Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T22:16:19.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Who is a Jew: A Better Law?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2016

Shalev Ginossar
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Legislation
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 1970 , pp. 264 - 267
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1970

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Sefer HaHukim 586 of March 19, 1970.

2 See Case Note by Akzin, B., supra p. 259.Google Scholar

3 Judgment in the Shalit case was delivered on January 23, 1970, after the case had been pending for nearly two years. By March 16 the new statute had already been voted.

4 For translation and comment, see (1966) 1 Is.L.R. 388, note 26.

5 19 L.S.I. 288.

6 Cf. supra, p. 264, note 5.

7 To test this point a petition has already been filed in the High Court.

8 See supra, p. 262. On this point sec. 3A now provides that “no person shall be registered as of Jewish nationality or religion if any statement under this Law or other entry in the register or public document shows that he is not a Jew, unless such statement, ruling or document—as aforesaid—is contradicted to the satisfaction of the Chief Registration Officer or unless it has otherwise been decided by a declaratory judgment of the competent court or tribunal”.

9 Rubinstein, , “Law and Religion in Israel”, (1967) 2 Is.L.R. 380, 413.Google Scholar A statute was recently enacted to make provision for the annulment of mixed marriages Sefer HaHukim 573 of July 27, 1969).

10 The only restriction is, for a Jew, to have voluntarily converted to some other faith (sec. 4A(a)). This is apparently a reminiscence of the Rufeisen or “Father Daniel” case (1962) (IV) 16 P.D. 2428.

11 Akzin, , “Codification in a New State”, (1956) 5 Am. J.Comp. L. 44, at 75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 During the parliamentary debates demands and promises were made to facilitate and accelerate conversion proceedings in the rabbinical courts; but even if progress were made in this respect—of which there have been no signs as yet—it will probably be inopportune, when the occasion arises, to require return to Judaism as a condition precedent to return to Israel.