4 min read
Earlier this year, Hollywood actor Michael Douglas became the second winner of the $1 million Genesis Prize , popularised as a kind of Jewish equivalent of the Nobel . Its recipient has to combine professional excellence with an inspirational example of dedication to the Jewish community and/or Israel.
Among those saluting the film star's commitment to his Jewish heritage have been Jewish Agency chairman and former refusenik Natan Sharansky, who chairs the Genesis selection committee, and Nobel peace laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel, a prize judge.
Last summer, Douglas appeared across the world's media with his actress wife Catherine Zeta-Jones celebrating their son Dylan's barmitzvah in Jerusalem. He plans to donate his prize money to projects that advance "inclusiveness and diversity" in the Jewish world.
Quite a few Jewish celebrities maintain only a tenuous connection to the Jewish community or Jewish culture. Douglas's public embrace of Judaism and Israel stands in contrast. But for some Jews, the award winner would not even be considered Jewish. Whereas his father Kirk is Jewish, his mother was not: and since Catherine Zeta Jones is not Jewish, son Dylan would not be recognised as Jewish either according to halachah, traditional Jewish law.
Under the technicalities of Israel's Law of Return, neither Michael nor Dylan Douglas would be able to immigrate to the country as Jews; but they would be able to claim Israeli citizenship as the son and grandson respectively of a Jew.
For many Jews, however, such distinctions would be an irrelevance, because over the past three decades, there has been a growing move to accept as Jewish the children of Jewish fathers and non-Jewish mothers. If Michael Douglas's Jewishness is good enough for Elie Wiesel and Natan Sharansky, why should it not be good enough for the rest of us?
It is against this background that you might see the British Reform movement's new policy to introduce what is now being called "equilineal" status . UK Liberal synagogues have been accepting the children of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother for around 60 years and American Reform for over 30. Even some Orthodox rabbis like French Chief Rabbi Haim Korsia have called for a way to bring patrilineal Jews formally into the fold.
Previously, patrilineals would be required by the Reform movement to undergo conversion, unless they had grown up as an active member of a Liberal synagogue. Now, the child of a single Jewish parent - whether mother or father - can be confirmed as Jewish on the recommendation of their local rabbi without conversion if they can show sufficient experience of Judaism.
Delegating so much influence to the local rabbi is precisely what makes the new procedure dubious to the small minority of Reform rabbis unhappy with it. At least a conversion course did guarantee a set standard of Jewish knowledge before acceptance into a Jewish community; now, the required proof of commitment may vary according to individual rabbis – even if the Reform Beth Din still has to ratify the acceptance of Jewish status.
Beyond this, the Reform decision further emphasises its divergence from Orthodoxy. Some years ago, the then Chief Rabbi, Lord Jakobovits, warned of an "irreparable" schism threatening the unity of the Jewish people if no common agreement could be reached over Jewish status between the different branches of Judaism. That seems further away than ever.
But there is a way to avoid the kind of breach that would fragment Jews even more. And that is by maintaining strong civil Jewish organisations in which Jews from differing movements can collectively take part. They may be sports, welfare, political or cultural organisations like Maccabi, Jewish Care, the Board of Deputies or JW3. At the same time, individual synagogue movements may maintain their own entry standards: they may, if they choose, make it easier for Jews from other religious streams to "cross over" to them without undergoing full conversion.
One thing could disturb the delicate balance of Jewish identity politics, however, and that is what could happen in Israel. As it is, it would probably defeat a symposium of the greatest Jewish minds to convincingly explain the logic of Israel's "who is a Jew" legislation.
To repeat: the Law of Return is open to any Jew or their child or grandchild. The definition of a Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother or converted to Judaism. Here is where it gets complicated. The child of a mother who converted to Judaism under a Progressive rabbi in the diaspora would be accepted as a Jew for the purposes of the Law of Return; but if they converted under a Progressive rabbi in Israel, they wouldn't. But a Progressive convert, even if able to enter Israel as Jewish, would not be recognised by the Orthodox rabbinate as Jewish for marriage - and there is no civil or non-Orthodox Jewish marriage in Israel.
Moreover, a patrilineal Jew who grew up in a Reform or Liberal synagogue in the diaspora, would not count as Jewish for the Law of Return – though they could enter as the child of a Jew. As a result, there are hundreds of thousands of emigrants from the former Soviet Union in Israel who may regard themselves as Jews but remain in a kind of limbo where they are not officially recognised as such by the state rabbinate.
In the past, attempts have been made to restrict the Law of Return to cover only those considered as Jewish by the Orthodox rabbinate. It is not beyond question that a shift to the right among Orthodox political parties, along with the horse-trading that goes hand in hand with Israel's dismal coalition politics, could result in a similar effort to redefine who is a Jew. That would threaten a rift with much of American Jewry. But with diplomatic relations between Israel and the USA currently at a low ebb, even the most gung-ho Israeli religious politician would think twice about upsetting the largest diaspora community.
