Over the last few weeks, a discourse has taken place between Rav Shlomo Riskin—chief rabbi of Efrat—and Rabbi Andrew Sacks—the director of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Masorti (Conservative) movement in Israel. The conversation started when Riskin wrote in the Jerusalem Post about the conversion controversy in Israel.
For the not-yet-up-to-speed: Debates have surged in the past year about the Rotem Bill, a proposed Israeli law that would consolidate authority into the seat of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel. This would jeopardize the status of conversions deemed invalid or unacceptable by the Chief Rabbi, including the entirety of non-Orthodox conversions (and the rabbis who perform them), and even some corners of the Orthodox world.
There have been plenty of articles about what the bill means, particularly for Jews in the Diaspora. Supporters of the bill argue a power consolidation will unify the vision for Judaism in Israel. Others say it will exclude the majority of Jews in the world–most of them non-Orthodox–from the Jewish homeland. The bill’s status is particularly relevant for those considering aliyah.
Riskin claimed in his original piece that Diaspora Jews were needlessly worried about a bill that, if law, would in no way challenge their converts’ statuses, which have already been declared legally acceptable by the State of Israel. In his reply, Sacks pointed out that supporters and those responsible for the bill have expressed an interest in redefining the state’s legal definition of “Jewishness.”
Riskin, in return, said that an Israeli Orthodox convert’s status would only be called into question if it was discovered that some element of the process was fraudulent. Sacks retorted that the bill contained no such stipulation, and that it appears all in-State conversions would be “subject to the approval of the Chief Rabbi.” Moreover, Sacks points out that the Knesset does have the authority to overturn Israeli Supreme Court rulings, even calling into question the status of Diaspora converts who make aaliyah.
He said, he said.
What does any of this mean for the Jewish people, particularly those whose conversions would be called into question?
Suffice it to say that Jewish communities, like all communities, have the right to self-define. Each denomination has the autonomy and freedom, within their walls, to decide who is a part and who has yet to join. The Orthodox are free to exclude Reform Jewish converts (even those who follow halakhic conversion rituals); non-Orthodox Jews are free to accept or decline Orthodox converts should they ever see fit. This won’t change within the private communities themselves, even if the laws do.
However, this bill and the discussions surrounding it are particularly telling of the willingness of some Orthodox rabbis—even those like Riskin, who have not always agreed with the decisions of the Chief Rabbinate in the past—to unify against the non-Orthodox, despite their own internal tensions with the current leadership. This debate won’t subside any time soon, and with each group feeling as if their territory is being encroached upon, discussions are a nightmare of politics and theological contrasts.
Regardless of its outcome, the Jewish people, in their various subgroups and clusters, will choose to find converts who always had a Yiddishe neshama (a Jewish soul) inside them, and those groups will express these processes of conversion in ways that are personally meaningful and spiritually consistent with their worldviews. As I told someone who asked about the conversion crises and the who-is-a-Jew debate: “Just be a Jew. Find other Jews who recognize your identity, welcome you with open arms, and who love to sing, pray, and be with you. Let the bureaucrats and politicians argue till they’re blue in the face.”
John Wofford is a junior at Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. He is the current editor of an upcoming interfaith arts hub, a Neo-Hasidic nerd and music journalist of five years. His column, The Godblogger, appears here on alternating Thursdays.
