From: yair@pita.cs.huji.ac.il (Yair Friedman)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Halakha in Israel (was ..Jewish Equivalent of Islamic Law
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:28:18 GMT
Reply-To: yair@cs.huji.ac.il
Organization: The Hebrew U. of Jerusalem, Computer Science Dep.
NNTP-Posting-Host: pita.cs.huji.ac.il

In article <199211111314.AA25058@das.wang.com>, MASH@WEIZMANN.WEIZMANN.AC.IL (Michael Shimshoni) writes:
|> In: <1dmcjsINNgpl@pita.cs.huji.ac.il>
|> yair@huha.cs.huji.ac.il (Yair Friedman) stated:
|> 
|> >In article <1dis3mINNm2i@pita.cs.huji.ac.il>, aplebaum@irs01.cs.huji.ac.il (Hi
|> >|>
|> >|> I don't know about muslims, but we (National-Rligious Jews) want
|> >|> to change the currently british-otoman-etc-law in Israel to the
|> >
|> >Hillel,
|> >
|> >As far as I know Halakha is the base of law in Israel. The british common law
|> >and ottoman las has no status in Israel for several years, with exceptions
|> >of laws that was re-legislated such as the land ownership law (tabu).
|> >If there is no low in some subject the judge has to decide according to the
|> >halakha.
|> 
|> Yair is over-pessimistic.  

That is really a matter ov view, I guess Hillel would stated "over-optimistic" :-)

|> The situation, while far from ideal, is not
|> as black as he paints it.  On independence in 1948 the Knesset decided
|> at the  outset: abolishing the  laws of the "White  Paper" (regulating
|> Jewish immigration to Palestine, and  making it impossible for Jews to
|> buy land in  certain parts of Palestine etc.) AND  that all other laws
|> would remain in power  as they were at the end  of the British Mandate
|> unless changed by Knesset legislation.   

That was the situation in 1948.  In the mid 80s The Kenneset legislated a
law that stated The folllowing classes of laws

1. Laws legislated by the Kenesset.
2. Laws that are "fix" of british mandate or even Othman law: The main body
of the law is British/Othman but some parts are changed. 
3. Laws which state that the British/Othman law such and such is a law in 
Israel.

Most of the laws belong to the second class. I the judge cannot find a law
suitable to the case he have in front of him, he should consult the Jewish
law - halakha. 
 


|> What may have misled  Yair is some general statement, that
|> if there is no specific law on  the books decisions should be based of
|> the  "Hebrew  Law".  

This is exactly what I meant!

|> In  practice,  this  is  a general  guideline  of
|> principle, not something acted upon  in daily court practice. 

What makes you say that?

|> Just to
|> to  give an  extreme example,  there  is "no  law" on  the subject  of
|> smoking in public or private on Shabbat.  The Halakha has "some" views
              ^^^^^^ 
Smoking in public places is phorhibited in Israel on Shabbat as well as on
the other days of the week :-)

|> on it,  still I  have yet to  hear that a  charge was  brought against
|> someone smoking on  Shabbat (perhaps with the exception if  he does so
|> in his car in a gas station...).
|> 
|> We have plenty of legal religious coercion in Israel, there is no need
|> to paint the picture blacker than it is!

So you are talking about "religious laws"! This is other issue. I think
that this kind of legislation leads nowhere. Anyway these laws belong 
to the first class because their power comes from the Kenesset.

What I reallr don't understand is why do you oppose to having halakha as
the source of justice? What better is the British 'Common Law' ?

|> 
|>       Michael Shimshoni

-- 
					Yair Friedman.
yair@cs.huji.ac.il
yair%cs@hujivms.BITNET
Xref: sparky soc.culture.jewish:19899 misc.headlines:7019 talk.politics.misc:59825 misc.legal:19848