Table of Contents
In modern Israel, the issue of recognizing conversions, especially those conducted outside the state system, remains one of the most complex and controversial. The case examined by the Jerusalem District Court opens a new chapter in the long-standing discussion about who has the right to determine who is Jewish and how this affects the right to obtain Israeli citizenship. The decision of Judge Tamar Bar-Asher not only affects the fates of specific individuals but also raises fundamental questions about the nature of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
The Israeli Law of Return grants the right to citizenship to Jews, their children, grandchildren, and spouses. It’s important to note that Jewish status is passed only through the maternal line. This means that if your mother is Jewish, you are automatically considered Jewish. If only your father is Jewish, you are considered a “child of a Jew” and belong to the second generation.
In addition to family ties, the right to Israeli citizenship can be obtained through conversion – the process of converting to Judaism. However, not all conversions are recognized by the Israeli Ministry of Interior (in Hebrew: “Misrad ha-Pnim”) for citizenship purposes. The Ministry carefully examines each case of conversion, applying a number of criteria.
One of the main requirements here is undergoing conversion in a recognized Jewish community. According to the decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel, the Law of Return should also apply to Reform and Conservative branches of Judaism. In addition, the court ruled that foreign conversions, as well as some private conversions, should be recognized.
Another important criterion is the “sincerity” of the conversion. The Ministry of Interior wants to ensure that the person has truly embraced Judaism, not just gone through a formal procedure to obtain citizenship. In this context, factors such as continued connection with the Jewish community after conversion (a position the Supreme Court disagrees with), observance of traditions and commandments may be considered.
Even if a conversion meets all formal procedural requirements, the Ministry of Interior may refuse to recognize it if it considers the process fictitious or insincere. Factors that may raise suspicions include illegal stay in Israel before or during the conversion process, a complex background, applications for status on other grounds, previous participation in the graduated procedure (StuPro), an insufficiently detailed study program, lack of connection with the Jewish community after conversion, as well as contradictions in the provided documents.
In another article on the topic, we provided examples of court cases illustrating the approach of Israeli authorities to evaluating conversions. For instance, in the case of Emil Kovach, the court upheld the Ministry of Interior’s decision to refuse recognition of the conversion. Key factors were Kovach’s illegal stay in Israel and contradictions in the conversion documents he provided. In another case concerning Nina Shakil, the court affirmed the Ministry’s right to demand additional evidence of the sincerity of the conversion, even if it had been recognized by a rabbinical court in Israel.
Situations are particularly complex when the conversion was undergone during an illegal stay in Israel. In such cases, the Ministry of Interior is highly likely to refuse recognition of the conversion for citizenship purposes. Courts generally support this position of the state.
Overall, the process of recognizing conversion for obtaining Israeli citizenship reflects the state’s effort to balance two conflicting interests. On one hand, Israel seeks to maintain open doors for Jews and sincere converts. On the other hand, the authorities try to prevent abuses and fictitious conversions to Judaism done solely for the purpose of obtaining citizenship.
This situation creates a complex and often unpredictable system where each case is considered individually. Applicants planning to undergo conversion with the subsequent aim of obtaining Israeli citizenship should be prepared for thorough scrutiny and evident difficulties in the process of recognizing their conversion to Judaism. It is important to approach the process with all seriousness, carefully document each stage, and be ready to prove the sincerity of one’s intentions.
The Case of Two Conversions
The Jerusalem District Court examined (29/9/2022) two petitions concerning the recognition of private Orthodox conversion for the purpose of obtaining status under the Law of Return.
The first petitioner, Bina Jessica Vollmer, a German citizen born in 1963, entered Israel in 2015 on a work visa. In 2017, Bina underwent preparation for conversion at the “Netivei ha-Zohar” institute in Bnei Brak, and on February 21, 2018, received a conversion certificate from the International Rabbinical Court for Conversion “Ahavat ha-Ger” in Jerusalem.
The second petitioner, Silvia Ventsislavova-Tubul, a Bulgarian citizen born in 1996, entered Israel in 2017 on a tourist visa. She underwent preparation for conversion at the “Ora Institute” in Jerusalem and on February 15, 2021, received a conversion certificate from the rabbinical court “Giyur Kehalacha” in Efrat.
Both rabbinical structures – “Ahavat ha-Ger” and “Ora Institute” – belong to the network of the rabbinical court “Giyur Kehalacha”.
Bina and Silvia applied to the Ministry of Interior for status under the Law of Return based on their completed conversions, but were denied.
From Toshbeim to Rogacheva: Evolution of Judicial Practice
The court thoroughly examined the background of the issue, starting with the precedent in the Toshbeim-Rodriguez case. In this case, the Supreme Court established that in the context of applying the Law of Return, conversions conducted in a “recognized Jewish community” outside of Israel should be recognized. In the Toshbeim case, the court defined a “recognized Jewish community” as “an established and active community with a common and known Jewish identity, having permanent structures of community management and belonging to one of the recognized streams in the world Jewish population.”
The court then referred to the well-known precedent in the Rogacheva case, considered by the Supreme Court in 2016. In this case, the court applied the criterion of a “recognized Jewish community” to conversions conducted in Israel. It was established that the concept of “converted to Judaism” (appearing in the Law of Return) should be understood as “one who underwent conversion in a recognized community in accordance with its accepted criteria.”
Further in its analysis, the District Court reminded that in the Rogacheva case, the Supreme Court prohibited the ministry from limiting the procedure only to conversions conducted through the state system. The Supreme Court then recognized conversions performed in two private Orthodox rabbinical courts – that of Rabbi Frank in Jerusalem and Rabbi Karelitz in Bnei Brak.
The District Court also considered the precedent in the Dahan case, in which the Supreme Court in 2021 applied the Rogacheva precedent to conversions conducted in Conservative and Reform communities in Israel.
The court noted that after the Rogacheva ruling in 2016, the Ministry of Interior had not developed clear criteria for defining a “recognized Jewish community in Israel” in relation to private conversions.
Bina and Silvia (who, we recall, appealed to the District Court after receiving rejections) argued that their conversions should be recognized in accordance with the Rogacheva precedent. They also explained that in the absence of criteria, one could use the Ministry of Interior document establishing “Criteria for granting immigrant status based on conversion conducted abroad.”
The Ministry of Interior, in turn, insisted on the need to develop clear criteria before private conversions could be recognized. The ministry pointed to the difficulty of applying the “recognized community” criterion to Israeli realities.
The Problem of a “Recognized Jewish Community” in the Israeli Context
Judge Tamar Bar-Asher noted that applying the criterion of a “recognized Jewish community” to conversions conducted in Israel is indeed associated with certain difficulties. The judge highlighted four main issues:
- The complexity of specific application of the concept of a “recognized Jewish community.”
- Differences in structure between Jewish communities outside Israel and within Israel. The court noted that in Israel, Jewish communities with full community life and developed infrastructure, as is often the case in the diaspora, are rare. Most religious services in Israel are provided through state and municipal structures, not through communities.
- Practical application of the “recognized community” criterion – not to communities, but to specific rabbinical courts. Bar-Asher noted that even in the Supreme Court decisions in the Rogacheva and Dahan cases, it was not communities that were actually recognized, but specific rabbinical courts or religious streams.
- Features of the structure of institutions conducting conversion in Israel, which are not tied to communities but act as independent rabbinical courts.
The court examined in detail the structure and status of the “Giyur Kehalacha” network of rabbinical courts, within which the petitioners underwent conversion. It was noted that this network was founded by Rabbi Nahum Rabinovich and unites about 60 rabbis, many of whom are recognized religious leaders.
“Giyur Kehalacha” positions itself as the largest independent rabbinical court for conversion in Israel, offering Orthodox halakhic Zionist conversion. The court noted that among the rabbis in this network are heads of yeshivas, city and community rabbis, many of whom have high authority in religious-Zionist circles.
After studying the case materials, Bar-Asher concluded that “Giyur Kehalacha” meets the criteria established in the Rogacheva decision: 1. it belongs to “one of the central streams in Judaism”; 2. it has “permanent structures” and a “known Jewish identity.”
The court partially agreed with the state’s arguments that the “Giyur Kehalacha” rabbinical courts may lack the community aspect in the narrow sense. But it noted that this aspect, which the Ministry of Interior is so concerned about in the process of non-recognition of conversion, is actually absent in other recognized structures conducting conversion in Israel, including the state conversion system.
The judge also drew attention to the halakhic aspect of the issue. The court quoted Rabbi Nahum Rabinovich’s opinion that throughout Jewish history, any rabbinical court had the right to conduct conversion, and even in the times of the Sanhedrin, there was no centralized conversion system.
Based on this analysis, the court concluded that the conversions undergone by the petitioners in the rabbinical courts of the “Giyur Kehalacha” network meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court for recognizing private Orthodox conversions.
The court ruled that the conversion of both petitioners should be recognized for the purpose of granting them the status of new immigrants in accordance with the Law of Return. Thus, both petitions were granted.
Conversion: Historical Background
The court also thoroughly examined the arguments presented by the Ministry of Interior. The ministry claimed that since the Rogacheva ruling, attempts had been made to advance legislation on the issue of conversion, as well as attempts to develop criteria for defining a “recognized Jewish community in Israel.”
The Ministry reported that a draft of criteria and standards had even been prepared, according to which immigrant status could be granted to those who underwent conversion in a “recognized Orthodox Jewish community in Israel.” However, the ministry’s lawyers explained that the criteria have not yet been published and the system is experiencing “significant difficulties” in applying the principles developed in the Rogacheva case.
The Ministry also reported attempts to develop a bill that would allow recognition of conversions conducted in Israel only if the conversion process was carried out through the state conversion system. However, this attempt also did not succeed.
The judge noted that in 2017, the Prime Minister appointed former Justice Minister Moshe Nissim to develop recommendations on conversion issues in Israel. In June 2018, Nissim presented a report and recommendations, which were accompanied by a draft bill. However, the then Prime Minister instructed not to advance this bill.
The court examined in detail the history of attempts to regulate the issue of conversion in Israel:
- The state conversion system was established based on a government decision in 1998, which adopted the recommendations of the Ne’eman Commission. The main recommendations included creating a unified state conversion system, within which an institute for the study of Judaism would be established, common to the three streams (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform), and conducting conversion processes in special rabbinical courts.
- From 2000, coordination of conversion ulpanim and rabbinical courts for conversion was transferred to the jurisdiction of the director of rabbinical courts. In 2003, the president of the Supreme Rabbinical Court (Chief Rabbi of Israel) was authorized to appoint the head of the conversion system. In 2004, it was decided that conversion ulpanim would be under the Ministry of Absorption, and the state conversion system would operate under the auspices of the Prime Minister’s Office.
- In 2004, the Chief Rabbi of Israel published rules for considering conversion applications. In 2008, the state conversion system began to operate as a division in the Prime Minister’s Office under the auspices of the Chief Rabbinate.
The court examined in detail the arguments presented in previous court decisions on the issue of conversion. In particular, it was noted that in the Toshbeim case, the court emphasized that recognition of conversions conducted outside Israel and in Israel raises fundamental questions about the nature of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
The court rejected the state’s position that conversions conducted in Israel should only be carried out within the state conversion system. The court in the Rogacheva case emphasized that the wording of the law does not speak about the nature of control over conversion and the conditions under which conversion will be recognized.
Bar-Asher also considered the arguments presented in the Dahan case. It was noted that in this case, the court applied the Rogacheva precedent to non-Orthodox communities, recognizing that they are also “recognized Jewish communities” for the purposes of the Law of Return.
Bar-Asher examined in detail the issue of applying the criterion of a “recognized Jewish community” to Israeli realities. It was noted that in Israel, communities with full community life and infrastructure, as is often the case in the diaspora, are rare. In Israel, most religious services are provided through state and municipal structures, not through communities.
The court pointed out that in Israel, there are very few communities, if any, where there is a community structure that goes beyond belonging to a synagogue. Unlike many communities outside Israel, the community structure in Israel usually does not include all the religious institutions and religious services necessary for someone who leads a life observing commandments. Services such as schools, mikvahs, kashrut, circumcision, etc., are provided by various state and private organizations not connected to each other within a single community structure.
The judge also drew attention to the fact that in practice, the criterion of a “recognized community” was actually applied not to communities, but to specific rabbinical courts. It was noted that even in the Supreme Court decisions in the Rogacheva and Dahan cases, it was not communities that were actually recognized, but specific rabbinical courts or religious streams.
Giyur Kehalacha – Court Analysis and Conclusions
Bar-Asher thoroughly examined the structure and status of the “Giyur Kehalacha” network of rabbinical courts. This network was founded by Rabbi Nahum Rabinovich, who was a recognized authority in religious-Zionist circles. The network unites about 60 rabbis, many of whom are heads of yeshivas, city and community rabbis.
“Giyur Kehalacha” positions itself as the largest independent rabbinical court for conversion in Israel, offering “Orthodox halakhic Zionist conversion.” Among the rabbis in this network are such well-known figures as Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, Rabbi Ra’am Hacohen, Rabbi Yaakov Medan, and others.
The court also considered the legitimacy of private rabbinical courts for conversion from the perspective of Jewish religious law. The opinion of Rabbi Nahum Rabinovich was quoted, stating that throughout Jewish history, any rabbinical court had the right to conduct conversions, and even in the times of the Sanhedrin, there was no centralized conversion system.
The idea of a unified state conversion system is not undisputed from a halakhic point of view. Even within Orthodox Judaism, there are different approaches to the issue of conversion, Judge Bar-Asher reminded.
The judge considered the state’s routine argument that recognizing private conversions could lead to abuses. Bar-Asher recalled that in the Rogacheva case, the Supreme Court had already indicated that the requirement for conversion to be conducted in a recognized Jewish community largely dispels concerns about abuse.
The court examined in detail the question of criteria for recognizing a “recognized Jewish community.” Bar-Asher commented that even the Ministry of Interior has difficulty applying this criterion. In the document with criteria for foreign conversions, the ministry added additional definitions, but these also proved difficult to apply.
The judge reminded that in the ministry’s criteria, a “recognized community” is defined as “conversion conducted in a recognized Jewish community, established over a long period of time and active, with a common and known Jewish identity, having permanent structures of community management and belonging to one of the recognized streams in the world Jewish population, by authorized institutions of this community; and/or recognized as a Jewish community by the Jewish Agency.”
Bar-Asher explained that many of these definitions are extremely elastic, vague, and allow for real arbitrariness in their application by the system. For example, it is not specified how long a community should exist to be considered “established over a long period of time,” the nature and frequency of community “activity” is not defined, and “permanent structures of community management” are not detailed.
Regarding the definition of Jewish identity, Bar-Asher explained that traditionally, Jewishness was determined either through the mother or through Orthodox conversion. However, in the modern world, with the growing number of mixed marriages and increasing diversity of Jewish communities, these criteria are becoming increasingly problematic.
The judge reminded that the principles established in the Rogacheva case precedent expanded the criteria for recognizing conversions, including conversions conducted in private Orthodox rabbinical courts. The decision in the Dahan case went even further, recognizing the legitimacy of conversions conducted in non-Orthodox communities.
The court considered another routine argument of the state that expanding the criteria for recognizing conversion could affect the demographic situation in Israel. Bar-Asher responded that the Law of Return has always been a key instrument of Israel’s immigration policy, and changes in the interpretation of this law can have far-reaching consequences.
Bar-Asher also noted that Israel’s policy regarding conversion and the definition of Jewishness has an impact on Jewish communities around the world. Decisions of Israeli courts on these issues can influence how Jewish communities in the diaspora perceive their relationship with Israel and how they define their own identity.
Regarding the argument that recognizing private conversions could weaken the position of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Bar-Asher explained that traditionally, the Chief Rabbinate played a key role in recognizing conversions, but court decisions legally limit its monopoly in this area.
Bar-Asher agreed that conversion and the definition of Jewishness are inherently complex subjects, touching on fundamental questions about the nature of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
In conclusion, the court found that the conversions undergone by the petitioners in the rabbinical courts of the “Giyur Kehalacha” network fully meet the criteria established by the Supreme Court for recognizing private Orthodox conversions. Bar-Asher ruled that the conversions of Silvia and Bina should be recognized for the purpose of granting them status in accordance with the Law of Return.
Arthur Blaer, attorney at law
