was no insistence that only Jews were assured of divine favour. It meant that there was no longer any motivation for conversion and it virtually disappeared from the Jewish lexicon.

It is only in the last century that a more positive approach has been slowly emerging, spear-headed by Reform Judaism. Whilst there has been no return to actively seeking converts, those who enquire of their own accord are often accepted.

It is not just that the political constraints and social barriers of former centuries have long ceased, but it stems from a positive desire within our Judaism to offer conversion. This is partly due to a return to the more welcoming approach of earlier times, as well as a desire to re-establish the universalist role of Judaism. Conversion is also regarded as one response to the rise in mixed-marriages: by bringing the non-Jewish partner into the Jewish fold, it effectively turns a mixed-faith marriage into a Jewish one. In addition, there are many instances of those who have no family connections to Judaism who wish to adopt it and who are accepted.

The actual procedure involves a mix of sincerity, participation and knowledge. This usually takes the form of attending synagogue, undertaking a course of study and being involved in Jewish life. The object is not to turn applicants into scholars or saints, but to give them the basic background, so that they understand the commitment to Judaism they are making, feel at ease within the Jewish community and are able to practice Jewish home life. It also involves the rituals of circumcision for males and mikveh (immersion in a pool of water) for both males and females. At the end of the process, the person appears before the Beit Din (rabbinic court) at which they present themselves and, following an interview with the panel of three rabbis, are formally accepted into the Jewish faith.

Being a movement which encompasses communities with diverse practice, there are variations in procedure from one Reform synagogue to another. This can include the length of the study course, and whether or not the rabbi is happy to accept applicants onto it immediately or asks for a period of reflection before embarking on the religious journey. However, what is uniformly recognised is the beneficial effect of converts, whether it be their communal involvement or their impact on the families of which they are part. Whereas Orthodox today still tend to discourage applicants - or demand conditions that are very difficult to meet - Reform rabbis are delighted to open the doors of Judaism to those who wish to enter.

Contemplation

Rabbi Romain’s theme in this article is that Reform Judaism has made a profound impact on world Jewry in our attitude to those who want to join the Jewish people. The reluctance to engage with potential proselytes that characterised the Middle Ages was rejected by the early Reformers, with their ethos of inclusion, and their self- confidence about Judaism’s universal message. It is certainly the case that suspicion of converts can still be experienced in other parts of the Jewish community, which also place greater emphasis on considerations of ethnicity. But this is not the norm in Reform synagogues. This being the case, how do we ensure that our communities continue to be exemplars of inclusivity to those who wish to join us? What do we do to communicate these values, and to actively welcome those who want to convert?

Edited and framed by Rabbi Josh Levy and Rabbi Debbie Young-Somers.