Q&A: Gentile Courts and Legal Practice in Jewish Law
Gentile Courts and Legal Practice in Jewish Law
Question
I am a first-year law student at the Hebrew University. I wanted to ask what the Rabbi thinks about practicing law in Israel today in relation to the prohibition on turning to gentile courts. Among other things, is it permissible to represent a plaintiff who is unwilling to go to a Torah court in monetary disputes, while the defendant is God-fearing and wants a Torah court? (I’m asking because presumably it would be hard to work in this country as a lawyer if from the outset I refuse to represent such a plaintiff).
Is there perhaps a consideration of “It is a time to act for the Lord; they have violated Your Torah,” and therefore in pressing circumstances one may permit going to secular courts, legal practice, and even actually serving as a judge, so that the entire world of law in the state is not left in the hands of people who are far from Torah and commandments, and perhaps in that way one could positively influence the legal system from within?
Thank you very much!
Answer
See Column 448.
Discussion on Answer
What is the difference between “it just doesn’t work” and the reasoning of “It is a time to act for the Lord” in this context?
Besides that, where is the boundary of “it just doesn’t work”? Would we say, for example, that we permit a priest’s wife who was raped because “it just doesn’t work”? What’s the limit?
There is no difference. You certainly could explain “It is a time to act for the Lord” that way. It’s just that usually the accepted view is that Rabbi’s consideration was made in a Sanhedrin authorized to suspend Torah law. That is an enactment, and “It is a time to act for the Lord” is the rationale for the enactment. I am talking about an interpretation of Torah-level law, not an enactment, and for that there is no need for a Sanhedrin with formal authority.
I don’t have a criterion for the boundary, but there is common sense. A priest’s wife cannot be a case of “it just doesn’t work,” because if so they would already have had to permit her from Mount Sinai onward. Reality has not changed. Though one could still draw distinctions even about that (because norms and the status of women are different).
To the questioner—I wrote an article permitting this because of “It is a time to act for the Lord,” as you wrote, for various reasons. The journal has already been delaying it for several years… If you’re interested, I’ll send it to you privately.
0526348721