After two years of legal battles, the High Court of Justice rejected a request to cancel a katav siruv (כתב סירוב) issued by the HaYashar V’HaTzedek Beis Din (בד”צ היישר והצדק) in Elad. The dayanim were represented by attorney Rothman, who told the nation’s highest court there was no place to merit its intervention in the matter since the siruv stems from its halachic authority and the tzibur’s decision to adhere to the beis din’s letter.
The story began a few years ago when a woman built a structure on joint area and was called to a din Torah. She preferred to have the matter adjudicated in a civil court. The Elad beis din headed by HaGaon Rav Yeshayahu Feldman and along with Dayanim HaGaon HaRav Eliyahu Goldberg and HaGaon HaRav Shimon Gutman issued the siruv after the woman refused to comply with the beis din’s summons to appear on two occasions.
The woman then turned to the High Court in the hope of having it compel the beis din to remove the siruv against her. The dayanim discussed the matter and conferred with HaGaon HaRav Shmuel Halevy Wosner ZT”L, HaGaon HaRav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita and HaGaon HaRav Nissim Karelitz Shlita, and the gedolim advised them to remain firm and let the case go to the High Court, instructing them not to compromise in any way.
The beis din hired attorney Simcha Rothman Governability & Democracy NGO. He told the court the siruv draws its strength from halacha and the court cannot prohibit the dayanim from expressing the Torah’s viewpoint.
He added the even if the High Court cancels the beis din’s siruv, it would not carry weight since the siruv draws its strength from the beis din and halacha while the High Court draws its strength and authority from the state and its civil law. Rothman added those wishing to comply with the beis din choose to listen out of respect and trust they have for the dayanim and halacha in whose name they speak.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
2 Responses
What happened to the anti religious high court? Yemos Hamoshiach mamish!
If the Beis Din is a government body, then the secular courts have the last word. If a Beis Din is not a government one, i.e. is based on Daas Torah rather than an act of the legislature, for the Supreme Court to hear appeals from it would be to recognize it as part of the state court system.
If the “siruv” is enforced by government coercion (i.e. the police), it would be a government body – but I suspect it isn’t in this case (since the name implies that it is other than a state institution).
The article needs to clarify is the case is about the “Elad beis din” (a beis din that happens to be in Elad) the the official medinah sponsored “Elad Beis Din”-a government sponsored and funded court).