Granting rabbinical courts the authority to arbitrate financial disputes is merely an interim step. The next goal is to equalize their status with that of civil courts in these matters.
A proposed bill currently under discussion in the Constitution Committee aims to allow rabbinical courts to serve as arbitrators in financial disputes. Ostensibly, this step is designed to enable those who wish to adjudicate within a state framework based on Jewish law (Halacha). In practice, however, this is yet another move towards creating a parallel legal system based on Halacha. Along the way, this proposal could severely harm women and other vulnerable parties within the religious community, further empower the rabbinical courts, and add additional burdens to a system already struggling under a heavy caseload. For all these reasons, this proposal should be shelved.
Like every religious Jew, I pray daily for the restoration of judges “as in days of old,” which expresses a desire for a legal system rooted in Jewish law. Indeed, the standing of Jewish law in Israel is at an all-time high. Rabbinical courts adjudicate according to it, it is integrated into rulings by civil courts, and dozens of private courts operate based on it. Nevertheless, the current proposal to grant rabbinical courts the authority to arbitrate financial disputes is a harmful initiative that, if passed, will negatively impact litigants, the rabbinical courts, Jewish law, and the state.
Background: Until about 20 years ago, rabbinical courts acted as arbitrators in financial disputes. Demand for their services in this capacity was low. In 2006, the Amir ruling determined that they have no such authority. Since then, proponents of Jewish law in Israel have sought to reverse this through legislation. Their arguments: allowing religious individuals to litigate financial matters in rabbinical courts operating under Halacha would provide a high-quality legal service aligned with their beliefs; such rulings would contribute to the development of Jewish law and advance the vision of a Jewish legal system as part of the state’s Jewish identity; the process would be entirely voluntary, and more.
However, these arguments either disregard reality or obscure the more significant, underlying purpose of this legislative amendment. Even in its current form, the amendment would be detrimental and significantly harm human rights. While it ostensibly relies on mutual consent, similar to any arbitration, in religious communities, this consent is often given under severe communal pressure. This is especially true in cases where there is a power imbalance between the parties. Granting state-backed rabbinical courts the authority to use national symbols and tools in such proceedings would amplify the intimidation felt by weaker parties—usually women. This is in a system devoid of female representation, where women’s rights and equality are not priorities.
The argument for providing legal services based on Jewish law and fostering its development also fails to hold up. Today, dozens of private “monetary courts” operate under Halacha, offering services to those who seek them. These courts, alongside other institutions like yeshivot, academic research centers, and scholars, generate a vast body of rulings, Halachic responses, and articles that develop Jewish law and its application to contemporary legal issues. It seems that Jewish law has never flourished as much as it does today.
At the systemic level, the proposed amendment would have widespread harmful effects. Rabbinical courts are state-run judicial institutions. When they exceed their authority, they are subject to review by the Supreme Court. This subordination has previously led to clashes between the Supreme Court and rabbinical courts, particularly in matters of personal status. Expanding the jurisdiction of rabbinical courts into additional areas would only increase the Supreme Court’s involvement in rabbinical rulings, including Halachic decisions. This would harm both systems and damage Israel’s legal landscape.
Finally, as some proponents of the law have acknowledged over the years, granting rabbinical courts the authority to arbitrate financial disputes is merely an interim step. The next goal is to equalize their status with that of civil courts in these matters. Such a trajectory would create two near-complete legal systems in Israel: one operating under Israeli civil law and the other under Halacha. In other words, rabbinical courts and Halacha would become the law of the land, bringing Israel closer to becoming a religious state.
Jewish law is a cornerstone of the Jewish state. However, to ensure that Israel remains a democratic state that respects equality and other rights, we must avoid further disrupting the balance between these foundations by creating a religious alternative to state law. If this trajectory continues, the rights of many will be compromised, and Israel will inch closer to becoming a Halachic state.