The Court: A Place of Justice or Disgrace?

What is the difference between the civil court and the rabbinical court? In terms of function, they are identical; in execution, the difference is like night and day. Both are judicial bodies, but the civil court follows a system of mandatory-Ottoman-Israeli laws, whereas the rabbinical court rules based on Torah law. Civil law manages the lives of citizens within its jurisdiction according to human-set rules, while rabbinical judgments are based on divine Torah guidance, unaffected by human reasoning.

These judicial operational differences lead to contradictory rulings for identical cases. For example, a civil court may rule that the plaintiff is entitled to payment from the defendant, while a rabbinical court may find the plaintiff not entitled. In such cases, a plaintiff who receives money in a civil court against Torah law bears the sin of theft and will be accountable in heavenly court.

Decisions made in civil courts are not aligned with Torah law, thus the legal process operates under human justice rather than divine justice, resulting in a stark difference between the two.

With the establishment of the state, a mixed legal system was created - partly based on Ottoman law, partly on British Mandate laws, and partly on local independent creation. Civil courts are subject to these human laws. How can it be known that a law legislated by a British, Turkish, or Israeli representative indeed represents true justice, given human opinions vary across countries, change over history, and often contradict other human opinions?

The Torah commands us to establish courts to judge the Jewish people - "Judges and officers you shall appoint for yourself," but it clarifies the manner for judging - "and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment" (Deuteronomy 16:18). In Torah-based trials, legality and morality are defined by Hashem, with judges tasked to manifest His word.

However, a court ruling not aligned with divine justice is not the only issue. Filing a lawsuit in a civil court indicates a lack of commitment to halacha, an elevation of human law over Torah law, and a disgrace to the Torah. The Sages remarked it as a desecration of Hashem's name, using harsh terms, because it concerns the honor of Hashem and the Torah.

Is there a halachic issue with suing in civil court? The Torah commands us "and these are the laws you shall place before them" (Exodus 21:1), and the Talmud explains 'before them, and not before non-Jewish courts' (Gittin 88b). Therefore, one should not turn to courts not subject to Torah laws. This prohibition applies even to Jewish judges; what matters is the system they operate within.

Jewish law concludes that suing in a court that does not operate according to Torah laws is considered "raising a hand against the Torah of Moses" (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Siman 26 Se'if 1), and it's prohibited unless the rabbinical court grants written permission.

Do rabbinical courts have the same legal validity as civil courts? The answer is definitely yes. After both parties sign an arbitration agreement in the rabbinical court and a ruling is given, one cannot sue again in a civil court. Civil courts honor the rabbinical court's ruling, granting it legal validity.
In cases where police intervention (not following rabbinical court rulings) is needed to enforce the decision, such as when a defendant refuses to pay as obligated, the rabbinical court provides authorization to sue in civil court to enforce the granted decision.

Also read:

What would convince a secular person to turn to Torah law instead of civil courts? A fascinating interview with Dayan Aharon Ganach

Meet the Hidabroot Arbitration Center. Come and receive a halachic, efficient, and quick resolution in monetary law disputes, such as inheritance conflicts, neighbor disputes, and business partners dissolving their partnership. You can contact ​us by phone: 073-33333-25, or by email mamonot@htv.co.il