 |
| Haifa Rabbinical Court (Google maps via Fox News) |
As far as
Judaism goes, the primary defining factor is Halacha. Which is best determined
by a body recognized as experts in the field. That is what the Israeli Rabbinate is supposed to be. (Why only one Rabbinate? Yes, it is monopolistic. But there cannot be two conflicting rabbinic bodies. That would cause needless confusion and undermine the very reason the Rabbinate exists.)
That said, I cannot understand what just happened in Haifa. It is perhaps the best argument I’ve ever heard opposing the
monopoly the Rabbinate has over Jewish life in Israel. This does not mean I
have changed my mind. I haven’t. As I noted, despite its shortcomings and the
misgivings I have over an incident like this I still believe that Halacha should
be the prevailing guide in determining what makes a Jewish state Jewish. But I
have to admit, this incident comes pretty close to changing my mind!
Here is what set me off. From the Independent:
A rabbinical court in Israel has taken two children from the care of their mother after claims she was not properly complying with observant Jewish practices.
The court in the city of Haifa has granted the father custody despite the fact he has formerly been convicted of violent crimes.
The mother has been barred from seeing her children and is now only allowed to see them in a specific facility.
She told Israeli newspaper Haaretz getting her divorce was dependant on signing a contract which linked child custody to following an observant way of life.
The father claimed she had infringed this pledge due to signing their children up for therapeutic swimming classes which are taught by a woman and have boys and girls present in the lesson, the paper reported…
“The children talk about their father’s violence against them, and particularly toward the older child,” a social worker wrote in an expert opinion presented by the welfare authorities.
I realize that there are always 3 sides to every story (the
two opposing sides and the truth). But if this is actually what happened, it is
mindbogglingly unacceptable. How is it even possible under any circumstances
that a religious court would grant custody to a criminally violent father who beats any of his children? That is an outrage!
It should be obvious that violent fathers can - in a fit of rage - inflict permanent
damage to a child. Even death sometimes. And even if
there is no permanent physical damage to a child, there is often mental damage.
The kind that may cause dysfunctional life choices in an adult who was abused as a child.
I get what the goal of that Beis Din was. It was very likely to assure that the children would be raised in a religious
environment - so that they will become religious adults. But how much intelligence does it take to realize that a violent parent will undermine that very goal and end up with a child going OTD anyway.
And that doesn’t even touch upon the so called violation of Halacha by the mother signing her children up to mixed gender therapeutic swimming classes. Halacha
is not violated by children under Bar or Bat Mitzvah swimming in a mixed gender pool. Even without the
purpose of learning how to swim - a
life saving enterprise. That overrides modesty concerns.
Removing children from a mother and giving custody to a
violent father – against the advice of professionals is irresponsible. It transfers those children form a safe and loving environment into a dangerous
violent environment.
True - leaving the children with a non observant mother (if that is indeed the case) will surely disabuse them of their religious
practices. By sending a child to a mixed swimming environment - which is generally off limits to observant Jews - The Beis Din sees an underlying disdain for observance. They probably also believe the father’s accusations that the mother no longer even keeps Kosher. Based
on the original custody agreement these actions violate those terms – thus
voiding it.
But even if the father’s accusations are true and the custody agreement is voided,
placing those children with a criminally violent father will in any case (as I said) undermine their goal. Nothing will be gained along religious lines - while the possibility of the children being hurt physically and mentally is very
real.
I hope there is more to this story than what was reported in
the media. I would love to know what that Beis Din was actually thinking. What
do they know that I don’t know that would change my mind?
I hope there is an explanation for what they have done. Because
if their rationale was to simply remove a child from the non observant
home of the mother into the observant home of the father without considering
the violent nature of that father - then what they did is condemnable!
