Which Israeli Court Overstepped its Bounds?

ח' לחודש השנים עשר ב' תשע"ד

Arutz 7: Rabbinic Court Cannot Decide on Circumcision
A rabbinic court overstepped its bounds when it ruled in parents’ circumcision battle, Attorney General says.

Maayana Miskin, March 6, 2014

Yehuda Weinstein
Israeli Attorney General

A beit din (rabbinic court) overstepped its legal authority when it ruled in the case of divorcing parents who disagree over whether to circumcise their young son, Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein said Thursday.

Weinstein submitted his opinion to the Supreme Court as part of the ongoing legal battle between the parents.

The parents in question are in the midst of divorcing via the rabbinic courts. In Israel, Jewish couples may divorce through either the rabbinic courts, which rule according to Jewish law (halakha), or through the Family Court system.

During the divorce process, the father raised a complaint against the mother for refusing to have their infant son circumcised. Circumcision is considered an important Biblical command in Judaism, and the circumcision ceremony is when infant boys fully join the Jewish nation.

The court ruled in the father’s favor, and ordered the mother to have the baby boy circumcised or else pay a fine. The mother has appealed to the Supreme Court.

Weinstein previously told the Supreme Court that he does not believe the beit din had the right to rule in the specific case at hand, due to the fact that in this particular case, the circumcision would need to be performed under anesthesia or other pain-killing medicine.

In his statement submitted to the court Thursday, which came to complete his earlier opinion, Weinstein said that when parents disagree over circumcision, the Family Court system – and not the beit din system – has the right to rule in the case.

The question of circumcision cannot be considered an issue directly pertaining to divorce, he explained – and therefore, it is outside the beit din’s jurisdiction.

Weinstein noted that while he believes the beit din should not have ruled in the case, it is possible that a family court, too, may rule that it is in a minor child’s best interests to undergo circumcision.

Esser Agaroth (2¢):
The Israeli Justice System, not to mention the Israeli Government, is not Jewish System. Worse yet, the Israeli Attorney General himself appears to be battling again the only, relatively Jewish System which exists in this country.

...as if it, besides piqu'ah nefesh (saving a life), it should EVER be considered NOT to circumcise a Jewish son?

How Jewish of a question is this? Not very... Rather it is a question out of the Western galuth (exile) mentality, underneath which we discover the Greco-Roman concept of the perfection of the body. Of course, it is buried under the Western Galuth concepts found closer to the surface, such as freedom of religious expression and democracy, or in Israel's case, deMOCKracy, and the co-dependent need to be acceptable by the goyim (non-Jews) as their equals and peers, one member of the international family of nations. Even though it is our role to remain a separate and distinct people.

I find the only odd element of this case is Weinstein's apparent inconsistency.

(Wikipedia) Criticism
Weinstein came under intense criticism for his inaction regarding a number of rabbis [including Rabbi Shmu'el Eliyahu shlit"a] in Safed, who, according to Haaretz called on Jewish homeowners to not rent to Arabs—an action they claim is prohibited by Halakha. A number of MKs, mainly from Meretz, and public intellectuals, attacked him for dallying on pursuing an investigation against the rabbis, who they argued, as civic officials, were in severe violation of Israeli law. 

Rabbi Shmu'el Eliyahu

So, Weinstein apparently did the right thing (ie. the halakhic thing), regarding a previous issue, by seemingly letting Rabbi Shmu'el Eliyahu of Tzfath (Safed) off the hook, so to speak. Yet goes after a beth din (rabbinical court) over its decision to retain the sanctity of a male, Jewish infant's entrance into Klal Yisra'el.

The only logical conclusion drawn from speculation is that he has been moving farther and farther away from Jewish-based decisions, and closer and closer toward un-Jewish ones.

Either that, or he knows that a beth din functioning under the auspices of the Israeli Government is a much easier target than the Chief Rabbi of Tzfath, who is uncompromising on Torah principles.

"Sheeple" = "Sheep" + "People"

Clearly, it was the Israeli secular court which overstepped its bounds, by asserting power over a case which it has absolutely no authority over,...even when numb-out "Sheeple" Jews allow it.

The battle between Torah and Israel's Western galuth-based excuse for a government continues.

Which side are you on?