The Knesset passed a law on Tuesday morning restoring to rabbinical courts a power they had exercised for decades before it was stripped away by a judicial ruling 20 years ago. By a vote of 65 to 41, lawmakers approved legislation allowing state rabbinical and Sharia courts to arbitrate civil disputes, a move supporters describe as a return to tradition and critics warn could reshape the balance between religion and state.
The law, advanced by United Torah Judaism and Shas, grants religious courts authority to adjudicate financial disputes when both parties give explicit and recent consent. Until 2006, rabbinical courts regularly handled such arbitration, a practice halted by a court decision that removed their standing in civil matters. Under the new law, their jurisdiction remains limited: they cannot hear criminal or administrative cases, matters involving the state, or disputes tied to marriage and divorce. Labor disputes are also excluded unless initiated freely by the employee.
Rabbinical courts are already embedded in Israel’s judiciary, overseeing areas such as divorce, inheritance, and conversion. The system includes 12 regional courts, with the Great Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem serving as the highest authority. It is currently headed by Sephardi Chief Rabbi David Yosef.
Supporters framed the legislation as a correction of a historical anomaly. MK Yitzhak Pindrus told lawmakers that “for 50 years after the state’s founding, rabbinical courts deliberated on these matters,” dismissing claims that the law disrupts the status quo. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called the bill “a liberal and egalitarian” measure grounded in free choice, adding that Israelis should have access to “a legal system with values and morality” rooted in Jewish tradition.
MK Moshe Gafni, one of the bill’s sponsors, tied the moment to a broader religious vision. “We are now at the stage of ‘I will restore your judges as of old,’” he said, invoking the verse: “And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning; afterward you shall be called the city of righteousness, the faithful city” (Isaiah 1:26).
Jewish law (Halacha) prohibits resorting to non-Torah-based legal systems. Outside of Israel, rabbinic injunction resorts to a workaround called dina d’malkhuta dina — “the law of the land is the law” — which permitted Jews living under foreign sovereign rule to engage with gentile legal systems.
In the Land of Israel, the halachic leniency that permits the use of non-Torah-based courts is considerably stricter than in the Diaspora. The principle of dina d’malkhuta dina does not apply in Israel, according to the majority of halachic authorities. This is because the doctrine was conceived specifically to address Jewish life under non-Jewish governance; in a Jewish state, no such dispensation exists. The prohibition of arkaot, bringing disputes before secular tribunals, therefore stands in full force. Rooted in the Talmud’s reading of Mishpatim (Exodus 21:1) and codified by Maimonides, the prohibition means that a Jew who takes a fellow Jew to Israel’s secular civil courts violates Torah law, desecrates God’s name (chillul Hashem), and bypasses the divinely ordained system of mishpat Ivri, Hebrew law administered through batei din (rabbinical courts). Many leading Israeli halachic authorities, including Rav Shaul Yisraeli and others associated with the religious Zionist tradition, have written extensively on this point.
Ironically, Israel’s secular court system is inherited largely from British Mandatory law and shaped by modern civil jurisprudence, which handles the overwhelming majority of civil, commercial, and family disputes among Israeli Jews. For Torah-observant Jews, this creates a profound tension: the state’s legal apparatus is readily accessible and enforceable, while the batei din (Rabbinic courts), though recognized for matters of personal status such as marriage and divorce, have limited jurisdiction and enforcement power in civil matters.
It is precisely this gap that makes recent Knesset legislation expanding the authority and jurisdiction of rabbinical courts so halachically significant. By broadening the scope of cases batei din may adjudicate and strengthening their ability to enforce rulings, the legislation offers observant Jews a viable and halachically sanctioned alternative, potentially allowing them to resolve disputes fully within the Torah’s legal framework without resorting to the secular courts that Jewish law forbids.
Opposition figures in the Knesset delivered sharp criticism of the new law, warning of long-term consequences. Opposition leader Yair Lapid declared the religious status quo “dead, buried, eliminated [and] canceled,” while MK Merav Michaeli described the law as “another step toward a halachic state.” MK Merav Cohen pointed to the absence of female judges in rabbinical courts, arguing that “a system that does not allow women to be partners cannot provide them with equality.”
Rabbi Yehudah Glick, a former Member of Knesset and founder of the Shalom Jerusalem Foundation,
“We’re talking about a situation where both sides agree, and it’s only giving the authority to the Bet Din to enforce their decisions. The ability to make these decisions was already given by the agreement of both sides.”
Rabbi Glick saw the Knesset law as returning the role of the Bet Din to its Biblically intended role.
“It’s a very wonderful development, because until now, the religious Bet Din was perceived as a place where you get married or divorced, but not really a true Bet Din that was involved in the jury system.Now, they can make decisions influencing everyday life, including arguments between people. That’s really that’s what a Beit Din is all about.”
“That’s what the Torah and Parshat Mishpatim talk about when neighbors have disagreements. That’s what the Beit Din is for. Until now, you always had to go to the Israeli court, which is based on the Turkish and British systems, but you couldn’t go to a Bet Din that’s based on Torah. That was also a source of indictment against Torah laws, as if following the Torah laws is something primitive and something that is… not reasonable.”
“Now, Israeli law recognizes the fact that the Jewish Torah, [the] Beth Din, has the authority to make decisions. And I think that’s very, very wonderful, and I hope more and more people will use it, and we’ll see that the Bet Din searches for justice. When standing before judges today, they’ll tell you that they are not looking for truth or justice. They are looking for legality. We’re looking for whatever our legal system decides.
“With a Bet Din, we’re looking for true justice. I am sure that more and more people are going to want to follow Torah law, because it really is law,” Rabbi Glick concluded.
Civil society voices also raised concerns. Rabbi Seth Farber, director of the ITIM nonprofit, said the law “could further alienate large segments of Israeli society from Judaism itself,” warning against coercion within religious institutions. Uri Keidar of Israel Hofsheet called on a future government to repeal the legislation.
The law includes provisions intended to address such concerns. Arbitration is permitted only with clear consent from both parties, and rulings cannot violate Israel’s civil rights laws, including protections for women. Lawmakers also removed earlier provisions that would have allowed the courts to rule on child custody and disputes involving married couples, narrowing the scope significantly during committee deliberations.
Supporters argue that the law’s principle, often described as judicial pluralism, allows communities to resolve disputes according to their own legal traditions. Critics counter that even voluntary frameworks can carry social pressure, particularly within close-knit religious communities.
The passage of the law during wartime intensified the political debate. Yisrael Beytenu chairman Avigdor Liberman called the timing “absolute madness and moral bankruptcy,” while coalition members argued that strengthening Jewish legal institutions is what the moment demands.
