Brother Daniel: Dissenting View on Applying the Law of Return

I agree with my learned colleague, Silberg J., on three of his conclusions, but on one I cannot agree.

I agree that according to Jewish religious law (Din Torah) a converted Jew remains a “Jew” [ . . . ].

I also agree that the Law of Return (as also the Registration of Inhabitants Ordinance) should not be construed according to Jewish religious law […

Please login or register for free access to Posen Library Already have an account?
Engage with this Source

In 1962, German-born Supreme Court Justice Haim Cohn issued a powerful dissent in the Rufeisen (Brother Daniel) case, offering a more inclusive interpretation of Israel’s Law of Return than that in Moshe Silberg’s decision. He argued that Jewish political sovereignty allowed a broader definition of Jewishness, distinguishing nationality from religion. Upholding Brother Daniel’s “rights as a Jew,” Cohn grounded identity in shared ancestry, culture, and history. His opinion highlighted how legal definitions of belonging shape citizenship and continue to influence debates over Jewish identity today.

Read more

You may also like