O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?
Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question
Who Is a Jew? Court Ruling in Britain Raises Question
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON — The questions before the judges in Courtroom No. 1 of Britain’s Supreme Court were as ancient and as complex as Judaism itself.
Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide?
On the surface, the court was considering a straightforward challenge to the admissions policy of a Jewish high school in London. But the case, in which arguments concluded Oct. 30, has potential repercussions for thousands of other parochial schools across Britain. And in addressing issues at the heart of Jewish identity, it has exposed bitter divisions in Britain’s community of 300,000 or so Jews, pitting members of various Jewish denominations against one another.
“This is potentially the biggest case in the British Jewish community’s modern history,” said Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper here. “It speaks directly to the right of the state to intervene in how a religion operates.”
The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an observant Jew whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish convert, applied to the school, JFS. Founded in 1732 as the Jews’ Free School, it is a centerpiece of North London’s Jewish community. It has around 1,900 students, but it gets far more applicants than it accepts.
Britain has nearly 7,000 publicly financed religious schools, representing Judaism as well as the Church of England, Catholicism and Islam, among others. Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority.
By many standards, the JFS applicant, identified in court papers as “M,” is Jewish. But not in the eyes of the school, which defines Judaism under the Orthodox definition set out by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Because M’s mother converted in a progressive, not an Orthodox, synagogue, the school said, she was not a Jew — nor was her son. It turned down his application.
That would have been the end of it. But M’s family sued, saying that the school had discriminated against him. They lost, but the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal this summer.
In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote, “makes it no less and no more unlawful.”
The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.
“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”
The same reasoning would apply to a Christian school that “refused to admit a child on the ground that, albeit practicing Christians, the child’s family were of Jewish origin,” the court said.
The school appealed to the Supreme Court, which is likely to rule sometime before the end of the year.
The case’s importance was driven home by the sheer number of lawyers in the courtroom last week, representing not just M’s family and the school, but also the British government, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the United Synagogue, the British Humanist Association and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal ruling threw the school into a panicked scramble to put together a new admissions policy. It introduced a “religious practice test,” in which prospective students amass points for things like going to synagogue and doing charitable work.
That has led to all sorts of awkward practical issues, said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, because Orthodox Judaism forbids writing or using a computer on the Sabbath. That means that children who go to synagogue can’t “sign in,” but have to use methods like dropping prewritten postcards into boxes.
It is unclear what effect the ruling, if it is upheld, will have on other religious schools. Some Catholic schools, accustomed to using baptism as a baseline admissions criterion, are worried that they will have to adopt similar practice tests.
The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness. They also disagree on the issue of whether an Orthodox leader is entitled to speak for the entire community.
“Whatever happens in this case, there must be some resolution sorted out between different denominations,” Mr. Benjamin said in an interview. “That the community has failed to grasp this has had the very unfortunate result of having a judgment foisted on it by a civil court.”
Orthodox Jews, of course, sympathize with the school, saying that observance is no test of Jewishness, and that all that matters is whether one’s mother is Jewish. So little does observance matter, in fact, that “having a ham sandwich on the afternoon of Yom Kippur doesn’t make you less Jewish,” Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, chairman of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, said recently.
Lauren Lesin-Davis, chairman of the board of governors at King David, a Jewish school in Liverpool, told the BBC that the ruling violated more than 5,000 years of Jewish tradition.
“You cannot come in and start telling people how their whole lives should change, that the whole essence of their life and their religion is completely wrong,” she said.
But others are in complete sympathy with M.
“How dare they question our beliefs and our Jewishness?” David Lightman, an observant Jewish father whose daughter was also denied a place at the school because it did not recognize her mother’s conversion, told reporters recently. “I find it offensive and very upsetting.”
Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism here, said the lower court’s ruling, if upheld, would help make Judaism more inclusive.
“JFS is a state-funded school where my grandfather taught, and it’s selecting applicants on the basis of religious politics,” he said in an interview. “The Orthodox definition of Jewish excludes 40 percent of the Jewish community in this country.”
By SARAH LYALL
LONDON — The questions before the judges in Courtroom No. 1 of Britain’s Supreme Court were as ancient and as complex as Judaism itself.
Who is a Jew? And who gets to decide?
On the surface, the court was considering a straightforward challenge to the admissions policy of a Jewish high school in London. But the case, in which arguments concluded Oct. 30, has potential repercussions for thousands of other parochial schools across Britain. And in addressing issues at the heart of Jewish identity, it has exposed bitter divisions in Britain’s community of 300,000 or so Jews, pitting members of various Jewish denominations against one another.
“This is potentially the biggest case in the British Jewish community’s modern history,” said Stephen Pollard, editor of the Jewish Chronicle newspaper here. “It speaks directly to the right of the state to intervene in how a religion operates.”
The case began when a 12-year-old boy, an observant Jew whose father is Jewish and whose mother is a Jewish convert, applied to the school, JFS. Founded in 1732 as the Jews’ Free School, it is a centerpiece of North London’s Jewish community. It has around 1,900 students, but it gets far more applicants than it accepts.
Britain has nearly 7,000 publicly financed religious schools, representing Judaism as well as the Church of England, Catholicism and Islam, among others. Under a 2006 law, the schools can in busy years give preference to applicants within their own faiths, using criteria laid down by a designated religious authority.
By many standards, the JFS applicant, identified in court papers as “M,” is Jewish. But not in the eyes of the school, which defines Judaism under the Orthodox definition set out by Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth. Because M’s mother converted in a progressive, not an Orthodox, synagogue, the school said, she was not a Jew — nor was her son. It turned down his application.
That would have been the end of it. But M’s family sued, saying that the school had discriminated against him. They lost, but the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal this summer.
In an explosive decision, the court concluded that basing school admissions on a classic test of Judaism — whether one’s mother is Jewish — was by definition discriminatory. Whether the rationale was “benign or malignant, theological or supremacist,” the court wrote, “makes it no less and no more unlawful.”
The case rested on whether the school’s test of Jewishness was based on religion, which would be legal, or on race or ethnicity, which would not. The court ruled that it was an ethnic test because it concerned the status of M’s mother rather than whether M considered himself Jewish and practiced Judaism.
“The requirement that if a pupil is to qualify for admission his mother must be Jewish, whether by descent or conversion, is a test of ethnicity which contravenes the Race Relations Act,” the court said. It added that while it was fair that Jewish schools should give preference to Jewish children, the admissions criteria must depend not on family ties, but “on faith, however defined.”
The same reasoning would apply to a Christian school that “refused to admit a child on the ground that, albeit practicing Christians, the child’s family were of Jewish origin,” the court said.
The school appealed to the Supreme Court, which is likely to rule sometime before the end of the year.
The case’s importance was driven home by the sheer number of lawyers in the courtroom last week, representing not just M’s family and the school, but also the British government, the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, the United Synagogue, the British Humanist Association and the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
Meanwhile, the Court of Appeal ruling threw the school into a panicked scramble to put together a new admissions policy. It introduced a “religious practice test,” in which prospective students amass points for things like going to synagogue and doing charitable work.
That has led to all sorts of awkward practical issues, said Jon Benjamin, chief executive of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, because Orthodox Judaism forbids writing or using a computer on the Sabbath. That means that children who go to synagogue can’t “sign in,” but have to use methods like dropping prewritten postcards into boxes.
It is unclear what effect the ruling, if it is upheld, will have on other religious schools. Some Catholic schools, accustomed to using baptism as a baseline admissions criterion, are worried that they will have to adopt similar practice tests.
The case has stirred up long-simmering resentments among the leaders of different Jewish denominations, who, for starters, disagree vehemently on the definition of Jewishness. They also disagree on the issue of whether an Orthodox leader is entitled to speak for the entire community.
“Whatever happens in this case, there must be some resolution sorted out between different denominations,” Mr. Benjamin said in an interview. “That the community has failed to grasp this has had the very unfortunate result of having a judgment foisted on it by a civil court.”
Orthodox Jews, of course, sympathize with the school, saying that observance is no test of Jewishness, and that all that matters is whether one’s mother is Jewish. So little does observance matter, in fact, that “having a ham sandwich on the afternoon of Yom Kippur doesn’t make you less Jewish,” Rabbi Yitzchak Schochet, chairman of the Rabbinical Council of the United Synagogue, said recently.
Lauren Lesin-Davis, chairman of the board of governors at King David, a Jewish school in Liverpool, told the BBC that the ruling violated more than 5,000 years of Jewish tradition.
“You cannot come in and start telling people how their whole lives should change, that the whole essence of their life and their religion is completely wrong,” she said.
But others are in complete sympathy with M.
“How dare they question our beliefs and our Jewishness?” David Lightman, an observant Jewish father whose daughter was also denied a place at the school because it did not recognize her mother’s conversion, told reporters recently. “I find it offensive and very upsetting.”
Rabbi Danny Rich, chief executive of Liberal Judaism here, said the lower court’s ruling, if upheld, would help make Judaism more inclusive.
“JFS is a state-funded school where my grandfather taught, and it’s selecting applicants on the basis of religious politics,” he said in an interview. “The Orthodox definition of Jewish excludes 40 percent of the Jewish community in this country.”
-
Comment by Norm on November 9, 2009 at 8:55am -
The Orthodox Jews are essentially correct that 5000 years of historical tradition predates this issue. It even predates the origin of Judaism itself as the mother is the historical means that tribal identification has been utilized in determining lineage. Thus the importance of marrying within the bloodline (seed line) through an established female family member is highly emphasized in the lineage development within Genesis.
You see this starting with the corruption of the seed line which brought on the flood in judgment. The sons of Elohim are distinguished as those outside of Israel’s seed whom beginning with Adam are illustrated by YHWH God and not Elohim alone.
Gen 6:2-4 the sons of God (Elohim not YHWH) saw that the daughters of man (Adam covenant man/seed line) were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. … (4) The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.
See the following link and excerpt.
“While right of primogeniture was figured through the fathers, blood line was figured through the mothers. This is evident even today among Jews. One is Jewish only if one's mother is Jewish.”
http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/04/brides-naming-prerogative.html
Norm
-
Comment by Cynthia Kohler on November 9, 2009 at 9:26am -
Norm:
I'm confused. I had understood the "sons of God" as the covenant line, and the "daughters of man" as women outside the covenant line (Gentiles, if you will). Who are the sons of God? Thanks.
Cyndi
-
Comment by Norm on November 9, 2009 at 10:04am
-
Cyndi,
It's just the opposite. Elohim/God is the universal designation for God in OT scripture. Adam/man is the covenant name of men in linage with Adam. Man has many different words in Hebrew and you have to go back and look at what word is being translated "man". When it is aw-dawm or adam it designates only covenant man. That is why it is important to study the language of Genesis as YHWH or Jehovah is introduced as the term for God in relation to covenant "man" /aw-dawm or more specifically most often Israel. This designation starts only in Gen 2 with the story of Adam/aw-dawm’s creation. Elohim/God is applied more generally while YHWH/Jehovah is specific only to and ultimately Israel.
There is going to be debate on this subject because what you understood is the common application. However IMO the daughters of adam/aw-dawm are unmistakable. There is absolutely no way that adam would be a term applied to men outside of lineage/covenant in the OT which overrides applying it otherwise. The “sons of God” here does not appear to define the Pauline application of “sons of God” that we find ultimately in the NT. I realize this can be quite confusing and I only was able to determine this after extensive examination of the technical meaning of how these terms are applied by the Hebrews.
Norm
-
Comment by Cynthia Kohler on November 9, 2009 at 10:56am
-
Norm:
You're right, this is confusing. I guess it would be helpful if I could read and understand Hebrew. These concepts don't translate into English too well, and then you have translators who have their own interpretation of what they think these words and phrases mean, and mistranslate as a result. Plus, people today have been conditioned to understand a son or child of God as a "Godly" person, or belonging to Christ. Although, there are some people that see every human being as a child of God. It seems that is how the Hebrews saw people in general, but there was a specific designation for God for those in the covenant line.
Just to get an understanding of what you just said; are you saying that the word God in "sons of God" is the word Elohim which is to be understood as other people not in the covenant line?
Another confusion with the English translation is English uses one name, God, to translate the many names of God in the bible, so we lose that Hebrew understanding right there.
What reference material do you suggest for studying the language of Genesis? Thanks,
Cyndi
-
Comment by Norm on November 9, 2009 at 12:02pm
-
Cyndi,
Here is a discussion I had about a year ago with some folks on this subject plus I have a further email that I could send you in which I have broken down Genesis 1-11 demonstrating much of these ideas. If you are interested just send me an email at normbv@yahoo.com and I'll send it to you.
Here is my first exchange.
I’m going to continue some explorations in Genesis and today I want to present a personal enhancement of the ESV translation from Gen 1 through 11. Sometimes the visual brings things to life that words just do not do justice to and I believe by looking at some of the big picture views of the language of Gen 1-11 will help accomplish this task.
I mentioned in my previous notes that it is important to understand the Genesis author’s usage of the two descriptions of God that are used primarily in early Genesis. Genesis starts out by using “Elohim” exclusively without fail in the first section from 1:1-2:4a as the descriptor for God. In Gen 2:4b it then introduces “Yahweh” either singly or compounded together with Elohim for the authors theological purpose.
Let’s start by looking at possible definitions of Elohim and Yahweh.
Here is how the Jewish commentator Umberto Cassuto described the two in his booklet “The Documentary Hypothesis”. Cassuto uses the descriptor Tetragrammaton and YHWH for what we commonly translate as Yahweh or Jehovah.
Begin Quote from page 37-38.
In other words, we must clarify, to the best of our ability, why just in certain sections or verses the Torah narratives have the Tetragrammaton and in others ‘Elohim. Is it possible to formulate rules with regard to the use of the names in proximity to each other? I believe that we are able to answer this question affirmatively. On the basis of what we have stated so far, we may assume that in each case the Torah chose one of the two names according to the context and intention, precisely as follows:
It selected the name YHWH when the text reflects the Israelite conception of God, which is embodied in the portrayal of YHWH and finds expression in the attributes traditionally ascribed to Him by Israel, particularly in His ethical character; it preferred the name Elohim when the passage implies the abstract idea of the Deity prevalent in the international circles of “wise men”—God conceived as the Creator of the physical universe, as the Ruler of nature, as the Source of life. …
The name YHWH occurs when the context depicts the divine attributes in relatively lucid and, as it were, palpable terms, a clear picture being conveyed; Elohim, when the portrayal is more general, superficial and hazy, leaving an impression of obscurity. …
The Tetragrammaton appears when the reference is to the God of Israel relative to His people or to their ancestors; Elohim, when He is spoken of in relation to one who is not a member of the Chosen People.
YHWH is mentioned when the theme concerns Israel ’s tradition; and Elohim, when the subject matter appertains to the universal tradition.
End quote.
Bruce Waltke in his “Genesis” commentary sums up the same perspective.
Begin quote from page 25.
“… Yahweh is used when God’s covenantal relationship with Israel is in view, but Elohim is used with reference to his universality over all the nations.. Rendsburg notes that the use of Elohim from Gen. 17:3-22:24, in contrast to its absence in 11:27-16:16, occurs appropriately in connection with the name change from Abram {“Exalted Father”} to Abraham {“Father of a Multitude of Nations”}.
End Quote.
Waltke really sums up well the distinction one should use when noticing the use of Elohim or Yahweh. Here again I want to emphasize the authors theological intent when using these two Godly names. That is one of the reasons I have included Genesis 1-11 with Elohim and Yahweh highlighted so that the readers may easily recognize the authors intent while casually reading Genesis. I would encourage readers to possibly print out these pages and read them with the intent of discerning the theological placement of these names of God as it may become an eye opener.
I will start by recognizing the use of Elohim exclusively in Gen 1:1-2:4a and now we simply apply Cassuto and Waltke’s formula to this section and ask the question “why was the author using Elohim exclusively”?
Well we know it was providing a “universality over all the nations” context first and foremost in this section. It is now easy to discern that it was not intended specifically only for Israel although Moses would have written Genesis for the Israelites exclusively originally as part of the Torah. This turns out to be an amazing realization that the first book of the Torah written to the called people of Israel had as it’s opening prologue the embodiment of all the nations in mind theologically.
Next we contrast it with the introduction beginning in Gen 2:4b of “Yahweh Elohim” or both words used together in tandem. We find this combination in the first 11 chapters of Genesis only in chapters 2 & 3 and then once more in regard to Shem when God is giving his blessing that Japheth (the Gentile) will dwell under Shem’s Tent. You may notice that immediately Elohim is used singularly in conjunction with Japheth the Gentile in this blessing.
Gen 9: (26) He also said, "Blessed be YAHWEH, ELOHIM of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.
(27) May ELOHIM enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem, and let Canaan be his servant."
The point of all of this is to read these sections of Genesis and notice the Israelite and Gentile emphasis that Yahweh and Elohim add to the context. Notice especially the sections where Elohim disappears from the narrative for a bit and when Yahweh again becomes prominent and vice versa. As an example observe how Cain is an Israelite story exclusively in chapter 4. This recognition has helped me make the determination that Cain is indeed intended not as a prelude to the start of the Gentile race but is intended by the author as prophetic of Israel ’s last days when the Jews murder their younger righteous brother and become again Cain’s progeny of evil. This is borne out in the NT by John’s use of Cain as the poster child for the rebellious antichrist Jews that hate their brothers.
It also helps explain the meaning of Johns understanding of the second death as rebellious and murderous Cain was expelled as a result from God’s presence a second and permanent time in that story. By following the authors intent with these key recognitions we can stay focused upon the proper Hebrew understanding of the scriptures instead of going off on tangents looking for Cain’s progeny as the ones that married and defiled the world in Genesis 6. Cain’s story was over and had served its purpose for the author’s prophetic intent. Remember Moses wrote these stories for those people that received the five books of the Torah and just as he penned the prophetic lamentable “Song of Moses” in Deut 32 he also penned early Genesis and these prophetic stories actually point to the end of days just as Deut 32 does. Moses under the guidance of the Holy Spirit wrote with the end in view, as it was the consummated end of the story that is the focus of scripture and not the beginning. Moses was no different than any other prophet as his works all pointed to the consummated end of days as their primary prophetic objective.
I believe this is enough to digest at this setting. At my next writing I will examine some more interesting and theological structural observations concerning Genesis 1:1-4:26 that will demonstrate the precision of Hebrew literature. So go ahead and peruse these following 11 chapters eyeing some of the word play and their theological implications and see if Elohim, Yahweh, awdawm and eesh seem to have a different and meaningful coherence to them now.
Add a Comment
About
Google Translate My Page
© 2009 Created by John Scargy on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of Deathisdefeated to add comments!
Join this Ning Network