Q&A: Comparing Today’s Courts to the Gentile Courts in Syria
Comparing Today’s Courts to the Gentile Courts in Syria
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I heard in one of your lectures that you argue that today’s courts cannot be compared to the gentile courts in Syria, because there there were no scholar-judges available, whereas we do have them. But on the other hand, here too, although we do have Torah scholars, they cannot be appointed because of constraints מצד the secular public. In other words, in Syria what prevented appointing Torah scholars as judges was geographic distance, while here what prevents it is “electoral distance,” but in both cases we are dealing with an external constraint that prevents the appointment. If so, why can’t the two cases be compared?
Best regards,
Answer
You’re pushing at an open door. That is exactly what I argued there. Listen again. The distinctions between the gentile courts in Syria and what is happening here come from the Chazon Ish (there, there were no Torah scholars, and there was no alternative legal system), and I argued that this has no significance, because in the end we also have no real option of establishing a Torah-based legal system (and thank God we don’t).
Discussion on Answer
No. What I argued there was that the Talmudic consideration itself was also meta-halakhic.
As I recall, you said there that from a purely halakhic standpoint, today’s courts cannot be compared to the gentile courts in Syria, and only from a meta-halakhic standpoint can such a comparison be made. I’m trying to argue that even if we look at the level of Jewish law itself (and not meta-Jewish law), the comparison still works, because in both cases there is a difficulty in appointing Torah scholars.