ABSTRACT
The respondent argued that these beliefs rendered the appellants members of “another religion” for the purposes of citizenship under the Law of Return. The Court was also called upon to consider the proposition that evidence of the appellants’ baptism by a Christian clergyman would be sufficient grounds to establish their membership in “another religion” irrespective of their subjective religious beliefs. The Talmudic statement regarding a “sinful Israelite” refers to the apostate’s obligations in the area of personal status, i.e. intermarriage, divorce, levirate marriage and halitsah, and not to socio-legal rights, e.g. inheritance and mourning. Barak J. concurred with Elon D. P. in rejecting the petition; he did, however, dissent in relation to the criteria used by Elon D. P. for defining Jewish identity for the purposes of the Law of Return. Elon D. P. wrote a lengthy judgment in which he explored the legal background to marriage registration during the Mandatory period and the period following the establishment of the State of Israel.
