Jewish

Controversy concerning the definition of who is a member of the Jewish people. Historically, the definition of a Jew has been according to Halakhah, namely a person born of a halakhically Jewish mother, or who was converted according to halakhah. Halakhic conversion requires Circumcision for males and immersion in a Mikveh (ritual bath) for both males and females, as well as the acceptance of the dictates of halakhah. With the advent of the Reform movement in the first half of the 19th century, Orthodox circles questioned those conversions which dispensed with the ritual aspects (i.e., circumcision and immersion) and which were satisfied with a pledge by the new converts to be faithful Jews. A relatively recent decision of the Reform movement, whereby a child of a Jewish father (and a non-Jewish mother) is also to be considered Jewish (the so-called Patrilineal Descent ruling), evoked strong opposition from both the Orthodox and Conservative movements, who accept only the halakhic guidelines as to who is a Jew. The Orthodox, however, also dispute whether members of the Conservative rabbinate are following halakhic guidelines.

While the debates in the Diaspora have been to a large extent theoretical, the question of "who is a Jew?" has had practical and political repercussions in Israel. The problem stems from the Law of Return, which entitles any Jew to immigrate to Israel and automatically receive Israeli citizenship without having to be naturalized. In the law, as originally formulated, there was no qualification whatsoever as to who was a Jew; anyone who declared himself a Jew was registered as such. Under pressure to change this definition, the then Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, sent a questionnaire to 50 leading thinkers throughout the world, as to whom they considered a Jew. The majority replied in halakhic terms. Two court cases then defined the issue more precisely. The first, known as that of Brother Daniel (Oswald Rufeisen) concerned a Polish Jew who had converted to Catholicism and became a monk. He then moved to Israel, but refused to apply for citizenship as a resident in the country. Instead, basing himself on the Law of Return, he demanded the right as a Jew to receive Israeli citizenship.

When the case reached the High Court of Israel in 1966, it ruled---although this was not stated as such in the law itself---that any person opting out of the history and destiny of the Jewish people, though halakhically Jewish, is not eligible for citizenship under the Law of Return. A second case eventually led to a change in the wording of the law. Benjamin Shalit, who had married a non-Jewish woman, demanded that his children be registered as Jews on their identity cards under "nationality," and as having no religion. As the law did not specify differently, the High Court ruled that the children had to be registered as Jews. Under pressure of the religious political parties, the Knesset then modified the law now defining Jews as those born of a Jewish mother or who have converted.