NEW YORK — A New York State lower court decision overturning a beis din decision in the case of a rebbe dismissed by a yeshiva is being appealed by the rebbe, and Agudath Israel of America, together with the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America and Torah Umesorah – the National Society of Hebrew Day Schools – have filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the appeal.
The appeal does not address the merits of the dispute itself but centers entirely on the fact that the lower court issued a ruling on the matter at all. Since the case had already been adjudicated by a beis din, the Orthodox groups contend, the state court system had no business examining it, much less issuing a ruling, as it did, asserting that the beis din’s decision was “irrational.”
In their brief, the Orthodox groups explain that since the rebbe had brought his complaint before the beis din, and the school had submitted itself to arbitration in that Jewish court, the beis din’s ruling was final. And, by the laws of New York, entirely legal and enforceable. What is more, the brief contends, the state court system, by involving itself in a religious matter – the beis din’s ruling – took a giant, and unlawful, step over the line of church-state separation.
“For the courts to entangle themselves in deciding cases that involve complex matters of Jewish law,” the brief states, “would lead to the very ‘excessive entanglement between government and religion’ that the Establishment Clause was designed to avoid.”
The brief submitted by the Orthodox Jewish organizations argues that the court should not have used secular law to judge a decision that the parties agreed should be based on Jewish law. It explains further that secular courts cannot constitutionally inquire into, much less overturn, decisions based on Jewish law, especially in cases involving religious institutions and fundamentally religious matters.
And the brief notes as well that the lower court’s decision represents a serious threat to the religious autonomy of the beis din, a vital and central religious institution in the Orthodox Jewish community, creating a dangerous precedent that could lead to unconstitutional interference by the civil courts in religious matters.
The Orthodox organizations’ brief takes pains to emphasize that they are not advocating on behalf of either party to the dispute with respect to their underlying claims. But, it states, “We are compelled to offer our views in the case at bar due to our deep concern that the ruling… if upheld, will have ramifications that extend far beyond the specific dispute at hand.” The lower court’s decision, the brief argues, represents a serious threat to the religious autonomy of the beis din as an institution, undermines the integrity of the policies of Torah Umesorah governing the hiring of teachers and creates a precedent that could lead to unconstitutional interference by the civil courts in religious matters.
The Orthodox groups’ brief was drafted principally by an Agudath Israel legal staffer, Chaim Kusnitz, under the direction and guidance of Agudath Israel associate general counsel Rabbi Mordechai Biser.
Rabbi Biser stresses the long-range implications of the lower court decision should it be affirmed by the appellate court. “If the decision is allowed to stand,” he says, “the principle it propounds – that a secular court can vacate an order of a beis din whenever the court believes that that order is at odds with what secular legal principles would dictate – would undermine the ability of New York’s rabbinic courts to hear cases and render decisions.”
Each beis din, he adds, would now need to not only apply Jewish law, but would also need to be concerned about how “rational” their decision would appear to secular court judges unfamiliar with Jewish law. Litigants unhappy with the ruling of a beis din, he continues, “would be tempted to go to secular courts to attempt to overturn the religious court’s decision.”
What is more, says Rabbi Biser, some Jewish disputants would be much less likely to go to a beis din in the first place, as is required by halacha. “They would rightly wonder if the beis din’s decision will, in the end, be permitted to stand and be legally enforceable.”
(YWN Desk – NYC)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
14 Responses
1. Arguing that it is a “church-state” issue contradicts arguing that the Beis Din is to be treated as an arbitration panel under New York law. Fortunately American law allows contradictory arguments in pleadings and briefs.
2. Are there any third parties involved, for example, an insurance company, or any non-Jewish legal issues involved? If the yeshiva says he was fired for cause, and the rebbe says he wasn’t, the unemployment insurance fund (or company or board, as the case may be) will not rely on the Beis Din determination as to whether under New York law he is entitled to unemployment insurance. More details would be interesting.
3. Since the case can easily be found online by subject in Lexis and Westlaw, perhaps it wouldn’t be a problem to give the name. Once it is in the American courts (excluding a rape case) the names are public records.
The Beis Din forces the parties to sign Shiturei Birurin that the psack will be based on a peshara or close to the din torah. There is no pesharahs in the torah. This allows the beis din not to have the fear of all implications stated in the gemarah on a beis din that issues a faulty pesack.
Unfortunately a Din Torah today looks like a circus compared to a court of law.
Lets revamp the Din Torah system where the Beis Din does not take money ( Reb Moshe Feinstien like many others of the past Never took any money for a din torah. That is a real din torah. ) And were the toanim dont interact with the dayonim and were the psack is all pi torah not all pi pesharah.
And yes there should be a bigger beis din that if somone feels that wrong was done to him he should be able to go to a beis din who is bigger and smarter (godal bechochmo ibiminian) Dont tell me there is no money for it.
The court would not intervene if they would see the fairness how our Beis Din would be
Elokin Ditzov Be’adas Kail!!! The Shechina Desends by a din torah,, A real one!!!
Let’s hope this appeal works. This lower court needs to be put in its place.
i know the fellow who filed the actual appeal, not just amicus cure brief. he is a frum yid who works at one of the most prestigious law firms in the country and one of the smartest people i know.
Does anyone know exactly what happened here, without hype? The way this article is written, it seems that the two parties decided on arbitration by beis din, who settled the disagreement. Now did the “loosing side” appeal it, or did the court on its own take a look into the matter? Did the parties involved go to court first and state that they agree on arbitration or did they just decide this? If they didnt go to court first, the court would need to protect themselves and the litigants rights. So what really happened?
I say let’s pack up and move to Israel. I never thought I would live to see the day that I would say that the U.S.A. is not my country anymore, but it is not.
If an employment contract was involved, then they probably agreed for the contract to be governed by halacha and to settle disputes with the Beis Din associated with the employer. If the case ended up involving rights afforded under state law (unemployment insurance, workers comp), or a claim that passed through a third party to an outsider (such as when someone files for bankruptcy and the trustee ends up enforcing the claim) – then the matter ending up in a secular court isn’t so “disasterous” or even interesting (from a legal perspective).
MORE DETAILS WILL EVENTUALLY BE FORTHCOMING but until then no one can seriously understand what is going on
it seems that there is one more case to add to this sad statistics of Beth Din decisions being mocked by the civil courts system. There was a recent judgment in a divorce case that attempts to intimidate the dayanim and without giving any specific proof or explanation simply vacates a part of the judgement, because it “seems irrational”. Rabby Hecht from the White Shul in Far Rockaway would give you the full story – his daughter was the one to challenge the decision in the secular court. Although the judgment will not stand in the Court of the Appeals, the precedent is very dangerous.
OU has some more details on their site… see below
Correction:
The prior version of this press release stated erroneously that the Beth Din’s ruling was brought to the secular court by HAFTR after the Beth Din had ruled in favor of Rabbi Brisman.
In fact, the Beth Din ruling was brought to the secular court by Rabbi Brisman, as he sought to have the Beth Din ruling affirmed.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Nathan J. Diament
202-513-6484
August 12, 2009
the school never asked the court to over turn the ruling the law in ny is that all arbitration must be affirmed in a secular court within a year of the ruling to be valid so wahen the tracher went to affirm the ruling the judge decide to review and over turn it the school was delighted
Should Beis Din not be concerned with explaining their rationale to litigants?
I am commenting on the second to last paragraph.
If the losing party understands that rationale then there would be less of a propensity to ask a secular court if it seems to be a rational explanation.
#2 so the shechina decends on the secular court? so it seems from you statement..
This is a very important case. Thank you, Agudah, for working for us.
Flatbush Bubby – Maybe you should leave – taking into account how ungrateful you are. Go read the short story “Man Without A Country”. Good riddens.