Judge upholds Jewish excommunication right

A Johannesburg executive lost his attempt to keep from being excommunicated from the Jewish Orthodox community in the Gauteng capital when the judge dismissed his case. The Jewish ecclesiastical court, Beth Din, had already agreed to shun the man, who was not named, because he did not maintain his agreed upon child support payments.

The case, which was watched by Jewish communities globally, because a ruling against the community would have been like “…striking centuries of religious practice…” according to the Beth Din senior counsel Gerald Farber.

The man claimed that accepting a cherem, an excommunication, would make him unwanted in both his religious and cultural communities. “I will suffer humiliation and will be unable to protect my children from the effects,” said the man. “This cherem will destroy, defame and obliterate me as an Orthodox Jew,” he claimed.

The leader of the Beth Din, Rabbi Kurtstag, said it was merely a shunning and would not have an affect on the man’s children nor would it keep him from attending services at synagogue.

Beth Din arbitrated a divorce case between the man and his wife and he was ordered by Beth Din to pay child support. The man refused to do so.

The High Court in Johannesburg sided with the man and declared the arbitration award to be unlawful and claimed itself as the only body which can decide matters relating to child support and custody.

The man’s ex-spouse filed a complaint about the man’s non-compliance with the Beth Din order, after which he was considered a dissident. After legal maneuvering on both sides, the Beth Din decided to excommunicate him.

With civil court having ruled, the excommunication that the Beth Din issued now stands, and includes some restrictions. The man:

~ Is not allowed to be part of a Jewish congregation, nor
~ Be part of a prayer quorum, nor
~ Lead communal prayer.

He is also forbidden to have a Jewish burial or be buried in a Jewish cemetery.

The man’s attorneys argued that implementing the cherem would be unconstitutional because it could be seen as an infringement on their client’s right to freely practice his religion.

In his summation of the religion’s law, Judge Malan noted the cherem formed a part of Orthodox Judaism and since the man wished to practice the faith, he was obliged to demonstrate his fidelity.

Judge Malan went on to point out that under the circumstances it was reasonable to limit the religious rights of the man because a failure to do so would limit the ability of the Jewish community to protect the integrity of Jewish law and custom.