After a whirlwind tour of the Israel Museum, we ended DAY FOUR of our trip at the Knesset<\/i>, Israel\u2019s House of Parliament. The sky was overcast, but the weather proved doubly unusual (for Jerusalem in May) when we found ourselves standing in an unrelenting downpour while we waited in line to clear security. Before entering the building itself, we walked through an enormous courtyard lined with cypress trees and flag poles. Once inside, we were introduced to Hannah, our tour guide, who took us to the second floor for\u00a0a\u00a0brief introduction on the history of the institution, the meaning behind its name, and the various parties that the house represents. Our guide emphasized the fact that the origins of the institution are linked to a moment \u201cfar back\u201d in Jewish history, one that begins with the definition of beit<\/i>\u00a0knesset<\/i>, \u201ca house of gathering.\u201d The name itself is derived from an assembly of 120 rabbis, also known as the\u00a0Anshei Knesset HaGedolah,<\/i>\u00a0\u201cthe men of the great assembly,\u201d who\u00a0convened in Jerusalem following\u00a0their return from the Babylonian exile in the fifth century BCE.\u00a0These rabbis were responsible for composing ritual prayers, sealing the Biblical canon, establishing the Jewish calendar, and democratizing Jewish education by making the Torah accessible to Jews who were not part of the priestly class. These achievements were recorded and preserved in the Talmud, but the credibility of the assembly\u2019s existence and the chronology of events is debated among historians.<\/p>\n
Despite these uncertainties, it is fair to say that the primary focus of this assembly was to solidify various aspects of Jewish belief and practice in response to the community\u2019s exile, the end of the prophetic era, and the destruction of Solomon\u2019s temple.\u00a0Considering my immediate context, however, I began to ask myself how this account of the first \u201cgreat assembly\u201d was relevant to the contemporary\u00a0Knesset\u00a0<\/i>that I was standing in? Furthermore,\u00a0why does the main political institution of a secular state, which prides itself on being a \u201cfaithful mirror of the population\u2026[that] represents all the sectors of Israeli society: right and left, religious and secular, Jews, Moslems and Christians, Druze and Circassians\u2026under a single roof in full equality,\u201d feel so closely linked with this particular aspect of Judaism\u2019s\u00a0religious<\/i> history?\u00a0Although there is no clear cut answer, these questions illuminate an\u00a0issue addressed in my previous blog\u2014the fact that Israel, according to the Declaration of Establishment<\/i>, is both a \u201cJewish and secular state.\u201d The implications of the \u201cJewish\u201d component are not only ambiguous, but also widely interpreted, especially in terms of how religious laws shape Israeli identity and public life. Whether the \u201cJewish\u201d component is to be understood from a secular or religious perspective, as either a religious or secular identity, is inconclusive, but if Israel is a Jewish state whose laws are informed by the halakha<\/i>, <\/i>then what is the place of non-Jews? More specifically, how does this affect the relationship between Jews, particularly those who do not adhere to the state-sanctioned norms of Orthodox Judaism and those who are strictly observant?<\/p>\n
Katz, Levinsohn, Levy, and Schweid all address this dissonance from a sociological and cultural level, but what role do political and legal institutions have in perpetuating a conflation or a strict segregation between religiosity and secularity, \u201cJewishness\u201d and \u201cIsraeliness\u201d on a national level?\u00a0Let us turn to the\u00a0\u201c<\/i>Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel\u201d\u00a0<\/i>to get a sense:<\/p>\n THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be\u00a0based on freedom, justice and peace\u00a0as envisaged by the prophets<\/i> of Israel<\/b>; it will ensure\u00a0complete equality of social and political rights<\/b>\u00a0to all its inhabitants\u00a0irrespective of religion, race or sex<\/b>; it will\u00a0guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture<\/b>; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This excerpt is significant to for various\u00a0reasons. The most obvious being that it alludes to liberal democratic values as crucial aspects of state-building, but what is the added value of these goals by referencing the \u201cprophets of Israel\u201d? In a guest lecture by\u00a0Benny Porat, assistant professor in the faculty of law at Hebrew University, we were guided through the various implications of such statements\u00a0in order to\u00a0better understand how Israel is both a Jewish and secular state from a legal perspective.<\/p>\n According to Porat, what makes the relationship between state and religion a unique case\u00a0 in Israel\u2014in terms of its judicial system\u2014is the fact that Judaism is a law-based religion. The focus of this worldview is therefore correct practice, rather than belief. These practices\u00a0are laid out in the halakha<\/i>, \u201cthe path\u201d or a set of principles that elaborate on the laws in the Torah, particularly on matters of sex, marriage, food, and community governance. These laws are to be followed on a daily basis and are integral to all aspects of religious, domestic, and civic life. Porat suggests that these Jewish laws are a direct source of inspiration for secular Israeli law, but \u201cJewish law\u201d itself is a complicated term. As previously mentioned, the halakha<\/i> establishes a set of norms regarding what people should and should not do from a religious perspective, but there is also an element of civil law and practices (matters of jurisprudence, contracts, and court procedures) that, as Anat Scolnicov points out, have served as a platform for religious Jews to argue for the complete autonomy of Rabbinical Courts in Israel, despite the presence of a secular constitutional system from which these institutions have derived their legal authority. These tensions are by no means easily resolved. According to Porat, however, it is an inherently Jewish ideal to establish and maintain \u201ca nation that fulfills the vision of divine law.” With that in mind, is it possible to distinguish the halakha\u00a0<\/i>from the secular laws established by the state?<\/p>\n Daniel Sinclair argues that halakhic law and liberal democracy are both fundamental to the modern state of Israel. The relationship between them, however, is not without its complications. Although the ethos of the state is \u201cprimarily secular and liberal in nature,\u201d the halakha <\/i>has an official role in Israeli law (i.e. to address matters of personal status). More specifically, to address matters of family law, such as marriage, divorce, and conversion to Judaism, all of which falls under the jurisdiction of Rabbinical Courts. Since the establishment of Israel in 1948, the Knesset <\/i>has maintained the Ottoman law, which states that \u201cin matters of marriage, divorce, and alimony and maintenance, substantive religious law will apply, regardless of whether civil courts have jurisdiction.\u201d Furthermore, \u201cdifferent religious courts\u2014Jewish Rabbinical, Muslim, Druze\u2014have either exclusive jurisdiction or concurrent jurisdiction with civil courts.” That said, the secular judicial system has allowed various religious group in Israel to address family law within their own legal institutions with little to no intervention by the state.<\/p>\n Sinclair and Scolnicov both highlight several case studies where deliberation between the secular and Rabbinical courts was required in order to resolve disputes relating to family law, primarily divorce and alimony cases where the protection of women\u2019s rights were in question. Scolnicov is particularly critical of Rabbinic jurisdiction and the potential for its violation of religious freedom and human rights, especially the equality of women in matters of divorce (e.g. the \u201cchained wife\u201d). Scolnicov argues that despite these ethical concerns, \u201cthe religious courts view their authority as emanating from a religious normative system\u201d that not only precedes the state, but is also \u201cintrinsically valid, regardless of whether it is recognized by the secular law of the land.” Therefore, two normative systems of law that are not only central to Israel\u2019s legal identity, but also somewhat self-sufficient, find themselves at an impasse.<\/p>\n So, why is it that marriage, divorce, and conversion are governed exclusively by Jewish law? Why not resolve the issue by establishing legal procedures for marital and family law that are exclusive to the secular judicial system and that all Israeli citizens have access to? Although this seems like a simple solution, the situation cannot be repaired by a quick fix or further segregation. The political reason for this is the \u201cRabbinical Courts Jurisdiction (Marriage and Divorce) Law\u201d of 1953, which has entitled Rabbinic Courts to address matters of family law as they see fit. This alone has made it difficult for the secular courts to step in and amend certain cases (e.g. Levi v. District Rabbinical Court of Tel-Aviv-Jaffa<\/em>) \u00a0where the Rabbinical Courts have failed to satisfy the state’s injunction regarding state protection of women’s equality and principles of natural justice.<\/p>\n To address these issues more thoroughly, we must also account for the cultural and theological dimensions of this debate. Porat argues that marriage and conversion are generally considered to be private actions, but they are moments in Jewish life that directly affect the entire public. These life-cycle events are therefore \u201centrance gates to the Jewish collective\u201d that religious leaders feel they must regulate in order to maintain a sense of Jewish unity. Thus, the primary concern among Rabbinical Courts is to preserve a certain standard of \u201cJewishness,\u201d in the religious sense. We see examples of this on a daily basis throughout Israel, from the regular closure of shops and public transportation to observe Shabbat\u00a0on Fridays and Saturdays, to the abundance of kosher restaurants, or the legal formalities in determining the legitimacy of one\u2019s conversion to Judaism if they wish to make\u00a0aliya<\/i>.<\/p>\n An important question that Scolnicov addresses in his article, which relates to this discussion (and will hopefully tie my ideas together), is whether religious or secular courts have ultimate authority in the state\u00a0of Israel, particularly in matters of personal status? Although the level of legal autonomy granted to religious institutions within the secular state of Israel raises flags concerning potential violation of Israel\u2019s Basic Laws, some Israelis (particularly the strictly observant) believe that the state is not Jewish enough. In other words, more religious laws and practices could be integrated into public life if we are to adequately characterize Israel as a \u201cJewish state.\u201d Miriam Woelke, an inside blogger who discusses relevant issues within the Orthodox and haredi <\/i>communities living in Mea Shearim, argues that Israel is a \u201cState for JEWS,\u201d rather than a \u201cJEWISH state.\u201d In other words, Israel is “not a jewish as we think” because the government is attempting to \u201ceradicate anything Jewish\u201d in the country with secularism. She argues that \u201cmany secular Jews prefer to be just like all the other nations but don\u2019t realize that no Jew can escape his destiny.\u201d What is this \u201cdestiny\u201d she is referring to? Her blog seems to imply that to be a Jew is to accept that there are particular means (i.e religious laws) for achieving a fully observant life. These laws should not only guide, but also govern all understandings of \u201cJewishness,\u201d regardless of secular principles. Although this seems to be a tall order, we can observe this tension in defining Israeli-Jewish identity from a legal standpoint by calling attention to the various responses to the demand for civil marriage in Israel by non-observant Jews. Rabbinic Courts argue that a union such as this must remain under religious jurisdiction, because the only law to be applied to these matters is \u201cthe law of the Torah.\u201d<\/p>\n A question that should undergird any analysis of this situation should ask: \u201cthe law of the Torah,\u201d according to which community and what interpretation? Although Reform and Conservative Judaism are prominent in the U.S. and Canada, the \u201cstatus quo\u201d in Israel is the Orthodox tradition. Therefore, if you wish to marry, you must do so according to Orthodox rituals and if you wish to convert to Judaism, or make aliya<\/i>, the only form of Judaism that is valid and officially recognized by Rabbinic Courts is orthodoxy. This indicates that the road to defining \u201cJewishness\u201d in Israel as a plurality of opinions, practices, and beliefs is near impossible to resolve, despite the effort to do so by way of a secular judicial system that aims to strike a balance between the liberal and democratic right to freedom of religion and the \u201ccomplete equality of social and political rights\u00a0to all inhabitants\u00a0irrespective of religion, race or sex.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n Bibliography<\/span>:<\/p>\n Scolnicov, Anat. 2006. \u201cReligious Law, Religious Courts and Human Rights within Israeli Constitutional Structure.\u201d\u00a0International Journal of Constitutional Law<\/i>\u00a04: 732-740.<\/p>\n Sinclair, Daniel. \u201cHalakhah and Israel.\u201d In\u00a0Modern Judaism: An Oxford Guide,<\/i>\u00a0edited by Nicolas de Lange and Miri Freud-Kandel, 352-362. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.<\/p>\n The \u201cGreat Assembly\u201d:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org\/jsource\/Judaism\/Great_Assembly.html<\/b><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n http:\/\/www.jewishhistory.org\/the-men-of-the-great-assembly\/<\/b><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n The Knesset:<\/p>\n https:\/\/www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org\/jsource\/Politics\/knesset.html<\/b><\/b><\/a><\/p>\n * Also see,\u00a0The Knesset: Parliament of Israel\u2014<\/i>visitor\u2019s guidebook<\/p>\n Halakha:<\/p>\n