We fill out lots of forms: a survey, an application, a purchase of some sort. The form asks for personal information: gender, age, household income.
And then it asks about “ethnicity.” That’s when I pause. What am I? Where do I fit?
For many years now, I have clicked the box marked “other” or “prefer not to say.” Even as a child, I never felt that the terms “white” or “caucasian” applied to me, despite my appearance. I always felt like I belonged in a different category, but there was nothing that fit.
What do you select?
Two weeks ago, the California Legislature passed SB 1387. Sponsored by members of the California Legislative Jewish Caucus and supported by a wide swath of Jewish organizations in the state, it would require “Jewish” to be included as an ethnicity.
Under the law, race or ethnicity can include one’s ancestry, color, ethnic group identification, or ethnic background. There are about 50 recognized ethnicities in California. Beginning in 2030, “Jewish” will be added to that list.
This will affect data collection involving public schools, unemployment, and prisons. The information could be used for research, to identify trends or disparities, and guide policy decisions.
California, home to about 1.2 million Jews, will be the first state in the country to recognize Judaism as an ethnicity.
I don’t know whether this bill is a good idea or not, but I have to admit, when I first heard about it, it made me feel kind of queasy. Do we really want the government collecting lists of Jews? The data is supposed to be de-identified, but how reliable is that really? Do we really want outsiders, in this case the government, telling us what Judaism is?
I think about the long history of persecution which forced Jews to wear distinctive clothes, or live in ghettos, which saw us as demonic and evil, the quintessential “other.” The Nazis identified Judaism in racial terms: One Jewish grandparent was sufficient to render a person inferior by their blood. Jews from the Former Soviet Union were required to have “Jewish” listed on their identity cards under “nationality,” a classification which was used for persecution. At the same time, the Soviet government, as early as the 1950’s, was perpetrating a campaign to delegitimize and eliminate Israel, the nation of the Jewish people. And, it suppressed religion. So what exactly did it mean to label a person’s nationality “Jewish?”
It should not be a mystery why this is happening now. The rise in antisemitic hate crimes has clarified the need for better data collection. I imagine that the debates over ethnic studies in schools may also have played a part into getting “Jewish” classified as an ethnicity.
This development has been some time in the making. Over recent decades, there has been a gradual shift towards seeing Judaism as something other than just a religion.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color or national origin. But it leaves out religion. So if Judaism is a religion, then antisemitic discrimination is not a civil rights issue.
But, haters gonna hate – for whatever reasons they choose. There are plenty of antisemites whose hatred of us has nothing to do with our religious beliefs and practices, but to some sense of Jewish “otherness.”
So, in 2010, the Obama administration expanded its interpretations of Title VI to include discrimination motivated by someone perceiving us as a race, ethnicity, or national identity. Building on this, in 2019, Trump’s justice department, defined Judaism as a race or nationality so that it could penalize universities for discriminating against Jews. The government is defining what Judaism is to protect us rather than to discriminate against us. (What could go wrong?)
Who should get to decide what it is to be Jewish?
Part of the problem is that we do not know ourselves. In recent years, the question has become even more pronounced.
Let’s start with religion. The term religion refers to a system of doctrinal beliefs and practices. Is Judaism a religion, comparable to: Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism? It turns out, it is a modern, Western perspective that sees religion as the freely held belief of individuals, separate and independent of a person’s political or national identity.
Through the middle ages, for the most part, Jewish communities were left to govern themselves. A typical Jewish person would go about their life following Jewish law on a daily basis. Jews tried as hard as they could to avoid the non-Jewish courts. And the non-Jews were generally happy to let them, as long as they paid their taxes. This changes in modern times, with the rise of the nation state. A great example of this occurs during the French Revolution.
Article I of the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen declares that “all men are born, and remain, free and equal in rights… No person shall be molested for his opinions, even such as are religious, provided that the manifestation of these opinions does not disturb the public order established by the law.” Throughout Europe, Jews were seen as the ultimate “other.” The National Assembly soon decided that its lofty principles would be meaningless if they did not also include the Jews of France. In 1791, it explicitly declared that Jews would be considered French citizens.
Fifteen years later, Emperor Napoleon, who saw himself as the defender of the ideals of the French Revolution, convened an Assembly of Jewish Notables. He gathered Rabbis and layleaders from all over France and put to them a series of 12 questions. Here are some of them:
- “In the eyes of Jews are Frenchmen considered as brethren or strangers?”
- “In either case, what conduct does their law prescribe towards Frenchmen not of their religion?”
- Do Jews born in France consider it their native country? Are they bound to obey the laws and customs of the land?
- “What kind of police-jurisdiction have the Rabbis among the Jews? What judicial power do they exercise among them?
The Assembly of Jewish Notables responsed that: We consider Frenchmen our brothers, and would treat them no differently than we would our fellow Jews. We would be loyal to French law alone. As for Rabbis, they have no police or judicial jurisdiction. Any authority that they may have had “should be attributable solely to custom. Furthermore, “…the functions of Rabbis, wherever any are established, are limited to preaching morality in the temples, blessing marriages, and pronouncing divorces…” (Basically, they threw the Rabbis under the bus.)
Extremely satisfied with these answers, Napoleon instructed them to convene a Grand Sanhedrin, something that had not existed since the fifth century, for a formal endorsement.
For the first time in Europe, Jews were accepted, legally if not socially, as citizens of the land in which they resided. To gain this civil status, they had to give up their fealty to Jewish law. They had to reject any sort of national identity other than as Frenchmen. As one National Assembly delegate who avidly supported Jews had put it in 1791: “The Jews should be denied everything as a nation, but granted everything as individuals.”
Judaism had become, legally at least, a religion, and nothing more. This was the deal they made in exchange for citizenship. As the following two hundred years demonstrated (the Dreyfus Affair, the Vichy Government, recent violence), the promise of full acceptance never manifested.
In America, the deal worked more effectively. Thomas Jefferson famously referred to the “wall of separation between church and state.” This was great for us. We could be American, with our Jewish identity something that was personal and private. A prospective employer, or admissions officer, would not even know that I was Jewish. Why? Because Judaism is a religion, and nothing more.
It took until the second half of the twentieth century to fully realize this, but Judaism in America did very well. Now, it turns out, the tradeoff is breaking down. Conspiracy theories abound of Jewish control of the banks, the media, Hollywood, American foreign policy… take your pick. Non-Jews demand, as our price of entry, that we renounce support for Israel and Zionism – as if an outsider gets to set the litmus test for being a “good Jew.”
Alongside these external pressures, we are confused ourselves about what it is to be Jewish. In the most recent Pew survey of Jewish Americans, from 2020, only 21% of Jews said that “religion is very important to them” compared to 41% of all U.S. adults. 56% of all Americans say that they believe in God, but only 26% of Jews. And yet, 76% of Jews claim that being Jewish is at least somewhat important to them. When asked what being Jewish is mainly about, with the options being: religion, ancestry, culture, or some combination of the three, religion gets the fewest responses.
So now we are finding that outsiders and insiders both see Jewishness as something other than religion. So if it is not a religion, what is it?
One clue comes from language. What is the Hebrew word for religion? Dat. One of the splits in Israeli society today is between dati’im and chilonim. Religious and secular. Both dati’im and chilonim are Jewish. Nobody argues about that. In modern Hebrew, the term dat would refer to one’s commitment to observing mitzvot. Whether or not a person is dati, they are just as much of a Jew. And yet, when describing other world religions, dat is the only word we have. It is what comes up in the dictionary.
Dat is not even a Hebrew word. It comes from ancient Persian, appearing only in the late biblical books of Ezra, Daniel, and Esther. Its meaning there is “law,” that is to say, the law of the king. The most infamous example occurs when Haman (boo!) convinces King Achashverosh to allow him to kill all of the Jews in the empire. Listen carefully to his argument.
There is a certain people (am echad), scattered and dispersed among the other peoples (ha’amim) in all the provinces of your realm, whose laws (dateihem) are different from those of any other people and who do not obey the king’s laws (dato); and it is not in Your Majesty’s interest to tolerate them.
Haman does not even name them. They are an am, a people, who have their own datim, laws. The accusation is that they are disloyal to the king. This is not referring to what we would call religious ritual. It is about the civil and criminal laws of the land.
What is am in this context? It could mean something like ethnicity. The Jews of Esther are really ethnic Israelites, who were exiled from the kingdom of Judah in the year 586 bce, where they had their own political structures, laws, and a state-sponsored ritual-belief system centered around the Temple. Although the Book of Esther does not identify what makes them unique, am would probably indicate a shared language, culture, geographic origin, and ritual practices. These are the same features that would have distinguished each of the other amim in the Persian Empire. Haman’s lie is that the Jews are politically disloyal. His antisemitism has nothing to do with religion. Some things don’t change.
In medieval Jewish philosophy, dat comes to encompass both external behavior as well as internal belief. Being Jewish is both a commitment to following Jewish law as well as believing in the central tenets of Jewish faith. Dat conveys both dimensions. Of course, we never seem to be able to agree on what those central tenets of faith are, but there is widespread agreement that to be a Jew is to believe them.
We have seen Judaism described as a religion, a law, a series of beliefs, and a national identity. A final way to explore identity is to examine what it takes for an outsider to join the group. What can conversion teach us about Jewish identity?
It is a religious ceremony, is it not? A person cannot ethnically or culturally convert. Right?
The most ancient conversion ceremony that we have appears in a second century Talmudic passage. (BT Yevamot 47b) When a non-Jew seeks to become Jewish, the first thing the Jewish court is supposed to ask them is
What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are frequently visited upon them? If they say: I know, and I am unworthy…
The court accepts that person for converstion right away. They then teach them about some of the serious and less serious commandments, along with the concept of reward and punishment in the world to come. The Talmud is emphatic that the court should not overdo it by going into too much detail.
Interesting that the only question that is asked, the gateway question, is about peoplehood. Specifically, it is about how hard it is to be a Jew, not because of all the religious obligations, but from a social and political standpoint. The convert has to buy into peoplehood before belief or practice. So perhaps becoming Jewish is an ethnic conversion after all.
We have been trying to fit Judaism into a definitional box, when the reality is far more complex. Even if we do not have the language to express it, we understand the complexity at our core.
Today is Rosh Hashanah. We are here today to celebrate Creation. Our services are filled with religious rituals. The prayers in our maḥzor express theological statements about the nature of the Divine, and affirm our obligations to serve and follow God’s commandments. It is a religious holiday
Then again, many of our Rosh Hashanah observances are not religious in nature. We bake our challot into round loaves, like a crown, symbolizing God’s kingship. We dip apples in honey for a sweet new year, and eat other symbolic foods to represent our hopes for safety and prosperity. We wear new clothes. Around the world, all Jews pray in Hebrew, the language of the Jewish people for more than three thousand years. We have a rich culture of Jewish traditions that gives our lives meaning, that connect us to family and each other.
Here in this room, we are gathered from all over the world. And yet there is a sense of shared experiences and history that transcends our different places of origin. Another big component of our holiday is simply seeing each other. We fill the synagogue to be together. When we come in, whether we are Sephardi, Mizrachi, Ashkenazi, a Jew by Choice, or some other kind of Jew, we all experience a sense of belonging.
Judaism, with its aspects of law and belief, culture, language, peoplehood. All of these are essential components of Jewishness. Judaism cannot be put into a box.
So when I am filling out a survey and it asks me about my ethnicity, and I see “Jewish” as one of the options, I am going to pause and think. And then I’ll (probably) check the box.
Bibliography
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/13/us/california-jewish-ethnic-identity.html
https://www.sourcesjournal.org/articles/defining-judaism-religion-law-nation-and-our-current-moment