הבלוג של אבו אלמוג

A word to my (nonexistent?) English readers - this blog deals with personal issues, but in a way typical to Israel it covers lots of political issues as the two are intermingled beyond separation in our lives. Lately I have begun to translate a post once a month. November's translation deals with the top political issue in Israel today – "The Nationality Act" a racist anti-democratic bill proposed to the Knesset by right wing MK's and promoted by our PM Netanyahu. I urge my readers who live abroad – such as Deena S. or Gal L. to make this post available to their English speaking friends.

Oh, come on ... need I explain just how unnecessary this abomination is in our law book? Anyone who reads the blog can write pretty much what's on my mind, in my style, including the musical candy at the end. I don't have to explain what's it like to live in a country that is first of all something else and only then a democracy. It has some pretty terrible names in political science, God forbid, knock on wood, should our beloved state become one.

Anyway, being a doctoral student in law, I will analyze some of the legal stuff (The horrible political part making our state "Jewish" rather than "Democratic" being pretty much self explanatory), If only because I believe that the right honorable MKs  Ilatov, Shaked and Levin who conceived this shocking bill did not really understand what they're doing. if we join the minds of the trio do we get one Yair Lapid? As a quota of minimal possible IQ? Is it measured in Micro-Lapid? As in – "there is a nice guy here, the CEO's cousin. I estimate he has 35 Micro-Lapid. I think he's better sent to Advertising and public relations, he will do less damage there."

So It's Jewish law. And don't get me wrong I really am a fan. A fan? Professional and qualified. My first year in law school was composed of introductory courses. And then I got to learn advanced courses only regarding those topics in which I excelled in the first year. I have not really excelled at anything because I was busy chasing Sheila  (A 24 hours a day labor, lasting up to this very day, 26 years later) and could not care less what happens when an elephant swallows an Egyptian basket made of straw and vomits it through its anus, to take an example of what engages the imagination of those very smart Jewish law makers. What really happens? To this day I do not know. The truth is that everything else did not really interest me. I was a wild boy. So I finished that first wasted year with a Heroic 57 in criminal law (a passing grade at the time), and I think I finished the very tough contracts course with a measly 65 and stuff like that. The exam in Jewish Law was last and I arrived with a bottle of vodka in a bottle of mineral water and sat next to a friend initialed O who also shared my interest in both vodka and Jewish law, with the bottle between us and occasionally one of us takes it to revive his spirits, because we pretty much both realized that our case is lost. I have no idea what happened to O 'and I have not seen him since.  I think he quit law school. But somehow the vodka caused me to conjure up the spirits of the ancient scholars Shemaya and Avtalion and the such and I got an 85 that was about twenty points beyond my average that year, and since then for three years I was allowed to study mainly Jewish law. So I know what I'm talking about and I'm a great Jewish scholar, and anyone who wants to know what's up with an egg laid on a holiday, or what that Meego is or why is the fisherman ought to be distanced from the net a whole running of a fish (A rather vague sentence in the Hebrew origin as well) is welcome pick up the phone and call me. And I'm not sure the right honorable Ilatov, Shaked and Levin have had the same experience so let me enlighten them.

So here goes. Jewish law, believe it or not, came in the front door of Israeli law in 1981 when a law was passed called "Foundations of the Law Act" that says something like "when a  court faces a legal question requiring a decision, and can not find an answer in a statute, a precedent  or by way of analogy, he will then  decide by  the principles of liberty , justice, equity and peace of the Jewish heritage. "

So it's pretty cool, because I'll tell you a little secret (that Judge Barak has revealed to the whole world in his rulings in the Handles, Koenig and Jerzhevski cases) there is no legal question that requires a decision that an can not be answered with reference to a statute, a precedent or by way of analogy. So really if you come across such a strange beast, you can flip a coin or contact Jewish law and what comes out Is fine by me.

Of course, this is not enough for the Ilatov, Shaked Levin trio. They need the analogy to be 'significant'. So their bill adds "Significant" before the word "Analogy" in the original phrasing of the "Foundations of Law Act".  I have really no argument with them here, because from the day law was established, from Hamuraby to the Moslem scholars of Ulama'a up to Barak, no jurist can tell the difference between a significant analogy and an insignificant one. The word "Significant" has a significant meaning only in statistics. So if that's what makes them feel good, go for it. I want them to feel satisfied, so they won't get up and write some law mandating the burning of mosques in which the Muezin's prayer is amplified by loudspeakers against the law or something.

But the trio is not content with this, and their bill also sets Jewish law as a source of inspiration for legislators and judges in Israel. Now, this is way less cool.

I will not go here into material instructions of Jewish law, which is casuistic  - a kind of legal methodology that ceased to be used around the Late Neolithic era,  because when bronze was discovered, they also discovered it doesn't work,  and there are all kinds of laws about slavery and stuff, and a woman, a child,  a deaf and a fool can't testify (How many of the trio would this rule out? Do we really need a hearing test?) or think that a woman is a bag full of blood and her mouth is full of excrement.

How can this be used to inspire? (and what is inspiration exactly?  I am inspired by Arak. So can I legislate that every judge will have a bottle in his drawer?) Jewish law, as a rule is hard to understand, often written in ancient Aramaic which no one really speaks today, no issue can really be decided, because there are nine hundred views on any issue, no  appeals, and the rule of 'make yourself a Rabbi' means that if my rabbi thinks I can and your Rabbi thinks I can't, my Rabbi wins.

You know what – Judge Mishael Cheshin wrote this before I did. He is also far more a talented writer than I am, so read and savor -

"Of the mighty extent of Jewish law, we all knew:  Bible and its commentaries, Mishna and Talmud, first and last, Rambam and Tur, Shulchan Aruch and its prodigies, a huge body of literature of queries and answers - all of which send their branches distributed over hundreds of years, dignified throughout the land, from one  end world to the other. When we hear these things, fear and trembling will cradle us, we are at a loss for words, we would turn into stone. Indeed, well hidden is Jewish law, we did not know its entrances and exits, it is literally difficult to access, and in large sections its language – Aramaic – we do not understand. However, these things are merely a precondition to engage in Jewish law, and not enough to reign it upon us. Until that this is done, we need to transfer it through our own purgatory, check it, feel it, learn it. If it is good and beneficial for us let us be clever. Let us remember that the way to revitalize Jewish Law needs testing:  if study is done,  legislation or any other way. But we do not accept the yoke of Jewish Law before we know what it is. This separates and distinguishes between the believer – coerced to obey and accept - and others"

In short - it's a really complicated matter, Jewish law. So complicated no one understands it. And if you do not get it do not mess with it, because then you force your opinion (not Jewish law's opinion, you probably do not understand) on someone else.

Understood, Ilatov, Levin and Shaked? I'm  Pretty sure not. Not more than a hundred Micro Lapid between the three of you, and that's overevaluating.

So when this abomination will enter our law books, and a judge who never opened a page of Talmud throws someone in jail because he misunderstood something written in Aramaic, don't come complaining to me. I have warned you in advance.

Good evening. No musical candy to end this post. On the day democracy is taken to the gallows, I don't give away candy.