An unfolding story

Israel's circumcision controversy: an opportunity for change

Until Israel's Supreme Court intervened, an Israeli mother was fined $150 by Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeals for every day she did not circumcise her son. The case is not over yet and serves as a key indicator of the growing influence of Israel's rabbinical courts.

Uri Regev 26/12/2013 11:53

Tags: circumcision ·  rabbinical courts ·  beit din ·  supreme court

Rabbi Uri Regev

A statement attributed to Shas Chairman Aryeh Deri goes as follows: We're lucky that there is no law enforcing brit milah (ritual circumcision), otherwise far fewer people would hold the ceremony for their sons.

This widespread social acceptance was threatened last week by the Netanya Rabbinical Court's ruling to fine a mother 500 shekels for each day she refuses to have her son circumcised, the Rabbinical Court of Appeals' judgement approving the ruling. The decision was subsequently taken to the High Court, which suspended the fines, and many in Israel and in the international press are awaiting the final judgement.

The importance of circumcision in Judaism needs no elaboration, but there is no reason to make it mandatory for those who are not interested in partaking in the ritual. Reviews of the judgements of the regional rabbinical courts and the High Rabbinical Court illustrate why in secular society -- and also in parts of religious society -- the legitimacy of rabbinical courts has completely eroded. They see (and rightly so) many of the rabbinical courts' attempts to interfere in moral issues as agressive religious coercion as well as the overstepping of authority.

In this case, the Rabbinical Court charged like a bull into the china shop of authority on circumcision. It unjustifiably mixed in an issue of religious obligation with an argument between parents about their child's well-being. In the decision, the judges wrote that the decision relies, among other things, on the fact that ritual circumcision is a condition for the Jewish people's right to the Land of Israel, and on the claim that the removal of foreskin prepares a boy's soul "to learn God's Torah and commandments." Even more problematic is the High Rabbinical Court's ruling, which denies the authority of the country's civil court to deal with this issue. They claimed, "It is inconceivable that the issue of ritual circumcision will be taken from the sages of Israel and given over to the judgement of a civil court."

This incident is further proof of how important it is to end the Rabbinical Court's monopoly on marriage and divorce, and the "race of authorities" created on topics related to divorce, which now also includes ritual circumcision.

The debate on the principle question of what happens when a couple disagrees on the issue of circumcision must consider complex questions about freedom of religion and the child's well-being. If some doubted the Rabbinical Court's ability to have this complex discussion, these rulings proved them right. The Rabbinical Court's parochialism was displayed in last week's appeal to the High Court.

The court will bring back some legal logic to the issue and will remind people that in Israel, we solve these problems based on the child's well-being. It is not impossible that the High Court will rule in favour of the circumcision -- as a family court did in a different case -- but the judgement will certainly not consider the issue of our rights to the Land of Israel or the toddler's ability to learn Talmud and Torah.

This incident is further proof of how important it is to end the Rabbinical Court's monopoly on marriage and divorce, and the "race of authorities" created on topics related to divorce, which now also includes ritual circumcision. The time has come for a couple to be able to marry or divorce in a civil fashion or a liberal religious fashion, according to their values.

Forcing circumcision on religious grounds does not sit well with the promise of freedom of religion and conscience in the Declaration of Independence. The current coalition creates a rare opportunity to institute freedom of marriage in Israel. This circumcision case reminds us how important it is not to miss out on that opportunity.

This article originally appeared on Israel Hayom