Beis Din: Is it irrelevant?

One of the major issues raised in child abuse cases is the claim that the halacha requires that a Jew must use a beis din and not go to secular courts. This in fact is clearly codified in Shulchan Aruch.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 26:1): It is prohibited to have a case judged by non‑Jewish judges in their courts (i.e., fixed chambers where they judge cases). This prohibition applies even when the non‑Jewish judges make judgments according to Jewish law and even where both litigants agree to go. Whoever goes to them for judgment is a wicked person (rasha). It is as if he blasphemed and raised his hand against the Torah of Moshe. Rema:  Beis din can place him in cherem (ostracize them) until he removes the authority of non‑Jews from his disputant and similarly he can be ostracized for going. Even if someone doesn’t have a non‑Jewish court judge the case but uses non‑Jews to force another to go to a Jewish court, deserves to be punished by being placed in stocks… Someone who goes to a non‑Jewish court and is found guilty according to their laws and then he goes to a Jewish court – some say that the Jewish court is not to judge the case and others say that it is…and the first view appears to me to be correct.

However, the halacha also states if beis din is powerless to resolve the case than it is supposed to give permission to go to secular courts.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 26:2): If the non‑Jews are the controlling power and the litigant is powerful in his own right and therefore the person can not recover what is his by the authority of the Jewish court – he should first summon his opponent to the Jewish court. If his opponent refuses to go – he should obtain permission from the Jewish court and then use the non‑Jewish court to recover what is his from his opponent. Rema: The Jewish court has the right to go to the non‑Jewish court and to testify that one person owes the other money. All this is only if one of the litigants refuses to obey the Jewish court. Otherwise it is prohibited for a Jewish court to give authorization for Jews to have their dispute presented to a non‑Jewish court.

In reality, it seems that when gedolim get involved in cases that they know beis din is helpless they go directly to secular courts e.g., the dispute of inheritance in Satmer or the Lubavitcher Rebbe's attempt to retrieve a libary - or Michael Hersh's absurd lawsuit for $411 million dollars.

One such case is the current dispute between Ponovitch of Bnei Brak and Grodno of Ashdod. Ashdod News

It is important to point out that the requirement to go to beis din is true only when we need a trial and want to establish if someone is guilty or owes money. However, if we are dealing with issues of pikuach nefesh and are concerned only with protecting the innocent victim then there is no need of a beis din at all - except as Rav Sternbuch  said, to me, "so that the world won't be hefker." And even that aspect is only true if it doesn't endanger the welfare of anyone.

Languages shapes the way we think?

New York Times

Seventy years ago, in 1940, a popular science magazine published a short article that set in motion one of the trendiest intellectual fads of the 20th century. At first glance, there seemed little about the article to augur its subsequent celebrity. Neither the title, “Science and Linguistics,” nor the magazine, M.I.T.’s Technology Review, was most people’s idea of glamour. And the author, a chemical engineer who worked for an insurance company and moonlighted as an anthropology lecturer at Yale University, was an unlikely candidate for international superstardom. And yet Benjamin Lee Whorf let loose an alluring idea about language’s power over the mind, and his stirring prose seduced a whole generation into believing that our mother tongue restricts what we are able to think.

In particular, Whorf announced, Native American languages impose on their speakers a picture of reality that is totally different from ours, so their speakers would simply not be able to understand some of our most basic concepts, like the flow of time or the distinction between objects (like “stone”) and actions (like “fall”). For decades, Whorf’s theory dazzled both academics and the general public alike. In his shadow, others made a whole range of imaginative claims about the supposed power of language, from the assertion that Native American languages instill in their speakers an intuitive understanding of Einstein’s concept of time as a fourth dimension to the theory that the nature of the Jewish religion was determined by the tense system of ancient Hebrew. [...]

What does it mean when defense lawyers drop a case?

Free Advice

Can my lawyer drop me as a client?

Yes, but not because he or she is not making money, or because a better, more lucrative case just walked into his or her door, or because the matter is taking longer than anticipated. If your case is in active litigation, the lawyer can’t just hightail it out without the judge’s authorization.

Some of the most common reasons the lawyer will drop a case include:

1. conflict of interest
2. nonpayment of legal services already rendered
3. client-lawyer communication: the client does not keep his or her end of the bargain.

Prevention of Child Abuse Week

Two injured in new attack

Jerusalem Post

The day after deadly Kiryat Arba attack, shots were fired at a vehicle injuring two, one in critical condition; Security forces are on the scene searching for terrorist's vehicle.